Elections in Proletariat Dictorships?

[the_legion]

If Stalin would have lost to Trotsky, it is entirely possible that the SU would have become a totalitarian democracy, with a democratic structure within the one and only legal party. Not quite multi-party liberal democracy, but not Stalinist dictatorship either.

If Stalin had lost against Trotzki, then Trotzki would have become the dictator. The main thing that divided the 2 was that a) Trotzki wanted an instant world revolution and b) they both wanted to come into power. Don't fool youself about 'good communists' that could have made utopia. It's like believing in Santa ...

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Believing that there are people who don't grab dictatorial power even if they can is equivalent with believing in a fairy tale character? Right

The only thing comparable to believing in Santa is a belief in some metaphysical force that magically transforms people into wannabe dictators the moment they embrace Communism.

 

[Nikolai]

Man is weak.

 

[telesien]

It is not about man wanting something. It is about the nature of every political extreme. It must end in dictatorship. That is absolutely inevitable and I don't see any reason why to implement something strictly temporary at best.

 

[KonradRichtmark]

Extremism isn't an absolute, but a matter of perspective relative to context, thus the causation you claim to be inevitable is bogus. Many self-evident aspects of modern liberal democracy would have been considered extremist three centuries ago.

 

[Gen.Armando]

Believing that there are people who don't grab dictatorial power even if they can is equivalent with believing in a fairy tale character? Right

The only thing comparable to believing in Santa is a belief in some metaphysical force that magically transforms people into wannabe dictators the moment they embrace Communism.

I'd suggest Hanna Arendt's Origins of Totalitarism as a lecture.

In my humble opinion, I do not believe in a "metaphysical force that magically transforms people into wannabe dictators the moment they embrace Communism"

I believe in studying the institutions. And the institutions made it so that when power is centralized and is not kept in check, dictatorial tendencies occur. The proper idea of communism is totalitarian in the sense that it aims to reform every aspect of society.

This is where the difference lies to me, social-democracy is viable on the long term, while "wannabe communist" regimes rely on maintaining a statu quo to survive.

I agree with you that extremism is an empty term to which I prefer using totalitarian in Arendt's definition.

 

[telesien]

Extremism isn't an absolute, but a matter of perspective relative to context, thus the causation you claim to be inevitable is bogus. Many self-evident aspects of modern liberal democracy would have been considered extremist three centuries ago.

Well I am sure most of the people will find certain difference between movement that want to give certain political power to everyone and movement that wants to make complex socio-economical changes and proclaims need for revolution. Every revolution aiming for such deeds, although noble they may be, will find itself in shambles. You see when you create something through power and violence, the people ending on top will be predominantly people who are good at cousing violence and who want power. In time it is inevitable that one of them will become the most powerful of all. That is the way both french and russian revolution ended up badly for those who have started it.
The second viewpoint, extreme leftist in government through elections, can be seen in Spain, where alliance of various political and social background gathered against them and their policy.
I really don't see how any party aiming for heavy influence over everday live of all people in the same way as communists do can survive in real democracy.

 

[Garak]

Well I am sure most of the people will find certain difference between movement that want to give certain political power to everyone and movement that wants to make complex socio-economical changes and proclaims need for revolution. Every revolution aiming for such deeds, although noble they may be, will find itself in shambles. You see when you create something through power and violence, the people ending on top will be predominantly people who are good at cousing violence and who want power. In time it is inevitable that one of them will become the most powerful of all. That is the way both french and russian revolution ended up badly for those who have started it.
The second viewpoint, extreme leftist in government through elections, can be seen in Spain, where alliance of various political and social background gathered against them and their policy.
I really don't see how any party aiming for heavy influence over everday live of all people in the same way as communists do can survive in real democracy.

I'm inclined to agree with you overall, but I think it's fair to point out that extreme leftists aren't the only ones who seek such influence over the personal lives of the public.

 

[Vox Imperatoris]

I'm inclined to agree with you overall, but I think it's fair to point out that extreme leftists aren't the only ones who seek such influence over the personal lives of the public.

Sure. Actually, I wouldn't say that "extremist" governments as such cause dictatorship, but rather the centralization of extreme powers in the state with no checks and balances. It doesn't matter if a Communist government controls that power, a Theocratic government, or even a Centrist government—people are going to want to use that power, and those will be precisely the kind of people who will get it. That is, even if the people in power don't have an extreme agenda, their extreme powers are an appealing target the people who do. Take the Shah of Iran: he was more of a playboy than a radical extremist, but he was pushed to use harsh crackdowns against the Islamists who opposed his unlimited rule, and once they got in power they turned out worse.

 

[Colon]

More basically, people in a position in which they have to make decisions naturally seek more freedom from oversight and greater jurisdiction. Usually this is without malign intent, but the result of a desire to do their job more effectively. It could be in government, but also in bureaucracy, business or elsewhere. For instance take Rafael Benitez' (a football manager) fight with Liverpool FC's owners to control transfer policy of players.
In Western liberal democracies this desire is mostly controlled by a system of balances and checks. Thus to blame the USSR lurch towards totalitarianism (even ignoring the secret service's gruesome methods under Lenin) solely on the personality of Stalin is much too easy. The system clearly was lacking counterweighs to prevent the rise of such a madman and if it hadn't been him it probably would have been someone else.

It's also hard to see how you can have a proper democracy if all candidates must ascribe to a specific ideology. It's what they've been trying in Iran's Islamic Republic as well, by vetting candidates for their adherence to revolutionary ideals and recent events have proven what kind of a sham democracy you get as a result. Neat in theory, extremely messy in practice.

 

[Vox Imperatoris]

More basically, people in a position in which they have to make decisions naturally seek more freedom from oversight and greater jurisdiction. Usually this is without malign intent, but the result of a desire to do their job more effectively.

Totally right. Nobody likes to have people with clipboards looking over his shoulder, including the officials to whom the clipboard-people report.

 

[Garak]

Sure. Actually, I wouldn't say that "extremist" governments as such cause dictatorship, but rather the centralization of extreme powers in the state with no checks and balances. It doesn't matter if a Communist government controls that power, a Theocratic government, or even a Centrist government—people are going to want to use that power, and those will be precisely the kind of people who will get it. That is, even if the people in power don't have an extreme agenda, their extreme powers are an appealing target the people who do. Take the Shah of Iran: he was more of a playboy than a radical extremist, but he was pushed to use harsh crackdowns against the Islamists who opposed his unlimited rule, and once they got in power they turned out worse.

More basically, people in a position in which they have to make decisions naturally seek more freedom from oversight and greater jurisdiction. Usually this is without malign intent, but the result of a desire to do their job more effectively. It could be in government, but also in bureaucracy, business or elsewhere. For instance take Rafael Benitez' (a football manager) fight with Liverpool FC's owners to control transfer policy of players.
In Western liberal democracies this desire is mostly controlled by a system of balances and checks. Thus to blame the USSR lurch towards totalitarianism (even ignoring the secret service's gruesome methods under Lenin) solely on the personality of Stalin is much too easy. The system clearly was lacking counterweighs to prevent the rise of such a madman and if it hadn't been him it probably would have been someone else.

It's also hard to see how you can have a proper democracy if all candidates must ascribe to a specific ideology. It's what they've been trying in Iran's Islamic Republic as well, by vetting candidates for their adherence to revolutionary ideals and recent events have proven what kind of a sham democracy you get as a result. Neat in theory, extremely messy in practice.

Agreed with both. But I think we're drifting a bit from the topic. :rofl:

 

[Vacceo]

Democracy is the rule of the people; you (player) are the people so you rule.

 

[Colon]

Agreed with both. But I think we're drifting a bit from the topic. :rofl:

I think it's still related to the OP, or at least to the concept of a democratic communist state. As in Iran the problem is that by making sure candidates adhere to communist goals, you give undue power to those who decide which candidates have proper views (those 'guardians' maybe could also be democratically elected, but then you just run into the same basic problem of how to make sure that all those candidates adhere to communism - a guardian council of the guardian council?).

Besides I don't think anyone mentioned it before, but there will be political reforms such gerrymandering, harassment etc. I presume you could have elections that make sure the communist party stays in power, though you country will probably not get the "proletarian dictatorship" tag.

 

[unmerged(91061)]

Although I concede Vicky2 will not ship with Proletarian Dictatorships having any elections, there is ground for mods.

Although Proletarian Dictatorships did not have any de facto suffrage, there were elections between various factions of the Communist party. Vicky2 would work well imo to have this modded in. Any country that becomes a Proletarian Dictatorship expels all non-communist/socialist parties, the player may through decisions enact some limited voting rights to simulate the possibility of voting a dominant faction within the government/party. Just look at the Bolshevik/Menshevik split.

 

[Orinsul]

WHY should a communist nation not allow parties, even non-communist parties.

I live in a liberal nation, with a liberal consitution and a liberal system of government, does that prevent the existance of communist parties? No. does that stop them running in elections? No.
But it does stop them from once they got into power from passing communist policies.

Surely a country could have Communist Consititution, have elections but if a liberal party came to power it would be restricted in what it could do

And i really dont think russia should be used as an example of communism, take the communes, or the germans, not the 'communism' that happened in the one country that communism wasnt prepared for communism by their own philosphy. Russia had a dictatorship, not because it was communist, but for the same reason that the german republic ended with dictatorship, because it wasnt ready for democracy, the majority of people never took democracy seriously enough to defend it.

Communism has nothing undemocratic about it, most communist movements were in favour of DIRECT Democracy, which in game would probably be represented by dictatorship, or elections for every reform change. And now im not a communist deperately trying to defend his beliefs, i despise communism as it stands for an abolition of property, BUT that does not make me ready to pick up slander against it. It is not either it was utterly democratic or stalinism was inevitable. It was just it could be anything but it needed a damn lot of work.
Surely a communist government could still have elections, possibly it might even still have anti-communist parties, it would just have its communist laws locked in place.

 

[telesien]

I'm inclined to agree with you overall, but I think it's fair to point out that extreme leftists aren't the only ones who seek such influence over the personal lives of the public.

True, but this thread is about democracy in proletarian dictatorship, so I focused on extreme leftists

 

[Balesir]

Democracy is the rule of the people; you (player) are the people so you rule.

I think this is a widely held but very damaging misunderstanding. Democracy (at least, Representative democracy, which is the form found in governments) is about the people having effective curbs and sanctions against those who rule, not about the ruling being done by the people themselves. The reasons that the second case (a) would not come about, and (b) would be a shambolic disaster from the word go if it did, are many and various. As Winston Churchill once said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter". Rulership "by the people" would lead to 'populist' policies, but rulership by a "professional" ruling class moderated by the people can work to curb naked power grabs and blatantly bigoted policies most of the time. Despite its many faults, democracy is the best alternative we have found so far for for curbing totalitarianism.

WHY should a communist nation not allow parties, even non-communist parties.

<snippage>

...It is not either it was utterly democratic or stalinism was inevitable. It was just it could be anything but it needed a damn lot of work.

I think you just put your finger on it - why would anyone do that work? What plausible incentive or motivation would anyone have to take on such a monumental, thankless and unrewarding task?

 

[telesien]

...
I think you just put your finger on it - why would anyone do that work? What plausible incentive or motivation would anyone have to take on such a monumental, thankless and unrewarding task?

You see that is the problem here. I know historical examples showing, that socio-economical changes in such large scale and short time ended up in dictatorship. On the other hand I can't remember where they didn't... And until I will find some examples here, I must insist that this is just theory. And utopic one.

 

[Orinsul]

stalinism took a damn lot of work too. In germany if the speech on the balcony hadnt of put an end to it, Democratic communism would have been easier than dictatorial.
Communists want communism because their communists, what incentive did the liberal revolutions had to do the hard work thei socio-economic changes?, they didnt all end in dictatorship. Why should communist be any different? because they believed in it, who knows why but they did, some of them still do to this day.