Democracy
Jan 28 2008 01:33
I have always thought that the true meaning of democracy - democracy in its purest and most extreme form - is a subversive idea. It is anti-state because the state is the rule of an armed minority, no matter how much control the majority has on who their leaders are. It is against class society because in a real democracy the majority would never decide to demote itself to a lower class or tolerate an aristocracy above them.
On the other hand, recently I have heard some arguments coming from communists against democracy. For example this phamplet presents some arguments against it. Several posters have declared their opposition to democracy. I haven't read any Bordiga but his ideas might be relevant here.
First of all, I make a distinction between bourgeois republicanism and direct democracy. Leaving aside who controls the media, the massive influence of lobbies and campaign fund donors, the entrenched two-party system which automatically defeats third party candidates, and all the rest, a republic where leaders are elected and then make decisions loses all claims of being a genuine democracy.
As I see it, any method of decision making can be placed on a spectrum between two extremes: decision making power resting with the people effected by said decisions, or decision making relegated to a minority. (Obviously there are exceptions to this principle: the factory owner gets no decision making power in whether his factory is occupied or not. However, such a violation of democratic principles is justified by the fact that it is in reaction to the workers having no say in the decisions being made which effect them.) Anti-democratic communists say they are opposed to the state and dictatorship as well as to democracy, but if decisions are not being made by the people effected, who is making them? Is there a "third way" to make decisions that escapes the spectrum I'm proposing?
Here's a sample from Communism Against Democracy: "workers democracy means taking orders from that section of the citizentry who happen to be sociologically working class rather then from those who actually defend proletarian interests". So clearly those misguided working class people need some who "actually defends proletarian interests". To me this smacks of vanguardism in that it implies the working class is incapable of understanding its own self interest and need someone more enlightened to help them.
Jan 29 2008 10:37
#2
I think the problem with talking about democracy is that it is impossible to speak of it in abstract terms. As has already been implied, there is bourgeois democracy which we are all depressingly familiar with - and there is proletarian democracy. The problem with terminology comes when we realise that bourgeois democracy is also the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, i.e. their class rule expressed in a formally democractic manner. The same goes for proletarian democracy - although the relations within the proletariat (and to some extent the other non-exploiting classes - should be democractic, it remains nonetheless a dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the proletariat imposing its rule over society.
The bourgeoisie always rallies behind the banner of democracy when faced with a rising proletariat and I think it's for this reason that many left-communists distrust even the term. Also, in today's society democracy is a complete and utter sham - it offers no choice to the exploited and chains them to the political apparatus of the bourgeoisie. Left communists, by taking an abstentionist position (i.e. a refusal to take any part in the bourgeoisie's electoral circus), utterly reject this form of democracy.
On a more far-sighted point, the other problem is that democracy is the product of a society unable to resolve contradictions except through the "tyrany of the majority". Communists like to think that the development of communist society will resolve most, if not all, such contradictions and therefore make democracy superfluous for many issues. So communists don't fetishise democracy because they see it as a hangover from the past where society was unable to meet the demands of all its members. The ultimate aim - a fully developed communism - is not a "democractic" society but one so advanced that democracy is no longer even necessary in all but exceptional circumstances.
I agree to some extent with the comments about vanguardism - the role of the party isn't to exercise power but to argue for communist positions within the working class and whatever organs the mass of the class creates for itself (such as the councils and committees capricorn refers to).
Jan 29 2008 15:51
#3
I generally agree with Tasty's points and think that Capricorn should be specific when talking about "left communism" and democracy. There's nothing wrong with the working class having a vanguard, ie, a minority which organises itself in order to defend the positions of the working class. There's also nothing wrong with struggles of the working class generating a minority in a particular struggle in order to take the struggle forward. But I don't agree with the Wildcat (?) text above that denounces workers' democracy. This latter is essential for the development and extension of class struggle based on mass assemblies and revocable delegates. The widest number of workers having the widest say is again essential for the development of class struggle.
This is entirely different from bourgeois democracy - voting for tweddledee or tweedledum once every so many years when the real business of capitalism is run by the cabals of state capitalism. Bourgeois democracy is also a potent ideological weapon against the working class and the masses. If you want to know what bourgeois democracy is then look at Kenya today. Not only do we see the democratic charade for what it is in this country but also we see the insidious role of the major democracies of the USA, Britain and France.
Jan 29 2008 22:36
#4
Demogorgon303 wrote:
The same goes for proletarian democracy - although the relations within the proletariat (and to some extent the other non-exploiting classes - should be democractic, it remains nonetheless a dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. the proletariat imposing its rule over society.
You're talking about the short term, right? I thought the long term goal of communism was to negate class society all together and that the proletariat would abolish itself along with all other classes.
Demogorgon303 wrote:
On a more far-sighted point, the other problem is that democracy is the product of a society unable to resolve contradictions except through the "tyrany of the majority". Communists like to think that the development of communist society will resolve most, if not all, such contradictions and therefore make democracy superfluous for many issues. So communists don't fetishise democracy because they see it as a hangover from the past where society was unable to meet the demands of all its members. The ultimate aim - a fully developed communism - is not a "democractic" society but one so advanced that democracy is no longer even necessary in all but exceptional circumstances.
I'm not so sure I agree with this. In a classless society, interests would be much more uniform then in our current unstable social structure in which the interests of labor and capital are diametrically opposed. Therefore, democracy would be much easier and less contentious because equality insures that people are all in the same boat. How will society meet the demands of all its members without democracy? I think it's naive to trust an unaccountable power structure to serve in the best interest of everyone. If post-democratic communism doesn't make decisions through such a power structure, how are they made other then democratically? Even in a society in which a true unity of interests exists, giving a small group undemocratic decision making power will create a divergence in the best interests of leaders and their constituency, creating the conditions for the creation of a new ruling class.
Jan 29 2008 23:10
#5
Quote:
In a classless society, interests would be much more uniform then in our current unstable social structure in which the interests of labor and capital are diametrically opposed.
Not buying it at all. Our current social structure is not unstable. On the contrary, social stability is something of a reactionary goal. Further, the interests of labor and capital can’t be diametrically opposed because one is some people and the other is an invention of the mind. Finally, one’s interest is in making the pictures in their brain into real events. It's pessimistic speculation to assume a “classless society” will homogenise our diverse and conflicting peccadilloes. Anyway, communism and democracy, well, well, well. Communism automatically harmonises the interests of the individual and society, rendering democracy meaningless.
Jan 30 2008 04:48
#6
That Wildcat essay is abysmal.
Jan 30 2008 08:33
#7
Quote:
You're talking about the short term, right? I thought the long term goal of communism was to negate class society all together and that the proletariat would abolish itself along with all other classes.
Yes, that's what I was talking about there.
Quote:
In a classless society, interests would be much more uniform then in our current unstable social structure in which the interests of labor and capital are diametrically opposed. Therefore, democracy would be much easier and less contentious because equality insures that people are all in the same boat.
This seems to me to be another way of saying the same thing. If there are no conflicts there is no need to resolve them. If Group A wants to do X and Group B wants to do Y and society can accommodate the needs of both A and B, then they can just get on and do it. It's only if X makes Y impossible (or vice versa) would there need to a process to resolve the conflict and, yes, this should be "democractic". The point is that in a communist society such occurances will become more and more rare, and that's what I mean about democracy becoming superfluous.
Quote:
How will society meet the demands of all its members without democracy?
You partially answer your own question when you say everyone is in the same boat. And as I said above democracy represents the failure of society to meet the demands of all its members.
Quote:
I think it's naive to trust an unaccountable power structure to serve in the best interest of everyone. If post-democratic communism doesn't make decisions through such a power structure, how are they made other then democratically?
What power structures? There will be no state, no exercising of power, just a collective discussion with all people concerned with a particular question. In most cases, a consensus will be reached (despite differing points of view). And if a particularly contentious point is raised then we'll have to resort to a majority vote.
Quote:
Even in a society in which a true unity of interests exists, giving a small group undemocratic decision making power will create a divergence in the best interests of leaders and their constituency, creating the conditions for the creation of a new ruling class.
Where did I even suggest this? Hopefully I've made it clear that this is the diametric opposite of what I was talking about!
Jan 30 2008 09:07
#8
Quote:
On a more far-sighted point, the other problem is that democracy is the product of a society unable to resolve contradictions except through the "tyrany of the majority". Communists like to think that the development of communist society will resolve most, if not all, such contradictions and therefore make democracy superfluous for many issues. So communists don't fetishise democracy because they see it as a hangover from the past where society was unable to meet the demands of all its members. The ultimate aim - a fully developed communism - is not a "democractic" society but one so advanced that democracy is no longer even necessary in all but exceptional circumstances.
I don't agree (and don't know what gives Demigorgon the right to speak on behalf of all communists). Democracy (voting after a full and free discussion of the options, electing delegates, minority has its say, majority has its way, etc) is a tool for making decisions. While it is true that the contradictions caused by capitalism will have disappeared in a communist society, it is not true that there won't be decisions to make, options to choose from or between. Of course there will be and some of these will be best settled by voting. I don't how and by who Demigorgon envisages decisions being made in his "fully developed communism" if not in a democratic way. Perhaps he envisages leaving decisions to experts in the field. This could apply in some cases but not across the board. In any event, in my view, communism is "fully developed democracy" in that where everyone has an equal say in the ways things, including production, are run that means that there is no owning or controlling class. It's what "common ownership" means in practice.
Jan 30 2008 09:50
#9
The problem with the term democracy is that it implies a system of rule or power, which is why Engels for example thought that it would be superfluous in a stateless society. It also implies power of 'the people', a meaningless term as long as society is divided into classes and therefore some form of power is still operating....The term 'proletarian democracy' also contains this ambiguity, although it can be useful as a polemical counter-weight to bourgeois democracy. But it is rather easy to get into a purely semantic discussion here. The real question is what kind of practice are we talking about. Wildcat, influenced by the GCI, tends to fixate on the fact that most struggles initially involve a minority (say in a workplace or sector) and make a virtue of this; Luxemburg's formula was that the resolute action of a minority can win the majority to revolutionary positions, and this always has to be the aim, because without the development of this mass consciousness, the revolution is impossible.
Jan 30 2008 10:13
#10
Capricorn
I haven't said there won't be voting on important issues. In fact, I've said precisely the opposite.
Demogorgon wrote:
In most cases, a consensus will be reached (despite differing points of view). And if a particularly contentious point is raised then we'll have to resort to a majority vote.
Demogorgon wrote:
only if X makes Y impossible (or vice versa) would there need to a process to resolve the conflict and, yes, this should be "democractic".
What I've said is that while such processes are only necessary where the resources of society do not allow the full satisfaction of everyone concerned. To see democracy as an ultimate goal is to limit our vision of what communism to a society where scarcity is simply shared around. To sum up, democracy may be a good place to start for a communist society but it's a poor place to end!
Jan 30 2008 11:30
#11
Demigorgon, your message clarifying your position crossed with mine. Glad to see we agree that democracy is just a technique not the aim of life.
While I'm writing, of course, Alf, there can be no real democracy as long as society is divided into classes. For me, full democracy is the equivalent of a classless society, ie of communism. I know why some anarchists and left communists are opposed to democracy within the working-class movement is precisely because it rules out some minority acting as a vanguard. Personally, I don't think any minority can bounce the working class into revolution. The majority has got to want it . As Alexander Berkman once explained:
Quote:
Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas; as long as the latter are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just.
Jan 30 2008 11:58
#12
Personally, I don't think any minority can bounce the working class into revolution.
Of course. But mass movements have to start somewhere, and they often begin with just a few workers taking action or refusing to go along the bosses' plans. That gives them no right to become bosses themselves! The same applies to communist organisations. Having a more advanced understanding of this or that doesn't give you any right to impose this on the majority. This is why there has to be constant debate inside the general organisations of the class. I don't think we are that far apart on his.
Jan 31 2008 09:28
#13
Quote:
Of course. But mass movements have to start somewhere, and they often begin with just a few workers taking action or refusing to go along the bosses' plans.
Bellwethers or vanguards?
Jan 31 2008 09:38
#14
Only sheep need bellwethers:
Quote:
The term is derived from the Middle English bellewether and refers to the practice of placing a bell around the neck of a castrated ram (a wether) in order that this animal might lead its flock of sheep. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellwether)
Jan 31 2008 10:03
#15
Capricorn, Khwaga
Quote:
Of course. But mass movements have to start somewhere, and they often begin with just a few workers taking action or refusing to go along the bosses' plans.
Are you against this idea? If so, why?
Jan 31 2008 10:57
#16
Mahalla textile strike ast year:
"A fighting spirit was in the air. Over the following two days, groups of workers refused to accept their salaries in protest. Then, on December 7, thousands of workers from the morning shift started assembling in Mahalla’s Tal‘at Harb Square, facing the entrance to the mill. The pace of factory work was already slowing, but production ground to a halt when around 3,000 female garment workers left their stations, and marched over to the spinning and weaving sections, where their male colleagues had not yet stopped their machines. The female workers stormed in chanting: ‘Where are the men? Here are the women!’ Ashamed, the men joined the strike".
The Russian revolution of 1917 began with a few workers, mainly women, protesting against bread shortages.
What is the problem here?
Jan 31 2008 11:40
#17
There's no problem at all here, dude, man, I mean Sir! The question is whether it is a professional vanguard that starts it, with all the implications that has or if it's homegrown.
Quote:
Only sheep need bellwethers:
Haven't you heard: we're all sheeple 
Jan 31 2008 12:53
#18
What's a "professional vanguard" and all the implications of that K? Where is there a professional vanguard? Do you accept that a minority of the working class can begin, generate, stimulate, mass actions? What's wrong with a vanguard? That is an organised minority that accepts, defends and deepens the positions of the working class while becoming involved in it. On another thread you talk about the importance of organising the working class and students.
If full time revolutionaries existed around the turn of the 20th C, and represented the developments of the working class at that time then today we can see that the working class has no need of a permanent, professional if you like, vanguard. It was the full time, "permanent" nature of revolutionary organisation that contributed to the defeat of the revolutionary wave and we should learn the lessons from this.
There is no full time vanguard of the working class today but there are elements (small but growing numbers) who do see that it's necessary to organise themselves if they are going to put the position that the working class itself should be organised. And this latter view is no imposition but a basic necessity for a successful struggle. What is important is that it's the working class itself which takes the struggle into its own hands and extends it as widely as possible.
Jan 31 2008 13:35
#19
There is obviously a distinction to be made between organisations of workers and organisations of revolutionaries, which, as Baboon points out, are no longer in a position to employ 'professionals' (ie full timers, although there's no principle against it). It's not the task of the latter to organise or launch strikes, even if their members may indeed participate in such actions as workers. This distinction is lost in the various anarchosyndicalist conceptions, which inevitably tend towards substitutionist ideas of 'organising the class' inhertiedt from the 19th century workers' movement.
Feb 1 2008 11:41
#20
Quote:
Capricorn, KhwagaQuote:
Quote:
Of course. But mass movements have to start somewhere, and they often begin with just a few workers taking action or refusing to go along the bosses' plans.Are you against this idea? If so, why
I can see a general strike or a movement to overthrow some unpopular government starting in this way. There are plenty of historical precedents for this. But I can't see the successful overthrow of the capitalist economic system coming about like this. I think this would need to be much more planned and co-ordinated and consciously decided in advance and carried out by a majority people who know exactly what they are trying to do before doing it, otherwise it won't lead to a democratic, communist society but at most to a change in the personnel of the ruling class, with some of the members of a vanguard political party talking over from the bourgeoisie and nobility. There's a precedent for this too. The Bolshevik coup in November 1917 following the spontaneous overthrow of the Tsarist regime in March (started by "just a few" women demanding bread). There was of course nothing spontaneous about the Bolshevik coup. It didn't start off from "just a few workers taking action or refusing to go along with the bosses' plans", but was carefully planned, move by move, by the central committee of the Bolshevik Party, by Lenin and Trotsky in particular.
Spontaneous revolutions and actions can easily be hi-jacked by vanguards or other minorities (and, unfortunately, generally have been). That's one reason why democratic self-organisation by workers is so necessary.
Feb 1 2008 12:52
#21
Capricorn, I begin to see where you're coming from.
I largely agree with the general principles you outline, although I don't agree entirely with your characterisation of the Bolsheviks. In fact, the revolution was organised the military committee of the Soviet. It's true that this largely consisted of Bolsheviks, but only because they were a majority in the Soviet anyway. But I think there was a genuine fusion between the masses and the Bolsheviks at that point. It was as the masses and Bolsheviks started to diverge that the formal errors in this relationship began to feed through at the level of content.
Having said that, lessons have to learned from this. The party should not take power, soviet delegates who are members of organisations must remember they are mandated by the workers not that organisation, etc. The role of the party is to agitate for communist politics within the working class - in that sense I think it can be legitimately described as a vanguard. In a revolutionary and certainly post-revolutionary situation, the party may call for certain actions but just because you're calling for something doesn't necessarily mean you're the one to do it.
Nonetheless, I still think there's a case for the precise co-ordination of the future insurrection to be "carefully planned, move by move" but by the appropriate organ of the councils, not the central committee of any political party, and with the widest possible involvement of the masses. (Although we should remember the October Insurrection was an "open secret" - it wasn't as if the masses didn't have a clue what was going on, the soldiers especially).
Feb 1 2008 12:57
#22
The successful overthrow of "the capitalist economic system" is a much bigger question than the overthrow of a particular regime or number of regimes. What Capricorn calls a the November "coup" of the Bolsheviks was the first step towards the overthrow of the capitalist economic system but to presuppose a common, democratic comprehension of the methods to accomplish the latter is just idealism. The Russian revolution was a great step for the working class of the world, if it was a coup it must have been the only coup to announce its date and time well in advance. There has been no more democratic slogan of the working class than the Bolsheviks' "all power to the soviets". Obviously there are many negative lessons from the indentification of party/class and party/state but one of the positive ones development of class consciousness through the development of class struggle and the intervention of a minority of revolutionaries. Capricorn seems to see "vanguards" in a negative sense and want to replace that with an idealistic total once and for all "understanding". But vanguards, element who come together to explore and develop are a reality of the working class internationally and historically and it is their responsibility to intervene within the working class.
Feb 2 2008 19:39
#23
That particular 'Wildcat' article may be poorly argued but there are good reasons historically for communist pro revolutionaries argueing against 'democracy' in so far as much of the old socialist (and anarchist) labour movement ended up promoting a concept of change which saw progress as largely defined in terms of the extension of (capitalist) political democracy towards some form of social democracy (or industrial democracy or workers democracy etc etc). This completely emptied communism or socialism of any genuine anti capitalist content - of being against Exchange Value/commodity production/money/market relations/ wage labour and for a free human community. It reduced 'communism' to simply a different political form.
These fetishistic pro democracy ideas still get a long run on Lib Com threads mainly because lots of erstwhile radicals are still imbued with deep rooted concepts of 'rights' , 'equality' and 'democracy' which are intrinsically linked to the reality of exchange relations in capitalist society. Their vision of a new society is in practice nothing more than an idealised version of a 'worker controlled' capitalism.
Feb 4 2008 12:19
#24
I wouldn't reject the term "democracy" as applied to the class struggle but Spikey points out the dangers above. I also think that it's a false argument to pose "democracy" versus a "vanguard" particularly with the idea that the former involves a total and immediate development of consciousness of the "lines of march". The latter will be full of ups and downs, retreats and setbacks and there will be backward elements within the working class. The fact that there will be no "sudden understanding", no trouble-free road to a communist society, is one the reasons that necessitates a vanguard of the class.
Feb 5 2008 12:38
#25
Further, Russia 1905 is a good example of the development of insurrectionary struggle. Just a tiny minority of revolutionaries; the development of struggles against all boundries, massive and then dying down. No fundamental common demand (so no great "democratic understanding"); economic demands going to the political and back again. And all this ferment, all this apparant confusion giving rise to the Soviets - a real, the best ever expression of proletarian democracy.
This particular movement started with a procession of God-fearing workers, holding icons parading behind a priest in order to appeal to their "father, Tsar". No great "democratic understanding" of the lines of march and the communist perspective here. As Lenin said, they were marching in the confines of an organisation "set up by the police, for the police". And what came out of this movement was the proletarian dictatorship the only antidote to bourgeois democracy. From 1905 to 17 there needed to be the development of a vanguard, a minority, to defend working class positions and formulate analyses and to organise as a political leadership should - how can you call on the working class to organise if you can't organise yourselves?
Feb 7 2008 12:24
#26
This is disturbing. We have a real live vanguardist amongst us, praising Lenin and all. All I can say is that while a clandestine organisation of professional revolutionaries may have been necessary to carry on effective political activity under the autocratic Tsarist regime in order to work towards its overthrow and . . . establish a bourgeois-democratic republic (Lenin's own aim till he realised in April 1917 that his organisation of trained professional revolutionaries might be able to seize power in the chaos following the overthrow of the Tsar and impose its own dictatorship). But I can't see why such an organisation is needed today in the conditions of stable political democracy that now exist and where the issue is not the replacement of one form of minority rule (landowners) by that of another (capitalists) as it was in Russia a hundred years ago, but the replacement of all forms of minority rule and the ushering in of a classless and stateless democratic society. Why is there a need for a secret. top-down organisation whose members adopt false names (and wear false beards?). That's just toy-town revolutionism. To end capitalism what the workers need is to organise openly and democratically. The good news is that there's no chance whatsoever that they'll take up your offer to provide them with "political leadership".
Feb 7 2008 13:22
#27
There's a number of points;
First of all the myth that the class struggle in Russia was for a bourgeois-democratic state. This wasn't the case for Lenin and the Bolsheviks and Trotsky in 1905, nor was it in 1917, nor was it for the workers. By 1917 Russia was capitalist. It had greater concentrations of workers than did Germany - though Germany had more workers overall. The engineers at the Putilov factory, a major centre of both 1905 and 17, were among the highest paid in Europe. Twelve years before the Russian Revolution the class nature of the struggle in Russia (in fact from 1896/7) was clear with the development of the mass strike and establishment (1905) of the Soviets. This latter is the democratic form of workers' struggle par excellence.
A couple of other recurring themes from what one can loosely describe as anarchism:
Capricorn again demonstrates the illusions that continue to exist in what he calls "stable political democracy". First of all stable political democracy doesn't exist but the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie does. And if stable political democracy does exist then where on earth does a revolutionary perspective come from? As I said before about his position on democracy, it is idealistic. In this view there's a total "awakening" of all the workers, all at once of the necessity for a classless, stateless society. This idea is religious and a million light years away from the reality of the struggles in Russia and the role of revolutionaries from the end of the 1800s to the siezure of power in 1917.
Do you think the bourgeoisie will sit twiddling their thumbs as the workers move against them?
Feb 7 2008 14:48
#28
It's also a myth that the Bolsheviks were a "top down" organisation. Bolshevism was born out of the struggle against the dilettantism and personal politics of the Mensheviks, who were quite prepared to put personal loyalties above the formal decisions of the organisation. Lenin fought for the Congress to be the highest organ of the party rather than a clique of 'friends' who were prepared to ignore its decisions. Furthermore, the concept of the "professional revolutionary" is also widely misunderstood. The issue between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was not about whether members would be full-timers, ie paid by the party, but about the need for an organisation of communist militants who were prepared to defend the positons of the organisation and abide by its decisions, against the Menshevik idea of a loose organisation where the disinction between an organisation of workers and an organisation of revolutionaries is lost.
Agree with baboon that Capricorn seems to have serious illusions in bourgeois democracy. Precisely when bourgeois democracy ceases to be "stable" (ie when it is shaken by war or the class struggle) it has shown on any number of occasions that it can instantly impose the most ruthless methods, including the murder of revolutionaries. It is one thing to have a cloak and dagger approach to political activity (like the GCI, for example), quite another thing to think that all our activities can be completely open and that we should not bother ourselves about the very strong possibility that we will have to work in clandestinity.
The link is to the first of three articles about 'The birth of Bolshevism':
http://en.internationalism.org/ir/116_1903.html
The other two (dealing with the polemics between Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg on the organisation question in 1903-4) can be found by clicking on the next two issues of the International Review
Feb 7 2008 15:02
#29
baboon wrote:
What Capricorn calls a the November "coup" of the Bolsheviks was the first step towards the overthrow of the capitalist economic system but to presuppose a common, democratic comprehension of the methods to accomplish the latter is just idealism.
First, the Bolsheviks were aiming for state capitalism. Second, if the working class is not aware of the basics of socialism then the task of creating it will be left to a few leaders -- who will have to impose their vision onto the masses. That this would be a disaster and necessiate a dictatorship over the proletariat goes without saying. Third, it was a coup -- but one with popular support. That support disappeared in early 1918, necessiating the Bolsheviks to disband soviets, break strikes, repress the opposition and so on...
baboon wrote:
The Russian revolution was a great step for the working class of the world, if it was a coup it must have been the only coup to announce its date and time well in advance.
Except, of course, they did no such thing. The delegates to the second congress of soviets were surprised by the events. The congress then handed its power to the Bolshevik government. Which was in direct contradiction to Lenin's position in "State and Revolution" -- the first act of the revolution was to create an executive over and above the soviets.
baboon wrote:
There has been no more democratic slogan of the working class than the Bolsheviks' "all power to the soviets".
First, Lenin was constantly arguing in 1917 that the Bolsheviks should take power. Which they did. The soviets were only a means to that end. When soviet democracy clashed with that end, the soviets were disbanded. Second, the assemblies of the Great French Revolution and in Argentina in 2000 were far more democratic.
baboon wrote:
Capricorn seems to see "vanguards" in a negative sense and want to replace that with an idealistic total once and for all "understanding". But vanguards, element who come together to explore and develop are a reality of the working class internationally and historically and it is their responsibility to intervene within the working class.
depends on whether these minorities aim for their own power or whether they seek to inspire by action and ideas. Few people deny the need for revolutionaries to organise together and influence the class struggle. Many do deny the need for such organisations to take power on behalf of the many and govern them...
Feb 7 2008 15:14
#30
Alf wrote:
It's also a myth that the Bolsheviks were a "top down" organisation.
That explains Lenin's comment:
Quote:
"Bureaucracy versus democracy is in fact centralism versus autonomism; it is the organisational principle of revolutionary Social-Democracy as opposed to the organisational principle of opportunist Social-Democracy. The latter strives to proceed from the bottom upward, and, therefore, wherever possible . . . upholds autonomism and 'democracy,' carried (by the overzealous) to the point of anarchism. The former strives to proceed from the top downward. . ."
so Leninism "strives to proceed from the top downward" At best you can say that the central bodies were elected once in a while by the party, but we all knew where the real power lies... and it is not in a congress which happens once a year....
Alf wrote:
Bolshevism was born out of the struggle against the dilettantism and personal politics of the Mensheviks, who were quite prepared to put personal loyalties above the formal decisions of the organisation.
Like when Lenin, in 1917, had to threaten the party leadership to bring his argument for insurrection to the party rank and file? Well, if it is good enough for Lenin, I think its good enough for other party members...
I agree that a classless society can only be democratic. After all, what do we mean when we talk of a classless society except that there is no group within society that has a privileged say in the way things, especially production, are run? A classless society can only mean that everyone has an equal say in this, and the only way of ensuring this is through some form of democracy. But I wouldn't go as far as you in ruling out the election of committees and councils to do specific jobs or even take some wider decisions.. I don't think every decision should be made by direct democracy. This would be impracticable, not to say impossible, anyway.
As to those "left communists" who oppose even the principle of democracy, I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head when you say it smacks of vanguardism, I'd add also of leadership and intellectual superiority. They see themselves as the brain(s) of the working class with the right, because of their self-proclaimed superior knowledge, to lead the working class. But leaders can't go further than their followers are prepared to go, so unless most workers want a classless, and therefore genuinely democratic society there's no way this can come about. They've got to do this for themselves. Nobody can lead them there. All a vanguard could bring in would be a new class society ruled by them. That of course is why we should oppose all forms of vanguardism and defend democratic self-organisation as the alternative.