What role would the Party play in a Socialist society?

What should happen to the Party in a Socialist society? Would it hold any political power? If so, how much?

Godfaesten wrote:What should happen to the Party in a Socialist society? Would it hold any political power? If so, how much?

I don't think that the party would have any power in itself. There would be direct democracy so there would be no need of a political party at all anyway. Everyone would already be a communist so why would a party be relevant?

Red Aegis wrote:I don't think that the party would have any power in itself. There would be direct democracy so there would be no need of a political party at all anyway. Everyone would already be a communist so why would a party be relevant?

What makes you think as soon as a new Socialist society forms everyone becomes a Communist?

You're right, there may be some reactionaries, but they will still be a part of the direct democracy even if they don't vote. Everyone will be 'functionally' a communist even if they don't want to be. If they try to bring down the new system they will be imprisoned or educated as to why it is better. With this approach everyone participates in the system or is imprisoned. Imprisonment should only be reserved for violent reactionaries and other criminals of a serious nature.

Red Aegis wrote:You're right, there may be some reactionaries, but they will still be a part of the direct democracy even if they don't vote. Everyone will be 'functionally' a communist even if they don't want to be. If they try to bring down the new system they will be imprisoned or educated as to why it is better. With this approach everyone participates in the system or is imprisoned. Imprisonment should only be reserved for violent reactionaries and other criminals of a serious nature.

Ok, so even if everyone is in effect part direct democracy, how would that ensure that the economic system of Socialism would survive?

Btw, I guess I should answer my own question. I agree with Red that democracy ought to be a major part of the political system, but at the same time, I believe there ought to be some way to ensure that the society remains Socialist, whatever it may happen to be, e.g., the party having some power, a constitution, etc.

I support the constitutional route, cementing the new property laws, civil laws, ect. Giving any party power after the revolution would be akin to starting a new government which is wholly un-socialistic.

Red Aegis wrote:I support the constitutional route, cementing the new property laws, civil laws, ect. Giving any party power after the revolution would be akin to starting a new government which is wholly un-socialistic.

Huh, I actually can't think of anything to say. That seems like it would work out just fine for me. Unless...

I see a problem with giving the bourgeoisie political power. Do you? If so, how would you correct this? If not, why don't you?

Think about it this way:

By the time a revolution occurs there would have necessarily been enough class-consciousness and discontent with the system for the revolution to even occur. For it to be a socialist revolution that consciousness would have to be pushing society towards socialism. I do not think that a socialistic population of former proletarians would be out-voted by the former bourgeoisie. Note that the violent reactionaries would be imprisoned or killed (hopefully not after the revolution but you already know my views on capital punishment).

Red Aegis wrote:Think about it this way:

By the time a revolution occurs there would have necessarily been enough class-consciousness and discontent with the system for the revolution to even occur. For it to be a socialist revolution that consciousness would have to be pushing society towards socialism. I do not think that a socialistic population of former proletarians would be out-voted by the former bourgeoisie. Note that the violent reactionaries would be imprisoned or killed (hopefully not after the revolution but you already know my views on capital punishment).

Huh, I guess that makes sense. I can't really find anything else to disagree with... Hm. Good discussion I guess.

Cheers indeed

An officer in the armed forces, or a member of ministry of propaganda.

WodzuUK wrote:ministry of propaganda.

I don't think that the masses are going to struggle for a future in which a "ministry of propaganda" will be featured. People are increasingly becoming aware that they're being misled by the media and are not pleased. They will not stand for a government which openly acknowledges that's it's psychologically manipulating the population.

The role of the party only ends in the latter phase of communism when the state also ends. Until then the party must keep its role as the leading element of the revolutionary process. In the socialist stage the party takes control and merges with the state.

How does the party lead exactly?

I can see two options: 1 - the party extends outreach and attempts to educate people as to what socialism through various methods, and 2- the party forces their methods upon the workers at the point of both gun and pen.

In the first case, I see the party campaigning for socialism: handing out leaflets, making websites, hosting television shows, newspapers, town criers. I can see them holding rallies and inviting speakers at town squares and parks. I see them setting up booths through out the cities and towns. Sending doctors, engineers, and others to assist in the more rural areas. These have all been done and are being done. I think that these methods can work and are an excellent way to work towards class conscious, socialist thought.

In the second case, I see the establishment of a government that says that it is doing the best thing for it's people with the people's support. I see little oversite unless the administrators of the party are instantly re-callable by those below and every single person is in the party. Otherwise, the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie would have merely been taken over by the Dictatorship of the Administrative Officials.

I do not think that this is a false dichotomy due to my stipulation in the second case that both everyone is a member in the party and that the members that are supposed to represent the basic members are instantly re-callable.

These stipulations; however, are no different from the idea of nested councils, or are very very similar at least. This raises the question of whether or not the party is even necessary outside of an educational role for the public or an instigative one prior to the revolution.

The state is the intermediary between man and human liberty. ~ Marx

Red Aegis wrote:How does the party lead exactly?

I can see two options: 1 - the party extends outreach and attempts to educate people as to what socialism through various methods, and 2- the party forces their methods upon the workers at the point of both gun and pen.

In the first case, I see the party campaigning for socialism: handing out leaflets, making websites, hosting television shows, newspapers, town criers. I can see them holding rallies and inviting speakers at town squares and parks. I see them setting up booths through out the cities and towns. Sending doctors, engineers, and others to assist in the more rural areas. These have all been done and are being done. I think that these methods can work and are an excellent way to work towards class conscious, socialist thought.

In the second case, I see the establishment of a government that says that it is doing the best thing for it's people with the people's support. I see little oversite unless the administrators of the party are instantly re-callable by those below and every single person is in the party. Otherwise, the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie would have merely been taken over by the Dictatorship of the Administrative Officials.

I do not think that this is a false dichotomy due to my stipulation in the second case that both everyone is a member in the party and that the members that are supposed to represent the basic members are instantly re-callable.

These stipulations; however, are no different from the idea of nested councils, or are very very similar at least. This raises the question of whether or not the party is even necessary outside of an educational role for the public or an instigative one prior to the revolution.

The state is the intermediary between man and human liberty. ~ Marx

Red Aegis, as long as you have a state you need someone to lead the state affairs. You cannot have millions of people working over state affairs deciding what economic policy we should follow, which diplomatic options we should take, etc... That is why the people transfers its political legitimacy to political groups or movements and give them their support. Of course, you could disagree with some of the party options but as long as you identify yourself with the party's main policy elements i don't see any problem in letting the party lead the revolutionary process.

As you can see you will always need Administrative Officials or "bureaucrats" as long as you have a state. I don't regard it as a dictatorship of Bourgeoisie vs Dictatorship of the Administrative Officials, because the former is a social class and the late it isn't.

Comrade_Joe wrote:Red Aegis, as long as you have a state you need someone to lead the state affairs.

I don't want a state so you're logic does not apply.

You cannot have millions of people working over state affairs deciding what economic policy we should follow, which diplomatic options we should take, etc...

That's why I support nested councils. There's a thread dedicated to this.

That is why the people transfers its political legitimacy to political groups or movements and give them their support. Of course, you could disagree with some of the party options but as long as you identify yourself with the party's main policy elements i don't see any problem in letting the party lead the revolutionary process.

This is a false dichotomy as I have addressed methods that involve a democratic process instead of submission to a party. What happens to those who disagree with the Party I wonder?

As you can see you will always need Administrative Officials or "bureaucrats" as long as you have a state. I don't regard it as a dictatorship of Bourgeoisie vs Dictatorship of the Administrative Officials, because the former is a social class and the late it isn't.

I would argue that they are a new social class, as they have more power, influence, and and are easily recognized as different by ordinary workers.

Red Aegis wrote:I don't want a state so you're logic does not apply.

It's very difficult to argue against fantasy. Show me modern examples of societies without a state.

That's why I support nested councils. There's a thread dedicated to this.

Show me modern examples of nested councils.

This is a false dichotomy as I have addressed methods that involve a democratic process instead of submission to a party. What happens to those who disagree with the Party I wonder?

Those who disagree if they are a minority and can't make their views approved within the party can always abandon the party or movement.

I would argue that they are a new social class, as they have more power, influence, and and are easily recognized as different by ordinary workers.

Even inside the same social class you have some people with more influence and power than others. This doesn't mean that they aren't from the same class. You will always have some people with more power, influence and easily recognized as different by ordinary workers. The socialism doesn't destroy this but fights social inequalities and reduces it.

Once again, you always need someone to conduct the political affairs.

Comrade_Joe wrote:It's very difficult to argue against fantasy. Show me modern examples of societies without a state.

Communism hasn't existed yet either. Do you think that is a fantasy too?

Show me modern examples of nested councils.

Same as above.

Those who disagree if they are a minority and can't make their views approved within the party can always abandon the party or movement.

How are they able to let their voices known and would there be punishments for their disagreement?

Even inside the same social class you have some people with more influence and power than others. This doesn't mean that they aren't from the same class. You will always have some people with more power, influence and easily recognized as different by ordinary workers. The socialism doesn't destroy this but fights social inequalities and reduces it.

Social Class: A social class is a group of people of similar status, commonly sharing comparable levels of power and wealth. In sociology, social classes describe one form of social stratification. When a society is organized by social classes, as opposed to by castes, it is theoretically possible for people to attain a higher status than the status with which they started. This movement is possible because social classes are not based on birth but on factors such as education and professional success. For example, someone born into a low-income family can achieve a higher status through education, talent, and work, or perhaps through social connections. A society organized according to social classes, then, allows for some social mobility. ~ http://www.cramster.com/definitions/social-class/847

Those who are higher up in the party, if they receive any special privileges or more power than the people are by definition of a different class. Their class could control the fate of the nation if they are not democratically directly accountable.

Once again, you always need someone to conduct the political affairs.

Who says that I disagree?

Red Aegis wrote:Communism hasn't existed yet either. Do you think that is a fantasy too?

It's an ultimate goal but we need to go through some stages before. You cannot abolish the state overnight. That is what I call fantasy.
How you will work until you finally arrived the communist stage?

How are they able to let their voices known and would there be punishments for their disagreement?

I never talked about punishments. You need to have some support for your proposals, if you don't you go away. What would happen to a Nazi who joined an anarchist group? The group would accept, approve and promote his views in a "democratic" manner? No, what would happen is that he would be expelled from it or he would leave on its own. As you can see it's not different from another political group or movement.

Who says that I disagree?

You answered to yourself. If you agree that someone is needed to conduct the political affairs then you believe that someone needs to have more power and influence than the others.

But I say again that the differences are not so marked that you can really call it a social class distinction. Look for the middle class for instance. You have the upper middle class and the low middle class. You see, they are different but belong to the same class.

If the person is instantly recallable then that power is not able to maintain itself as those directly below are able to remove them from power at any point. That is not what it sounds like you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The political affairs can be handled without any dogma. The only thing that should affect people's voting is reason and compassion. Dogma has no place in a rational nation.

Also, there should be a fair and equally powerful method for those of dissenting views to assert their opinions. If the state is the party and a person disapproves, you provide them the option of leaving the party. That's all well and good but that person has even less of a voice than before. Let's say that a community wanted to end the state's power over them and set up a Trotskyist style system. Would your state allow that even though it would view it as reactionary? Or, would your state see such a development as a threat and 'end' it?

My previous post was mess because of the quotes. I don't know if you were able to see my answers between them. I've already corrected it.

You still haven't replied yet.

Red Aegis wrote:If the person is instantly recallable then that power is not able to maintain itself as those directly below are able to remove them from power at any point. That is not what it sounds like you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The political affairs can be handled without any dogma. The only thing that should affect people's voting is reason and compassion. Dogma has no place in a rational nation.

Also, there should be a fair and equally powerful method for those of dissenting views to assert their opinions. If the state is the party and a person disapproves, you provide them the option of leaving the party. That's all well and good but that person has even less of a voice than before. Let's say that a community wanted to end the state's power over them and set up a Trotskyist style system. Would your state allow that even though it would view it as reactionary? Or, would your state see such a development as a threat and 'end' it?

If a person don't corresponds to the political needs of the people anymore then it should be removed from his position, that is what i am saying.

The marxism is not a dogma like the Bible or something but rather a scientific analysis of the world's material evolution and its components (political, economic,social). It is a rational ideology with rational aims. By the way, are you Marxist?

If the person doesn't have some major support behind it will be very hard to impose his view in any society, not only in a socialist one. They can always move to some other place where the socialist state isn't present and try to live their ideals there. Regarding your Trotskyist example, I think that the Socialist State shouldn't let other systems to be implemented alongside the main one because it would distort the economic process and subsequently the revolutionary process.

Comrade_Joe wrote:If a person don't corresponds to the political needs of the people anymore then it should be removed from his position, that is what i am saying.

I fully agree, but I'm saying that they should be removable specifically by the people through direct voting. Do you support this?

The marxism is not a dogma like the Bible or something but rather a scientific analysis of the world's material evolution and its components (political, economic,social). It is a rational ideology with rational aims. By the way, are you Marxist?

I agree with you here and do consider myself a Marxist.

If the person doesn't have some major support behind it will be very hard to impose his view in any society, not only in a socialist one. They can always move to some other place where the socialist state isn't present and try to live their ideals there.

That doesn't sound fair to exile people with different views than you.

Regarding your Trotskyist example, I think that the Socialist State shouldn't let other systems to be implemented alongside the main one because it would distort the economic process and subsequently the revolutionary process.

So how are you saying that this group that has a right to live where they are born should be 'taken care of'.

Red Aegis wrote:That doesn't sound fair to exile people with different views than you.

Is not a question of fairness but economic possibilities. How you can run two different economic systems within the same country? If you are sub represented by the people and out of power how you will you impose your own political or economic option? In the same country only through a coup... But this is not new to you. In the other night you recognized that Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a democracy...