Bourgeois
democracy and proletarian democracy.
A
talk given to the Stalin Society on 24th July 2005
By Wilf Dixon.
This
title embraces far more than I realised when I first thought to suggest making
it the subject of a talk here at the Stalin Society. As communists we have a
responsibility to explain to workers, class conscious youth and all those who
instinctively and consciously reject the trappings of life in western bourgeois
society and its political life, which they say is democratic and therefore the
will of the majority, that even the most democratically elected Parliament
cannot change the nature of the bourgeois state. I can only scratch the surface
here but the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao Tse-tung all carry
articles on the nature of the state and class society which are the
corner-stone of any revolutionary understanding of democracy. To help give some
form to this talk, I have listed the following headings:-
1)
Democracy as a form of State rule.
2)
Universal Suffrage.
3)
Parliament and Elections.
4)
Opportunism and Parliamentarism.
5)
Successful participation in Parliament for revolutionary objectives.
6)
Proletarian democracy with reference to the Soviet Union and China.
7)
Bourgeois democracy and modern imperialism.
8)
Some points on elections and the current political climate.
Democracy
as a form of state rule.
The bourgeoisie have surrounded the word democracy with a halo as if it is the
holiest of holy words. The social-democratic ‘tradition’ prevailing in Britain
hardly ever subjects the meaning of the word to the scrutiny it needs. Although
this may be changing since we hear it every day fall off the lips of George
Bush and Tony Blair. But I don’t think this questioning is going very deep
because the social-democrats satisfy themselves with merely describing Bush and
Blair as hypocrites or inconsistent on this question. Which, of course, they
are. However, what U.S. imperialism seems to have discovered is that it has
enough wealth and power that it can in many situations at the present time
promote individuals, buy a bandwagon of raz-ma-taz and build a movement for
optimistic change which can persuade enough people to vote for whoever. This
has worked particularly in Poland, Eastern Europe generally and parts of the
old Soviet Union.
‘Democracy’
needs to be stripped of the humbug that surrounds the word. Before the
emergence of classes and the consequent emergence of the state which comes into
being as a product of the irreconcilable nature of class contradictions in
class society, that is in order that the ruling class can hold down the subject
class, there would undoubtedly have been contradictions among the people of the
gens and tribes. Contradictions that may have lead to violence. Almost
certainly between contending tribes. There would also have been discussion and
consultation to handle disputes within the tribes and families of whatever form
with the elders holding particular authority. Engels’ brilliant work on the
‘Origin of the family Private Property and the State’, needs to be read and
re-read to get an adequate grasp of this subject. ‘Democracy’, is not “allowing
people to have their say” as it is commonly understood to mean. Democracy is a
form of state. The word emerged to describe a form of slave state in Greece and
Rome. The franchise did not extend to the slaves. Nor would any thinking person
reasonably expect slaves, who are merely the property of their owners, to have
a vote. I make this point to paint a more vivid picture of ‘democracy’ being a
class question. A class question which is obscured under the rule of the
bourgeoisie which came to power waving the banner of general freedom and
democracy. However, my knowledge of Greece and Rome is scanty and not a subject
of detailed discussion here. But I have no doubt that there are people here who
can speak in depth on this subject. Democracy is a class question and always
has been. It can be nothing else.
Universal
Suffrage.
It
seems that there were democratic forms of the state in Rome and Greece based on
the number of slaves owned. Serfdom and feudalism under which land ownership is
the basis of wealth of the ruling class of feudal lords, replaced slavery and
the land tillers were no longer owned directly by their masters. However, by
virtue of his landlessness the serf and later the peasant was inextricably tied
to his master having to work increasingly longer on his lord’s land as payment
for living and tilling for himself on the Lords land. There was no vote or
representative body for the peasants except in as much as they could petition
their lord or even the King or his ministers against grievances. Certainly, they
had no representatives in Parliaments that may be called by the King in order
to raise money or taxes. Here I am not attempting a detailed study of life in
the shires, which in some respects may have allowed more freedom to influence
the decisions of local dignitaries. I don’t know. It is worth thinking about.
However, it occurs to me that in the era of the rule of finance capital the
mass of the population are more powerless today under conditions of fully
consummated and decaying bourgeois rule than they have ever been. Powerlessness
manifests in many forms. I recently read an article drawing attention to the
fact that it is common for people in modern bourgeois Britain to be attacked
and relieved of their possessions while people stand-by and say or do nothing.
Two aspects of powerlessness are suggested here. The attacked individual may on
the one hand meekly give up his possessions having no trust that others would
help him if he or she resisted. People nearby, on the other hand, reveal their
own sense of powerlessness and fear in failing to intervene. I have the feeling
that this kind of thing is a product of individualist atomised western
bourgeois society which, of course, could not be tolerated in socialist society
but it is also unlikely to have existed in medieval society except where the
attacker was the local lord or one of his flunkies. It is common for
individuals to be attacked in full view of others without anybody intervening.
The proletariat is certainly alienated from the final product of its labour
more so under capitalism than ever before or in former stages of development of
human economic activity. But this alienation alone does not explain the very
real sense of powerlessness that prevails in modern imperialist Britain.
However,
I must not digress too much from the subject before us today. The
distinguishing feature of the present day parliamentary democracies of the
developed capitalist west is that suffrage has been extended to the whole adult
population. Universal Suffrage is comparatively recent. In Britain even the
Levellers and also the Diggers although I am not completely sure on the latter;
who were the most revolutionary wing of Cromwell’s army, called for universal
male suffrage. In Britain, women were ‘granted’ the vote in 1929. Before that,
only women of certain property and independent means were ‘given’ the vote. The
idea was that in order to have the right to vote, one had to have a stake in
the system. The propertyless have always been despised and mistrusted. I would be
interested to have a class breakdown of the near 40% of the population who
didn’t vote at the last election.
So
what do we say about universal suffrage? Does it change the character of
elections in a bourgeois republic? In the sense that universal suffrage cannot
change the nature of the state in a bourgeois republic, no. Parliaments elected
by universal suffrage are acceptable to the ruling bourgeoisie. But in the
sense that at certain times it is possible for the working class to utilise and
gather strength through participation in parliamentary elections, it does. In
State and Revolution, Lenin said that Engels regarded universal suffrage as a
measure of the maturity of the proletariat. In an introduction to Marx’s Class
Struggle in France, Engels speaks at length regarding the successes of
participation in Parliament in Germany as against street fighting at a time
when the proletariat couldn’t hope to match the weapons technology of the army
and or when the loyalty of the troops to their commanders could be guaranteed.
I’ll quote from pages 659 to 667 of my volume of selected works:-
“Thanks to the intelligent use which the
German workers made of the universal suffrage introduced in 1866,
the astonishing growth of the party is made plain to all the world
by incontestable figures….Then came recognition of this advance by
high authority in the shape of the Anti-Socialist Law…..
“…the German workers rendered a second great
service to their cause in addition to the first, a service performed
by their mere existence as the strongest, best disciplined and most rapidly
growing Socialist Party,
They supplied their comrades in all countries with a new weapon,
and one of the sharpest, when they showed them how to make use of universal suffrage.
“With this successful utilisation of
universal suffrage, however, an entirely new method of proletarian struggle came into operation,
and this method quickly developed further. It was found that the state institutions, in which the rule of the
bourgeoisie is organised, offer the working class still further
opportunities to fight these very state institutions. The workers
took part in elections to particular Diets, to municipal councils
and to trades courts; they contested with the bourgeoisie every
post in the occupation of which a sufficient part of the
proletariat had a say. And so it happened that the bourgeoisie and
the government came to be much more afraid of the legal than of the illegal action of the worker’ party, of the
results of elections than of those of rebellion.
“For here, too, the conditions of the struggle had essentially
changed. rebellion in the old style, street fighting with
barricades which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, was to a
considerable extent obsolete.
It is important to remember that this
introduction was written in 1894 and published in 1895. But there is also an
interesting remark referring to France and Spain on page 659 which I will read
now:-
‘There had long been universal suffrage in France, but it had
fallen into disrepute through the misuse to which the Bonapartist government had
put it. After the Commune there was no workers’ party to make use of it. It had
also existed in Spain since the republic, but in Spain boycott of
elections was ever the rule of all serious opposition parties. The experience
of the Swiss with universal suffrage was also anything but encouraging for
workers’ party. The revolutionary workers of the Latin countries had been wont
to regard the suffrage as a snare, as an instrument of Government trickery.
Engels is not
saying that boycott is incorrect in the case of Spain, although in the context
of his points regarding participation in parliament giving the opportunity for
the working class to accumulate strength as in the case of Germany, he may be
advising the Spanish or indeed the revolutionary workers of the Latin countries
in general to learn from the German example. Be that as it may, the quote
indicates to me that Engels regards intelligent boycott of elections as well as
intelligent participation as both valid. Let us also note from here, though,
that this period in which the German social-democrats utilised the Bundestag
and came to be regarded as the leading Party of the 2nd
International continued until the outbreak of the First World War. It was the
period of peaceful development of the working class movement in the imperialist
countries which had blunted its revolutionary will and fostered opportunism
such that the majority of the Parties of the 2nd International
supported their own imperialist bourgeoisie in a predatory imperialist war.
Parliament
and Elections
As
I pointed out earlier, Engels in an introduction to Marx’s Class Struggle in
France speaks at length on the importance of utilising Parliament in order to
assist the working class in gaining strength. He even says that at a time when
confronting the bourgeoisie at the barricades brings defeat, it is preferable
or that participation in Parliament has brought more success than erecting the
barricades. So what is the point at issue here? The point at issue is the
question what is to be gained from participation in parliamentary elections. By
participation we are, of course, talking about putting up candidates. I am
going to come back to this question because it is an important practical one
about which we cannot allow ourselves to be satisfied with the general view
alone. A general view which seems to have reduced the question of participation
in bourgeoise elections and Parliaments to one of ‘it is a good thing’,
therefore, we must do it. I blame opportunism and social-democratic prejudices
for such shallowness. It is absolutely essential for communists, in imperialist
Britain especially, where opportunism prevails in the workers’ and
revolutionary workers’ organisations and legality and legalism prevails, to
expose Parliament as an instrument of bourgeois class rule.
In
‘State and Revolution’, page 53 of the Chinese edition, under the heading ‘Abolition
of Parliamentarism’, Lenin first quotes Marx writing of the Paris Commune:-
‘The Commune,’ Marx wrote, ‘was to be
a working not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same
time….’
‘….instead of deciding once in three or six years which
member of the ruling class was to represent and repress (ver- und
zertreten) the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to
serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage
serves every other employer in the search for the workers, foremen and
bookkeepers for his business’.
Revisionism
in Britain gave us the British Road to Socialism and the main argument against
the so-called peaceful road to socialism centres around the nature of the
state. And so it should. But what about the kind of democracy the proletariat
itself needs in order to exercise its power. The commune, and of course later
the soviet, must be executive and legislative at the same time. It must be a
practical body and to be a practical body it must be close to the masses in the
factories and workplaces. This is a new form of political power. In fact it is
not political power in the sense we have come to know it. That is the bourgeois
sense of being in or out of ‘office’
It
is worth noting here that the adoption of the British Road to Socialism also
meant the CPGB switching from factory to constituency organisation. The two
forms of organisation quite starkly outline the difference between bourgeois
and proletarian democracy.
The
bourgeois Parliament is part of the state apparatus of a bourgeois democratic
republic or monarchy. I will try and make some points on why the proletariat
does not need a Parliament. I am of course talking about a proletariat that
holds power. The main aspect of this is connected with some important questions
of Marxism on the nature of the state.
The
state came into being with the emergence of classes and class contradictions.
As such it is not a neutral body but an organ of repression. What distinguishes
the bourgeois democratic republic from the feudal or slave states is the
existence of a parliament elected by universal adult suffrage with the power to
legislate Government policy and create laws and statutes. As the argument goes,
because the Parliament is elected, it therefore expresses the will of the
majority or the popular will. Hence, Parliament is said to be not an expression
of class rule but a prize which parties expressing the interests of the classes
they represent should seek to win. Unfortunately, there are two things which
prevent the bourgeois parliament from becoming the expression of the will of
the oppressed masses. One is that the Parliament once elected, with the ruling
party having the majority of seats, it is immovable until the next election and
its members can be bought by the high salary that goes with being an M.P and
the thousands of threads that tie the most freely elected Parliament to the
economic power of the bourgeoisie. The other is that real power resides in the
executive authority of the bureaucracy, civil service, police and standing
army. Parliaments come and go, but this powerful body, handpicked for its
loyalty to the existing social order, cannot be removed by the legislative
assembly. Should a Party of the working class and oppressed masses gain power
and begin to meddle with the sacred property rights of the ruling class never
mind begin to dispossess them of their wealth and privileges, there is always
the standing army to disperse the Parliament and murder the peoples’ leaders.
In
the absence of such a standing army, Marx and Engels were prepared to consider
the theoretical possibility of the proletariat winning a majority of
Parliamentary seats and using this power to buy out, rest by degrees from the
bourgeoisie their power and thus gain power for the proletariat. England
apparently, was such a country in the mid nineteenth century. Be that as it
may, there is no example in history where a class holding power has given up
that power without a fierce and violent struggle. Marx and Engels admitted of
this theoretical possibility but only a charlatan and a bourgeois trickster
would attempt to make such a consideration the main plank of a Marxist
understanding on the proletariat’s struggle for socialism.
Based
on the experience of the Paris Commune Marx and Engels introduced one amendment
to the Communist Manifesto:-
‘‘One thing especially was proved by
the Commune, viz., that ‘the working class cannot simply lay hold
of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own
purposes.’’ (quoted by Lenin page 43 of State and Revolution
Chinese edition).
The
point is not to lay hold of the ready made state machine of the bourgeoise,
But to smash
it and replace it with the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat
organised in communes or soviets. The bureaucratic state must be smashed. That
is the power of the bourgeoisie in the military bureaucratic state apparatus of
repression and coercion, replaced by the armed proletariat or a peoples’
militia. The right of the proletariat to bear arms in order to exercise its
power as a class is the most important expression of peoples’ democracy. Lenin
quoting, Marx at length, explains in detail, contrasting anarchism with Marxism
on the question of the state, that the bureaucracy will not disappear
immediately. However, the communes and later the soviets will be working bodies
expressing the needs in production and life of the working masses and therefore
not requiring the bureaucratic apparatus of repression of the bourgeois state
machine. These communes will have their authority centralised through a
national body made up of representatives of the communes with the commune
having right of recall of its representatives and criticism of their
activities. This is democracy and centralism in a new kind of proletarian
state, which is not a state in the strictest sense. It is a state in transition
expressing the power and will of the formerly oppressed masses. With the securing
of that power, and the creation of a new society and new morality and relations
between people in that nation and internationally, the state begins to whither
away and the day will come as stated in the Communist Manifesto when the state
is a thing of the past consigned to the museum of history along with other
antiquities like the spinning wheel and the bronze axe
Opportunism
and Parliamentarism
The
Oxford dictionary definition of opportunism is the ‘adaptation of policy to
circumstances regardless of principle’. I have always understand it to mean and
preferred the more precise definition from a Marxist-Leninist perspective of it
meaning the sacrifice of long term aims for short term gains. Opportunism can
be expressed in terms of any ideology but with regard to the subject we are
dealing with today, Marxist Leninists or even those who call themselves
Marxists and are reluctant to also call themselves Leninists, pride themselves
that their participation is revolutionary, while that of the reformist parties
is not. It is not good enough to make such assumptions because opportunism is a
slippery animal and all practical experience of participation in parliamentary
election campaigns must be carefully assessed and summed up as to its successes
and failings in furthering the long term interests of educating and organising
the revolutionary proletariat.
Of
course, we are not here to lecture the Labour Party on how to utilise
Parliament. The New Labour Party signalled to the bourgeoisie that it is a
fully consummated bourgeois party of the American ‘democrat’ type when it
abandoned clause four. Its only fig leaf making it possible for some ‘left’
representatives of the working class to justify their membership of the Labour
Party. Tony Blair has done the working class movement a favour by removing this
fig leaf. By becoming the preferred ruling Party for the British ruling class,
New Labour can be perceived as stronger. But it is in fact weaker and the fact
that it is becoming increasingly exposed as a Party of imperialism makes it of
less use to the British ruling class. The more intelligent representatives of
British imperialism understand only too well the roll that reformism and
illusions among the working class in its reformist representatives plays in
bolstering the rule of the bourgeoisie.
Hence
the emergence of new reformist parties and coalitions. The formation of the SLP
was an important development which I welcomed along with Arthur Scargill
leaving the Labour Party and becoming a potential focus for rallying class
conscious workers with a base in the working class of this country.
Unfortunately, Arthur Scargill is only one man. A man of tremendous courage and
ability to lead the working class in struggle and stand up to the class enemy.
But one man none-the-less who, it has to be said, must have illusions in social
democracy and Parliament. Or, he sacrifices the long term aim of expropriation
of the bourgeoisie in favour of winning reforms through Parliament. None of
this can I speak confidently about because when dealing with a man of Arthur
Scargill’s stature in the history of working class struggle in Britain, I think
it is essential to be concrete. The work needs to be done in summing up the
practice of the SLP and there are people in this room better able to do it than
me. However, the SLP did not develop as I hoped. The Party was from the outset
torn to pieces by the Trotskyites who worked in their usual way in its various
committees. Something that Arthur Scargill showed his political maturity in fighting.
But for all this the SLP remained trapped within the social-democratic
perspectives that are peculiar to the British working class movement. That is
why it is fair to say that the SLP was trying to recapture or restore the Old
Labour Party. I believe that Scargill wanted to build a Party which was
internationalist and rooted in the everyday struggle of working people in this
country. But he remains a prisoner of his own social-democratic illusions and
prejudices. Naming the SLP committees Constituency SLP’s shows clearly the
Parliamentary perspective that the SLP had and has.
I
believe that the failure of the SLP is bound up with the fact that the masses
of this country are becoming increasingly disillusioned with Parliament and
instinctively mistrust those who say vote for my Party and we will do whatever.
Scargill losing to Mandelson in County Durham upset me at the time and I
believe that of all election campaigns it should be subject to searching
analysis. That a crook and spinner like Mandelson can win without the working
class movement having gained anything such as a stronger local organisation
cannot be just passed over as ‘we did it so it must have had some positive
effects’.
Successful
Participation in Parliament for Revolutionary Objectives
It
is necessary to grasp that participation or non-participation in Parliamentary
elections and Parliament must not be made, or seen to be made an objective in
itself, that it is a question that needs to be studied anew at every juncture
and judged from the standpoint of the interests of the class struggle of the
proletariat. We have examples of stands taken by revolutionary parties towards
elections and Parliament. The Bolsheviks had a policy of boycott of elections
to a Duma hastily convened by the Tsar when the 1905-7 revolution was still on
the ascendancy. Lenin commended those deputies who were prepared to go to
prison rather than vote for war credits at the beginning of the lst World War.
Such a picture would do a great deal to raise the consciousness of the
proletariat and rally its vanguard behind the leadership of the communists.
I
have spoken of the period after the Paris Commune when the German
social-democrats utilised participation in Parliament in a comparatively
peaceful period to help the German working class gather strength at a time of
anti-socialist laws. As I have suggested this whole period between 1871 and the
outbreak of World War 1 is a time when the working class of Europe with the
exception of Russia was able to wring concessions and reforms. It was a period
which nurtured opportunism, a more powerful weapon, used to tame the working
class movement, than banning orders and repression. The super-profits looted
from the colonies allowed the monopoly capitalist class to set aside funds for
the purpose of buying off key sections of the working class whose reformist
illusions came to dominate the legal and ‘respectable’ social democratic
organisations of the working class.
I
am hoping the discussion will throw up examples where revolutionary parties
have utilised Parliament to promote and strengthen a mass movement. In Britain,
I think the best examples lie not with the communists, although I am aware of
the speeches made by Willie Gallagher and Saklatvala before him. In Britain,
Revolutionary politics are seldom far from the issue of Ireland and I am
thinking of the use made by Sinn Fein of Parliament while refusing to take the
oath and therefore their seats. But the best example is the slogan of the
ballot box and the gun and Bobby Sands’ brilliant victory while on hunger
strike in prison. Sinn Fein and the IRA were able to arrive at these tactics
from the point of view of non-participation in terms of not taking your seat in
a Parliament of the colonial master that required all MPs to take an oath of
allegiance to the Queen. Surely communist representatives of a Party firmly
rooted and based on the struggle of the workers and oppressed peoples can
devise tactics to expose the fraud of bourgeois democracy and the bourgeois
parliament based on non-participation as well as participation.
For
Marxist-Leninists, the crux of the issue is the utilising of Parliament to
promote and strengthen the struggle of the working class and oppressed people.
For the reformists and opportunists, obtaining seats in Parliament is the prize
itself. I can’t speak for anybody else here, but when George Galloway was
elected in Bethnal Green and Bow on a strong platform of opposition to the war
in Iraq I was pleased. This punctured the arrogance of the Blairites and it was
a measure of the political maturity of the people of that area. It was also
heart-warming to see him show courage and challenge the lies of the British and
American imperialists which are spewed out from the bourgeois media, at that
so-called American senatorial enquiry. A modern day house of un-American
activities. A lot of people were delighted to see and hear Galloway turn the
tables. The Americans will be a bit more careful before they try and do Blair
another favour that helps him deal with his domestic politics. We are yet to
see if Galloway has the intelligence courage and will to use his seat in
Parliament to strengthen the movement against British and American
expansionism. This is a double-edged thing. If he does then it must be judged
concretely. Is he working to strengthen the popular movement or just to make a
name for himself and become just another tail demanding that he wag the dog? In
other words promoting new illusions that returning more Respect MP’s is the
answer. He is not a communist and I doubt that he will submit himself to
criticism and censure by his ‘party’, if indeed we can call his rag-bag of
followers a Party at all. ‘Respect’ has no definite program and it is making a
virtue of being all things to all men. The real test of whether Galloway is a
true representative of the masses is whether he considers his position more
important than the popular movement and is he prepared to submit himself to the
interests of the peoples’ struggle against imperialism and imperialist war.
Proletarian
democracy with particular reference to the Soviet Union and China.
Before
dealing with this question it is important to re-cap on the main distinctions
between bourgeois and proletarian democracy. All bourgeois parliaments, if
indeed they are not merely a talking shop, are separated from the executive
authority, the bureaucracy, the army of civil servants charged with the
responsibility of carrying out the legislation passed by Parliament. This
bureaucracy is part of the bourgeois state machine and is a bulwark of
bourgeois power. The cornerstone of proletarian power, the commune or the
soviet, is both legislative and executive at the same time. Before the October
revolution decided the issue of the ascendancy of the workers and peasants,
there existed what Lenin described as a form of duel power. Kerensky’s
provisional government was issuing orders and laws. But as is described in John
Read’s ‘Ten Days that Shook the World’, if you wanted to know something or have
something done you had to go to the Soviets or workers and soldiers committees.
Exactly so, the power of the workers and peasants in the Soviets was executive
and legislative at the same time.
This
had to be legally formalised in Soviet law. However, there was the issue of the
Constituent Assembly. The demand for a Constituent Assembly in conditions of
the Tsarist autocracy was a progressive and democratic demand. However, the
Provisional Government of Kerensky and supported by the Socialist
Revolutionaries had repeatedly postponed elections for a Constituent Assembly
because they wished to continue participation in the predatory imperialist war.
It is not surprising, however, that the classes and Parties that had been
overthrown by the November 7th revolution should become as zealous
in their demands for elections to a constituent assembly as they were in
post-poning it previously.
I
am going to quote extensively on this question of the Constituent Assembly from
Andrew Rothstein’s excellent book ‘A History of the U.S.S.R’, pages 56-57.
‘The intention of the Bolsheviks –
with which the Left Socialist revolutionaries agreed – was to
induce the Constituent Assembly peacefully to accept the basic
decrees of the November revolution, and to regard its own
principal function as ‘the general elaboration of the fundamental principles of
the socialist transformation of society’. For this purpose a ‘Declaration of
Rights of the Working and exploited People’, embodying the decrees
in question, was drawn up and adopted by the C.E.C. on January 16th.
In order to give the bourgeois parties an opportunity to bring the
composition of the assembly into greater conformity with the feeling of the
masses, the C.E.C. had earlier (December, 4th) unanimously adopted
a decree providing for the right to recall deputies and to hold
new elections, where the local Soviets judged this expedient. But
this procedure was not put into effect, in view of the turn of events when the
time for opening the Constituent Assembly arrived.
‘This was on January 18th. By a large majority (roughly 60%
to 40%) the Assembly rejected the Bolshevik proposal to elect the
Left Socialist – Revolutionary leader, Maria Spiridinova, as President, and
chose one of the principal anti-Soviet Politicians, Victor Chernov (leader of the
Right S.R.s) instead. It refused even to discuss the Declaration of rights.
First the Bolsheviks and then the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries retired
from the Assembly in the course of the night (January 19th), after making it
clear that the Assembly by its actions was taking the path of
counter-revolution. At 4 am on January 19th the commander of the
sailors guarding the Assembly told Chernov ‘it was time to go
home, as the sailors were tired’: and twenty-four hours later the C.E.C.
decreed the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, as having ‘ruptured every
link between itself and the Soviet Republic of Russia’ ‘It must be
added that the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly attracted
much more attention abroad than it did in Russia.‘On January 23rd
the third All-Russian Congress of Soviets met in Petrograd and itself adopted
the Declaration of Rights of the labouring and Exploited Masses. This document
was embodied in all the subsequent Soviet Constitutions up to July 1936. With a
second resolution, ‘On the Federal Institutions of the Russian Republic’,
it represented the germ of the future Soviet constitutional structure.
Forgive
me for extending this quote, but I think what follows reveals the essence of
proletarian democracy which is important to grasp if we are not to fall victim
to bourgeois democratic prejudices and cretinism.
‘The Declaration proclaimed Russia to be a ‘Republic of
Soviets of Workers, Soldiers and Peasants’ Deputies’, in which all
authority was vested; and a ‘free union of free nations’. With the
aim of suppressing all exploitation of man by man, the Declaration
nationalised all land, forests, and mineral wealth without compensation,
transferred all banks to the State, enacted that ‘work useful to the community
shall be obligatory upon all’, and ratified the Soviet
Government’s decrees establishing workmen’s control of industry
and a Supreme Economic council, as a ‘first step’ towards
nationalisation of industry and transport. It repudiated Tsarist
debts, Tsarist secret treaties and the colonial policy of
capitalism. It decreed the arming of the workers, the disarming of
the propertied classes and their exclusion from the machinery of
government. It proclaimed that Russia’s aim was a democratic
peace, based on free self-determination of the nations. ‘……..Relations
with Soviet Republics as they were formed, or with regions distinguished by
national priorities, were to be regulated by the C.E.C. and the appropriate
bodies in the territories concerned. The central authority was responsible only
for measures applying to State as a whole. ‘All local affairs are
decided solely by the local Soviets.’
I hope this
has helped me draw out the essence of proletarian democracy. That is the real
power to decide and act at grass roots or local level. The right of recall and
criticism of representatives to the higher bodes. These rights were enshrined
in the Soviet constitution. They were the essence of workers’ and peasants’
power, and what made the dictatorship of the proletariat strong and the soviet
people able to defeat the class enemy within in order to consolidate the Soviet
State. The movements to purge the party and state could not have been carried
out just by orders from above. I must add that I mean movements to purge the
Party and state of backward and counter-revolutionary elements. These movements
required the active participation of the people and low-ranking Party members.
Purges directed only from above must at least be ratified by the lower bodies
and full explanations given. It is a matter of historical fact that the
Kruschevite revisionists were able to seize power and transform the state and
Party from being socialist and proletarian in character to one which gave free
reign to a bourgeoisified strata of technocrats and state-functionaries. We
have discussed in other talks, particularly on the question of Economic
Problems of Socialism in the USSR that it is probable that Stalin was preparing
the ground for launching a new campaign of criticism and self-criticism which
would have immediately had its echo at the lower levels and maybe would have
transformed the fortunes of the revisionists from success into failure. It is
certain that many Party leaders and state functionaries breathed a sigh of
relief when they learned that they did not have to face investigation of their
activities or justify their decisions and actions.
The
fact that the combined military might of the 14 intervening powers nor the
massive military machine assembled by Nazi Germany could overthrow the
dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR; yet a comparative handful of
revisionist conspirators can succeed, is a matter for deep reflection. It was
this that troubled Mao Tse-tung and led the Chinese Communists Party to launch
its campaign to criticise modern revisionism and launch the Cultural
Revolution. To my mind this movement failed in its objectives but there are some
successes, if not just the operas and films that came out at this time. I
believe this failure is rooted in the weak socialist economic base i.e.
industrial base and consequently a weaker proletariat in relation to the
peasantry. This may not have been so critical had Kruschev not stopped the aid
so important to kick-start Chinese socialist construction.
Bourgeois
democracy and modern imperialism
Even
the most democratically elected Parliament is tied by a thousand threads to the
interests of the bourgeoisie. Modern capitalism is not the economic system of
the bourgeoisie on the rise i.e. when it was deemed historically to be a
progressive class destroying the economic power of the feudal lords and
liberating the productive forces from the shackles of feudalism. Modern
capitalism is monopoly capitalism, which if one is to define imperialism, is
the essence of imperialism. Monopoly capitalism is moribund capitalism, i.e.
decaying capitalism. This is not to say that monopoly capitalism cannot make
innovations or expand its economic power. This is clearly not the case.
The
point is that monopoly capitalism strives for control and domination and not
economic freedom. To this end particular monopolies may at one time advocate
free trade in order to use market forces to oust their competitors and invade
the markets of weaker economies with cheap goods in order to destroy indigenous
industry, whilst at another or at the same time, erect trade barriers to
exclude competitors.
Monopoly
capitalism is in the business of destroying productive forces and propping up
feudalism in order to keep oppressed nations dependent. Monopoly capitalism is
in the business of destroying economic independence and the ability of nations
and peoples to feed themselves in order to extract raw materials and enforce
cash crops. The banks exact huge burdens of debt on the peoples and nations,
which stifle any ability to rise above pauper and dependency status. Clearly
this is a system of economic backwardness not progress. The striving for monopoly
and the interests of imperialism cannot but characterise, i.e. be the main
aspect of how we regard the Parliaments of the major capitalist countries. More
than ever, do the politicians of all the bourgeois parties become the
mouthpieces and tools of the interests of particular monopoly capitalist
concerns not just the general interests of the monopoly capitalist class.
Corruption is rife. In the thirties it was possible for there to be strong
communist parties in the parliaments of France and Germany. Of course, in the
case of the latter before the Nazis burnt down the Reichstag and unleashed the
reign of terror. Also, it was possible in France for the popular front to gain
huge success. But what of today? Money and wealth decide the competition between
two overtly bourgeois parties in both Britain and America. In America, it seems
impossible to even stand as a candidate without being or having the backing of
multi-millionaires. It is this firmly entrenched system of tweedle-dum and
tweedle-dee, which effectively disenfranchises the masses of the lowest strata
of workers and oppressed peoples. It is also the economic power and wealth of
imperialism which leads it to confidently advocate bourgeois democracy in areas
where it seeks to expand. Eastern Europe, Africa and certain other selected
areas for example.
All
this being the case, it is essential that communists must base themselves on
the struggle for the class and political interests of the workers and oppressed
peoples and not use precious resources in election campaigns we cannot win or
advance the interests of the working class. This has to be judged concretely
but putting up candidates when the deposit is certain to be lost is a waist of
time. That money can be used in exposing the fraud of bourgeois elections and
trying to reach those who instinctively reject the whole rotten system.
Some
points on and the current political climate.
The
title of this talk may seem somewhat academic and divorced from the conditions
currently facing us in Britain today. But I think not. While the state is
becoming more repressive and bourgeois democratic rights are being removed and
undermined, ostensibly to give the police powers to deal with acts of
terrorism, it is being made more difficult for communists who stay loyal to the
principles of Marxism Leninism to agitate and propagandise among workers and
oppressed peoples. This is the bigger prize for modern imperialist Britain
allied to the most aggressive and bellicose imperialist power of today, U.S.
imperialism. In this situation, it is essential for communists and all
progressive people to strike deep roots among the masses. This is one point,
perhaps the main point if we are to survive.
The
second point, is that if it is made illegal to make communist propaganda on the
grounds that it is indirectly aiding ‘terrorism’, communists are going to be
compelled to combine or find legal and illegal ways of agitating and organising
among the masses. While deep roots among the masses would be primary in this
situation, election campaigns would take on a new significance allowing
communists a legal platform for challenging the ruling monopoly capitalist
class and its lackeys. Parliamentary privilege allows MP’s to speak without
censure to a certain extent. So it would be essential to demand that any
successful candidate claiming to represent the workers or oppressed peoples use
that privilege to speak out against British imperialism and support the just
struggles against imperialism and imperialist war throughout the world. I will
stop here and I hope this introduction will stimulate discussion and help
deepen our understanding on the questions raised. But to Sum up I would like to
draw attention to the following:-
·
The
imperialists have made it essential that we deal with the question of the class
nature of democracy and expose the fraud of bourgeois democracy.
· Proletarian democracy
empowers the masses
· Participation or
non-participation in parliamentary elections must be judged concretely. I
favour non-participation and campaigns to boycott or spoil ballot papers at the
present time in order to give full reign to revolutionary agitation and
propaganda and aid reaching the most revolutionary and class conscious. Except
where there is a possibility of success or the masses demand that we stand.
· Successful candidates should
be under the strict control of the organisation they represent and give up a
proportion of their income as an MP to the party they represent, retaining what
is needed for a modest life style. Their income should be comparable to the
income gained by unionised workers in the basic industries of the country.
· Failure to live up to the
people’s hopes must be openly criticised. This will educate the people that
communist representatives strive to be tribunes of the people or they lose the
right to speak in their name.
· Above everything, communists
must be like fish in water with the masses and strike deep roots among the
masses, because that is where our power and strength lies.
Wilf
Dixon.
