Lenin on the Need to Fight for Democracy Under Capitalism

[Starry Messenger]

http://leninist.biz/en/1963/FML734/4.18.1-Lenin.on.Fighting.for.Democracy.Under.Capitalism

Lenin, more than anyone, was aware of the limited and relative character of bourgeois democracy and was able relentlessly to expose its vices and evils. However, Lenin’s criticism was directed against bourgeois democracy and not against democracy in general, as the enemies of Marxism-Leninism try to represent it. Lenin fought against petty-bourgeois illusions of the possibility of establishing true rule by the people under capitalism. He showed that the facade of any bourgeois republic, even the most democratic, sanctified by slogans about the non-class, all-national will of the people, always disguises the mechanism of the class rule of capital and that the bourgeoisie strives to place all the institutions of democracy at the service of this rule.


But, while criticising those who were victims of petty-bourgeois democratic illusions for the sake of which they were ready to renounce the great fundamental aims of the working class, Lenin clearly saw the benefits the working class could derive even from those frequently scanty liberties which it had won at the cost of great sacrifices and blood and upon which the bourgeoisie was encroaching. He considered that "democracy is of enormous importance to the working class in its struggle against the capitalists for its emancipation".

Lenin was therefore implacably opposed to the backward views and moods whose bearers alleged that democracy was no concern of the working class and that the struggle for democracy would only hamper it in its struggle for its class interests.

Lenin rejected these Leftist aberrations and pointed out the fundamental and practical importance of the struggle for democracy during which the working-class movement matured and grew, at the same time improving the conditions for its activities. Without winning certain political rights from the bourgeoisie the working class cannot achieve even its economic demands. Lenin taught that "no economic struggle can bring the workers any lasting improvement, or can even be conducted on a large scale, unless the workers have the right freely to organise meetings and unions, to have their own newspapers, and to send their representatives to the national assemblies".

But the importance of democracy to the working class is not only that it determines the conditions for the struggle of the working class. Lenin repeatedly emphasised that the demand for democracy corresponds to the ultimate aims of the working-class movement. By calling on the working class to carry out the economic revolution necessary for building a new, socialist society, Lenin at the same time pointed out that "the proletariat which is not being educated in the struggle for democracy is incapable of carrying out an economic revolution”.

All this makes quite comprehensible the profound conviction with which Lenin stated that "it would be a radical mistake to think that the struggle for democracy is capable of diverting the proletariat from the socialist revolution or of hiding, overshadowing it, etc. On the contrary, in the same way as there cannot be a victorious socialism that does not practise full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for its victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy".

Of course, Lenin realised that however vigorously the struggle for democracy in bourgeois society may be waged and whatever successes it may score, it can bring the working class only partial results, limited beforehand by the framework of the capitalist system. Under this system there is not, and cannot be, full and consistent democracy for the broad mass of the working people, because the class rule of the bourgeoisie remains unaffected whatever the organisation of the capitalist state. To carry real democracy into effect under capitalism, as the petty-bourgeois fantasists hope to do, is absolutely impossible. But. in Lenin’s view, the struggle for democracy prepares the working class for a more successful accomplishment of its mission of abolishing all class oppression and creating a truly democratic society, i.e., a socialist society.

It follows that by acting in defence of democracy the working class proceeds from the interests of its day-to-day struggle, as well as its tasks and plans for the future.

Such is the fundamental principle which determines the attitude of the Marxist-Leninist parties to the struggle for democracy in bourgeois countries.

Fundamentals of Marxism-Leninism • Manual, Otto Kuusinen, 2nd edition 1962

[Starry Messenger]

1. Sorry to kick up an old thread, but I'm having an argument with someone elsewhere.

Want to mark this piece.

"In Russia, sectarianism manifested itself in a reluctance to take advantage of the legal possibilities which the First Russian Revolution succeeded in wresting from tsarism despite its defeat. The members of the Parly who considered themselves "more revolutionary" than the Party opposed participation in the State Duma and work in the trade unions and mutual insurance societies. Instead of hard work among the masses they preferred to wait proudly aloof for a new revolutionary crisis.

In the beginning many of the Communist Parties formed in capitalist countries after the October Revolution committed errors of a sectarian nature. At that time Lenin called this “Left-wing” communism an infantile disorder. These errors manifested themselves in a refusal to work in the trade unions headed by reactionaries and opportunists, to participate in bourgeois parliaments, make compromises when necessary, and in general to employ flexible tactics.

Manifestations of sectarianism have to be combated also today. The essence of sectarianism consists in isolation from the masses, the failure to take advantage of the available opportunities for revolutionary work and an effort to evade the vital issues raised by life itself. Whereas revisionism seeks to reconcile the Parly to capitalism, sectarianism deprives the Party of its ties with the masses, without which it is impossible to wage a successful struggle against capitalism, ll is therefore impossible to strengthen the Party without fighting sectarianism, whatever its manifestations."

~FOML

[BOG PERSON]

2. does struggle for democracy in this sense

mean struggle for bourgeois-democratic (political / generalizable) rights in combination with struggle for proletarian power? e.g. for universal suffrage, for the right to unionize, against imperialist war, etc., or does it mean something else.

[Starry Messenger]

3. No, I don't think so.

Especially not at this point in history. Around the time of the Civil War, there was probably that combination since the bourgeois-democratic struggle had been incomplete when the Am. Revolution occurred. It was a capitalist/worker combination struggle.

I take it to mean that the proletarian struggles should not cease even under capitalism. The bourgeois are also struggling to maintain their power--there might be some things that are in tandem, with divisions in different capitalist camps that can be exploited.

There is a tendency that says that struggle isn't useful unless there is a revolution at hand. But Lenin said that people should achieve all things that they can even if it isn't a total change of society, since those things (universal suffrage, etc.) will be things that will need to be put into place even when socialism arises. If you can achieve them under capitalism, why wait?

[BOG PERSON]

4. "If you can achieve them under capitalism, why wait?"

i dont know, this seems like a rationalization of reformism. i mean it would be one thing to be a plain reformist and say revolution is bad and unnecessary, but to say it's possible to put a practical sort of reformism in service to the revolution? i don't know if history bears this out...

[Starry Messenger]

5. This was the argument I was in elsewhere.

I think if it stopped at just the reforms, then it wouldn't be revolutionary struggle. It's like the trade union movement--it is necessary for workers under capitalism to have organized struggle against the bosses. But trade unionism only goes so far--we have to find ways to struggle harder against capitalism.

The thing I like about Lenin is that he identifies the way we can zero in on tasks that need to be accomplished--by finding what is missing in the present society that would bring greater unity to the working class and bring us closer to socialism.

I think history does bear this out to some extent. In the 19th century there was DeLeon, who was a really well-versed Marxist in the US, and for awhile was the premier anti-capitalist thinker here. (His writings are rather salty and interesting, marxists.org has some of them). However, he felt that political struggle for anti-racism, feminist issues, etc. were useless distractions to class struggle. But he also taught that the class struggle should isolate itself from the electoral arena. The IWW did lots of organizing work, but they were limited in how far they could reach, since there were issues they wouldn't involve themselves in. Eventually DeLeon and his movement started losing steam. So what was missing?

At that point we either throw up our hands and say, well the workers aren't ready, are sheep, too dumb, embedded in the system, etc. and wait for the Marxist rapture. Or we try to identify the area where there is division in the working class, what is making it weak, both in strength and ideology.

100 years ago, it was Jim Crow, Jim Crow unions--the vulnerability of all the workers for the ruling class to prey on Black workers, force them into scabbing because they weren't part of the unions. It was awful for them, and bad for class struggle as a whole since it gave capitalism a handy wedge to break strikes and foster racism. This made Civil Rights struggles an immediate need for the working class. DeLeon would say--well, under socialism we won't have racism or these divisions. But Lenin says, without this struggle for reform, you are stuck with capitalism because revolution isn't going to happen where capitalism has this upper hand. This doesn't bring immediate revolution, but the stages are necessary until the ruling class demonstrates completely that it has lost any way to control society. Obviously in the US, we're in for a long haul.