Democracy in Marxism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007) |
The Marxist view is fundamentally opposed to liberal democracy believing that the capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, as it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Marxism views liberal democracy as nothing more than a tool used by the bourgeois state to control the masses while giving them the illusion that their voice matters.
This is because they believe that in a capitalist state all "independent" media and most political parties are controlled by capitalists and one either needs large financial resources or to be supported by the bourgeoisie to win an election. Karl Marx described parliamentary democracy as "deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament"[1] Thus the Marxists believe that in a capitalist state, the system focusses on resolving disputes within the ruling bourgeosie class and ignores the interests of the proletariat or labour class which are not represented and therefore dependent on the bourgeoisie's good will: "Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty” – supposedly petty – details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers"!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc., – we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.” (Lenin, State and Revolution, Chapter 5)
Moreover, even if representatives of the proletariat class are elected in a capitalist country, Marxists claim they have limited power over the country's affairs as the economic sphere is largely controlled by private capital and therefore the representative's power to act is curtailed. Essentially, minarchists (only a small minority of those supporting liberal democracy) claim that in the ideal liberal state the functions of the elected government should be reduced to the minimum (i.e. the court system and security). Hence Marxists see a proletarian revolution necessary to bring power into hands of opressed classes.
Lenin insisted that bourgeois democracy in fact a dictatorship of bourgeoisie[2], while dictatorship of proletariat is a highest possible form of democracy (as it represents the will of the masses, rather than the wealthy). The proletariat must, just like the bourgeoisie use the state machinery to protect itself from other classes.
- Marx: “...When the workers replace the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by their revolutionary dictatorship ... to break down the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... the workers invest the state with a revolutionary and transitional form ...
- Engels: “...And the victorious party” (in a revolution) “must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority?...
- Engels: “As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ....
- Lenn: The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is rule won and maintained by the use of violence by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, rule that is unrestricted by any laws.
- Lenin: A state of the exploited must fundamentally differ from such a state; it must be a democracy for the exploited, ‘and a means of suppressing the exploiters; and the suppression of a class means inequality for that class, its exclusion from “democracy”.[1]
Contents |
[edit] Theoretical Basis
Marxists commonly agree that the dictatorship of the proletariat will organize itself along populist lines. Marxists are unapalogenic about the fact that the proletarian state will in fact be a tyranny of the majority. It is commonly held that the masses will implement a form of direct democracy modeled on the Paris Commune and similar to the original soviets.
The proletarian form of democracy (the dictatorship of the proletariat) will be truly representative and indeed be the "highest form of democracy". Marx in "The Civil War in France", an important work, claimed that the masses will employ what is now called council democracy to govern themselves and defend against the classes they had just overthrown during their revolution.
[edit] In practice
[edit] Paris Commune
The Paris Commune is regarded as the first proletarian state, despite its short lifespan. Some Marxists, such as Trotskyists regard it as the only proletarian state. All Marxists regard the Paris Commune as a vital organization and many later theories of implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat are based on the commune. Indeed, Marx based the original concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat on the Paris Commune.
[edit] Soviet system
A soviet republic is a system of government in which the whole state power belongs to the Soviets - councils of employees[3]. Although the term usually associated with communist states, it was not initially intended to represent only one political force, but merely a form of democracy and representation. Supporters claim that there were examples of Soviet Republics with multi-party system and even without a communist party. Theoretically, in classical Soviet Republic all power belongs to the hierarchy of Councils, with the Supreme Council on the top. It means that the Supreme Council has authority to alter the constitution, resolve trials, sentence people, change the government, confiscate property, reform language and appoint any official by simple majority. Constitution of the USSR of 1977 states "The Supreme Soviet of the USSR is empowered to deal with all matters within the jurisdiction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics(...)Laws of the USSR shall be enacted by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR or by a nationwide vote (referendum) held by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR" Decisions of the councils does not require to be ratified or undersigned by any other body or person. In practice the councils do not normally execute all these powers, but rather institute bodies to perform their work. However, when Lenin was still in power, he issued a "temporary" ban on factions within the party. This ban remained until the fall of Communism and according to critics made the democratic procedures an empty formality.[4]
[edit] Criticism
[edit] See also
[edit] Notes
- ^ Karl Marx. The civil war in France
- ^ V.I.Lenin. Full collection of works, 4th edition, vol. 25, p.385
- ^ Constitution of the USSR (1977)
- ^ A Country Study: Soviet Union (Former). Chapter 7 - The Communist Party. Democratic Centralism. The Library of Congress. Country Studies. Retrieved on October 24, 2005.
