Socialism is when The Workers Control the Means of Production. If the state manages and owns all productive forces and the state is a democracy managed by The Workers, it seems to logically follow that a democratic state is Socialism by the sacred sidebar definition.
Socialists, tell me why I'm wrong. Can't wait.
Posted Mar 29, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC
Yes, that would count as a form of socialism.
Define democratic though
Not real socialism. Checkmate motherfuckers.
unoriginaljoke.jpeg
butthurt.jpeg
Democratic government* a state and a government are separate entities.
I guess, technically, yeah?
Pre-collapse absolutely and unequivocally. Post-collapse of course not.
Seems logical to me
Boom, headshot.
Democratic... Control... Of the Means... Of Production...?
looks at own flair
Hmm...
You have to define the actions of such state, any social organization cannot rule nor impose it's will or else then it is no longer socialism because the workers are being controlled.
BTW, what do you mean by democracy? Do you mean societies ran by free individuals or "we vote and shiet but then people to rule us anyways" like we have today? The latter is not real democracy.
Democracy is a lie by definition, the left is incapable of fighting capitalism. Next?
"we meant local democracy in the work place, not state democracy".
"no, the state is management then and there aren't managers in socialism".
"When we say we want the workers to control the mop, what we really mean is we want capitalism to fully automate everything, then kill them, and we all sit around playing parchizzi".
"thats lenninism, not marxism"
"democracy only matters if we all consensus our way to 100% agreement - consensus = shoot those who disagree".
Not according to many socialists, particularly some left communists I have talked to about it.
Even if your first premise were true, a democratically elected state managing production isn't the same as workers controlling production. I democratically elect my state and federal representatives in my country, I wouldn't say I have any meaningful control over what happens in either legislature.
A state is effectively a bureacratic vanguard, even when it's democratic. Decentralization and federations mitigate this issue, but don't eliminate it entirely.
That's what happens when your vote is one of many million. Even if your vote was 1/100, would you be said to have any real control?
I would have significantly more control in that situation, yes. Especially if it was a hundred of my peers. For the same reason, I don't think an extremely large, centralized trade union would leave workers with much control either. As Bakunin said, the people don't really care if you start calling the stick they are getting beat with "the people's stick". Break the stick.
Yes, you'd have 1/100th of a vote. Unless the vote was within a single percentage point, your vote would be irrelevant. 100 is not a large cooperative venture either. If you want control, then own a majority share (51%).
Democracy can take many forms. It doesn't need to be a simple majority for every decision of the organization.
"Democracy is when people vote and shiet"
Then describe how The Workers meaningfully control production? Everyone can't control everything simultaneously so there will always be either a middleman or at best some sort of "union" you will need to associate with in order to exert your control. There's zero difference conceptually between a sovereign union and a democratic state.
For me, the two key differences are that a union consists of workers in the industry (not state bureaucrats), and that a union's authority doesn't extend over all of the geographic region or have a legal monopoly on violence.
It's a little bit like polycentric law in the sense that authority that could have been vested solely in the state is now broken up among parties that more voluntarily associate with one another.
Not sure if your familiar with Unions but they are typically staffed by people interested in running Unions, not John-9-to-5 who just wants to clock in and clock out and get paid. If Unions were sovereign it would absolutely be people interested in politics and administration getting elected just like now.
...because there is a soveteign state over them. Without it, the Unions would have to be sovereign.
But they would be getting elected (or chosen however) among the workers, not among everybody who lives in a region. And the few unions I am familiar with seemed to promote well from within.
Why would unions have to be sovereign if there wasn't a state over them? If I am elected leader of a cooperative at a diner, the authority I have over non-workers wouldn't be affected by the absence of a state, right?
Exactly, the post is nuanced with "Democracy".
Basically most good words like that have been hijacked to paint exploitatory systems with pink and roses.