The democratic facade

Admin wrote:That being said, I am occasionally sympathetic to various socialistic critiques of political democracy. However, I am nowhere near ready to simply dispense with the notion all together. Most of us here know that democratic values have been conclusively proven to work (and function at an optimal capacity) within the economic sphere. And though the political arena functions quite differently, I think it's presumptuous and patronizing to assume that popular democratic participation would produce an unsavory scenario for any state. A socialist could only object to such an arrangement if it served to undermine economic democracy (a paradoxical scenario, but nonetheless plausible in certain circumstances) or posed a threat to the environment or the general security of the population.

Sorry to ask but when you say, "Most of us here know that democratic values have been conclusively proven to work (and function at an optimal capacity) within the economic sphere." Can you give some examples and/or sources?

Molov wrote:Sorry to ask but when you say, "Most of us here know that democratic values have been conclusively proven to work (and function at an optimal capacity) within the economic sphere." Can you give some examples and/or sources?

In a thread entitled 'Company Shareholders,' I answered a similar question by citing the following books and studies—all of which serve to empirically verify that workers' control of the means of production (in other words, 'socialism') enhances firm productivity and efficiency:

*Bartlett, Will and John Cable, Saul Estrin, Derek Jones, and Stephen Smith (1992), “Labor-Managed Cooperatives and Private Firms in North Central Italy: An Empirical Comparison,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review v. 46, no. 1 (Oct.) pp. 103-118.

*Bellas, Carl (1972), Industrial Democracy and the Worker-Owned Firm: A Study of Twenty-One Plywood Companies in the Pacific Northwest. New York: Praeger.

*Berman, K. V. (1967), Worker-Owned Plywood Companies. Pullman, Washington: Washington State University.

*Bernstein, Paul (1976), Workplace Democratization: Its Internal Dynamics. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press.

*Blasi, Joseph and Michael Conte, Douglas Kruse (1996), “Employee Ownership and Corporate Performance Among Public Corporations,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review v. 50, no. 1 (October) pp. 60-79.

*Bonin, J. P. and D. C. Jones, and L. Putterman (1993), “Theoretical and Empirical-Studies of Producer Cooperatives - Will Ever the Twain Meet,” Journal of Economic Literature v. 31, no. 3 (Sept.) pp. 1290-1320.

*Cable, John and and F. Fitzroy (1980), “Productivity, Efficiency, Incentives and Employee Participation,” Kyklos v. 33, pp. 100-121.

*Craig, Ben and John Pencavel (1992), “The Behavior of Worker Cooperatives: The Plywood Companies of the Pacific Northwest,” American Economic Review v. 82, no. 5 (Dec) pp. 1083-1105.

*Craig, Ben and John Pencavel (1993), “The Objectives of Worker Cooperatives,” Journal of Comparative Economics v. 17, pp. 288-308.

*Craig, Ben and John Pencavel (1995), “Participation and Productivity: A Comparison of Worker Cooperatives and Conventional Firms in the Plywood Industry,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, p. 121.

*Craig, Ben and John Pencavel (1994), “The Empirical Performance of Orthodox Models of the Firm: Conventional Firms and Worker Cooperatives,” Journal of Political Economy v. 104, no. 4 (Auf) pp. 718-744.

*Defourney, J. S. and Saul Estrin and Derek Jones (1985), “The Effects of Workers' Participation on Enterprise Performance: Empirical Evidence from French Cooperatives,” International Journal of Industrial Organization v. 3, pp. 197-217.

*Defourny, J. S. (1992), “Comparative Measures of Technical Efficiency for Five Hundred French Workers' Cooperatives,” Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor Managed Firms edited by Derek Jones and Jan Svejnar (Greenwich, Conn: JAI press) pp. 27-62.

*Doucouliagos, Chris (1995), “Worker Participation and Productivity in Labor-Managed and Participatory Capitalist Firms: A Meta-analysis,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review v. 49, no. 1 (Oct) pp. 58-77.

*Dow, Gregory K. (2003), Governing the Firm: Workers' Control in Theory and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

*Estrin, Saul and Derek Jones (1992), “The Viability of Employee-Owned Firms: Evidence from France,” Industrial & Labor Relations Review v. 45, no. 2 (January) pp. 323-338.

*Jones, Derek and D. Backus (1977), “British Producer Cooperatives in the Footwear Industry: An Empirical Evaluation of the Theory of Financing,” Economic Journal v. 87, pp. 488-510.

*Jones, Derek (1985), “The Cooperative Sector and Dualism in Command Economies: Theory and Evidence for the Case of Poland,” Advances in the Economics of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms v. 1, pp. 195-218.

*Mygind, Niels (1987), “Are Self-Managed Firms Efficient? The Experience of Danish Fully and Partly Self-Managed Firms,” Advances in the Economics of Participatory and Self-Managed Firms edited by D. Jones & J. Svejnar (Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press) pp. 243-323.

*Perotin, Virginie (1987), “Conditions of Survival and Closure of French Worker Cooperatives: Some Preliminary Findings,” Advances in the Economic Analysis of Participatory and Labor-Managed Firms edited by D. C. Jones and J. Svejnar (Greenwich, Conn: JAI Press) pp. 201-224.

Godfaesten wrote:In my personal opinion, it is because of Capitalism that democracy is a facade. In a Socialist society, I believe a true democracy could exist.

I would have to agree with this. True democracy would definitely exist.

Leon Mcnichol wrote:That sort of speech is what the powers that be want you to spout. They decry "democracy" evertime they can, and you are being a good tool for them decrying it too.

Ever wondered why all those "democratic" wars have the same system of political parties and state organization implemented? That's right, because it's that particular system that better serve the ultimate end of transcending democracy itself.

I think "democracy" is associated with parlementism. Decentralisation of power is a good thing, but something else as "democracy" (although one could define it as a form of Democracy). Democracy can be seen as the manifestation of the unconscious majority who suffocate the conscious minority in a game of suffrage. In that way one could say that democracy can be a obstacle to revolution.

Nationaal-Syndicalist wrote:I think "democracy" is associated with parlementism. Decentralisation of power is a good thing, but something else as "democracy" (although one could define it as a form of Democracy). Democracy can be seen as the manifestation of the unconscious majority who suffocate the conscious minority in a game of suffrage. In that way one could say that democracy can be a obstacle to revolution.

As somebody who has espoused authoritarian views in the past, I can understand this position, but I disagree with it both in principle and in terms of its accuracy. In principle, I believe people should have fair representation in decisions which affect them. This does not indicate that people must manage tasks which they do not understand or are prepared for, but only that they exert influence to the degree that the consequences impact them (e.g., I do not want a surgeon to decide whether I will have surgery, but I do want a trained surgeon to perform it!). This principle carries over into politics.

I would contend that even bourgeois democracies are superior manifestations than the authoritarian regimes of the past. I would probably much rather have lived in a capitalist "democracy" than I would Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin, and this is not because I view Stalinist Russia as having been economically bereft (the converse is actually true).

Rev Scare wrote:As somebody who has espoused authoritarian views in the past, I can understand this position, but I disagree with it both in principle and in terms of its accuracy. In principle, I believe people should have fair representation in decisions which affect them.

I understand what you mean. But Syndicalist action should in my opinion be a protest against bourgeoisation and politicization of Socialism and Nationalism. Democracy has become a supporting component of the State. I think Syndicalism doesn't want the take over of the State, but demands the absolute destruction of the State and the transfer of governing functions to the trade unionism. In that sense Syndicalism is in my opinion undemocratic, for the exact reasons i gave in my previous reaction; it's the manifestation of the controlled and unaware majority. It's not the goal to make life under capitalism easier, but uncompromising Syndicalism demands it's destruction by the use of direct action.The Syndicalist decentralisation of parts who work together as a organic federation and the autonomous people communes are a form of economic "democracy".

I would contend that even bourgeois democracies are superior manifestations than the authoritarian regimes of the past. I would probably much rather have lived in a capitalist "democracy" than I would Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin, and this is not because I view Stalinist Russia as having been economically bereft (the converse is actually true).

Maybe that's the biggest problem of our modern society. People are kept content with a fake form of "freedom" and the endless game of parlementism and democracy. Socialism is incorperated and made bourgeois in the form of a welfare State to keep the masses happy, to keep the class contrasts in tact and prevent any form of revolutionary uprise. In that sense the modern democracy is no different as the petit-bourgeoisie Fascist manifestations in Italy (Mussolini) and Spain (Franco).

Rev Scare wrote:This does not indicate that people must manage tasks which they do not understand or are prepared for, but only that they exert influence to the degree that the consequences impact them (e.g., I do not want a surgeon to decide whether I will have surgery, but I do want a trained surgeon to perform it!). This principle carries over into politics.

Mikhail Bakunin elaborated the point you raised quite eloquently when he wrote:

"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others.

If I bow before the authority of the specialists and avow my readiness to follow, to a certain extent and as long as may seem to me necessary, their indications and even their directions, it is because their authority is imposed upon me by no one, neither by men nor by God. Otherwise I would repel them with horror, and bid the devil take their counsels, their directions, and their services, certain that they would make me pay, by the loss of my liberty and self-respect, for such scraps of truth, wrapped in a multitude of lies, as they might give me.

I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge. The greatest intelligence would not be equal to a comprehension of the whole. Thence results, for science as well as for industry, the necessity of the division and association of labor. I receive and I give—such is human life. Each directs and is directed in his turn. Therefore there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.
Bakunin, Mikhail. God and the State, pp. 32-33.