What did Marx mean by "win the battle of democracy"

[genstrike]

Just curious as to what is meant by the passage in the Manifesto:

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working
class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy"

Is he saying that the first step in revolution is to win an election? Needless to say, that doesn't quite seem right, or make any sense for that matter.

[ReVoLuTiOnArY-BrOtHeR]

Just curious as to what is meant by the passage in the Manifesto:

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working
class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy"

Is he saying that the first step in revolution is to win an election? Needless to say, that doesn't quite seem right, or make any sense for that matter.

Marx is trying to say that the proletariat must first become the dominant controlling class. In other words, to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish itself as the state.

[Martin Blank]

Marx is trying to say that the proletariat must first become the dominant controlling class. In other words, to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish itself as the state.

Sort of right. It's about more than just overthrowing the bourgeoisie, though. It's also about overthrowing bourgeois ideology and its concept of "democracy", and replacing it with the proletariat's concept: democracy-as-practice.

[genstrike]

Marx is trying to say that the proletariat must first become the dominant controlling class. In other words, to overthrow the bourgeoisie and establish itself as the state.

That explains everything except for the last six words which are the ones which are confusing me


Sort of right. It's about more than just overthrowing the bourgeoisie, though. It's also about overthrowing bourgeois ideology and its concept of "democracy", and replacing it with the proletariat's concept: democracy-as-practice.

So, you're saying "win the battle of democracy" means win "the battle for democracy" - real democracy, not bourgie liberal bullshit democracy

[robbo203]

Just curious as to what is meant by the passage in the Manifesto:

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working
class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy"

Is he saying that the first step in revolution is to win an election? Needless to say, that doesn't quite seem right, or make any sense for that matter.

Marx cerrainly supported the extension of the franchise as can be seen from this passage

"We now come to the Chartists, the politically active portion of the British working class. The six points of the Charter which they contend for contain nothing but the demand of universal suffrage and of the conditions without which universal suffrage would be illusory for the working class: such as the ballot, payment of members, annual general elections. But universal suffrage is the equivalent for political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat form the large majority of the population, where, in a long, though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class, and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.

Its inevitable result here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

"THE CHARTIST MOVEMENT", The New York Tribune, August 25, 1852
(copied for, and published in, Labour Monthly, December 1929).

[whore]

marx in some of his earlier writings did support the forming of working class parties, the fight for the vote, and reforms. however, in his later writing, he realised that actually it wouldn't work.

the communist manifesto also has references to some of the things that an elected worker's government could do, progressive taxation, abolition of inheritence etc. of course, all many of the things would happen anyway.

yeah. marx was wrong about a lot of things.

[Martin Blank]

So, you're saying "win the battle of democracy" means win "the battle for democracy" - real democracy, not bourgie liberal bullshit democracy

Again, it's more than that. Winning the battle of democracy is about the working class, through its own actions, winning and securing its rights. To do that, it has to take power in its own name and as a class. By doing so, it redefines "democracy" from a system of governance (the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois view) to a practice in all aspects of society; it transforms the meaning and understanding of democracy itself by making its expression concrete: direct workers' control of industries and services; free access for workers to the instruments of public expression, education and personal development; empowerment and ability to truly be anything you want to be. It's a political struggle that affects all aspects of society.

[Martin Blank]

the communist manifesto also has references to some of the things that an elected worker's government could do, progressive taxation, abolition of inheritence etc. of course, all many of the things would happen anyway.

Considering that those demands were written for a developing (bourgeois-) democratic revolution, it's no surprise they happened anyway.


yeah. marx was wrong about a lot of things.

No. Usually, it was the various and sundry "Marxists" that were wrong about a lot of things, not necessarily Marx.

[whore]

Considering that those demands were written for a developing (bourgeois-) democratic revolution, it's no surprise they happened anyway.
yes that's true. also, i meant that come a revolution many of them would happen anyway (abolition of inheritence for example).


No. Usually, it was the various and sundry "Marxists" that were wrong about a lot of things, not necessarily Marx.
umm, that's certainly an interesting way of looking at things. people ask whether it invalidates all of bakunin's work cause he was fucked up in some ways, or all of kropotkin's work cause he supported the allies during ww1. and all the sensible replies go something like "no, because we can seperate what was wrong, from what is still valid".

why does it seem that many marxists have trouble doing this with marx? he was only human, and while he got many things correct, he was also wrong on other issues. he matured, and so some of his later work his more relevant than some of his earlier work. he also realised, that stuff like a worker's party isn't the way to go, he learnt a lesson from the paris commune.

what's wrong with admitting that sometiems some of our "great men" got it wrong?

[A.R.Amistad]

He meant giving the power dynamic in democracy (those who "control" democracy) to the majority of the people, the toiling people, the working class. Engels talks about overcoming democracy in a classless society, mainly since the "battle" is no longer necessary as classes have dissolved, since democracy can only mean formal equality. It doesn't mean the ultraleftist crap Bob Avakian spews out about hating democracy and jumping straight into utopia tomorrow.

[robbo203]

marx in some of his earlier writings did support the forming of working class parties, the fight for the vote, and reforms. however, in his later writing, he realised that actually it wouldn't work.

the communist manifesto also has references to some of the things that an elected worker's government could do, progressive taxation, abolition of inheritence etc. of course, all many of the things would happen anyway.

yeah. marx was wrong about a lot of things.

These are two quite separate issues - the struggle for the franchise and advocating reforms.

The Communist Manifesto did advocate 10 reformist measures which did not in any way threaten the capitalist basis of society but were intended to facilitate conditions that would allow the introduction of socialism. Years later, Marx and Engels virtually repudiated these measures or certainly played them down. Thus the 1872 Preface to the Manifesto states:

However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm). That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today.

However, it is not true to say that Marx and Engels came to reject the need for the franchise - or at least I haven't come across any quote which suggests this (if you have any evidene to the contrary I would be grateful if you could produce it). My understanding - although i could be wrong - is that quite the opposite is true. It was in the early writings that they toyed with the idea of violent revolution and in later life placed increasing emphasis of peaceful and electorial means of capturing state power. Perhaps the best example of this is Engels introduction to Class Struggles in France . The relvant passage is worth quoting in full:

The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist programme, transformé de moyen de duperie qu'il a été jusquici en instrument d'emancipation — transformed by them from a means of deception, which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation. And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness — if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough....

Does the reader now understand, why the ruling classes decidedly want to bring us to where the guns shoot and the sabers slash? Why they accuse us today of cowardice, because we do not betake ourselves without more ado into the street, where we are certain of defeat in advance? Why they so earnestly implore us to play for once the part of cannon fodder?
The gentlemen pour out their prayers and their challenges for nothing, for nothing at all. We are not so stupid. They might just as well demand from their enemy in the next war that he should take up his position in the line formation of old Fritz, or in the columns of whole divisions a la Wagram and Waterloo, and with the flintlock in his hands at that. If the conditions have changed in the case of war between nations, this is no less true in the case of the class struggle. The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

[Tower of Bebel]

Like Miles' post implied: today "democracies" are a form of government but the social 'kernel' of this government is the rule of capital. Ergo, bourgeois or parliamentary democracy. Other forms of rule of capital are police states, bonapartism, fascism, etc. "Rule of the people" as the rule of capital can only mean a formal aspect. For the working class to end this rule of the bourgeoisie over the rest of society it must transform society. And to reach this goal it must win the battle of democracy, i.e. struggle for genuine democratic contents.

In the past, as Robbo's post shows, such democratic content was fought for under the banner of universal suffrage. However, this demand is only limited when standing on its own. Therefor a genuine democratic programme is needed, which focuses on demands directed against the capitalist state (against the rule of law). Laws and rights are not a goal but form the means to a much bigger goal: classless society. So even though workers must fight for rights and laws, it means gaining independence from the state (think of the concept of 'dual power' during revolutions). To some such a tactic seems like a contradiction, but I can clarify with an example: a limit on the working day, or a minimum-wage law. Such laws do not imply reliance on the state to enforce them: what they do is to strengthen the hand of groups of workers in dispute with their employers.

In the end the battle for democracy can only be won if the proletariat becomes the victor over the bourgeois ruling class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To some it seems like a contradiction, but I can clarify with an example: a limit on the working day, or a minimum-wage law. Such laws do not imply reliance on the state to enforce them: what they do is to strengthen the hand of groups of workers in dispute with their employers.

Incidentally, Marx was for limits to the working day but against minimum wage laws. Employer of last resort programs for consumer services can effectively replace those same minimum wage laws, since the private sector would have to compete wage-wise against the government program for skilled and unskilled workers. ;)

[jake williams]

No. Usually, it was the various and sundry "Marxists" that were wrong about a lot of things, not necessarily Marx.
That's a ridiculous response, for this reason: Marx had a huge body of work. Basically all he did was write for decades, and on a variety of topics. He said a lot, and it's ascribing a totally superhuman quality to him to assume that he wasn't wrong about a lot over the course of that work. It's an anti-materialist position that Marx would totally oppose (for what that's worth). Regularly he even acknowledged that he was taking new positions on particular issues that contradicted earlier positions of his; he would have had to have been wrong at least at some point, by his own admission, and there's no reason to assume that this stopped before his death.

That's not to say that there weren't big mistakes made by people calling themselves Marxists that are based on misinterpretation of or disregarding Marx. But things aren't wrong just because Marx disagreed. Now it's also true that Marx was right about a vast amount and in important ways, and a lot of errors came out of contradicting this. But it's really ridiculous to assume that Marx wasn't wrong about a lot.

[Martin Blank]

That's a ridiculous response, for this reason: Marx had a huge body of work. Basically all he did was write for decades, and on a variety of topics. He said a lot, and it's ascribing a totally superhuman quality to him to assume that he wasn't wrong about a lot over the course of that work. It's an anti-materialist position that Marx would totally oppose (for what that's worth). Regularly he even acknowledged that he was taking new positions on particular issues that contradicted earlier positions of his; he would have had to have been wrong at least at some point, by his own admission, and there's no reason to assume that this stopped before his death.

First of all (and this goes to "whore" as well), I did not say Marx was never wrong. What I said is that, in the balance of things, the "Marxists" were usually wrong, not Marx. And you point yourself to the reason why this is the case: most of Marx's writings were theoretical, and mostly left conjunctural predictions or characterizations to others. However, he did make some of those characterizations and predictions, and got some of them wrong. But that's a long way from saying what "whore" said: "marx was wrong about a lot of things". Personally, I think the onus is on "whore" to say where s/he thinks Marx was wrong.


That's not to say that there weren't big mistakes made by people calling themselves Marxists that are based on misinterpretation of or disregarding Marx. But things aren't wrong just because Marx disagreed. Now it's also true that Marx was right about a vast amount and in important ways, and a lot of errors came out of contradicting this. But it's really ridiculous to assume that Marx wasn't wrong about a lot.

I never said that things are wrong because Marx disagreed with them. And if you think Marx was "wrong about a lot", I think it's on you (and "whore") to make your point by citing where and when.

[Luís Henrique]

umm, that's certainly an interesting way of looking at things. people ask whether it invalidates all of bakunin's work cause he was fucked up in some ways, or all of kropotkin's work cause he supported the allies during ww1. and all the sensible replies go something like "no, because we can seperate what was wrong, from what is still valid".
These aren't sensible replies; Kropotkin was a class traitor and Bakunin a conspiratorial power monger, and this cannot be "separated" from their whole contributions. It doesn't mean, of course, that they were always wrong about everything; but it means that their contributions must be seen through this lens.

Marx was of course wrong about lots of things. Usually, however, some weird misinterpretation is put forth and then refuted, and this is what is meant by "Marx was wrong". Here, there is absolutely no hint that Marx was talking about winning elections - "democracy" is not a synonim with "bourgeois elections"; never has been, nor should we allow it to become (this would be, in fact, at least in part, loosing the "battle of democracy").

Luís Henrique

[robbo203]

Marx was of course wrong about lots of things. Usually, however, some weird misinterpretation is put forth and then refuted, and this is what is meant by "Marx was wrong". Here, there is absolutely no hint that Marx was talking about winning elections - "democracy" is not a synonim with "bourgeois elections"; never has been, nor should we allow it to become (this would be, in fact, at least in part, loosing the "battle of democracy").

Luís Henrique


"We now come to the Chartists, the politically active portion of the British working class. The six points of the Charter which they contend for contain nothing but the demand of universal suffrage and of the conditions without which universal suffrage would be illusory for the working class: such as the ballot, payment of members, annual general elections. But universal suffrage is the equivalent for political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat form the large majority of the population, where, in a long, though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class, and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.

Its inevitable result here, is the political supremacy of the working class."

"THE CHARTIST MOVEMENT", The New York Tribune, August 25, 1852
(copied for, and published in, Labour Monthly, December 1929).

[mikelepore]

Excerpts from several writings and speeches make it clear what Marx and Engels meant by "win the battle of democracy."

The 19th century writings must be approached with realization that it was a time when many countries had absolute monarchs and official state religions, even where working class men were allowed to vote women could not, or the right to vote had property ownership requirements, and some countries had slavery or serfdom.

_______________________________________________


"Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics. But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same. You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must someday appeal in order to erect the rule of labor."

--- Karl Marx, Sept. 8, 1872 speech at the Hague in Amsterdam

_____________________________________________

"Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes. This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes. The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists. The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working classes."

--- Karl Marx, 1872, International Working Men's Association Resolution on the Establishment of Working-Class Parties

____________________________________________


"The Communist Manifesto had already proclaimed the winning of universal suffrage, of democracy, as one of the first and most important tasks of the militant proletariat.

....

And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers' certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness - if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough. But it did more than this by far. In election propaganda it provided us with a means, second to none, of getting in touch with the mass of the people where they still stand aloof from us; of forcing all parties to defend their views and actions against our attacks before all the people; and, further, it provided our representatives in the Reichstag with a platform from which they could speak to their opponents in parliament, and to the masses outside, with quite different authority and freedom than in the press or at meetings.

....

And so it happened that the bourgeoisie and the government came to be much more afraid of the legal than of the illegal action of the workers' party, of the results of elections than of those of rebellion.

....

For here, too, the conditions of the struggle had changed fundamentally. Rebellion in the old style, street fighting with barricades, which decided the issue everywhere up to 1848, had become largely outdated."

--- Friedrich Engels, 1895, Introduction to Karl Marx, _The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850_

____________________________________________


"Even where there is no prospect whatever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces and to lay before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be bribed by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and giving the reactionaries the possibility of victory."

--- Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League March 1850

_________________________________________________


"As long as the oppressed class -- in our case, therefore, the proletariat -- is not yet ripe for its self-liberation, so long will it, in its majority, recognize the existing order of society as the only possible one and remain politically the tall of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing. But in the measure in which it matures towards its self-emancipation, in the same measure it constitutes itself as its own party and votes for its own representatives, not those of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand."

--- Friedrich Engels, _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ chapter 9