by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .20,71220,71320,71420,71520,71620,71720,718. . .20,76020,761»

Huanglong wrote:By liberal democratic measures of democracy, yes it would be undemocratic. However, in my mind, having more political parties and/or more elections doesn't inherently make a system more democratic. A true democracy would be one that is able to listen to the demands and grievances of the people, and be able to make proper changes based on that, rather than citizens simply voting every so often for their favorite party.

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.

Estados Socialistas Unidos de Iberia wrote: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.

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!

Huanglong wrote:By liberal democratic measures of democracy, yes it would be undemocratic. However, in my mind, having more political parties and/or more elections doesn't inherently make a system more democratic. A true democracy would be one that is able to listen to the demands and grievances of the people, and be able to make proper changes based on that, rather than citizens simply voting every so often for their favorite party. Edit: But also, having capitalist parties fundamentally weakens the socialist system, by posing the threat of capitalist restoration. In the same manner liberal democracies suppress socialist parties un the intrest of preserving their system, so too must socialist democracies suppress capitalist parties to preserve the gains of socialism.

So more so direct democracy rather than partisan democratic republics?

Estados Socialistas Unidos de Iberia wrote: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.

More so syndicalism rather than party oriented?

Huanglong wrote: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.

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

Athinya wrote:So more so direct democracy rather than partisan democratic republics?

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.

Athinya wrote: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

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.

Inbhir eire

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? ) )

Inbhir eire wrote: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? ) )

I'm not too sure why it wouldn't send, but I doubt they were taken down by simply talking about German suppression of the left. Also, I joined TCB pretty recently, so I sadly don't remember you, because I never met you until now. (That's a very weird phrasing but I'm going with it)

Inbhir eire

Huanglong wrote: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.

Yeah sorry, I didn’t see everything before messaging that

Huanglong wrote: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.

But then how do you mitigate those “incorrect” applications?

Athinya wrote: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.

Atlanc wrote: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)

Athinya wrote: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

Atlanc wrote: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.

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.

Huanglong wrote: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?

Huanglong wrote:By liberal democratic measures of democracy, yes it would be undemocratic. However, in my mind, having more political parties and/or more elections doesn't inherently make a system more democratic. A true democracy would be one that is able to listen to the demands and grievances of the people, and be able to make proper changes based on that, rather than citizens simply voting every so often for their favorite party. Edit: But also, having capitalist parties fundamentally weakens the socialist system, by posing the threat of capitalist restoration. In the same manner liberal democracies suppress socialist parties un the intrest of preserving their system, so too must socialist democracies suppress capitalist parties to preserve the gains of socialism.

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

Sozschen wrote: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?

Atlanc wrote:True, even for a Trot, there is still a choice between the rope and the wall /s

Yeah,

Both Athinya, and Sozschen have quite different governments, different ideologies, even different economic doctrines, however both our populations are happy, wealthy, and enjoy great government programs. Even though we both have different Socialist ideologies, they both have worked out well

Athinya wrote: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.

Sozschen wrote: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

Athinya wrote: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