«12. . .20,71220,71320,71420,71520,71620,71720,718. . .20,76020,761»
I understand your point, but I prefer multiparty rule in socialism. The concepts of line struggle or monolithic party existing in the "real socialism" of the twenty-first century are authoritarian, and deny the Marxist premise that there is class struggle in socialism. And the class struggle must be carried out institutionally through parties. Apart from this, I support the role of trade unions, neighbourhood associations, youth, cultural and sports associations in socialism, a strong civil society (in terms of the bourgeois university) complicates a retreat to capitalism or a foreign invasion, in the same way that capitalism has it more difficult if it cannot carry out a coup d'état against a one-party system.
Jonathaland and Athinya
I agree with you in the regards that a socialist system doesn't necessarily need to be one party. For example, east Germany iirc had multiple parties under the socialist unity front. However, all former and currently existing socialist countries have a vanguard party organised on the basis of democratic centralism. Now, I admit there is still a lot I need to learn in regards to vanguard parties and their functions. However, from my understanding, vanguard parties serve to maintain stability, as its more beneficial to have one socialist party that allows debate and discussion in policy rather than a bunch of competing socialist parties.
Message from the People's Tribunal
The Minister of Information by-election has now concluded and Kabaragoya has been elected as the new Minister of Information.
Congratulations to Kabaragoya!
So more so direct democracy rather than partisan democratic republics?
More so syndicalism rather than party oriented?
Well, that just leaves a mess (in my eyes) of internal alliances and factions which could result in something more ideologically dividing than just having different socialist parties
Not really, democratic centralism is the synthesis of democracy and centralism. Too much democracy and you lead to revolutionary excess and getting bogged down in deliberation, but too much centralism and you have a party bureaucracy that is alienated from the masses. In addition, voting is not seen as the sole method of connecting the party and the masses,as even though it's an important tool, protests and strikes are also vital in ensuring the masses are heard, so long as they don't violently advocate capitalist restoration.
You are somewhat correct in your analysis. Factionalism was a huge problem during 1930's ussr, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, post Mao china. Factionalism typically arises from an incorrect application of democratic centralism and the concept of "freedom of debate, unity of action". However, I wouldn't necessarily argue that Factionalism is a consequence of the Vanguard party, just that incorrect applications of Marxist-Leninist theory can create factionalism just as much as partisan divides can.
I gave a huge reply to many comments here, but it didn't send because it somehow contained "offensive language" lol. I talked about Germany banning the KPD? Is that it?
Anyways, welcome back me. (I've been gone for a while(Does anyone remember me? ) )
Jonathaland and Selizon
Yeah sorry, I didn’t see everything before messaging that
But then how do you mitigate those “incorrect” applications?
That is an area I'm not too familiar in, and I would highly recommend going to the Marxist internet archive or some other similar website if you want to learn more, as they store articles that study the application of democratic centralism within former communist parties. In short though it would be through some form of rectification movement that would correct the party's ultra-centralist (holding the party as a monolith that is above the masses) or ultra-democratic (the party tying itself down in continued deliberation) tendencies. Again, I don't know enough to properly answer your question, so I would definitely recommend doing your own research if you want to learn more.
Am I crazy or the very idea of having a "correct" way to socialism and application of Marxism already debases the fundamental principle of democracy while further flaming factionalism? That's like saying Stalin's purges were reasonable because he was mitigating the "incorrect" applications of Marx's words.
Exactly, there’s no one way of doing anything, it’s just mostly how it’s implemented rather than what it actually is (there are obvious exceptions but you get the point)
True, even for a Trot, there is still a choice between the rope and the wall /s
You are correct in that trying to dogmatically apply Marxist theory without a dialectical analysis of the material conditions of the country is not the proper way to build socialism. However, I believe your comparison to the purges in the USSR in the 30's is misguided. As during that time there was both factionalism within the party, with both the "left" and "right" opposition failing to adhere to democratic centralism, as well as saboteurs and disloyalty in the military. Were some aspects of the purge carried out in excess? of course, primarily by opportunists in the NKVD. But in general, the purges weren't a campaign to root out "incorrect" applications of Marxism, but instead a measure meant to secure the stability of the state in the face of rapidly approaching war.
But in what your saying, you’re essentially labeling the Left Opposition and Right Opposition as “wrong”, not all Socialists believe in democratic centralism, there are also some capitalists that believe in democratic centralism
Athinya doesn’t use democratic centralism, yet would you consider it not Socialist?
This is why I choose to do away with the democratic system. Democracy inherently is a very flawed system that tries to give the people the say to how they should be governed. However, the general populace generally makes poor decisions due to lack of education and voting not based on reason, but rather by feeling. Additionally, every election one party is voted in while the other party is voted out. This creates a zigzag system as the newly elected party will spend all its time undoing the other party’s accomplishments and likewise the other party will do the same once they are in charge. This creates a system where policy constantly changes back and forth with no progress ever being made. A more authoritarian system doesn’t necessarily end all these problems, and may create new problems, but it generally runs more efficiently because of that and is necessary to build socialism
Even if that is so, after a certain point where the population has become educated to vote with reason, I would think that opening up even a bit would be good, no?
Educating the populace is easier said than done, to educate the populace you inevitably have to be authoritarian. For example, it’s very hard to educate 1.4 billion people in china or 350 million people in america. Both cases would take decades to educate the populace. Also, it becomes very hard to determine what an “educated” populace is. Is an educated populace just a populace that follows your beliefs? Additionally, you inevitably will receive resistance against your “education” by people from the other side and will do whatever they can to prevent their children from being “brainwashed”. So, you would need to imprison these people, suppress freedom of speech, make state education the only education, and oh wait, looks like you just created another authoritarian state.
You do have a point. However, if the people are well educated enough (meaning able to make meaningful decisions logically and effectively when needed), then any resistance faced should be able to be dealt with logically, and if your political system really is those of the educated, then it should be able to hold up based on logical reasoning and intelligence, at least in my eyes
“I am not Russian, I do not speak in absolutes” -I forgot
But this doesn’t really solve the problem of GETTING that level of education. Like I said before, it would take decades to educate the public to a sufficient level, and throughout that entire time, conservatives and rightists will find any and all ways to hinder this process in the way they see fit. And again, this also doesn't really define what “educated” is as thinking “logically and effectively” is up to interpretation.
«12. . .20,71220,71320,71420,71520,71620,71720,718. . .20,76020,761»
Advertisement