What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

 :: General :: Theory

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

Post by Red Aegis on Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:15 pm

Yes, it is! It is democracy for the proletariat and by the proletariat. DotP means that the bourgeoisie can no longer subvert the people with their unfair oligopoly of power, economic and political. No longer will the minority overrule the majority. That is what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is.

Other than that, you are saying that people do not have the right to determine their own future if they do not line up with the party's vision. On one hand you say that the party is held accountable to the people and then you say that those who want to start another party would be forced to either leave or live under some arbitrarily chosen policies that they had no hand in.

Your version of consent appears to be anything short of outright rebellion.

_________________
Red Star Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and Social Justice Red Star
avatar
Red Aegis
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : RedSoc
Posts : 738
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2011-10-27
Location : U.S.

Back to top Go down

Re: What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

Post by Comrade_Joe on Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:21 pm

Red Aegis wrote:Yes, it is! It is democracy for the proletariat and by the proletariat. DotP means that the bourgeoisie can no longer subvert the people with their unfair oligopoly of power, economic and political. No longer will the minority overrule the majority. That is what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is.

But here is the million dollar question: when the bourgeoisie can no longer subvert the people with their unfair oligopoly of power, economic and political? That reality never happened. Bourgeoisie never ceased to exist. As long as you have capitalist entities (countries, international corporations and other organizations) around you the bourgeoisie will always exists. That is why you didn't have a workers democracy in USSR, because the bourgeoisie never disappeared. You will only have a full workers democracy once the bourgeoisie disappeared not only in the country but around the world. Don't forget that the bourgeoisie is a social class with international dimension not only national. Furthermore, Marx never developed his idea of DOTP.

Another question for you: how you made bourgeoisie disappear? Through democratic institutions like the ones you have now? If not through what?

The matter is that we never reach that stage that you are talking about. Furthermore, Marx never developed enough the concept of DOTP to say it clearly what he meant by that. He says that the workers should collectivize the means of productions and destroy the bourgeoisie through the state but how you do it? I don't see too much democracy here.

Other than that, you are saying that people do not have the right to determine their own future if they do not line up with the party's vision. On one hand you say that the party is held accountable to the people and then you say that those who want to start another party would be forced to either leave or live under some arbitrarily chosen policies that they had no hand in.

Yes because they are a minority. They don't have the support of the majority of the people. I don't see any contradiction here.
avatar
Comrade_Joe
________________
________________

Tendency : Chode
Posts : 54
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2012-04-16
Location : Basement

Back to top Go down

Re: What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

Post by Red Aegis on Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Comrade_Joe wrote:But here is the million dollar question: when the bourgeoisie can no longer subvert the people with their unfair oligopoly of power, economic and political? That reality never happened. Bourgeoisie never ceased to exist.

That's because the means of production never went directly into the workers' hands and the workers did not successfully freeze all their assets. Think about it. If the bourgeoisie have lost all their money and property, how dangerous are they?

As long as you have capitalist entities (countries, international corporations and other organizations) around you the bourgeoisie will always exists.


Yes, in those capitalist countries they certainly will exist, under Capitalism.

That is why you didn't have a workers democracy in USSR, because the bourgeoisie never disappeared.

They didn't disappear because they weren't forced to. If the workers kicked them out of their mansions and gave all their things to the community then there would not have been any bourgeoisie.

You will only have a full workers democracy once the bourgeoisie disappeared not only in the country but around the world. Don't forget that the bourgeoisie is a social class with international dimension not only national. Furthermore, Marx never developed his idea of DOTP.


I addressed how to get rid of the bourgeoisie above. Of course the bourgeoisie is internationally connected under neo-liberalism but if you don't let the capitalists abroad collect or command their investments in the socialist country they technically don't own it anymore. I'm not sure where you're going with this.


Another question for you: how you made bourgeoisie disappear? Through democratic institutions like the ones you have now? If not through what?



I already answered the first question. The second question was implied but I don't think it would be a surprise that the answer is revolution. That should be obvious.

The matter is that we never reach that stage that you are talking about. Furthermore, Marx never developed enough the concept of DOTP to say it clearly what he meant by that. He says that the workers should collectivize the means of productions and destroy the bourgeoisie through the state but how you do it? I don't see too much democracy here.

If Marx did not develop his idea far enough for us to know what he meant, then you cannot claim that he meant what you were saying these last dozen posts either. If it is so ambiguous then I'm just as right as you are.

Yes because they are a minority. They don't have the support of the majority of the people. I don't see any contradiction here.


They would be a minority but they did not have their fair say under your system. Under democracy they would have the opportunity to voice their opinions openly and debate the right action. That is much more fair than sending them ultimatums requiring them to either agree, sit quietly, or leave.




Last edited by Red Aegis on Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

_________________
Red Star Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and Social Justice Red Star
avatar
Red Aegis
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : RedSoc
Posts : 738
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2011-10-27
Location : U.S.

Back to top Go down

Re: What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

Post by Comrade_Joe on Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:01 pm

Red Aegis wrote:That's because the means of production never went directly into the workers' hands and the workers did no successfully freeze all their assets. Think about it.

You have a number of historical examples of working self-management (we had in Portugal in 1975) and yet the bourgeoisie always found a manner to recover its power and dominance.

If the bourgeoisie have lost all their money and property, how dangerous are they?

You are forgetting one major marxist perspective: the internationalization of the bourgeoisie and the solidarity bounds between them regardless nations boundaries. They may have lost the money and property but they still have connections outside the country and their outside social fellows will certainly help them to recover the power. That's what I was trying to say to you. Take the White Army in Russia for instance. It was supported by Western countries, wasn't it?

They didn't disappear because they weren't forced to. If the workers kicked them out of their mansions and gave all their things to the community then there would not have been any bourgeoisie.

Once again, the international bounds within the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie in Russia disappeared indeed but the main question is around it. You know that USA (and other western countries) played a substantial role in dismantling the eastern bloc, don't you?

I addressed how to get rid of the bourgeoisie above. Of course the bourgeoisie is internationally connected under neo-liberalism but if you don't let the capitalists abroad collect or command their investments in the socialist country they technically don't own it anymore. I'm not sure where you're going with this.


I am telling you this to tell you that despite the material disappearance of the bourgeoisie their influence never disappears because of their international bounds. That is why you cannot have a full democracy as long as their influence exists(i.e. as long as capitalism exists in the world, at least in a powerful manner). This is the conclusion that i wanted to make. One of the reasons for the triumph of bourgeoisie dominance was their capacity to destroy the influence and the bounds between the different aristocratic and feudal families or groups. The aristocratic families joined (through the Holly Alliance for instance) to stop the bourgeoisie emergence both politically and economically but they were unsuccessful. The workers were essential for the victory of the bourgeoisie over the old feudalistic order. Bourgeoisie and the working class were allies in this class warfare. Now it is time to the working class overthrown the bourgeoisie.

The matter is that we never reach that stage that you are talking about. Furthermore, Marx never developed enough the concept of DOTP to say it clearly what he meant by that. He says that the workers should collectivize the means of productions and destroy the bourgeoisie through the state but how you do it? I don't see too much democracy here.

But the problem is that i didn't understand the concept of democracy that you are referring to. Is the bourgeoisie one or some other model that was never tested before?

If Marx did not develop his idea far enough for us to know what he meant, then you cannot claim that he meant what you were saying these last dozen posts either. If it is so ambiguous then I'm just as right as you are.

Because there is nothing contradictory between the takeover of the state by the party which represents the workers and what Marx said about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

They would be a minority but they did not have their fair say under your system. Under democracy they would have the opportunity to voice their opinions openly and debate the right action. That is much more fair than sending them ultimatums requiring them to either agree, sit quietly, or leave.

That is a harsh reality i know. Believe me, I once was in your position demanding more freedom within the communist party. Have you ever asked yourself why the communist parties are so rigid and closed obeying to the democratic centralism? I'll give you an example of the Portuguese Communist Party: In the late 80's when the USSR was falling apart a small group of party elements tried to introduce more democratic elements within its system. Their proposals were rejected by the majority of the members of the congress. Do you know where they are now? The main leader is now one of the most important centre-right wing members of parliament, other is president of one of the biggest private held companies in the Iberian Peninsula and the majority of them are former social democrats ministers or currently members of parliament.

You see, we have to be very careful because there are opportunistic people everywhere and the Socialist movement needs to be very protective regarding this issue. The level of trust among its members and between them and the working class needs to be high. The same applies when the state is in the party's hands, even with more protection. The bourgeoisie will take any opportunity to disarm the movement like they have been doing since the very beginning of the socialist movement.

For example, look at the USSR collapse and the small group of people who got millionaires while the majority of the people went through a hell of social and economic problems. Who saved Yeltsin from being ousted from power in the 1996 elections? USA and its allies.
avatar
Comrade_Joe
________________
________________

Tendency : Chode
Posts : 54
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2012-04-16
Location : Basement

Back to top Go down

Re: What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

Post by Red Aegis on Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:59 am

Comrade_Joe wrote:You have a number of historical examples of working self-management (we had in Portugal in 1975) and yet the bourgeoisie always found a manner to recover its power and dominance.

From what I understand, that 'revolution' was a military coup. It was not a socialist revolution so of course the bourgeoisie were not driven out. If you want to try to claim that a few cases of workers' self-management make a nation socialist I would like to point out that even in the United States there are some factories and businesses that are managed democratically by the workers.

You are forgetting one major marxist perspective: the internationalization of the bourgeoisie and the solidarity bounds between them regardless nations boundaries. They may have lost the money and property but they still have connections outside the country and their outside social fellows will certainly help them to recover the power. That's what I was trying to say to you. Take the White Army in Russia for instance. It was supported by Western countries, wasn't it?

The only way that they could recover their power in a nation run by the workers would be an imperialist invasion. That is something that must be prepared for and the workers must be armed and trained in various types of warfare in a manner similar to the national guard in the United States.

Once again, the international bounds within the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie in Russia disappeared indeed but the main question is around it. You know that USA (and other western countries) played a substantial role in dismantling the eastern bloc, don't you?

I addressed the first statement already. Do you think that the USSR was socialist in my opinion? To answer your question, obviously.

I am telling you this to tell you that despite the material disappearance of the bourgeoisie their influence never disappears because of their international bounds. That is why you cannot have a full democracy as long as their influence exists(i.e. as long as capitalism exists in the world, at least in a powerful manner). This is the conclusion that i wanted to make. One of the reasons for the triumph of bourgeoisie dominance was their capacity to destroy the influence and the bounds between the different aristocratic and feudal families or groups. The aristocratic families joined (through the Holly Alliance for instance) to stop the bourgeoisie emergence both politically and economically but they were unsuccessful. The workers were essential for the victory of the bourgeoisie over the old feudalistic order. Bourgeoisie and the working class were allies in this class warfare. Now it is time to the working class overthrown the bourgeoisie.


Stop repeating the same thing. Again, you're repeating the obvious.

But the problem is that i didn't understand the concept of democracy that you are referring to. Is the bourgeoisie one or some other model that was never tested before?


Parliamentary Democracy is bourgeois governance because they have more influence than the proletariat. DotP is when the proletariat have more influence than the FORMER bourgeoisie. This is obtained through direct democracy.

Because there is nothing contradictory between the takeover of the state by the party which represents the workers and what Marx said about the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

You're just not even trying to be consistent now.

That is a harsh reality i know. Believe me, I once was in your position demanding more freedom within the communist party. Have you ever asked yourself why the communist parties are so rigid and closed obeying to the democratic centralism? I'll give you an example of the Portuguese Communist Party: In the late 80's when the USSR was falling apart a small group of party elements tried to introduce more democratic elements within its system. Their proposals were rejected by the majority of the members of the congress. Do you know where they are now? The main leader is now one of the most important centre-right wing members of parliament, other is president of one of the biggest private held companies in the Iberian Peninsula and the majority of them are former social democrats ministers or currently members of parliament.

You see, we have to be very careful because there are opportunistic people everywhere and the Socialist movement needs to be very protective regarding this issue. The level of trust among its members and between them and the working class needs to be high. The same applies when the state is in the party's hands, even with more protection. The bourgeoisie will take any opportunity to disarm the movement like they have been doing since the very beginning of the socialist movement.

For example, look at the USSR collapse and the small group of people who got millionaires while the majority of the people went through a hell of social and economic problems. Who saved Yeltsin from being ousted from power in the 1996 elections? USA and its allies.

There was still a bourgeoisie and parliamentary democracy. Just because a so called socialist is elected does not make that nation socialist. I say that one should never trust those with more power than them. They should be watched very carefully. Your example is flawed and your argument idealistic in the hope for the party members to be benign in their motives.

_________________
Red Star Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, and Social Justice Red Star
avatar
Red Aegis
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : RedSoc
Posts : 738
Reputation : 522
Join date : 2011-10-27
Location : U.S.

Back to top Go down

Re: What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

Post by Comrade_Joe on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:14 pm

Red Aegis wrote:From what I understand, that 'revolution' was a military coup. It was not a socialist revolution so of course the bourgeoisie were not driven out. If you want to try to claim that a few cases of workers' self-management make a nation socialist I would like to point out that even in the United States there are some factories and businesses that are managed democratically by the workers.

No, it was a military coup in 25 of April of 1974 but a socialist revolutionary process (the PREC) followed that coup. The big industries and banks were nationalized, the land was collectivized and some businesses were controlled by the workers. The Catholic Church Radio (Radio Renascen├ža) was taken by the workers for instance, much alike the social-democrat newspaper "A Rep├║blica".

The only way that they could recover their power in a nation run by the workers would be an imperialist invasion. That is something that must be prepared for and the workers must be armed and trained in various types of warfare in a manner similar to the national guard in the United States.

Wrong. An imperialist invasion is one of them but not the only one. There was no need of an imperialist invasion to dismantle all the eastern bloc nor Yugoslavia. There are many ways to sabotage a socialist revolution from outside. You can isolate economically the country for instance to bring it down to its knees.

I addressed the first statement already. Do you think that the USSR was socialist in my opinion? To answer your question, obviously.

Ok, you don't think it was, but at least you recognize that the bourgeoisie was taken out from Russia, don't you? That still serves the meaning of my question.

Parliamentary Democracy is bourgeois governance because they have more influence than the proletariat. DotP is when the proletariat have more influence than the FORMER bourgeoisie. This is obtained through direct democracy.

So, you are referring to something that never existed. I never disagreed that once the proletarians have the absolute control over the bourgeoisie all over the world it should be implemented a full workers democracy. I'm not some dictatorship psycho lover. I only accept it as a necessity, nothing more. The problem is that the proletarian absolute control over the bourgeoisie never happened so we cannot think about it now. We must focus first on the task to overthrown the bourgeoisie once and for all than we must move on to the next tasks.

You're just not even trying to be consistent now.

Why I am not being consistent? I said from what I understand from the meaning of DOTP according to the Marx words but it is true that he never developed the idea enough.

They would be a minority but they did not have their fair say under your system. Under democracy they would have the opportunity to voice their opinions openly and debate the right action. That is much more fair than sending them ultimatums requiring them to either agree, sit quietly, or leave.

That is a harsh reality i know. Believe me, I once was in your position demanding more freedom within the communist party. Have you ever asked yourself why the communist parties are so rigid and closed obeying to the democratic centralism? I'll give you an example of the Portuguese Communist Party: In the late 80's when the USSR was falling apart a small group of party elements tried to introduce more democratic elements within its system. Their proposals were rejected by the majority of the members of the congress. Do you know where they are now? The main leader is now one of the most important centre-right wing members of parliament, other is president of one of the biggest private held companies in the Iberian Peninsula and the majority of them are former social democrats ministers or currently members of parliament.

You see, we have to be very careful because there are opportunistic people everywhere and the Socialist movement needs to be very protective regarding this issue. The level of trust among its members and between them and the working class needs to be high. The same applies when the state is in the party's hands, even with more protection. The bourgeoisie will take any opportunity to disarm the movement like they have been doing since the very beginning of the socialist movement.

For example, look at the USSR collapse and the small group of people who got millionaires while the majority of the people went through a hell of social and economic problems. Who saved Yeltsin from being ousted from power in the 1996 elections? USA and its allies.[/quote]

There was still a bourgeoisie and parliamentary democracy. Just because a so called socialist is elected does not make that nation socialist. I say that one should never trust those with more power than them. They should be watched very carefully. Your example is flawed and your argument idealistic in the hope for the party members to be benign in their motives.

I don't see how my example is flawed. I think you are the one who wants to ignore the reality. You think that by simply overthrowing the bourgeoisie in one country everything is solved and all right. It ain't. My example was to show you that you have opportunists everywhere and the socialist movement is attractive for this kind of demagogs. More practical examples: Xiaoping and Gorbachev.

Another thing: you have been calling me idealistic since i came to the forum but I never fully understood why. I am not the one who is advocating models that never existed like the nests. I'm certainly not the one who defends the abolition of the state overnight. I think I am being pretty realistic when I accept the reality as it is. Don't you think that it would be much more easier to me to be in your position and say that USSR had nothing to do with socialism, Stalin was a cruel dictator who didn't care for his people and defend models that were never experienced before like the nests? That is idealistic. You think that the communists in USSR were all bad guys and psychos who enjoyed to make their people suffer? Do you think Lenin did what he did because was a psycho murder?
avatar
Comrade_Joe
________________
________________

Tendency : Chode
Posts : 54
Reputation : 8
Join date : 2012-04-16
Location : Basement

Back to top Go down

Re: What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

Post by Isakenaz on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:30 pm

Comrade_Joe wrote:
Another thing: you have been calling me idealistic since i came to the forum but I never fully understood why. I am not the one who is advocating models that never existed like the nests. I'm certainly not the one who defends the abolition of the state overnight. I think I am being pretty realistic when I accept the reality as it is. Don't you think that it would be much more easier to me to be in your position and say that USSR had nothing to do with socialism, Stalin was a cruel dictator who didn't care for his people and defend models that were never experienced before like the nests? That is idealistic. You think that the communists in USSR were all bad guys and psychos who enjoyed to make their people suffer? Do you think Lenin did what he did because was a psycho murder?

Good point, well made.
avatar
Isakenaz
___________________
___________________

Tendency : Socialist-Nationalist
Posts : 646
Reputation : 266
Join date : 2011-04-02
Age : 61
Location : Yorkshire, England

Back to top Go down

Re: What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

Post by Balkan Beast on Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:58 am

Comrade_Joe wrote:Do you think Lenin did what he did because was a psycho murder?

He did what he did because he was highly paranoid, regardless he still went far overboard, he's no better than stalin or Mao.
He was an opportunist just like others, nothing more nothing less. Maybe you should learn more about the Bolshevik revolution, and the early years of the regime there is definitely no shortage of examples to support my argument.

Why try to justify this? While others lived in poverty, he had all the luxuries he wanted, not only this he also ran the economy of his country into the ground with War Communism. Lenin made many mistakes, both practical ones as well as moral. He isn't some good guy, I only agree that he wasn't a psychopath, just a man who lived in fear.

Tends to happen when you run a regime that is not popularly supported by the people, and only gained a foothold because the nazis gave them plenty of financial support.

Honestly I really would like to know how you can justify the purges that have occurred under the Bolshevik, and Maoist regimes.
A rather high portion of the victims weren't counter-revolutionaries, simply people who leaders saw as a threat to their power because they either: Were too good at their job, they didn't trust them, they had too much influence in their eyes, or they didn't agree.
Oh and then you have those who were just killed for heresay, because others say accusations about the person just out of jealousy.

This is no different than the killings done by monarchs, or fascist regimes.
avatar
Balkan Beast
_________________________
_________________________

Tendency : Non-Aligned
Posts : 108
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-12-20

Back to top Go down

Re: What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 :: General :: Theory

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum