What exactly is wrong with parliamentary democracy? How is it an organ of the bourgeoisie...

What exactly is wrong with parliamentary democracy? How is it an organ of the bourgeoisie? I see this claim from people like Lenin over Luxemburg to Malatesta, but I've never read a proper explanation why a parliament elected by universal franchise is supposed to always represent the bourgeoisie's interest.

1. Open constitution
2. "Private property is a human right"
3. Open private law code
4. "Wage labor is protected"
5. Check constitution again
6. "you are free to politically organize within the framework of previously agreed on arbitrary principles"

What does whatever constitution you're talking about have to do with the mechanism of representative parliamentary democracy?

Plus the parliament can change the constitution.

Because to have success in parliamentary politics you have to compromise, and you can't compromise with capitalism. Social Democrats theorize that they can implement socialism by degrees and that eventually their waxing power will eclipse the ability of the bourgeoisie to repeal or obstruct reforms, but since the bourgeoisie are in de facto control of the economy (""""control"""" at least), they political structure will always more or less be at the mercy of the whims of the free market.

Soc Dem party A gets in power and raises worker wages. This causes foreign investment to pull out and leave for countries that have less robust worker protections. Because jobs are leaving country A, the economy tanks and Soc Dem party gets the blame even though they made the correct policy decision in regards to the proletariat, but since they're in a system that functions under the logic of capital, it was the wrong decision. So the next election comes around and Soc Dem A gets voted out for Conservative B. If Soc Dem A doesn't want to get voted out, they need to submit to capital and keep worker wages low, betraying the workers in favor of electability.

Because a parliamentarian representive democracy is historically interlodged with capitalism. Why use a capitalist system of polticial organization when we can make our own, proletarian democracy?

There are several aspects of a parliamentarian democracy which automatically favor capitalism: Such as the need for compromise, checks and balances, lobby organizations and zero accountability of the representatives (since the parties don't need to adhere to democratic processes and ultimately it's them which present you your options). All these things are ultimately designed to perpetuate our socio-economic system. I mean, you could theoretically make a socialist state with a liberal parliamentarian democracy but it's highly unstable and ineffective for our suggested mode of production.

So raise export tariffs and disown foreign capitalists? I don't see what this has to do with the election mechanism. If socdems don't use these drastic measures it's because they and their voting base fear the consequences.

Let me also add: A liberal parliamentarian democracy presupposes a dichotomy between politics and economy. This is inherently bourgeoisie. We, as communists, should go beyond this seperation which happened in the wake of the 1830 July Revolution. The seperation between the sphere of politics and economy is pure ideology. This is why you can barely find the subject of Polticial Economy at western universities.

What you fail to realize is that the economy is shaped by the interests of the bourgeoisie first, the government second.

You should read up on Marx and Lenin again, as your critique of the bourgeoise parliamentary system lacks dialectics.
A "proletarian democracy" wont just be established and grown out of nowhere in the framework of a bourgeoise society without a revolutionary struggle already in process. Of course you establish those structures but not participating in the bourgeoise elections during the opportune time in preperation will only prolongue the bourgeoise parliaments rule.
Let's take for example Venezuela, a heavily flawed attempt at socialism illustrating the issue:
We have a left coalition of socialists and communists that won the bourgeoise parliamentary elections, they used those to promote themself, attack the bourgeoise and so on. Those were important steps.
Now however they've reached the point at which they need to break with the bourgeoise parliamentary system, proletarian democratic structures were constructed, those need to become the legal representation of the peoples will, the parliament should be abolished.
However they're not even attempting to do so through a legal process, or a revolutionary violent one that would be necessary even if they tried to do it within the bourgeoise legal framework as the capitalists wouldn't accept any legal transition regardless.
This is not a two track issue where you're taking one way or the other but either one only as it is opportune.

Because direct democracy doesn't work and a party dictatorship isn't a feasible alternative.


With whom? If you get the majority you can tell the rest to fuck off.


Parliamentary democracy doesn't necessarily imply this. You can have a people's assembly wielding absolute power. But even if, it depends on who's checking and balancing whom. If you have something like the house of lords consisting of rich fucks, of course that's shit. If you have a president seperately elected by universal sufferage I don't see the problem.


Wouldn't exist in a socialist society.


People are free to not vote for them again. The reasons why it doesn't work like this in practise (party loyalty, the masses' conservatism) apply to a council system just as much as to a parliamentary system.


Yes, that is what I'm talking about.


How? I don't see how a planned economy couldn't be handled by parliament.

All this talk about muh bourgeois particularism has always seemed like a load of substanceless mumbo jumbo to me.

What they should do is remove the right to private property from their constitution and nationalize all those corporations sabotaging them. It doesn't matter one bit whether parliament or workers' councils do this.

This. Revolution in one country is a pipe-dream because the ( ( ( international order ) ) ) will work to destroy any nation that attempts to break free from it. The only reason even the NSDAP was successful in Germany was that Hitler & friends cut deals with the industrialists and the banks - even so, the Social Democrats and Churchill brought them down out of ideologically-fuelled hatred and ambition, respectively. The only moderately successful Socialist country was the Soviet Union, and it had to fight a decades-long struggle against the First World in which only its military might defended it.

In the case of any smaller country, the situation is utterly hopeless; if Bosnia or Romania or Portugal were to try and enact a Socialist program, capital flight would crush them in a year or two. The goal of international capitalism is universal poverty, and a race to the bottom in which dependent nation-states undercut each other in taxes and worker protections. Elections offer no help because the free movement of capital has already reduced the people to beggars.

On top of all of this, most people are liberal retard cucks who're with her because breaking up the banks won't stop racism™ and sexism™.

Nobody is even discussing socialism in one country vs international revolution. Please don't make this thread about socialism in one country.

Sounds like somebody needs to be freedomified.

Yes of course. But this is besides the point. Parliamentarism is just as efficient (or inefficient) at fighting foreign reaction as any other type of democracy.

It's about electoral politics being useless because foreign interests will put on the thumb screws as soon as any one country begins to just drift away from market-liberalism, as said. "Socialism in one country" is just a particular form of this problem

i see this as a combined issue that would find resolution in dependence of each other, the bourgeoise pariamentary system is just not fit to organize the workers state so it needs to be abolished, consequently this would mean the socialization of the remaining mop

Why not?

the bourgeoise parliament is representing all factions of a class society, disproportionally so the bourgeoise, which with the abolishment of the private ownership of the means of production, from the beginning of its transition to be socialized, cannot allowed to hold any political rights as it will only try to frustrate any such efforts. there is no legal status for the bourgeoise factions needed in a workers democracy which will grow from councils naturally.

No it isn't. Not only are the individual members of the parliamemnt easily pressured/bribed, but the people can easily be scared into voting against the Socialis party. Look no further than the US:
The country can't even represent its own interests anymore and hasn't been able to do so for 80< years because every congresman takes bribes ("campaign contributions") and is beholden to lobbyists. It's a headless giant and the Saudis, Israelis, Qataris, etc. all vie for control over its foreign policy - and fuck the people of the US. Poland's Sejm is another example. Foreig bribes and internal bickering made it completely disfunction and finally lead to the country's annexation by Russia in 1795.

I didn't actually mean not to participate in bourgeois elections or trying to influence the system in praxis, I'm not a Leftcom. OP was asking on a theoretical level as to why parliamentarian democracy isn't a model for socialism.


But then you are already moving away from the theoretical basis of liberal parliamentarian democracy. Checks and balances are inherent in its theory, look up Montesquieu

We aren't talking about a presidential system but about a parliamentarian system. In this system you vote for parties which can nominate whoever the fuck they want.

All this serves is to arbitrarily exclude people from the democratic process that are deemed bourgeois. Any but universal franchise is prone to abuse. With the means of production socialized and stripped of their wealth the bourgeoisie represents nothing but a tiny minority with no political power.


Foreign reaction bribing politicians would be a problem in literally any form of government. At least people (theoretically) have the option to not vote for them again. The fact that this isn't how it works irl can't be solved through a council system either. Scaring people into voting against their interest also works in any form of democracy.

I blame the softiness, lack of determination and guile of weak crypto-liberals that constitute the core of succdem parties

I'm talking about parliamentary democracy in the narrow sense. I'm referring exclusively to the mechanism of a multi-party democracy based on universal sufferage. And even so, as I pointed out checks and balances amended to suit the agenda of the proletariat as opposed to that of the bourgeoisie, would actually benefit the revolution by preventing power abuse.


So don't vote for the party again? Again I see that this is a sham, but it's inherent to any democratic system.

yes. because you can't possibly tell a bourgeoise. which is basically just an identity. yeah. sure…

Yes, the terms bourgeois and petty-bourgeois have never been used to silence opposition.

This. When the question is "Capitalism or X", capitalism always wins if there is a real choice.

the bourgeoise will by that time drive itself into illegality through sabotage and terrorism. the bourgeoise is using these same methods which are that of class war. the parliament loses its validity, the worker councils will take over the role as a governing body because there is no use for the former.
this is a matter of transitioning away from the bourgeoise system and the private ownership which up to the point it does exist will be used against the workers and its legitimate government. it's the bourgeoise that will invalidate its own democratic bodies by attacking it.
remember in example the coup in venezuela, or chile.

wew. that has never been used as an attack against any socialist state without actually naming what this "opposition" consists of.
how many times did you hear this out of venezuela where the bourgeoise itself actually was the illegally acting and attacking part while the socialists continue to keep up with their BS bourgeoise parliamentarism?

the problem with Venezuela is not that they're "silencing the opposition" but the exact opposite, that they continue an illegally acting bourgeoise that has repeatedly attacked the government and invalidated the bourgeoise democracy itself and thus should be shut down entirely, since they're already crying so what's the difference?
"muh silenced opposition" my ass.

ITT: self-styled radicals who have inhaled the Jenkem of liberal propaganda.

Did you mean inherently bourgeois, perhaps?

What's female about it? Marx had a rather positive opinion about having elections, actually.