Another kind of democracy

Just how democratic is this society ? In my constituency it doesn't matter who I vote for, the Tory still wins. Every time ! The first past the post system is iniquitous. It is easily possible for a government to be elected with a relatively small minority of the electorate voting for it. What kind of legitimacy does this give it ?

Therefore, I support the introduction of what I believe to be a much more democratic system, the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.

Moreover, There is very little policy choice available to the electorate. This is partly due to the tendency of fptp to produce a situation in which predominantly only two parties have a serious prospect of power. The major parties therefore incline towards what they perceive to be the centre ground, to try to pick up undecided voters . The so called centre ground may, and currently is, moving to the Right. In some societies an ostensibly plural party system has functioned to support the status quo.In this situation, having a limited range of choice means very little substantial choice. It's heads they win, tails we lose.

It may also be that certain things are taken as given. In an alleged communist society, for example, the social system itself may not be an issue in an election. This seems also to be the case in a capitalist society. The idea that an election can actually change the fundamental nature of a society, is largely notional, in many instances. 

The key issues for me are, to what extent may a socialist society be said to be an open society ? Is capitalism a closed society, because its market basis is fundamentally regarded as given ? Is the ideological domination of the 'market society' produced by a largely dominated media, including commercial advertising, which covertly proposes not just a particular product, but also a particular lifestyle, an indication of a largely closed society, albeit it one in which overt oppression is somewhat muted ? I leave these as an open questions, for others to consider, although my own views are clearly inclined to the affirmative.

The crucial issue is, is there a genuine socialist alternative to a market dominated society ? Many societies which have claimed to be socialist,, have been accused of being totalitarian dictatorships. This may an unfair accusation, to some extent, but I certainly don't want to support any form of dicatatorship. It is time to reject any idea of a dictatorship of the proletariat. The views of Marx have all too often been distorted to fit the ambitions of a self-appointed 'revolutionary elite'. Likewise, we should reject any notion of 'democratic centralism' or 'vanguardism'. Socialists need to be constantly in the eyes and ears of the electorate. Not huddled together in some dark plotting corner.

An audacious definition of socialism would be that it is full democracy, in which the principle of equality is applied throughout society. The owners of the means of producing, and reproducing, wealth, based on their ability to exploit the labour of the majority, can't support democracy in any meaningful way. It is not in their interests to do so.

In the society in which we live, this is currently an aspiration for some of us. However, the politics of here and now need to be informed by this aspiration. A social democracy which rejects the idea of compromise and gradualism, should be dynamic in its determination to go beyond what appears to be achievable in the short run. The dream is a motivational force, utopian only in the best sense of the term. Its application to politics is immediate. The practice of democracy, could be the practice of socialism. Social democracy and socialism are not alternatives. One is an expression of the desire to achieve the other, in hostile circumstances.