Revolutionary Democracy

Emancipation in Classical Marxism

Soma Marik

• Publisher: Haymarket Books
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781608467297
• eBook ISBN: 9781608467303
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Russian History
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In this wide-ranging and insightful work, Soma Marik defends the legacy of the Bolshevik Revolution, arguing against many of its detractors that the early communist regime was centrally concerned with both the liberation of women and the expansion of democracy.

Soma Marik teaches Women's Studies and History at Jadavpur University.

1

INTRODUCTION

What is the relevance of Marxism in the contemporary world? Revolutionary socialists are today consistently confronted with the challenge that Marxism is a failed doctrine, a despotic Utopia that has been finally superseded by the coming of an eternal market-driven democracy. Throughout most of the twentieth century, revolutionary Marxism was identified with Stalinism, and the struggle for socialism was portrayed as a conflict between two camps and two systems, where the communist system led by the Soviet Union promised food security rather than democracy. As the economy of the former Soviet Union and other bureaucratized workers’ states faced their terminal crisis, it seemed evident not only to ideologues of capitalism but also to many one-time socialists, that socialism was inferior to capitalism, and that Marxism’s lack of commitment to genuine democracy was a major factor in the “demise of Marxism.”¹ Since the Soviet Union was often projected as a living embodiment of classical Marxism, the Marxist theory was portrayed as authoritarian, without a serious examination of what it said.² Moreover, it has also been concluded that the Bolshevik theory, whether or not directly inspired by Marx, had an authoritarian agenda right from the birth of Bolshevism,³ and finally, that consciously authoritarian choices on the part of the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, caused the establishment of a totalitarian regime after the October Revolution.⁴

We are therefore compelled to make a serious study in two parts in order to explore the original democratic commitments of revolutionary socialism, with which Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Clara Zetkin, Trotsky, Alexandra Kollontai and others were associated. First, we need to ask whether Marx’s opposition to economic liberalism turned him into an opponent of civil liberties. How democratic was the content of Marx’s own theory and practice?⁵ In the second place we have to look at the claim that the Leninist theory dictated the creation of Soviet totalitarianism.⁶ This necessitates a discussion on the Leninist theory of party as implemented in practice, the Bolshevik strategy of revolution and the manner in which the Bolsheviks held and exercised power from October 1917. It is only by relating these two apparently distinct themes—Marx and nineteenth-century socialism on the one hand and Lenin and the Bolsheviks on the other—that we can carry out a fresh assessment of the relationship between Marxism and Bolshevism on the question of democratic theory and begin to pose an answer to the question of how far they contributed to the rise of Stalinism.

For decades, academic industries have grown up around the study of Marxist theory and Soviet history. Yet this industry has made relatively little attempt at combining the study of theory and history. In the recent past a number of scholars have begun interrogating the thesis that Marx was a totalitarian or a “totalitarian democrat.”⁷ But almost without exception they have done so only to accuse Lenin and Bolshevism of totalitarianism.⁸ Studies on Leninism have by contrast often failed to relate it to his commitment to Marx’s views.⁹ If at all Marx and Lenin are combined in a study, the historical development is ignored in favor of an abstract theoretical model.¹⁰ At the same time, new trends in history writing with the stress on history from below have produced a remarkable series of books and specialized studies on the Russian revolutionary movements, the revolution of 1917, and the early years of the Soviet state. But while many of these throw considerable light on Bolshevik practice, there is little attempt to produce an integrated conceptualization of the relationship between Bolshevik theory and practice.¹¹ As a result the decline of democracy is often attributed to the Bolshevik theory without asking detailed questions about this.¹²

Three methodological points should be made here. The writings of Marx himself affirm the need for a ruthless criticism of everything existing, and call for self-criticism by the proletarian revolution. This self-critical approach must be extended to Marxist theory and practice. One major area where revolutionary Marxism has updated itself, as well as shrugged off the negative legacies of social democratic reformism and Stalinism in the course of the second half of the twentieth century is over women’s liberation.¹³ It was therefore also felt necessary to integrate the record of classical Marxism from Marx to the Bolsheviks on this question to a general study of Marxism and democracy, rather than relegate it, as is often done, to a separate study on Marxism and women’s liberation. Second, I aim at producing a social history of political theory, which emphasizes the relationship between Bolshevik political thought and the history of contemporary class struggles. While doing this, the criticism that there was a dichotomy between a democratic Marx and an authoritarian Bolshevism was interrogated by tracing whether there were discursive shifts in Marxism between the period of Marxism during the lifetime of its founders (1848–1895) and the Marxism of the Bolshevik era (1903–1921). Though theory has a degree of autonomy, it arises out of practice and can be best understood when it is placed in the crucibles of historical narrative. Thus socially conditioned, theory, too, plays its role in shaping the contours of politics and movements. In the third place, I have found it essential to challenge the view of Marxism as a set of texts detached from contemporary class struggle, with a hierarchy among the creators (for example, the once well-known utterance of Ranadive in India—Marx wrote for Lenin, Lenin wrote for Stalin, and Stalin wrote for us). No doubt, this cuts both ways. Not only liberal critics, but dogmatic defenders of texts and their particular interpretations will be subjected to scrutiny by this method.

The first part of this book, dealing with Marx and Engels, must begin with the formation of their own political thought and the emergence of the concept of workers’ democracy. Marx’s ideas on democracy and freedom stood in a relation of dialectical negation rather than outright rejection of liberalism and Hegel’s idealism.¹⁴ In other words, he sought to incorporate the positive elements in these systems while going beyond them. For liberalism the rational individual is the central figure. The classical liberal theory of the state envisages that the conflict of individuals in the market requires for its resolution a strong sovereign authority.¹⁵ But at the same time liberalism views the state only as a necessary evil, whose authority over the individual had to be kept at a minimum. The realm where the state had legitimate functions was the political domain. This was the area of unfreedom. The freedom of the individual was achieved by limiting and negating excessive claims for power on the part of the state through the development of civil liberties. Thus these rights were negative rights. Collective social rights for example, the right to education, livelihood or health—by contrast—are positive rights in the sense that a public agency has to enforce them, if necessary by overriding private economic interests. Neither classical liberalism, nor modern neo-liberal advocates of democracy are able to accept such rights.¹⁶ Marx argued that the primacy of individual property and the opposition to public control of social wealth made liberalism a political ideology of capitalism.¹⁷ Unlike liberalism, Hegel saw in the state the overcoming of the conflicts of civil society.¹⁸ Marx accepted Hegel’s philosophical method as far as the idea of a universal agency which would ensure human freedom, but challenged the concept of the universality of the state.

In tracing the evolution of Marx’s political thought, two problems have to be confronted. The first is an examination of the writings of the young Marx. For the purposes of the present study, two aspects of the debate over the young Marx are important. On the one hand there is Marx’s theory of alienation, which suggests that socialism is not simply nationalization of property but free collective association of the producers. On the other hand there is Marx’s defense of democratic rights—originally produced from a radical democratic paradigm—and whether it continued to be relevant in his communist phase.¹⁹ The second problem is one whose solution is essential for settling the question of authorship. This problem is the status of Friedrich Engels. Was he a cofounder of Marxist politics or should he be considered an influential commentator on Marx? The position taken in this study is that unless there is a specific difference, which should be explicitly mentioned, the views of Marx and Engels should be treated as a unity. In supporting this position a number of facts may be adduced. Several of the most important programmatic texts, including above all The Communist Manifesto, were signed by both. Though the Critique of the Gotha Programme came exclusively from Marx’s pen, Engels solidarized with it, as his contemporary letter to Bebel shows.²⁰ Furthermore, the most comprehensive exposition of what Marx stood for that was to be published in Marx’s lifetime was Engels’ book Anti-Dühring.²¹ The dispute over its status within Marxism arises from Engels’ handling of dialectics in nature, rather than over the political line.²² Marx’s own words make it clear that in their writings he and Engels worked to a plan, with a division of labour.²³ Finally, Marx had enough trust in Engels’ political views to request him to write substantial political essays in his name. It can therefore be concluded that on all fundamental issues there was political agreement between them.

Central to Marx’s concept of workers’ democracy was the principle of working-class self-emancipation. But can the idea of self-emancipation be combined with the idea of a revolutionary party, which is by definition smaller than the class? This is the subject of considerable debate. Some writers have opined that Marx wanted to build a vanguard party, some hold that he was interested in a broad-based and basically propagandist party, while some others question how far he was at all interested in party building.²⁴ What very few have attempted is the very simple task of actually going through all the political writings of Marx and Engels, and of their record as militants in various working-class, communist, socialist organizations. It has been assumed only too often that they were not serious organization builders. And when their organizational activities are addressed, preconceived notions of Marxist authoritarianism immediately begin to predominate.

The next issue is the application of the principle of workers’ democracy in revolutionary strategy. Did Marx advocate majority revolution?²⁵ In most countries the working class was not a majority, so how could a proletarian revolution be a majority revolution? This suggests the extension of proletarian hegemony over the non-proletarian oppressed masses.²⁶ A further consideration is required on the role of democratic slogans in the struggles for class unity and class power.²⁷ Moreover, how far was the advocacy of violence justified in workers’ democracy in the course of breaking the old legality?²⁸ How did Marx address the question of universal suffrage?²⁹ And what were his views on the nitty-gritty of democracy, that is, how committed was he really to issues like freedom of the press, independence of the judiciary, etc.?³⁰ It is here that one should search for evidence of how far workers’ democracy was to be more democratic than bourgeois democracy.

In discussing problems of party building and revolutionary strategy, it has been a consistent concern of the present author to keep in mind the gender dimension of the working class. Women workers have a distinct identity, and organizing them, developing a program that takes their experience adequately into account and steers a path towards the overcoming of patriarchal domination, requires conscious action. It has often been argued that classical Marxism simply subsumed the category “gender” under “class.” While it is true that the writings of Marx and Engels may not have provided all the solutions, it will be argued that nor were they totally devoid of any concern fo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword by David McLellan
• Preface to the 2018 Edition
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1. Introduction
• 2. From Radical Democracy to Proletarian Democracy
• 3. Class, Party, and Forms of Self-Organization
• 4. Revolutionary Strategy and Democracy
• 5. Democracy in the Proletarian Dictature
• 6. Vanguard Party and Revolutionary Strategy: Bolshevism Before the February Revolution
• 7. Bolshevism in 1917
• 8. Bolshevism and the Experience of Soviet Power
• 9. Bureaucratization and Bolshevism
• Bibliography
• Index
• Back Cover