From:	 Ben Seattle [icd@communism.org]
To:	 marxism@lists.panix.com
Subject: The core of the working class program 
	 (democratic rights and proletarian democracy)
Date:	 Fri, 5 Jun 1998 00:39:28 -0700

First of all, I would like to thank Jim for helping to keep this thread
going.

Jim Monahan:
> I think democracy is the key to the functioning of any society,
> or even group. ... Democracy is the space for the little child
> to cry out "the emperor has no clothes"

Ben Seattle:
The question of democracy, in my opinion, is decisive.  Marxist theory
will remain of marginal relevance until progress is made on this
question.  Few theoretical issues have been as badly distorted by both
bourgeois and "marxist" theorists as this question.  I believe that
thoughtful discussion in this forum can help us to get a better handle
on this.

To begin with, I do not believe there exists much of a consensus on what
"democracy" is.  But I would like to see such a consensus eventually
develop.  And I think this will happen.

"Democracy", from a theoretical perspective, is by no means equivalent
to "democratic rights".  The latter concept is far easier to discuss and
understand because it is, in many ways, less abstract and more concrete.
For example, you either do or do not have the right to speak in public,
hand out leaflets, post your web page, etc.  Freedom of speech/press and
freedom of assembly are probably the most fundamental democratic rights.
"Democracy", on the other hand, is a far more complex concept involving
class relations, class institutions and class rule.  The two concepts
are, of course, related, but there does not necessarily exist a simple
one-to-one relationship good for all historical situations and
circumstances.

I would like to see a clear distinction made between the concepts of
"democracy" and "democratic rights" because unless we do so--it can be
very difficult for us to accurately understand what someone means.  90%
of the time, when sometimes uses the word "democracy", they actually
mean a system in which people have certain basic democratic rights.

I would like to see more discussion of what kind of _democratic rights_
would exist in a society in which the working class ruled.  I think that
if we focus on this--that the more complex pieces of the puzzle will
gradually fall into place.

> Louis would be familar with a Fourth International internal
> document written partly by Mandel attempting to put
> substance on this question.

I am somewhat skeptical that much exists which treats this very well.
But I would be interested in learning about any document which might
shed any light.

> Alas, a macho sentiment that identifies democracy with
> bourgeois democracy ... has infected the Left, not just
> the Stalinist sections


I very much agree.  There is enormous confusion on this.  The good news,
however, is that the time is fully ripe to smash up a lot of very wrong
and very harmful concepts.

To be blunt, the bankruptcy of "communist" theory is nowhere revealed as
starkly as in idea that the rule of the working class (ie: the
dictatorship of the proletariat) must assume the form of a permanent
police state.

The regimes in the Soviet Union, China, Korea, Vietnam and Cuba were all
characterized by the rule of a single party which suppressed all
opposition.  This suppression was often directed against the former
bourgeoisie but it was _also_ directed against workers.  Workers were
deprived of basic and elementary democratic rights in the name of the
"dictatorship of the proletariat".

I support the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat.  But I
reject the idea that the above regimes can be taken to represent (even
remotely) what this dictatorship would look like in a modern, stable
society with a developed communications infrastructure.  I believe that
the many harsh measures taken by Lenin to suppress opposition to the
Bolsheviks were necessary at that time.  But at the same time we must
also recognise that these were emergency measures taken in an extreme
and desperate situation.  The harsh measures which were necessary--no
more resemble how workers' rule will function in a modern society--than
conditions of life in 1920 Russia will resemble the conditions of life
in the United States in the year 2020.

A modern society, in which the working class is the majority and in
which there is a high level of cultural and economic development--would
be able to rely on methods which, unfortunately, were not possible 80
years ago in Russia.

What will the D of P in a modern society have _in common_ with the D of
P as it existed 80 years ago?

          It will remain the same in its _essential_ respect:
          it will be aimed at the suppression of the inevitable
          attempts at bourgeois restoration.

What will be the essential difference?

          The suppression of attempts at bourgeois restoration
          will not require the suppression of the basic
          democratic rights of workers.

This is the essential concept that we must grasp if we are to rescue
"communist" theory from decades of putrefaction and transform it into a
weapon capable of mobilizing millions.

It's late and I gotta go.

Before I sign off, however, I would like to encourage others to
contribute to this thread.  A lot of garbage has accumulated over the
years and it is time we rolled up our sleeves and got rid of it.

Here is the question I would like readers to address:

          What kind of democratic rights do _you_ think
          would exist in a society in which the working
          class ruled?


Ben Seattle ----//-//
Will the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" censor
the internet? -- Find out at: www.Leninism.org

PS:   Readers who are interested may want to check out any of the
following, where I present my views on some of these issues in greater
depth:

1) www.Leninism.org/pof/pof8.htm (section 8g)
2) www.Leninism.org/stream/97/1917beta.htm (task 2)
3) www.Leninism.org/stream/96/fire.htm ("The Digital Fire")