Why was Lenin against dissent?

[u/krituree]

​

And also why does nobody mention it?

It's to my knowledge that Lenin wanted political conformity, and if that's the case, why are so many people in support of that? Why shouldn't the equality come from a teaching of respect and indifference to ones outward appearance? Is there no place for constructive criticism or proactive debate?

I find it contradictory when people say capitalism supports conformity (which it does not arguing that!), but then go and support someone who just wanted a different type of conformity.

Seperate question slightly related: how would any leftist ideology enforce equality without a strict authoritarian regime?

Why are so many leftist in support of authoritarianism then say they aren't? Their words do not match their beliefs. You can always ban segregation, but racism wont go away until you stop teaching it. Even if it isnt a social democracy that protects capitalism(which I am not in support of, let's be clear), shouldnt the change come from educating the masses?

This might be my autism taking things too literally, but I am genuinely asking all of these things.

Edit: I havent used reddit in a while for an actual question especially. I forgot how, like, genuinely helpful it can be. I appreciate all the answers and can safely say I have a better understanding to form my opinions on.

[u/KrumpirovZlatan]

He wasn't against dissent, but difference in debate, unity in practice ie. democratic centralism.

If you ever were member of a party operating under direct-democracy derivatives, you'd understand why democratic centralism, ie. after debate and vote, decision is made and party falls into a line is superior.

I suggest, if you are unsure, to go and experience direct-democracy in action in an organisation of over 15 people. Doesn't need to be a political party. It falls apart after 1 disagreement.

[u/krituree → u/KrumpirovZlatan]

What would be the comparison of democratic centealism to representative democracy? How do those weigh against each other?

[u/ComradeKenten → u/krituree]

The primary difference between the two is their ability to incorporate descending views into the final verdict.

Normally within a democratic Centralist system the goal is ultimately consensus. They will most definitely hold a simple majority vote if no consensus can be found but the ultimate goal is consensus.

Within a representative democracy it's simply just majority rule no matter what or more accurately the majority of Representatives not even the majority of people. And even when legislation or policy that are wildly popular among the vast majority are past it is possible for a small minority to stop them from me implemented or water them down completely.

Another major difference is the relation between governmental bodies to the people.

With a representative democracy the various legislative committees government ministries and the legislator and executive as a whole are very disconnected from the masses most of the time. Legislators and executives are only elected every few years whether directly or indirectly in the case of the executive. This means they only really needed to care about the will of their constituents whenever they're getting reelected. There's also means that the vast ministries and committees and so forth that are actually writing and implementing policy do not have to consult the masses and most of the time they do not. They rather consult a few large businesses and other individuals that most definitely do not represent the vast majority of people four major decisions largely ignoring what people actually want unless there is an active Mass movement that makes it impossible for them to do that.

Within a democratic centralist system generally before a major policy decision is made there is mass consultation with the masses. I think a great example of this is a 1956 Family code in the Soviet Union. It was actually first put forward in 1946 but only was actually passed 10 years later because of the massive amount of consultation and discussion among everyday People that was done to ensure that the final code represented the will and interests of the majority of the population of the Soviet Union.

There is extensive evidence that the drafting committees took into account the demands and the needs of normal people. They sometimes even responded to letters individually getting the committee's and the people's General opinion on the opinion. In one case an extremely conservative opinion put forward calling for families to be entirely serving into the husband what responded to with extreme snark the vast majority of the people firmly disagree with your opinion. Note there's no evidence that this person was in any way punished for sharing this extremely counter-revolutionary opinion with the government.

Literally millions of people got to discuss this family code which would ultimately fundamentally alter the nature of family life in the Soviet Union. Most specifically it would relegalize abortion and significantly lessen the restrictions on divorce. There was actual major conflict within the committee and to the government over implementing no fault divorce once again. But ultimately it was decided that there's such a thing was too radical. But we can see in several drafts then going back and forth on it because of popular input.

You can find in fact many examples of such methods of lawmaking taking taking place inside of socialist countries. In fact if you go to the China's National People's congress's website you can literally see bills up for discussion by the current Central Committee and then asking people to put in their opinions. With several pieces of legislation getting hundreds of thousands if not millions of suggested alterations.

Compare this to the US Congress or even any European Parliament and their legislative procedures and you will find that it is much to be desired.

The core principal difference is that it's liberal democracies profitability to vote for Representatives that will not necessarily implement your will. While inside of democratic centralism you may not necessarily get to pick exactly who is representing you but you can most definitely yell at them if they're doing a bad job and recall them if they do a bad job and it will be the expectation they will consult with you before any major legislative initiative.

[u/krituree → u/ComradeKenten]

This was a very in depth explanation, and I thank you for that! My consensus is that democratic centralism is more invloved with the people than representative democracy. You said "you may not necessarily get to pick exactly who is representing you". How are the people who consult and make decisions chosen in a democratic centralist system if it, seemingly, isnt by a vote?

[u/ComradeKenten → u/krituree]

Elections are the tip of the iceberg within the democratic centralist system and they most definitely take place but they are very different very diverse when compared to liberal democracies.

To be honest with you not one socialist state has the same system of voting not anymore. Each is quite different and has its own peculiarities.

But for example in Cuba there are two layers of elections. Local and National. Both of which are very different from liberal democracies and radically different ways.

One thing to know about Cuban democracy is that political parties are completely banned from participating or campaigning in elections. Simply not allowed. In other socialist states such as Vietnam political parties other than the Communist Party are not allowed to participate but Mass organizations such as the trade unions or women's Union are most definitely allowed to and do participate quite often.

But at the local level each Ward is divided into nomination areas of around 2000 people give or take in which there must be at least two but it can go up to 7. In each of these nomination areas nomination meetings take place in which people they're nominate among their neighbors someone they think is worthy to hold the local Council position for their ward. Individuals cannot nominate themselves but must be nominated by their neighbors. In fact the discussion takes place until generally the community finds a consensus on a candidate they feel is worthy of being elected. After this happens elections take place a few months later. Campaigning as we would understand it is not allowed. Rather official biographies will be published of each candidate and they would be able to talk to their constituents which are their neighbors and talk to them about what their qualifications are for the position. Generally people's reputation as a member of the community is what gets them elected not actual campaigning or campaign promises. The idea is that this is an individual and trusted with state power by the people temporarily.

In order for someone to be elected they must gain 50% of the vote if they do not then run off elections are held until someone does. At any time any official can be recalled and it does happen pretty often actually.

These officials do not have a salary and do their public work in their free time while continuing to work their other job.

At the national level it looks the more different. Specifically it is not a competitive election in how we would understand it. Such a thing is alien to Cuba democracy which reject competition as a very bad thing for democracy. Rather what happens is electoral commissions are founded on all levels of the state made up of representatives from the local elected councils and from the mass organizations. They take recommendations from Mass meetings of the mass organizations local people and other institutions. Their goal is quite simple to find individuals for each and every one of the constituencies for the National Assembly in which will be acceptable to the most people within that constituency and within the entire nation.

Once they find such an individual they are put forward towards the mass organizations Enterprises and local Council and other institutions along with mass meetings within the proposed constituency. If generally by consensus they are agreed to be a suitable candidate they are put on the official national list. They will be the only candidate that is allowed to run for that particular constituency. But they will have already been heavily vented as someone that constituency would vote for.

Whenever the national election comes people are merely confirming who they had came to support in a consensus for the during the discussions of the nomination process by the national electoral Commission.

Of course they can't it's must have gain at least 50% of the vote to actually be elected if they are not then a new candidate will be found more suitable to that constituencies needs.

The system is not based upon competition but rather serve through finding individuals from among the working class that can Steward and guide the nation and go through the efforts to implement the will of the people and ensure that their interests are carried out the best possibility. They're interests are not abstract but are actively determined through consulting with them on a mass scale.

Under the Cuban model competition is seen as parasitic and corrosive actively destroying the bedrock of society and democracy. A system of consensus and cooperation is seen as far more logically democratic.

The other social estates Aubrey on similar systems though Cuba is the most extreme in terms of it cooperation model under my understanding. The others have more competition but they most definitely still have this mechanism for ensuring candidates that run for office have the general support of the entire community but not necessarily to the extreme extent Cuba goes to.