From: Jim Devine me: > To the extent that these folks see themselves as socialist, they > equate socialism with state ownership and/or control of the means of > production, missing or minimizing the need for popular-democratic > control of the state.
CB: > Marx, who saw himself as a socialist, emphasized abolishing > private property and replacing private appropriation with social > appropriation, and to each according to work, as characteristics of > socialism. JD: As scientists say, that's necessary but not sufficient. In any event, I wasn't talking about Marx, a champion of socialist democracy, but people like Paul Baran. ^^^^^ CB: Marx , the champion of socialist democracy, seems to see these as sufficient conditions for socialism. He calls the working class as the ruling class "democracy"; he coined and claimed credit for originating concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. ^^^^^ CB:> Marx and Engels succinctly ?define democracy as the working class as > the ruling class. In other words, the old USSR did not have democracy. ^^^^ CB: No, in other words , the young and old USSR did take a giant step into democracy. The working class was represented by the Soviet state in taking a giant step toward social appropriation. ^^^^^ Nor has China had democracy. In neither case have the working classes (proletarians and peasants) been the ruling class. ^^^^^ CB: No in both cases, in the Marxist sense, there were significant steps into democracy compared with the societies overthrown and compared to capitalist countries ^^^^^^^ > With modern mass societies, only republican or representative > democratic control of the state, and through that ownership of the > basic means of production and planning the giant economy, ?is feasible > and viable. It is not feasible to have direct democratic control by > tens of millions of workers. I didn't say anything about "direct democracy." That's a red herring. ^^^^^ CB: Well, it's a red analysis, more like a red dolphin. The Soviet state represented the working class very essentially in taking a big step into social appropriation and away from private appropriation ( private property) Marx's sense of democracy. ^^^^^^^ In any event, democracy (i.e., "popular-democratic control of the state") does not involve a monopoly political party that controls state power (the means of coercion), along with the media, to maintain rule without significant control by the people they rule. ^^^^^ CB: In Marx and Engels' sense, democacy certainly can involve one party. They don't equate pluralism with democracy. Marx and Engels thought of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the most advanced level of democracy, the form in which the working class exercised its rule as ruling class. Doesn't make sense to exercise the dictatorship of the proletariat in multiple parties. Even the bourgeois ideologist Madison eschewed "factions" ,multiple parties. Of course, he was setting up the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As it has turned out, the US and other bourgeois have used multiple parties to their advantage in exercising their dictatorship. ^^^^ So the old USSR was not and the "People's Republic" of China has not been democratic. ^^^^ CB: Well, they took big steps into democracy in the sense that Marx and Engels use the term. ^^^^^ You can call those places "socialist" if you want, but it's a bureaucratic/authoritarian socialism, not a democratic sort. It's the kind where the rulers can accumulate power over the ruled. ^^^^^^^ CB: For Marx and Engels, materialists, the first thing to look at is material appropriation, social or private , in measuring what is democratic. If state power is exercised to create social appropriation against private appropriation, it's moving in a democratic way, in the Marxist sense. ^^^^ One example of the absence of democracy in the old USSR is that the ruling class's main organization (the CP, merged with the state) was able to abolish the old "socialist" system without any kind of consent from the workers. ^^^^^^^ CB: This is not a Marxist way to understand it. Plus, it is not accurate that there was _no_ "consent" from the workers. The idea that there was no mass popularity of the decisions and actions of the CPSU is ridiculous. me: > ?(Sometimes they seem to assume that workers' > control of the state prevails -- despite the clear lack of democracy > -- perhaps due to the alleged ability of the CP to know and act on > workers' long-term interests while ignoring its own collective > interests and its members' individual interests.). CB: > Isn't most of the population in China peasants ? ?Democracy as > majority rule in that circumstance would be peasants' control of the > state. This is a quibble. After all, peasants are workers (direct producers) too. Often, they're not proletarians (wage-earners). ^^^^^ CB: Marx and Engels used "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a reason; and had the original precise meaning of "proletarian". They considered proletarians more advanced in consciousness than peasants. Of course, the Soviets developed the unity of the hammer and sickle. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
