💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › parm-libertarian-communism-and-democracy.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:26:01. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Libertarian Communism and Democracy Author: Parm Date: 2 May 2021 Language: en Topics: democracy; anarcho-communism; communism; free association; class struggle; platformism Source: Retrieved on 23 June 2021 from https://breadwithparm.wordpress.com/2021/05/02/thoughts-on-democracy/ Notes: The piece was taken from the blog Bread with Parm. The original article can be found here: https://breadwithparm.wordpress.com/2021/05/02/thoughts-on-democracy/. The article was previously named "Thoughts on Democracy" but it has been changed both here and on the source page. Minor typographic corrections have been made. This piece may be updated if the original article on the blog is updated.
Democracy is one of the hottest buzzwords among leftists and socialists.
Often, democracy itself is seen as an ideal to aspire to. This is the
root of all “radically democratic” tendencies. Unfortunately, such an
idea is commonly found among anarchists and libertarian socialists; the
tendency to prioritize the form of democracy over the content of
anarchism.
When I refer to democracy, I am not referring to the bourgeois liberal
form of democracy, which I will refer to as republicanism, as it has
been refuted over and over, right in front of our very eyes. While
social democrats and democratic socialists continue to peddle bourgeois
republicanism, most revolutionary tendencies are not under the illusion
that republicanism and bourgeois democracy is a viable path to
communism.
What instead will be critiqued here is the unquestioning adherence to
democratic organizational forms that many revolutionary tendencies fall
under. Gilles Dauve, in his A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Autonomy, draws from many communist tendencies to critique the
democratic form, despite his misunderstanding of anarchism.
Any analysis of democracy must begin with its role in class society.
Here, we define it as “the self-rule of the people,” whence we can
already see the contradiction: there is no rule of the people; there are
classes and struggle between them. In current liberal capitalist
societies, the ruling class is the bourgeoisie. Democracy cannot exist
under class society. Republican societies merely use democracy as a
rationalization for the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
A communist society cannot wear the forms imposed by class society, such
as the state, patriarchy, and even representative democracy. The
Marxist-Leninist delusions of preserving these within a socialist
society must categorically be rejected. Yet, democratic organization
takes new forms under proletarian control, the council form for one.
Organically-formed democratic structures would naturally arise in
proletarian activity.
Democratic organization arises out of proletarian activity. Here, we see
our first major caveat: out of proletarian activity. The fetishization
of democracy as an end cannot be tolerated. Would it be so that us
communists stop our struggle because the proletariat votes against it?
Of course, the support of the masses is vital to any revolutionary
movement, but the primary task of communists is to defend the
revolutionary program. By fetishizing democracy, we are liable to giving
up our program to its whims and machinations.
And what validity does a decision gain from being approved by a
majority? Does 51% automatically equal a good decision? The metaphysical
reasoning behind the fetishization of democracy must be rejected as
well. Such a numerical method is better suited for class society, where
its members have different aims and goals, rather than a communist one.
communism
We, as communists, prioritize the content of communism over the form
that it is achieved. Of course, content and form are intensely linked;
hence why the seizure of state power is not a viable form for communism.
By rejecting democracy, we reject the subordination of the communist
program to the democratic form. On the contrary, we recognize that any
content may only be meaningfully furthered by the free association of
common aims and interests. As Dauve puts it:[1]
Our problem is not to find how to make common decisions about what we
do, but to do what can be decided upon in common, and to stop or avoid
doing whatever cannot be decided upon in common.
[…]
Communism is not a question of finding the government or self-government
best suited to social reorganization. It is not a matter of
institutions, but of activity.
The essence of communism lies in the libertarian form of free and
organic association. Imposing set democratic norms on the organic
activity of the proletariat will only stifle it. The forms best suited
for the struggle of the proletariat and the maintenance of the society
that follows will arise from the necessities of association. In this
way, free association is the only form that can preserve the content of
communism; a forced association will result in meaningless compromise
and inaction or the tyrannical imposition of one group over another.
Neither of these outcomes is effective or useful for communists.
Democratic organization continues to hold value when necessary; when
organically invoked by proletarian activity. To simply reject any and
all uses of democratic organization is foolish and falls into the same
errors as vulgar democrats. Amadeo Bordiga emphasizes:[2]
…communism presents itself as a critique and a negation of democracy;
yet communists often defend the democratic character of proletarian
organizations (the state system of workers’ councils, trade unions and
the party) and the application of democracy within them. There is
certainly no contradiction in this…
Democratic organization will still likely exist in a communist society
when suited. It will certainly not be raised to an ideal but treated as
a method that is useful for making decisions. By rejecting democracy, we
are confirming the primacy of communism over the form it takes, not
rejecting every use of democracy.
The important takeaway is that the content of communism, the
self-abolition of the proletariat, must be prioritized over the form
that it takes. The form taken by communism will be determined by the
free and organic activity of the proletariat.
[1] Gilles Dauve, “Communism as activity,” A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Autonomy
[2] Amadeo Bordiga, “The Democratic Principle”