In The State and Revolution, Lenin writes:
A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism
I do not understand how this could be better for the bourgeoisie than, for instance, a system where elections were restricted to millionaires, or where votes were weighted according to one’s wealth. What advantage does the bourgeoisie gain by exposing political power to the proletarian masses? I am aware that public opinion can be manipulated by bourgeois media, but why take that risk at all? It seems like a vulnerability to me.
This leads to another question:
Suppose a genuine Marxist party runs a successful election campaign, leveraging social media, for example, and wins. Once in power, assuming they don’t get corrupted or killed along the way, they begin to implement Marxist theory, not reformism, much like a Leninist vanguard party would: they expropriate the bourgeoisie, replace the existing state with the dictatorship of the proletariat, arm the workers, bring democracy into the workplace, and so on, essentially establishing socialism. In some countries, the executive branch can even bypass the parliament if it’s an obstacle. Naturally, they would face immense pressure from the bourgeoisie and likely from other countries, but wouldn’t a revolution encounter the exact same pressures? Furthermore, winning an election would likely carry greater perceived legitimacy, both among the domestic population and internationally, than a revolution would. Consequently, global public opinion might be more inclined to support the movement. So, why not favor this path over revolution?
There are 2 points to make here.
The first, is that bourgeois democracy is in practice democracy for capitalists alone. It provides the illusion of change, and the possibility for it. The frequent swaps between parties provides instability in governance while allowing capital to progress fairly unimpeded. Because capitalists control the commanding heights of the economy, they control the state, and can rip away the illusion of bourgeois democracy at any time they wish, essentially implementing fascism.
The second is that the state is not a neutral state, it’s a state as it relates to the base of society, the mode of production and distribution. The capitalist state is a state for capitalism, it isn’t a neutral state that can be swapped piece by piece. This is because the capitalist state co-evolved alongside capitalism itself, they are mutually reinforcing aspects. A Marxist party cannot expropriate the bourgeoisie through decree, it must come through force, and the class that holds the commanding heights of the economy holds the force of the state.
This is why change must come through revolution, replacing the capitalist state with a socialist state. Winning electorally does not translate to conquest of the means of production and distribution, the capitalists must be rooted out of their existing positions through an extra-legal movement. The state must not be replaced brick by brick, but smashed and reborn as a worker state. The problem appears to be that you still believe legal measures have power beyond how we choose to enforce them, but in reality laws are upheld or ignored depending on which class they are meant to apply to, because the state has a class character.
The frequent swaps between parties provides instability in governance while allowing capital to progress fairly unimpeded.
Adding to this, the US constitution was designed this way. When capital cannot get anything done at the federal level (which is meant to be slow and inefficient), power reverts back to individual states. This is why slavery couldn’t be voted out, because the federal government was deadlocked on the issue. So, power reverted back to the state level where slave states weren’t going to get rid of their main source of income.
We see how this goes on even today where the average America supports things like universal healthcare or free college, but these never go anywhere in congress. So states are left to govern on these issues, but they don’t have the resources for various reasons.
Other countries have learned from this, either implementing it for their own capital interests or eradicating the so-called “checks and balances” in order to implement any meaningful change.
Great points!
This comment answered questions that I didn’t even realize I had. Great response!
Thanks!
Because capitalists control the commanding heights of the economy, they control the state, and can rip away the illusion of bourgeois democracy at any time they wish, essentially implementing fascism.
How would it materialize concretely in a western social democracy country?
The capitalist state is a state for capitalism, it isn’t a neutral state that can be swapped piece by piece.
Yes, as I said, I’m not talking about reformism, but the party completely replacing the state by the dictatorship of the proletariat, just like a revolution, but from the inside.
A Marxist party cannot expropriate the bourgeoisie through decree, it must come through force
Why couldn’t they do both? Pass the law, and seize the means of production using the state army and the armed workers.
How would it materialize concretely in a western social democracy country?
Fascism emerged concretely in Germany in the 1930s. Germany was a poor social democracy at the time, devastated with war debts from World War I, and had a rising communist party. The Nazi party grew from killing labor organizers and communists, and was installed against the will of the people.
Yes, as I said, I’m not talking about reformism, but the party completely replacing the state by the dictatorship of the proletariat, just like a revolution, but from the inside.
This is reformism. I think you’re confusing reformism with social democracy, social democracy is the limit of reformism. An “electoral revolution” is not a revolution, winning elections does not translate to taking the economy by force.
Why couldn’t they do both? Pass the law, and seize the means of production using the state army and the armed workers.
The capitalist state army is not a mindless drone that sides directly with whoever is in charge of the state. It sides with capital. Allende was coup’ed by the Chilean military. Again, you are confusing elected positions as absolute mandates from heaven, because you do not see that the state is reliant upon and reinforced by the mode of production.
A Marxist party could win electorally. They’d still have to have a revolution, coming from the mass armed workers and the communist party. The socialist revolutionaries won the provisional government, but that’s not what dispersed them, they were dispersed by the workers and Soviets, who took the state directly.
The Nazi party grew from killing labor organizers and communists, and was installed against the will of the people.
This sounds more like a coup from the Nazis than from the bourgeoisie. How did they push them into power?
The capitalist state army is not a mindless drone that sides directly with whoever is in charge of the state. It sides with capital. Allende was coup’ed by the Chilean military.
I need to learn more about Allende history, but why is that? What makes the military defend capital, not the government?
you do not see that the state is reliant upon and reinforced by the mode of production
No I don’t. I don’t see what would concretely prevent the state from turning against the bourgeoisie.
This sounds more like a coup from the Nazis than from the bourgeoisie. How did they push them into power?
The Nazis were handed power directly when the capitalists they were friendly with pressured the state.
I need to learn more about Allende history, but why is that? What makes the military defend capital, not the government?
The state is not outside of class struggle, it is within it. It is not an outside body above the class struggle. The state is there to manage the affairs of the ruling class of society and protect its interests, and the military is the monopoly on violence that the state uses to carry those out. The state is not a neutral body to be taken over and commanded like a mindless tool.
No I don’t. I don’t see what would concretely prevent the state from turning against the bourgeoisie.
What do you believe a state is? How does it function, and how does it run?
What do you believe a state is? How does it function, and how does it run?
This is what I’m trying to understand. I’ve been educated in the belief that the state was a true democracy, and that the population was in indirect control of it by the vote.
The state is not a neutral body to be taken over and commanded like a mindless tool.
Do you have any resources to suggest that might help me understand this in practical terms? I read The State and Revolution but I still don’t get it.
The State and Revolution is the best work on this, but Reform or Revolution is also a really good work! Essentially, whichever class controls the commanding heights has the ultimate power over the state, regardless of how voting goes.
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky might also be a good read, but maybe with more Marx/Engels under your belt. It follows on well from the arguments made in the State and Revolution.
I do not understand how this could be better for the bourgeoisie than, for instance, a system where elections were restricted to millionaires
Universal adult suffrage with formal equal voting rights is the most important source of credibility for liberal democracies. Liberal mythology is pervasive and non-liberal democratic forms of democracy are considered non-starters outside of socialist countries. In the UK, no Prime Minister has been able to gracefully conclude a term since Boris Johnson. Similarly, United States’ Presidents having low approval ratings is cool and normal. To a Marxist it is clear that these two countries are not democratic in the substantive sense. The people there are aware that their governments are disappointing them. But even though they don’t have faith in the governments, they have faith in the system that puts them in place because they believe they are politically equal to someone richer than them since their votes count equal. The facade of political agency is a great pacifier. Protests that become too big to ignore (BLM, France, etc.) may seek to topple the current government but they never want to replace the system of liberal elections themselves. So governments may eat shit when things get hot but the bourgeoisie are never seriously threatened from them, even though they fight tooth and nail to not give away even nominal concessions.
So, why not favor this path over revolution?
The simple reason is that electoralism alone will never be able to bring about revolutionary change. Allende tried this and was murdered by the CIA. Every institution through which the state channels its monopoly on violence will be turned on this party if they ever win and implement policies like expropriating the bourgeoisie. Without a competing power structure that can resist this violence they won’t be able to do anything. But if you have such dual power, it’s not electoralism.
The simple reason is that electoralism alone will never be able to bring about revolutionary change.
Thoughts that make this true no matter how you nuance it:
-
Note that comrade says “electoralism alone”. We have seen many times, especially in Latin America, the important role liberal democracy can play in advancing revolution, but it only gets the goods when there’s a credible, present, active, militant, revolutionary mass movement who plays a role in the electoral process and gets to help write a new constitution AT MINIMUM.
-
After socialist revolution eventually starts knocking down the bourgeois ‘democracies’ of the imperial core, you’ll probably see national bourgeoisies accept peaceful transitions of power through democratic means. Meaning, if France, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Slavic republics, etc go through a revolutionary process, at some point the remaining capitalist states will buckle to global pressure and take a national compromise that transitions to socialism through peaceful and electoral means to avoid well-established head chopping.
-
Within the bourgeois republics, the ruling class has demonstrated an absolute and unwavering willingness to break their own rules whenever and wherever it is convenient to them. That’s the nature of a class state. It serves its class, not the rules it creates.
-
The character of a bourgeois government isn’t determined by the personal character of its members, but by its organic function in bourgeois society. The government of the modern state is essentially an organization of class domination, the regular functioning of which is one of the conditions of existence of the class state. With the entry of a socialist into the government, and class domination continuing to exist, the bourgeois government doesn’t transform itself into a socialist government, but a socialist transforms himself into a bourgeois minister.
the state is not a neutral actor, it is an instrument of oppression of one class by another.
I do not understand how this could be better for the bourgeoisie than, for instance, a system where elections were restricted to millionaires, or where votes were weighted according to one’s wealth.
Is this not pretty self-evident? Speak to any lib between Lenin’s time and now and they’ll passionately defend the current system as totally fair and clearly not weighted to the wealthy at all.
Any problems are inherently the fault of not voting right, and all you need to fix it is to vote correctly next time. You therefore head off 90% of any resistance, because any form of resistance is perceived as just a waste of time and effort. A majority of western population genuinely believe this, as evidenced when you speak to anyone ever, so it’s apparently just a very convincing lie.
The enormous advantage above the other, more openly oppressive, options is you pacify the proles by getting to pretend everything’s fine now. That’s also why accelerationists exist - They believe if we instead just openly walk into more explicitly fascist systems, the lie of the democratic republic will no longer exist to stop people realising the oppressive backwards fuckery of the system.
To address the other point:
Suppose a genuine Marxist party runs a successful election campaign
It betrays some naivety that you believe this is even a possibility worth considering. A genuine Marxist party runs counter to the interests of people holding 90% of wealth, and that wealth controls how all information spreads, how any news is gathered, most government activities, etc…
The campaigns of Corbyn in the UK, or Sanders in the USA, who only dared to threaten to slightly restrain the power of capital to an extremely modest degree, got absolutely wrecked from every last facet of power.
Socialist parties in bourgeois democracy are useful for two things - abusing the system to help spread the message. And laying some groundwork for a post-revolutionary Socialist government/to remove the old one. Lenin wrote a very similar sentiment himself.
participation in parliamentary elections and in the struggle on the parliamentary rostrum is obligatory on the party of the revolutionary proletariat specifically for the purpose of educating the backward strata of its own class, and for the purpose of awakening and enlightening the undeveloped, downtrodden and ignorant rural masses.
Anyone with dreams of electoralism is somewhat missing the point.
Technically accelerationism is less about fascism, and more about concentration of capital. The Democrats are the accelerationist pick in the US as the more competent imperialist party. The ideas behind accelerationism are in capitalism’s built-in death clock as capital accumulates, centralizes, and socializes, not in the explicit pain or terror inflicted directly on the working class.
Other than that, agreed!
I’m not sure I necessarily concede that point, but then I think that’s probably just because ‘accelerationism’ isn’t typically a very defined ideology.
I’ll always take any degree of Cowbee agree any day of the year.
That’s fair, there really aren’t many actual accelerationists. It’s used to collapse Marxist arguments into a simplistic and destructive framing as a strawman more than anything.
Is this not pretty self-evident? Speak to any lib between Lenin’s time and now and they’ll passionately defend the current system as totally fair and clearly not weighted to the wealthy at all.
Disagree. The propaganda is much more nuanced and insidious than this and relies fundamentally on anti-communism. Most liberals in capitalist republics, I think, will argue that the existing system is not fair. Rich people have obvious, unequal advantages. Things will probably not get substantially better. But they defend the system with a few arguments:
-
The system is not fair, but it’s not structurally unfair. It’s a specific set of laws and politicians and bad actors who have made the system ineffective, and we can restore an older, more functional form of ‘democracy’ if we utilize the remaining democratic rights available to us to right the ship. That’s what the Blunami ™ is all about.
-
The system is not fair, but it’s still the best we can do. Any alternative you propose is a failure on its face. Monarchy? No, it’s outmoded. Fascism? No, that’s Nazis. Communism? No, that’s the worst dictatorship of all. There can be no forward progress from capitalism because everybody knows that socialism and communism are dictatorship. You can’t argue with this. Everybody knows it! That’s the whole argument needed, the religious and idealist fervor that requires no evidence because everybody knows.
Your version would fail immediately in the face of reality, and so the bourgeoisie has constructed a much more complex and stable worldview to uphold liberal democracy.
I think you’re absolutely right here. The intention of my point there was about it not being perceived as “structurally” unfair, as you rightly clarify. Lots of unfairness is still perceived, but it is presented as being “fixable” by the overall system.
I eagerly concede also that anti-communism is absolutely a useful tool of control on top of that. However, my comment was not intended to cover all aspects of propaganda and control of the population, just the aspects of Democratic Republics that are conducive to Capitalism as asked. It is absolutely true that the system alone wouldn’t long withstand calls for systemic change if it wasn’t supported by other, typically even more oppressive and ignorant, means.
-
The political power wielded by the voting public is limited at best. I think other comrades have already gone into the parliamentary aspect but there are others.
There is no democracy of any kind in the economic sphere. Even though politics and economics are permanently intertwined, liberal democracies forcibly separate them and allow for no democratic oversight of the economy. We cannot as the people of any given liberal nation choose our economic priorities let alone the paradigm and system itself. Economic decision making is left to capitalists, academics, and central bankers.
Since I mentioned academics, academia itself is a control institution for liberal democracy. Since most academics live off study grants and publications, they have to do what capital wants them to. So they study and teach things capital likes and most anyone who thinks differently gets removed somehow.
A government is made up of more than just a parliament as well. Bureaucrats do the day to day work of executing the parliament’s laws. An extreme example of this is the German “Beamte”. This person is unfireable, does not pay into social security systems, and is allowed to interpret the laws they are tasked with executing with a great degree of freedom. This system was designed from the beginning to act as a check on the power of the legislature.
Then we have law enforcement. Cops are a cult, judges can be bought (and also came of age in the selective halls of academia), special law enforcement units like ICE or Frontex ensure there is a fearful and oppressed underclass desperate for any job at any conditions.
Spy agencies like the CIA may function as shadow governments, if the Deep State or Tripartite State theory (C. W. Mills, P. D. Scott, A. Good) is to be believed, which I think it is. They execute actions in the interest of specific factions of the capitalist class, at home (where they are on paper prohibited from operating) and abroad. When a given politician is too close to giving up the game or giving the working people more than the crumbs the capitalists are willing to give us, they step in and “fix” the situation. But that’s only rarely necessary given all the earlier control mechanisms.
A dishonourable mention to think tanks and civil society foundations and NGOs for (to paraphrase) doing the CIA’s dirty work out in the open.
Edit: how could I forget media! To be brief I’ll also quote Lenin:
For the bourgeoisie, freedom of the press meant freedom for the rich to publish and for the capitalists to control the newspapers, a practice which in all countries, including even the freest, produced a corrupt press.
Suppose a genuine Marxist party runs a successful election campaign, leveraging social media, for example, and wins. Once in power, assuming they don’t get corrupted or killed along the way, they begin to implement Marxist theory, not reformism, much like a Leninist vanguard party would
This could work well if the US would stop backing coups to overthrow democratically elected Marxists, which is precisely why they won’t stop doing it
