• wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    All of this sounds at odds with representative democracy. What political system would you see working with socialism as you describe it?

    • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Representative “democracy” alienates the common man from the political process while maintaining a semblance of democracy. For this reason it is the ideal political form for capitalism, an economic system which alienates power from the masses and concentrates it in the hands of a few.

      Class interests are the primary axis on which all political activity turns. Getting the working class to vote does not help them, it helps those in power.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Representation is necessary as a matter of scale, though. There are other issues with small r republicanism that are more specifically nefarious, like the legalization of bribery, the tilting of power towards land owners via the senate, etc.

        • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          With modern technology I wonder how necessary representative style governments really are. Electronic voting already exists and works quite well, and is probably the most secure form of voting as long as it can be audited. Of course, at some point administration has to come down to individuals, but as long as those individuals are held accountable in some way then it seems that the actual democratic step (i.e. voting on policy) need not be mediated through representatives as is oft repeated to justify the status quo.

          You might have been referring to this with republicanism, but there are different types of representation, too. Parliamentary democracies are not obligated to obey the wishes of their subjects, whereas soviet (council) democracies are a form of direct democracy, where representatives are merely delegates and are obligated to obey/communicate the wishes of their subjects. In my comment above I had in mind the parliamentary type, since that is the kind in which there is a buffer between citizens and political institutions which is used by the bourgeoisie to suppress changes which would undermine capital.

        • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          First step is abolishing wage labor and private property. Transitional political forms take on some form of direct democracy, probably something similar to soviet councils.

    • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      What about the absolute lack of “representative democracy” we experience under capitalism?

      I’d argue that the capitalist system is more at odds with representative democracy than other systems mentioned. Most workers have no say in what is produced, who produces it, how they are paid, how much products are sold for, etc. Instead, we end up with figurehead CEO’s and nameless investors making all of those decisions, and of course they do everything to minimize costs, maximize profits, and disempower workers so that they can collect billions of dollars at the expense of the workers who actually make their companies run. If we had representative democracy do you think we’d have billionaires?

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Literally “whataboutism”.

        I’m not interested in how the current system is broken. That’s obvious. What do you have in it’s place?

        • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Whataboutism is a meaningless brainworm which the user invokes in order to ignore their own cognitive dissonance and inconsistent standards. You cry “whataboutism” when @[email protected] was correct to point out your own double standard. “All of this sounds at odds with representative democracy” implies that you believe genuine democracy is something we currently stand to lose.

          What you need to understand is that Marxists are not interested in imposing utopian futures on the world. “What do you have in its place?” is the wrong question. Better questions: What currently prevents genuine democracy? What are the material conditions which both produce and maintain it? Then you get to work on changing those material conditions and removing the real basis which produces the problems.

        • very_poggers_gay [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Richard Wolff, a prominent marxist academic, talks often about a socialist system where democracy is employed in the workplace. He focuses less on reforms or abolition at the state/government-level, and instead emphasizes the bottom-up changes that giving workers power and agency (i.e., making it so workers at all levels are involved in the decision-making process of the companies that require their labour) provides. He has a youtube channel and podcast called “Democracy at Work” that provides great introductions to how he views things, and he has worthwhile podcast appearances on other podcasts like Lex Fridman’s, for example.

          Consider how impactful countries like Wal-Mart or Amazon are in our daily lives. Their economic throughputs are larger than all but a few countries in the world, and their workforce populations are also larger than many countries. Clearly they aren’t organized as representative democracies?

          Another question I wonder related to this, is what exactly makes “representative democracy” the gold standard? Is it even the gold standard?

          • wewbull@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks for the answer. I consider myself a SocDem, at least in some areas, so what you describe sounds interesting. I can see the benefit of shared ownership and cooperatives, and wish we had more of them. So what you’re describing doesn’t sound alien.

            I’m surprised at your highlighting of Amazon and Wal-Mart. You’re right, they are not democracies, but I think many would point to them as some of the worst examples of capitalism. In addition the reason they are so bad is because (Amazon in particular) is run as a dictatorship with a high level of exploitation of those at the bottom. Bezos is in control, and the workers have no say.

            To your final question, I think the only thing that makes me view representative democracy in any kind of positive light is that everything else appears to be even more awful. Most people seem to head either towards a dictator who does the right thing (Ok there Anakin) or anarchy. Both are horrible. So until I hear a better idea, rep-dem for me.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The people en-masse being in control. Representative democracy, by it’s nature, creates a “ruling class”, the representatives. Only a direct democracy asks the people what they think of each and every issue, but that is impractical in my opinion.

        …and I don’t feel that leaders of state owned capital are particularly any different from leaders of privately owned capital. Both are individuals in privileged positions of power that work to maintain themselves above the workers. To me it’s not the ownership that matters but the fact you have a ruling class at all.

        Hence, what political system is required for a truly equal society?

        • ThereRisesARedStar [she/her, they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The people en-masse being in control. Representative democracy, by it’s nature, creates a “ruling class”, the representatives. Only a direct democracy asks the people what they think of each and every issue, but that is impractical in my opinion.

          No, that’s just our government/s. You can have representative democracy where representatives are beholden to their constituents, and where they are easily recallable if they do not follow those interests to a T. This is one of the many reforms socialists want to make to the democratic process.

          …and I don’t feel that leaders of state owned capital are particularly any different from leaders of privately owned capital. Both are individuals in privileged positions of power that work to maintain themselves above the workers. To me it’s not the ownership that matters but the fact you have a ruling class at all.

          Genuinely no offense but this is a position born of ignorance. Under a democratically run state economy the representatives only get rich through corruption. Under capitalism the owners get rich through the extraction of surplus labor value and the politicians in their pockets get rich through corruption.

          Corruption is a drop in the bucket compared to surplus labor value theft. Compare how wealthy Pelosi is to how wealthy Jeff Bezos or Elon musk are. And people like Pelosi are only that rich because of insider trading, which couldn’t exist under socialism.