Laika vs. Eddi - Communism vs. Social Democracy

[Eddi]

This thread is in the one-on-one debates forum!



This means only @Laika the space dog and @Eddi the psychedelic cat may post in it

But this debate is not really between @Laika and @Eddi

It is Communism against Social Democracy!

@Laika will represent Communism

And @Eddi will represent Social Democracy

@Laika believes that Communism is the highest stage of human development and the most desirable system for organising our society, politics, and economy

Whereas @Eddi believes that Social Democracy is

@Laika says we should have Communism but @Eddi says we should have Social Democracy!

If you are not @Laika or @Eddi please keep out of this exchange

But please do feel free to award either of the participants frubals!

@Eddi shall go first, arguing the case for Social Democracy

It will then be @Laika 's turn, in which he will argue the case for Communism and then begin the debate by addressing what @Eddi said

@Eddi will make his opening post in a bit, later this evening......


​

 

[Eddi]

Why Social Democracy is Best - by Eddi the Psychedelic Cat

Karl Marx famously said: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”

I reject this although my allegiance is with the working class, I believe that Social Democracy is a better deal for the working class than either Capitalism or Communism and that is why I advocate it

I believe that social relations and civilisations are not best characterised in terms of there being a struggle between competing classes with competing interests, I think this is the wrong way at looking at things

I believe that civilisations are best characterised by an interdependence that exists between all classes of person and that politics should be the art of producing harmony, not victory over other segments and interests:

I believe that Civilisation is best served by peace and harmony, not conflict and opposition - but a peace and harmony that serves the ordinary people, not the political and economic elites

Civilisation must be civilisation for all – not just the elites, not just the most fortunate as is the case with Capitalism. And of course, Communism would amount to the abolishment of Civilisation, which I don’t think would be good for anyone....

This is the way I see things:

• Capitalism = good for the rich and powerful, terrible for everyone else
• Social Democracy = good for all but not as good as capitalism if you're a capitalist
• Communism = good for no one and not even possible so don't even go there!

As the Americans say, “it’s a no-brainer!”

I don’t see social relations between different classes as a fight, I see them as a dance

I think it is better to dance than to fight

Fights hurt all participants, dancing is good for all

Although there are conflicting class interests I believe there is a common good, an agenda that serves all parties better than any program that favours only one party at the expense of the other

It's about the long-term interest of the ordinary people, not the short-term interest

For instance, nationalised utilities and public transport is best for all, so that’s what we should do (consider the situation with these in the UK to see how we shouldn’t do such things, you have the ludicrous situation of power companies existing not to generate power but to generate money for their shareholders)

I believe that there is a general interest that serves all and that this is more important than the sectional interests of any one group – I believe that favouring one group over the other with no regard for the common interest is a recipe for disaster and goes against the general common interest and hence the best interests of the ordiary people

I believe that the ordinary people making the capitalists a part of a Social Democratic system is better for the ordinary people than liquidating the capitalist class, I believe that would be the end of Civilisation and would only lead to tyranny and destitution

I believe that the working class perusing the common interest by following a program of Social Democracy would be much better for it than trying to over-thrown and destroy the capitalist system and aiming to implement Communism, the only people who benefit from a program of Communism are Communist activists and elites - those who would become the Dictators in The Dictatorship of The Proletariat

Think Mao, or Stalin

Although I personally identify with the proletariat I believe that the proletariat is best served by a program that promotes the general interests of Civilisation, as such a program would be better for them than one that seeks to crush the capitalist class and the institutions that are typically associated with it, to strike out at these is not a move against capital for the workers, it is the dismantling of Civilisation and will only lead to barbarism

I do not see the capitalist class as being necessarily parasitic, it is possible to make it work in symbiosis with the proletariat as without them everything fails, there needs to be both classes if the aim is to maintain any kind of system, the working class requires a capitalist system and capitalist institutions to enjoy any measure of prosperity or freedom, without these poverty and famine are guaranteed – history has made that quite clear

Once the ordinary people have become the ruling class the Capitalists should become a subordinate class and in the private sector the capitalist relations of production should be essentially maintained but within the context of a Socialist society - profit should still be the aim of private sector economic activity

It may sound counter-intuitive but it should be no great surprise. Without a queen bee a colony of bees will fade and die. Like bees and ants, humans are a eusocial species, trying to kill off one class of person would be akin to a human cutting off their own legs, so that their hands can gain more nutrients

Eusociality - Wikipedia

Communism is the political version of cutting off your nose to spite your face!

I believe that class interests come in the form of freedoms and that freedoms come in the form of rights

It is therefore possible to conceptualise the interests of a socio-economic class in terms of it having freedoms, which I believe can be observed in the form of rights

I believe in Citizenship – that people should be members and participants in society and politics, not subjects and that people should be Citizens in more than just name. You don't really get Citizenship under capitalism and you sure as hell don't get it under Communism!

The great sociologist TH Marshall said there are three kind of “citizenship rights”:

1. Civil rights are such things as the right to own property, the right to a fair trial and due process
2. Political rights are the rights to participate in the political system and covers being able to vote and freedom of expression
3. Social rights entitle people to such things as education, healthcare and social security

Rights are more abundant in a Social Democracy than in Capitalism

And more abundant in Social Democracy than in Communism too, indeed Communism there are no rights

I believe this means that Social Democracy is better than both Capitalism and Communism and is therefore more desirable

In Social Democracy the common good is upheld, and a Civilisation is maintained but in a way that is good for all, not just the capitalists.

The interests of the workers are therefore upheld, unlike in either Capitalism or Communism!

This may not be as profitable for the capitalists as Capitalism but it is most certainly better for the ordinary people than either Capitalism or Communism, for the ordinary people it is by far the best deal and it is on that basis that it should be adopted

Social Democracy is the best system to have if you think Citizenship is a good thing – and how could you not think Citizenship is a good thing????

In a Social Democracy, competing interests are reconciled and the general interest identified and pursued

I believe that Corporatism could be a part of a Socially Democratic system in which all interests sit down at the same table and make everything work for all – the ordinary people should exercise their political rights to effectively force the elites to come to the table and become a part of the Social Democracy - we should make it their only choice!

Corporatism - Wikipedia

The common good can then be identified and perused, the rich would be able to keep a lot of their wealth but the ordinary people would be much better off – than either under Capitalism or Communism!

I suggest that such an arrangement could be based on a strong civic identity that all members of society hold to be more important than their own class interests or even their own interests as an individual

If it were up to me people wouldn’t call each other Mr. and Ms.

They wouldn’t call each other “comrade” either

Instead, they would call each other “citizen”

A Social Democracy would require the existence of a unified political community to which people belong as citizens and in which all humans belong to one community - this would of course entail responsibilities as well as rights and would require a civic identity to which all humans belong

I believe that making things work “in the interests of society” (which is what Social Democracy does) is better than making things work “in the interests of the rich” (which is what Capitalism does) and better than abolishing society as we know it and taking a great leap into the dark (which is what Communism would have us do)

So, I propose:

Unity
Interdependence
Co-Operation

And aim to bring about:

Equality
Opportunity
Security
Freedom
Community

I believe these are good things and that Capitalism and Communism simply cannot deliver such things in the way a Social Democracy can

Capitalism is a disaster, that much is apparent, it's a total train-wreck

But so too is any system that aims for Communism

I don’t even think Communism is that desirable, if it was possible to make Communism magically happen (and it never has actually been implemented) then I wouldn’t much like it

I like having my own private property. I wouldn’t want some moron to come along and take my TV or my guitar and I wouldn’t want to take away anyone’s house or car and have them as my own

I do not believe that "property is theft", I believe property is a civil right

I wouldn’t want to inflict on anyone anything I would not want inflicted on myself

This principle is I believe the foundation of all moral systems

But here’s the bottom line:

As a person who is loyal to the ordinary people I think that Social Democracy best serves the ordinary people

If I did not believe this I would not advocate it

• Social Democracy is right
• Capitalism is wrong
• Communism is mistaken

Social Democracy best serves the ordinary people therefore I advocate Social Democracy

That is why I think Social Democracy is best, better than either Capitalism or Communism

With Social Democracy, the clue is in the name:

The aim is Social

The means to that aim is Democracy – citizenship and rights!

Communism does not deliver either, it is neither desirable and neither is it attainable

Social Democracy is both desirable and attainable

Social Democracy is therefore superior to Communism and represents the pinnacle of social development

It is by far the best option, even though that may sound and feel counterintuitive, at least at first

But if you give it any thought I think it makes perfect sense

 

[Laika]

Social Democracy and Communism

I think I need to open this debate firstly by admitting how much Communism and Social Democracy have in common and that it is likely that @Eddi and I agree far more than we disagree. Social Democracy developed in the 19th century and contained within it, both revolutionary and reformist traditions. In 1900, revolutionary socialists such as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, each identified as "social democrats", and Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP).

Within the International Socialist Movement, there developed a division between the 'revolutionary' wing of the movement who continued to believe that class struggle between capitalists and workers must inevitably lead to a social revolution and the 'reformist' wing, which came to believe that capitalist may peacefully evolve in to socialism, perhaps employing democratic reforms and parliamentary elections to achieve that outcome. Though the division between revolutionaries and reformists on these tactical questions was complex, over time it settled that Communists supported achieving Socialism by revolution and Social Democrats by reform and elections.

Partly in reaction to these ideological divisions, there developed a split within the Russian Social Democrat Labour Party between Bolsheviks ("Majority") and Mensheviks ("Minority") in the 1900s and 1910's. This split rested on a series of questions about the nature of a working class party, how it should be organised and who should be a member. Lenin took the view that the party should be the 'vanguard' (or advance-guard) of the working class, and thus had to be composed of professional revolutionaries, organised on the basis of a system of "democratic centralism", in which all party organs were elected by party members who were free to discuss party affairs (i.e. the 'democratic' bit) but that the minority of the party was bound by party discipline to the decisions of the majority of the party (i.e. the "centralism" bit). In Marxist-Leninist terminology, Lenin was responsible for creating "A Party of a New Type" as opposed to the much looser and more open style of party organisation current amongst social democratic parties at the time.

The First World War began in 1914 and led to a serious disorganisation of the international socialist movement. Lenin's Bolsheviks were amongst the most hostile to the war, taking a position known as 'revolutionary defeatism' where they would work to defeat their own government in the war to improve the chances for a revolution taking place. They were not alone in opposing the war from the left internationally and various anti-war socialist groups persisted for the years of the war. Many of these anti-war groups later became part of the communist movement.

Once the Bolshevik faction seized power in Russia in 1917, they were renamed the Communist Party in 1918. The Communist International (or "Third International") was founded in 1919 and in 1920 adopted the "Twenty-One Conditions" as the conditions for admission to the Communist international. Around the world, a socialist parties faced splits and internal struggles and new communist parties were formed, adopting Leninist principles. As a rule of thumb, the groups within the socialist movement that favoured the Russian Revolution became "Communists", while those who opposed or were more sceptical of the Russian Revolution remained "Social Democrats".

Among the most important questions that determined the split between Communism and Social Democracy, was that of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Karl Kautsky, a leading German socialist thinker at the time, was highly critical of Lenin's tactics and his willingness to use 'revolutionary terror' against his political opponents. In a series of Pamphlet's as published exchanges between the two socialist leaders, many of the key issues between social democracy and communism were set out, with Kautsky arguing that Lenin's tactics were anti-democratic and laid the foundations of a new dictatorship.

Since then, there have been various conflicts and co-operation between Communists and Social Democrats depending on the political circumstances, but the basic themes of a conflict between "democracy" and "dictatorship", "reform" and "revolution" have been relatively consistent throughout. Notably, the failure of Social Democrats and Communists to work together in Germany the early 1930's, arguably contributed to the Nazi Party seizing power and Hitler becoming Chancellor in 1933.

Communism: The Highest Stage of Human Development

As someone who agrees with Lenin and the Bolsheviks that the Russian Revolution could serve as a model for the international working class movement, I would generally fall in to the 'Communist' camp of opinion, rather than the Social Democrats. I started out in the far left as a student in my teens and have remained relatively consistent in supporting far left movements and causes in the past twenty years.

However, I was originally a Trotskyist who sympathised with Leon Trotsky as a plausible competitor to Joseph Stalin for leadership of the Communist Party and the Soviet union after Lenin's death. Overtime, I have moved closer to being a Marxist-Leninist (which is more on the Stalinist side of the debate), but remain distinctly unorthodox, eccentric and downright contradictory on some of the finer and more technical points of Marxist-Leninist theory. So, as a disclaimer for the benefit of anyone reading this, don't assume that my own views are necessarily representative of Marxism-Leninism or Communism as a whole, as there is considerable scope for debate within the movement and the theory itself. I know the overall theory fairly well, but it takes alot of time and effort to get in to a position where I not only understand what the theory is but know enough about it to agree with it and know how it would be implemented as well.

So to help this debate moving along, the major points where I am liable to disagree with @Eddi are likely to involve some of the following:

• I think Eddi and I will agree that there is a division of society between classes, between capitalists who own the means of production and workers who must work for a wage. In order to achieve Socialism, the means of production have to be taken into social ownership (generally taking the form of state ownership or ownership by worker's and consumers co-operatives). There are different versions of socialism and some do include more private ownership than others (hence China's Market reforms). Where things start to fall apart after that will be how to differ on our views on the relationship of class to the state, democracy and dictatorship.
• I would argue that Communism is superior to Social Democracy in as much as a social revolution is needed to achieve Socialism. This social revolution is the transfer of political power from the capitalist class to the working class. In the Marxist-Leninist view, the state reflects and serves the class interests of the ruling class and it is necessary to replace one "capitalist" state with another "socialist" state;
• Communists believe that Democracy, as a form of state, expresses a class interest. Thus there is no "democracy" which is above or beyond class interests or else is "neutral" and "non-partisan" in the struggle between capitalists and workers. A capitalist state, even a democratic one such as the United States or the United Kingdom, ultimately serves the capitalist class. The fact it is a democracy doesn't change the fact it serves and protects those class interests. Therefore, in order to achieve Socialism, a new socialist state where the working class is the ruling class is needed, one that could generally be described as a "dictatorship of the proletariat".
• It is important to emphasise that "dictatorship" here refers to one class having the power to rule the other and, in a sense, all states are 'class dictatorships'. So, for example, the United States of America is a "democracy" where the capitalist class and it's representatives and vote amongst themselves what is the best course of action for the capitalist class. However, America has also been a "dictatorship" in the past where it protected the slave-owning class and their right to own slaves and served to crush the resistance of any slaves, up to the american civil war. After the civil war, slavery was abolished, but America remains a capitalist dictatorship that forces the working class to work and be exploited in order for the capitalists to make a profit at their expense. The American state is a capitalist state and serves to protect the capitalist class, as is evident from the use of the U.S. military to police the world and protect foreign markets, suppress communist and national-liberation movements in foreign wars, the first red scare (after world war I) and the second red scare or McCarthyism (after world war II) and the willingness of the U.S. secretary apparatus to use covert tactics of surveillance against far left groups (such as in COINTELPRO program from 1956-1971).
• In practice, Social Democrats have done no more than seek periodic election to government where they have had some achievements, but not fundamentally altered the basic class structure of society. The capitalist class remain in control and Social Democratic Parties have defended capitalism within their own countries and worked to consolidate capitalism/imperialism overseas.
• As attractive as it may be, electing a Bernie Sanders to become President of the United States, or a Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister in the UK, isn't going to actually lead to Socialism. In the case of a hypothetical Sanders Presidency, Republicans in Congress, in State governments and the Supreme Court will work to frustrate any socialist agenda (think Obamacare, but bigger). There remains the possibility that, should democracy no longer produce the desired results of the capitalist class, they may opt to support a military coup in the United States to protect their class rule. This happened in Chile in 1973, when General Pinochet removed the socialist Allende, and there was a threat of it happening in the United States with the "business plot" against F. D.R. in 1934.
• In other words, Capitalists only like democracy when they win and they either change the rules or get rid of democracy when they could lose. The danger in social democracy lies in honouring democratic, legal and constitutional norms that the capitalist class won't honour and we leave the working class unable to defend itself at the critical moment.
• I am going to leave the precise shape of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" open for debate, but in general, it has historically taken took two major forms. The first was 'Soviet Power' based on the rule of Soviets (or Councils) in the Soviet Union. The Second was a "People's Democracy" that served as a model for virtually every other communist state, including the five remaining state's ruled by Communist Parties: China, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba.

I hope that will be enough to get this debate started and give us some substantive topics to talk about.