The fact that there are not two classes in communism is the primary reason. When you don’t have a powerful minority with opposed interests to those of the powerless majority, the majority becomes powerful.
Right, you say that, and that’s a lovely aspiration, but how is it implemented? I don’t have a magic wand here that eliminates class, but even if I did, how do you prevent demagogues from influencing the majority? Erasing established power at one point in time does not prevent it from rising again in a new form. You’re just trading capital interest for charismatic manipulation.
Now you have a system with class interests + charismatic manipulation. I want to move to a system with only charismatic manipulation. That would already be significantly better, and I have no answer as to how to remove charismatic manipulation politically
Erasing established power at one point in time does not prevent it from rising again in a new form
By changing the material and historical conditions you can change that, though. Europe has spent centuries without slavery or absolutist monarchy within its borders, because the material conditions that favored such regimes have expired. The material conditions enabling capitalism class society are also expiring.
Expiring how long did it take Europe to shed absolute monarchism? Centuries. And power emerged in new forms, like I said.
New, stable forms of organizing civilization take generations to establish. I’m all for representation, but let’s not pretend that past implementations of the “people’s democracy” were free from corruption. The USSR was a nice idea, but it took less than half a century for it to succumb to bureaucratic corruption. Arguably, it was even deeper autocratic corruption than in Western democracies.
I just don’t see a meaningful difference. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to change the landscape of our existing system with massive leftist voter turnout. We could achieve, incrementally, the same results as through toppling and rebuilding society. And as difficult as that would be, it would be less difficult than toppling and rebuilding society, with the added benefit of avoiding extremely corruptible power vacuums.
how long did it take Europe to shed absolute monarchism? Centuries
Yes, but history progresses at accelerating rates as societies develop. Humanity spent tens of thousands of years being hunters-gatherers, the neolithic and agricultural revolution brought forth much faster changes, then feudalism, and ultimately capitalism and the industrial revolution.
The USSR was a nice idea, but it took less than half a century for it to succumb to bureaucratic corruption
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, care to explain?
Arguably, it was even deeper autocratic corruption than in Western democracies.
Only arguably so if you go against material evidence, in my opinion. Universal free healthcare and education to the highest level, guaranteed right to housing, abolishment of unemployment, high level of worker rights, respect and promotion of the local cultures and languages to an extent unparalleled until that point in history, women’s rights (more Soviet female engineers by the 1960s than in the rest of the world combined and highest rates of female representation in organs of power), extremely high rates of unionization, quality of public transit and urban planning… None of that points, in my opinion, towards deep autocratic corruption. If there had been a deep autocratic corrupted regime, politicians would have had higher wages than professors of universities, artists or researchers, wealth inequality wouldn’t have been the historical lowest in the region and the lowest in the world. So, what do you mean by autocratic corruption?
We could achieve, incrementally, the same results as through toppling and rebuilding society
That’s not how historically systems have changed. The owning class will not let you remove exploitation by voting, in as much as the kings and queens of old went through the guillotine to remove them from power. When you get massive leftist voter turnout, you either get an Allende situation (I’m Spanish, we had a similar thing during the Second Spanish Republic in 1936), or a Syriza situation, historically. You can also check the case of Mosaddeq in Iran for that matter, the list is endless. The western global empire won’t allow a peaceful, democratic transition to socialism.
You’ll need to educate yourself on the history of socialist states yourself, I can’t do that for you.
I asked because you said there were multiple variations.
I ask because the qualifications seem to be more idealistic and aspirational than mechanistic. None of the descriptions I’ve seen present significant obstacles to the corruption that plagues our current system. A “solemn declaration” doesn’t do much against emergent behavior. The founding fathers were against political parties too, that didn’t prevent them.
Every system is corruptible. The form of corruption changes to suit the underlying system, but given enough time every system can be compromised. Even pure direct democracy can be manipulated by popular demagogues.
I’m asking, specifically, what part of whichever variation of a “people’s democracy” you specifically have in mind makes that democracy invulnerable to corruption and manipulation? Not intentions, but actual structural features.
That’s not smug or rhetorical, I’m legitimately curious. If I’m mistaken, and there is some fundamental property that achieves what I’m asking, I’d like nothing more than to know what it is.
You’re asking a question with a loaded premise, no system is immune to problems like corruption. At the same time, the various systems of socialist democracy have been far better than capitalist democracy, and the reasoning common to all is that the working class is in control, rather than capitalists. Structure varies from state to state, but having a system where the input and direction of the working class is paramount is far superior to capitalist democracy.
In capitalism, it’s democracy for the capitalists, dictatorship for the workers, in socialism it’s democracy for the workers, dictatorship for the capitalists.
There’s a lot of research and reading you can do on how socialist states function, and a lot we can learn from them.
And what is the difference that makes it invulnerable to the weaknesses encountered in bourgeois parliamentarianism?
The fact that there are not two classes in communism is the primary reason. When you don’t have a powerful minority with opposed interests to those of the powerless majority, the majority becomes powerful.
Right, you say that, and that’s a lovely aspiration, but how is it implemented? I don’t have a magic wand here that eliminates class, but even if I did, how do you prevent demagogues from influencing the majority? Erasing established power at one point in time does not prevent it from rising again in a new form. You’re just trading capital interest for charismatic manipulation.
Now you have a system with class interests + charismatic manipulation. I want to move to a system with only charismatic manipulation. That would already be significantly better, and I have no answer as to how to remove charismatic manipulation politically
By changing the material and historical conditions you can change that, though. Europe has spent centuries without slavery or absolutist monarchy within its borders, because the material conditions that favored such regimes have expired. The material conditions enabling capitalism class society are also expiring.
Expiring how long did it take Europe to shed absolute monarchism? Centuries. And power emerged in new forms, like I said.
New, stable forms of organizing civilization take generations to establish. I’m all for representation, but let’s not pretend that past implementations of the “people’s democracy” were free from corruption. The USSR was a nice idea, but it took less than half a century for it to succumb to bureaucratic corruption. Arguably, it was even deeper autocratic corruption than in Western democracies.
I just don’t see a meaningful difference. It would be difficult, but not impossible, to change the landscape of our existing system with massive leftist voter turnout. We could achieve, incrementally, the same results as through toppling and rebuilding society. And as difficult as that would be, it would be less difficult than toppling and rebuilding society, with the added benefit of avoiding extremely corruptible power vacuums.
Yes, but history progresses at accelerating rates as societies develop. Humanity spent tens of thousands of years being hunters-gatherers, the neolithic and agricultural revolution brought forth much faster changes, then feudalism, and ultimately capitalism and the industrial revolution.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about, care to explain?
Only arguably so if you go against material evidence, in my opinion. Universal free healthcare and education to the highest level, guaranteed right to housing, abolishment of unemployment, high level of worker rights, respect and promotion of the local cultures and languages to an extent unparalleled until that point in history, women’s rights (more Soviet female engineers by the 1960s than in the rest of the world combined and highest rates of female representation in organs of power), extremely high rates of unionization, quality of public transit and urban planning… None of that points, in my opinion, towards deep autocratic corruption. If there had been a deep autocratic corrupted regime, politicians would have had higher wages than professors of universities, artists or researchers, wealth inequality wouldn’t have been the historical lowest in the region and the lowest in the world. So, what do you mean by autocratic corruption?
That’s not how historically systems have changed. The owning class will not let you remove exploitation by voting, in as much as the kings and queens of old went through the guillotine to remove them from power. When you get massive leftist voter turnout, you either get an Allende situation (I’m Spanish, we had a similar thing during the Second Spanish Republic in 1936), or a Syriza situation, historically. You can also check the case of Mosaddeq in Iran for that matter, the list is endless. The western global empire won’t allow a peaceful, democratic transition to socialism.
You’ll need to educate yourself on the history of socialist states yourself, I can’t do that for you.
A good place to start is the PRC’s five dont’s, a list of things to avoid at all costs from bourgeois democracy.
I asked because you said there were multiple variations.
I ask because the qualifications seem to be more idealistic and aspirational than mechanistic. None of the descriptions I’ve seen present significant obstacles to the corruption that plagues our current system. A “solemn declaration” doesn’t do much against emergent behavior. The founding fathers were against political parties too, that didn’t prevent them.
Every system is corruptible. The form of corruption changes to suit the underlying system, but given enough time every system can be compromised. Even pure direct democracy can be manipulated by popular demagogues.
I’m asking, specifically, what part of whichever variation of a “people’s democracy” you specifically have in mind makes that democracy invulnerable to corruption and manipulation? Not intentions, but actual structural features.
That’s not smug or rhetorical, I’m legitimately curious. If I’m mistaken, and there is some fundamental property that achieves what I’m asking, I’d like nothing more than to know what it is.
You’re asking a question with a loaded premise, no system is immune to problems like corruption. At the same time, the various systems of socialist democracy have been far better than capitalist democracy, and the reasoning common to all is that the working class is in control, rather than capitalists. Structure varies from state to state, but having a system where the input and direction of the working class is paramount is far superior to capitalist democracy.
In capitalism, it’s democracy for the capitalists, dictatorship for the workers, in socialism it’s democracy for the workers, dictatorship for the capitalists.
There’s a lot of research and reading you can do on how socialist states function, and a lot we can learn from them.