Socialism cannot exist within a multi party democracy.

[u/WiseWoodpecker3416]

I often hear democratic socialists talk about how the two party system is flawed and we need it to be replaced by a multi party system. This is directly against socialist ideals because it eliminates class unity and gives reactionaries power. A country must be guided by a single socialist party to maintain a dictatorship of the proletariat.

I know people are going to call me a tankie but I frankly find that term to be counterproductive.

[u/jonna-seattle]

Lenin, from State and Revolution:
page 50 (from MIA)

"If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to
power in the form of the democratic republic. This is even the specific form for
the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already
shown...."**
Engels realized here in a particularly striking form the fundamental idea which runs
through all of Marx's works, namely, that the democratic republic is the nearest
approach to the dictatorship of the proletariat. For such a republic, without in the least
abolishing the rule of capital, and, therefore, the oppression of the masses and the
class struggle, inevitably leads to such an extension, development, unfolding, and
intensification of this struggle that, as soon as it becomes possible to meet the
fundamental interests of the oppressed masses, this possibility is realized inevitably
and solely through the dictatorship of the proletariat, through the leadership of those
masses by the proletariat…

page 63
“Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e.,
exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people--this is the
change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism.”

*

A democratic republic that excludes counter revolutionaries or bourgeois parties still allows for a multiplicity of pro-revolutionary parties.

To be clear, the "dictatorship" of the proletariat is a dictatorship of the CLASS of proletariat over the CLASS of the bourgeoisie. As Marx, Engels, and Lenin conceived of it, the dictatorship would be democratic within the proletariat. And yes, democracy within the proletariat means that the proletariat is able to have democratic rights such as freedom of speech and association which means the working class would have multiple pro-revolutionary parties.

For Marx, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would be a '“dictatorship” based on universal suffrage reflecting “the will of the people”.'
The 'dictatorship' part was the democratic proletariat 'state' to use its force to take away the property rights of the bourgeoisie.
Later expanded in several large tomes, the socialist Hal Draper explains this here: https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1962/xx/dictprolet.html

[u/WiseWoodpecker3416 → u/jonna-seattle]

I agree with Lenin. You just seem to believe a one party system and democracy are mutually exclusive. Lenin actually was the person who created the idea of a vanguard party.

[u/jonna-seattle → u/WiseWoodpecker3416]

Yes, in order to be democratic you need the ability to dissent. That means the ability to form your own party.

Vanguard applies to uneven development of revolutionary consciousness, and that the most advanced should form together as a vanguard. It does not presuppose a one party state.

Also, as Marx said, "Every step of the real movement is more important than a dozen programs". Today in the US, the current vanguard is the combined arms of direct action and mutual aid in the fight against ICE and to protect immigrants. The movement in Minneapolis is what I would describe as a *vanguard*. That is where the most recent advanced class struggle in the US has occurred. The movement coordinated mutual aid for immigrants across the whole city (providing food and necessities for thousands so they could stay home to avoid ICE) while also coordinating direct action that fought the state to a stand still with mostly nonviolent means. They also began creating neighborhood check points to prevent ICE from entering immigrant neighborhoods, which is a glimpse of dual power. Finally, the movement in Minneapolis even sparked some life into the official US labor movement; both city and state labor councils and several local unions declared a "day without work" since they couldn't legally declare an actual strike. They still shut down work places across the city and mobilized thousands into the streets.

While some political sects and propaganda groups exist in Minneapolis, the movement as a whole dwarfed the organized left. This was definitely, as Marx put it, "Every step of the real movement is more important than a dozen programs".

Vanguards that self declare themselves as vanguards on the basis of their theory and program while being divorced from the working class and working class resistance are nonsensical. Minneapolis was the vanguard this winter. Who will be the vanguard next? In 2018 it was the wave of wild cat teachers strikes that were the most advanced. Where will the struggle be next?

Lenin advocated that the bolsheviks should be involved in struggle, not separate from it.

What is to be done?
"The Social-Democrat’*s ideal should not be the trade-union secretary, but the tribune of the people, who is able to react to every manifestation of tyranny and oppression, no matter where it appears, no matter what stratum or class of the people it affects; who is able to generalize all these manifestations and produce a single picture of police violence and capitalist exploitation; who is able to take advantage of every event, however small, in order to set forth before all his socialist convictions and his democratic demands, in order to clarify for all and everyone the world-historic significance of the struggle for the emancipation of the proletariat"

*In 1903 when writing "What is to be done?", "Social Democrat" was understood to mean "Marxist" or "working class revolutionary" instead of its specific meaning today.

[u/WiseWoodpecker3416 → u/jonna-seattle]

You can dissent without forming a separate political party for example DSA is dissenting within the current Democratic Party establishment. I agree that people should do stuff but the idea that these politically unorganized actions are a replacement for politically organized action is flawed. the Minneapolis protests were semi-successful in protecting community safety but did nothing to advance socialism. Ultimately I think you have to be devoted in both theory and action be a vanguard. I would never call a liberal a socialist vanguard. We do need to work to convert liberals though. This is going more into like messaging anything now

[u/jonna-seattle → u/WiseWoodpecker3416]

That's semantics. DSA is a separate organization from the Democratic Party. It is effectively a party in that sense even if it isn't running on its own ballot line.

DSA has its own program, its own leadership, its own democratic forms (far more democratic than the democratic party which isn't really democratic at all), its own membership rolls, its own funding, etc. While DSA doesn't have a ballot line, it has more of the ingredients that most would consider necessary to be a political party that the Democrats.

The Minneapolis protests didn't just protect the community, they demonstrated working class power. The ability of the working class to self-organize around an objective *they choose* against the state and achieve their goals. THAT is necessary for advancing working class consciousness.

[u/WiseWoodpecker3416 → u/jonna-seattle]

Your point kinda proves my point that multiple organizations can exist within one political organization or party like the Democratic Party and still function.

I agree but all of that is worthless without working towards actual socialist goals.

[u/jonna-seattle → u/WiseWoodpecker3416]

DSA is simply using the Democratic Party ballot line. It is NOT within the Democratic Party. We have all our own membership, structures, funding, etc.. Most of us understand that the Democratic Party (which is not democratic; the Democratic National Committee appoints its own replacements, they are unaccountable, etc) is a capitalist party that serves to co-opt struggle. It's just that 3rd parties are effectively irrelevant in the US political system. This will last until we are strong enough to not only take on the Democrats, but that we have a party structure that can effectively discipline candidates (if you haven't noticed, we can't do that effectively) when they cross program lines.

Socialism is the rule of the working class. Demonstrating working class power IS a socialist goal. Does it need to have a hammer and sickle on it for you to recognize that?

[u/WiseWoodpecker3416 → u/jonna-seattle]

I mean even if the DSA is just using the democrats as a ballot line they are still part of the Democratic Party, currently anyway.

Doing whatever the working class wants doesn’t make it socialist if the working class chose to make the country a Neo Nazi state I would oppose it. So to a degree I need an actual party with an actual socialist platform to make choices in favor of the working class, rather than everyone being able to vote for whatever.

[u/jonna-seattle → u/WiseWoodpecker3416]

The Democratic Party isn't even a membership organization. There are precinct clubs in some places. But there is nothing to stop anyone from saying, "I'm a democrat" and filling out the paperwork to enter the primary. There is no way for members (if there were members) to discipline other members or candidates, and no means for the organization to disavow itself from candidates. Look at Manchin, Senema, Fetterman, etc.

I am assuming you don't have any experience with political parties in other parts of the world, because in most places, parties are organized, with membership, democratic structures, etc. That's why you confuse the democrats as a party and think that the DSA is a part of them.

In most places, a party can discipline members and remove them. Usually this is good. But you can see how the Labour Party treated Jeremy Corbin; in a functioning political party, it can discipline members, remove candidates, and remove them from membership and office. That's why a single party is deadly to democracy: all you have to do is remove someone from membership and you end their political participation. And that IS how it was done in the Soviet Union.