No? The transitional argument is that communism requires both highly developed productive forces, and collectivization of all of these highly developed productive forces. The socialist transitional period requires intense development of underdeveloped production, as well as building the necessary administration for planned economy, both of which take time.
The idea of “bigdaddy” is nonsense, and isn’t found in either Marxism-Leninism in theory or in practice. There has not been a ceding of control to socialist leadership, but instead an expansion of democratization to the working classes, historically. The idea that MLs want a big strongman to push a button and delete all administration is a farce of both socialist construction and what communism looks like, as communism retains administration.
Utopia is also not promised, Marxists rail against utopianism.
Please be serious here, throughout your comments here you’ve done nothing but demonstrate a lack of care for the subject matter and wax poetic about lottery-voting while ignoring the crux of the argument.
I simply argue that a single party with unilateral control creates a totalitarian dictatorial state. and totalitarian states lead to accelerated suffering.
I also argue this is true for two party systems. and proposes a system based on demographic representation with a safe guard to remove bad actors from political power.
under my proposal, the state could choose to take control over the means of production if enough people chose. I welcome new forms of political ideas, not single minded adherence to party dogma.
and ‘waxing poetic’ would require me to be much less specific than I have been.
you are waxing poetic with these strange, shifting and amorphous ideas of “class”, and “transitional periods” while providing no concrete roadmap for how unilateral single party control of a state elevates the workers to control over the means of production.
in reality it simply shifts control over the means of production to cronyism.
single-party rule creates a party-class and a working class, and the party-class is in no way beholden to the working class.
Nobody is arguing for a party to have unilateral and unaccountable power. You are deeply confusing how unitary socialist democracy works by alienating the party from the rest of the people, and drawing a hard line between democratic participation in society and the party itself.
Class is not shifting or amorphous. Class is a social relation to ownership of the means of production.
Capitalists own the means of production individually.
Workers sell their labor power.
In socialism, workers jointly own the means of production.
You are confusing the type of labor with class itself, which makes it amorphous.
Transition is also not shifting or amorphous. Between capitalism, where there is privatized means of production, and communism, where all production is planned and socially owned, is a period where the means of production need to be advanced enough to accommodate social planning, and administration needs to be advanced enough to facilitate it.
You keep separating the party from the people by erasing their shared relations to ownership of the means of production. The party is of, by, and for the working class, and is accountable to the rest of the working class.
“advanced enough to accommodate social planning, and administration needs to be advanced enough to facilitate it.”
-what qualifies as advanced enough? that is amorphous.
“You keep separating the party from the people by erasing their shared relations to ownership of the means of production. The party is of, by, and for the working class, and is accountable to the rest of the working class.”
-no the party is separating the party from the people by removing any means of peaceful transition of power except through mandatory, open poll, party controlled elections of exclusively party members and through strict control of party membership.
Regarding how advanced production needs to be for social planning, it must not be an impedement for production. Essentially, by the point that decentralized production has transitioned to monopoly, markets have played their role. That’s why in a socialist country like China, the commanding heights are socially owned, while for developing industries these are privately owned to a large degree. At the monopoly level, privatization impedes progress.
As for your bit on political parties, you’re continuing to argue against a caricature you invented in your head. Nobody has stated that elections must be controlled or exclusively of party membership. You have to argue against a strawman, because your point collapses when confronted with reality.
“As for your bit on political parties, you’re continuing to argue against a caricature you invented in your head. Nobody has stated that elections must be controlled or exclusively of party membership. You have to argue against a strawman, because your point collapses when confronted with reality.”
then please enlighten me how communist elections should work, because in China and the Soviet union candidates must be approved by the communist party.
“Please be serious.” you do not need to deride me just because we disagree. it shows a lack of maturity.
You can read Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance if you want to understand how socialist democracy actually works in real life. Recall elections are common protections, and candidates usually do not need to be approved by the communist party to be elected. This has varied throughout history, but in any case you are deeply misinformed, this isn’t simple disagreement.
Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:
Page# 178 - Soviet Union
“The
subsequent articles in this chapter spell out what each of these terms
meant in practice, including the process of nominating candidates, who
would come from “public organisations and societies of the working
people: Communist Party organisations, trade unions, cooperatives,
youth organisations and cultural societies” (Supreme Soviet 1936a,
article 141, 1936b, stat’ia 141).”
Page# 181 - Soviet Union
“The drive for electoral democracy did not long live up to its lofty
aims, with the most embarrassing retreat being from multi-candidate
contested elections to single-candidate elections. At the same time,
there was an even greater effort to ensure democratic accountability
through elections internal to the Party.”
page# 208 - DPRK
“there are also distinct emphases in light of the DPRK’s
concrete conditions. In terms of electoral democracy: while there is
only one decision-making body, the Supreme People’s Assembly (along
with regional people’s assemblies), there is also the Democratic Front
for the Reunification of the Fatherland. This is not a governing body per
se, but it plays a crucial role in the electoral process. Made up of all
political parties, mass organisations, and religious groups, it proposes
multiple candidates, debates their suitability, and approves one
candidate for elections.”
Page# 379 - China
“Election to the position of Party branch secretary takes place at a
plenary or general members meeting, although the election also needs
to be approved by the regional Party committee”
Regarding the USSR, they pivoted to a system of approval voting. Candidates were selected through consensus, and voted on accordingly, rather than in contested elections.
Regarding the DPRK, candidates are selected through consensus, then approved or not.
Regarding the PRC, you are writing about an internal party election, rather than a broader societal election.
Please be serious and read the book, rather than quote farming. You’re already misrepresenting and misinterpreting the book.
No? The transitional argument is that communism requires both highly developed productive forces, and collectivization of all of these highly developed productive forces. The socialist transitional period requires intense development of underdeveloped production, as well as building the necessary administration for planned economy, both of which take time.
The idea of “bigdaddy” is nonsense, and isn’t found in either Marxism-Leninism in theory or in practice. There has not been a ceding of control to socialist leadership, but instead an expansion of democratization to the working classes, historically. The idea that MLs want a big strongman to push a button and delete all administration is a farce of both socialist construction and what communism looks like, as communism retains administration.
Utopia is also not promised, Marxists rail against utopianism.
Please be serious here, throughout your comments here you’ve done nothing but demonstrate a lack of care for the subject matter and wax poetic about lottery-voting while ignoring the crux of the argument.
I simply argue that a single party with unilateral control creates a totalitarian dictatorial state. and totalitarian states lead to accelerated suffering.
I also argue this is true for two party systems. and proposes a system based on demographic representation with a safe guard to remove bad actors from political power. under my proposal, the state could choose to take control over the means of production if enough people chose. I welcome new forms of political ideas, not single minded adherence to party dogma.
and ‘waxing poetic’ would require me to be much less specific than I have been.
you are waxing poetic with these strange, shifting and amorphous ideas of “class”, and “transitional periods” while providing no concrete roadmap for how unilateral single party control of a state elevates the workers to control over the means of production.
in reality it simply shifts control over the means of production to cronyism. single-party rule creates a party-class and a working class, and the party-class is in no way beholden to the working class.
Nobody is arguing for a party to have unilateral and unaccountable power. You are deeply confusing how unitary socialist democracy works by alienating the party from the rest of the people, and drawing a hard line between democratic participation in society and the party itself.
Class is not shifting or amorphous. Class is a social relation to ownership of the means of production.
Capitalists own the means of production individually.
Workers sell their labor power.
In socialism, workers jointly own the means of production.
You are confusing the type of labor with class itself, which makes it amorphous.
Transition is also not shifting or amorphous. Between capitalism, where there is privatized means of production, and communism, where all production is planned and socially owned, is a period where the means of production need to be advanced enough to accommodate social planning, and administration needs to be advanced enough to facilitate it.
You keep separating the party from the people by erasing their shared relations to ownership of the means of production. The party is of, by, and for the working class, and is accountable to the rest of the working class.
“advanced enough to accommodate social planning, and administration needs to be advanced enough to facilitate it.” -what qualifies as advanced enough? that is amorphous. “You keep separating the party from the people by erasing their shared relations to ownership of the means of production. The party is of, by, and for the working class, and is accountable to the rest of the working class.” -no the party is separating the party from the people by removing any means of peaceful transition of power except through mandatory, open poll, party controlled elections of exclusively party members and through strict control of party membership.
Regarding how advanced production needs to be for social planning, it must not be an impedement for production. Essentially, by the point that decentralized production has transitioned to monopoly, markets have played their role. That’s why in a socialist country like China, the commanding heights are socially owned, while for developing industries these are privately owned to a large degree. At the monopoly level, privatization impedes progress.
As for your bit on political parties, you’re continuing to argue against a caricature you invented in your head. Nobody has stated that elections must be controlled or exclusively of party membership. You have to argue against a strawman, because your point collapses when confronted with reality.
Please be serious.
“As for your bit on political parties, you’re continuing to argue against a caricature you invented in your head. Nobody has stated that elections must be controlled or exclusively of party membership. You have to argue against a strawman, because your point collapses when confronted with reality.”
“Please be serious.” you do not need to deride me just because we disagree. it shows a lack of maturity.
You can read Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance if you want to understand how socialist democracy actually works in real life. Recall elections are common protections, and candidates usually do not need to be approved by the communist party to be elected. This has varied throughout history, but in any case you are deeply misinformed, this isn’t simple disagreement.
Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance:
Page# 178 - Soviet Union “The subsequent articles in this chapter spell out what each of these terms meant in practice, including the process of nominating candidates, who would come from “public organisations and societies of the working people: Communist Party organisations, trade unions, cooperatives, youth organisations and cultural societies” (Supreme Soviet 1936a, article 141, 1936b, stat’ia 141).”
Page# 181 - Soviet Union “The drive for electoral democracy did not long live up to its lofty aims, with the most embarrassing retreat being from multi-candidate contested elections to single-candidate elections. At the same time, there was an even greater effort to ensure democratic accountability through elections internal to the Party.”
page# 208 - DPRK “there are also distinct emphases in light of the DPRK’s concrete conditions. In terms of electoral democracy: while there is only one decision-making body, the Supreme People’s Assembly (along with regional people’s assemblies), there is also the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland. This is not a governing body per se, but it plays a crucial role in the electoral process. Made up of all political parties, mass organisations, and religious groups, it proposes multiple candidates, debates their suitability, and approves one candidate for elections.”
Page# 379 - China “Election to the position of Party branch secretary takes place at a plenary or general members meeting, although the election also needs to be approved by the regional Party committee”
Regarding the USSR, they pivoted to a system of approval voting. Candidates were selected through consensus, and voted on accordingly, rather than in contested elections.
Regarding the DPRK, candidates are selected through consensus, then approved or not.
Regarding the PRC, you are writing about an internal party election, rather than a broader societal election.
Please be serious and read the book, rather than quote farming. You’re already misrepresenting and misinterpreting the book.