Let's face it, the question of power and democracy in the work of papa Karl himself is, to put it mildly, quite undertheorized. Neither Marx, nor Engels, even in the later's "democratic" moments, was able to articulate power as more than an epiphenomenon of the (economic) mode of production. This is true in spite of aging Engel's claim that they didn't mean to do so. This is true in spite of Marx's equation of "dictatorship of the proletariat" with what he understood as radical democracy in action during the Paris Commune. The offhandishness of Marx's response to the pertinent issues raised by Bakunin in " Statehood and Anarchy" is a case in point.
The democratic element was lot more adequately articulated by the second generation of Marxists, Rosa Luxemburg from the left, but also Kautsky from the middle and Bernstein from the right. Rosa Luxemburg's understanding of the democratic process was shaped by the political experience/vocabulary of the European nineteenth century, but her call for a socialism based on a "broadest public form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy" still remains one of the most powerful challenge against authoritarian Bolshevism in socialist history. Kautsky, in spite of his mechanical understanding of Marxism, in spite of his sloppy reconciliation between Marxism as a "science" and Marxism as an ethical principle, and most importantly, in spite of his utter failure to take an anti-war position during WW I, was quite useful when explaining the socialism/democracy nexus. See Kautsky's *The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.* I will probably be yelled at by the radical Marxists on this list for saying this, but the most basic problem in Bernstein is not his notion of evolutionary socialism per se, but his reification of the reform process. In Bernstein, reform, in stead of being a means to move toward a larger, albeit continuously unstable utopian goal (or to borrow Derrida's expression, the quasi-transcendental project of emancipation), becomes a goal in itself.
However, as it is a commonplace today, it was through the text of Gramsci, notwithstanding its fragmented and occasionally incoherent fashion, that the question of power began to inhabit a relatively autonomous space in the Marxist literature. One can also discuss subsequent development of oppositional, anti-authoritarian Marxist discourses.
If Charles Brown wants to explore the democratic character of socialism, Marx and Engels themselves are not quite handy. One can probably be true to the democratic spirit of the extraordinary powerful heritage of critical Marxism by going beyond Marx himself in some respects. I dare say, that is probably the best way to show respect to Marx.
Manjur Karim
----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Monday, March 27, 2000 4:27 AM Subject: Socialism must be democracy
>
>
> >>> "Max B. Sawicky" <sawicky at epinet.org> 03/25/00 04:27PM >>>
> Better a socialist than a reactionary,
> any day. If one chooses to define
> socialism as democratic, as I would,
> then better a socialist than a
> communist too. HCKL hasn't a
> trace of support for democratic
> values, so he wouldn't fit a
> positive definition of socialism.
>
> ___________
>
> CB: As The Manifesto says, democracy is the working class as the ruling
class, given that the working class is the overwhelming majority of the
people, and democracy is the rule of the majority of the people as a whole.
Socialism is the transitional phase of communism, in getting rid of
capitalism, or the elimination of the undemocratic rule of an elite minority
over the overwhelming majority. Popular Sovereignty ( All power derives from
the People as a whole, "We, the People" ) is the first principle of
democracy. The other principles of democracy are derivative from this,
tested by this first principle.
>
> There really isn't a choice as to whether to define socialism as
democratic or not. Democracy must be the aim of a socialist.
>
> I would say you are not objective in your judgement of Henry Liu. The
intense dislike that you and Doug have for Henry ,and he for you, is because
of the argument you all had when Henry was on the list. But you and Doug do
not exhibit more support for democratic values than Henry does. You are
diluding yourself when you think that. His criticisms of you are criticisms
of your lacking democratic values too.
>
>
> CB
>