The Bourgeoisie and Liberal Democracy

[BobKKKindle$]

According to the materialist conception of history, the way people produce the goods they need to survive (otherwise known as the relations of production, appropriate to a given stage in the development of the forces of production) conditions (the word "determine" would imply a simplistic and limited causation) a society's political institutions, cultural values, intellectual life, etc. Given this understanding of history, why is it that the emergence of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class (and hence the development of capitalism) has led to the introduction of political democracy, whereby, in place of feudal structures based on lineage, government is now based on electoral participation? How does democracy (however limited democracy may be under capitalism) support the rule of the bourgeoisie? Would it not be more effective for the bourgeoisie to maintain power through an authoritarian system of government, which would prevent the proletariat from creating independent political organizations?

[Demogorgon]

It is generally not politically possible to create sufficiently authoritarian political systems. They do it when they can get away with it of course, but power is not absolute.

Besides, very tight Government doesn't really suit Capitalism anyway. It tends to thrive under Polyarchy. You can see the capitalist attitude to politics in Joseph Schumpter who argued that ordinary citizens should have no role in Government and that Government should be made up of an elite, but exactly which members of said elite held political power at any given time should be decided by election.

[BobKKKindle$]

It is generally not politically possible to create sufficiently authoritarian political systems

This may explain why current bourgeois elites are unable to undermine democratic government, but it does not explain the historic links between the bourgeoisie and the values of democracy. Why, during the French Revolution, was the bourgeoisie an advocate of democracy? How did this political superstructure serve the class interests of the bourgeoisie?


You can see the capitalist attitude to politics in Joseph Schumpter [etc]

Schumpeter opposed extensive democratic participation because he had a pessimistic view of the mental ability of the masses; he argued (basing his opinion on contemporary analysis of crowd behaviour) that people would not have sufficient knowledge of political affairs, or would be too susceptible to emotional appeals by charismatic leaders, and so could not be trusted to make political decisions directly - instead these decisions should be entrusted to an elite, which would, by gaining an electoral mandate, rule with the consent of the population. Although Schumpeter's ideas may be shared by some proponents of capitalism (for example, Max Weber) he actually viewed himself as a socialist - he argued that the growth of large firms and the extension of bureaucratic management would undermine the role of the individual entrepreneur, and hence allow for the effective use of central planning.


Besides, very tight Government doesn't really suit Capitalism anyway.

It depends on what is meant by "tight" government. Many democratic theorists (for example, Mill) have warned of the dangers which can arise when the majority is given absolute power, as this can potentially lead to the violation of key rights, most notably the right to own property, which was viewed as an integral component of individual freedom. Therefore, democracy is only compatible with capitalism when there are legal constraints (generally in the form of a constitution) to limit the scope and extent of government action.

In addition, it should also be noted that, in the epoch of imperialism, private capital is dependent on the state, and capitalism would not be able to survive in the absence of extensive state intervention - especially in the form of military intervention (in addition to diplomatic pressure) to safeguard and extend overseas economic interests.

[Hit The North]

This may explain why current bourgeois elites are unable to undermine democratic government, but it does not explain the historic links between the bourgeoisie and the values of democracy. Why, during the French Revolution, was the bourgeoisie an advocate of democracy? How did this political superstructure serve the class interests of the bourgeoisie?


Democracy emerges as an integral aspect of the bourgeoisie's struggle against Feudalism. It is a powerful critique against the principle of feudal heredity and becomes a necessary illusion in the hegemonic struggle to unite the nation under the banner of the bourgeoisie. Almost immediately upon the overthrow of feudal relations, two things happen. One, the bourgeoisie become the ruling class and therefore needs to limit the access of other classes to political power. Two, the urban and landed producers, take the bourgeois promise of democracy seriously and groups like the Levellers and Diggers, for instance, begin to agitate for democracy. Although there is obvious resistance at first, the bourgeoisie cannot resist the demand from below for greater democracy and maintain the social order required for capitalist accumulation.

The material limits on liberty of a mode of production based on private property are also important. Despite being committed to an ideology of democracy, the bourgeoisie cannot offer full democratic rights without seeing its own dissolution as owners of means of production. This is an essential critique by the socialists, from Fourier onwards.

[Decolonize The Left]

This may explain why current bourgeois elites are unable to undermine democratic government, but it does not explain the historic links between the bourgeoisie and the values of democracy. Why, during the French Revolution, was the bourgeoisie an advocate of democracy? How did this political superstructure serve the class interests of the bourgeoisie?

Under the feudal system, the French bourgeoisie (at that time wealthy merchants) found themselves in an interesting situation. In many cases, they were not considered nobility (and therefore denied those privileges) and yet had more wealth than those very nobles. Given that the only access to nobility was heritage or marriage, access to this social hierarchy was limited. To combat this seeming injustice, or to facilitate their jealousy, they developed the system of democracy and branded 'liberty, equality, and brotherhood' the slogan of their times. Of course we understand that these values were far from realized, but hopefully now the motivations for the bourgeois development of democracy are more clear.


How does democracy (however limited democracy may be under capitalism) support the rule of the bourgeoisie? Would it not be more effective for the bourgeoisie to maintain power through an authoritarian system of government, which would prevent the proletariat from creating independent political organizations?

Authoritarian governments function fairly terribly with a capitalist system of economic organization. The reason for this is that the 'market' functions on a (rather inane) system of supply and demand. In order for this system to function, there needs to be a great degree of 'economic freedom.' All this means is that the capitalist class needs a great degree of freedom to oppress and exploit the working class. But, this exploitation must appear acceptable. This can only be done in combination with perceived 'political freedoms.'

You see, if the people are given the illusion that they are in control of their government, and their economy, their servitude has been justified through an indirect link of authority (which supposedly leads back to them). So 'democracy' (capitalism and democracy are almost incompatible) supports bourgeois rule because it creates a body of workers - the proletariat - who willingly engage in their own exploitation through the illusion of freedom, liberty, and equality.

- August

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Liberal democracy is one of the more efficient forms of managing capitalism. Its all lined out in the Federalist papers, probably the most honest summation of liberal democracy in history. The business class has various sectors and factions. These factions are continuously feuding for control of the state, its patronage, and its troops. However, under democracy these differences can be mediated through the courts and through elections. No need to hire hordes of armed retainers, or fight a civil war. Its all very nice and clean.

Also, elections give the people the illusion of control. They think they have a say in their government, and thus at times of popular unrest, social movement leaders and social movement demands can get co opted. Labor unions were once rather dangerous to capital, however, democracy brought them inside the village and domesticated them. Government with the appearance of freedom is the ultimate social safety valve.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The material limits on liberty of a mode of production based on private property are also important. Despite being committed to an ideology of democracy, the bourgeoisie cannot offer full democratic rights without seeing its own dissolution as owners of means of production. This is an essential critique by the socialists, from Fourier onwards.

I don't know if my dormant thread on the history of European economism (not just Russian economism) should be merged:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/economism-revisited-t82798/index.html



Now, for some useful quotes:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-w/1889/political-position.htm


The question as to what position Social-Democracy should occupy in the political fight, can be answered easily and confidently if we clearly understand that socialism and democracy are inseparable. Socialism and democracy are not identical, but they are simply different expressions of the same principle; they belong together, supplement each other, and one can never be incompatible with the other. Socialism without democracy is pseudo-socialism, just as democracy without socialism is pseudo-democracy. The democratic state is the only feasible form for a society organized on a socialist basis.

All enemies of the bourgeoisie agree with the negative aspect of socialism. Wagener and Bishop Ketteller, the Catholic clergy in the Austrian Reichsrat, the Protestant squires of the Prussian model state-they all condemn the bourgeoisie just as loudly as the most radical Socialist, using the same slogans. This shows that in itself the fight against the bourgeoisie is not necessarily democratic, but can arise from the most reactionary motives. Here we are faced immediately with the necessity of emphasizing not only the negative side of socialism but also its positive side, which distinguishes us from those reactionaries; and, above all, of waging a political fight in addition to the social fight, and of marching in its front ranks at that. We call ourselves Social-Democrats, because we have understood that democracy and socialism are inseparable. Our programme is implied in this name. But a programme is not designed to be given merely lip-service and to be repudiated in action. It should be the standard which determines our conduct.

If we restrict ourselves to the social struggle, or pay insufficient attention to the political battles, we run the risk that our enemies will make use of the existing class antagonisms, and in accordance with the maxim divide et impera flirt sometimes with the bourgeoisie against the workers, sometimes with the workers against the bourgeoisie. This kind of double-dealing is typical of modern Caesarism, which is based essentially on the exploitation of class antagonisms. In France the Empire today "saves" the bourgeoisie from the workers, and tomorrow it flirts with the workers, to drive the frightened bourgeoisie into its net. Here in Prussia, Caesarism copies its French model also in this respect, and alternately pats the bourgeoisie and the workers on the shoulder. Thus it happened that National-Liberalism, that is, the political party representing the bourgeoisie, looks towards the government for its salvation from the workers, while deluded workers-I hope not many despite the systematic corruption from the top-expect the same government to give them protection against the bourgeoisie.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1897/dec/31b.htm


Theoretical reasoning proves and the practical activities of the Social-Democrats show that all socialists in Russia should become Social-Democrats.

Let us now deal with the democratic tasks and with the democratic work of the Social-Democrats. Let us repeat, once again, that this work is inseparably connected with socialist activity. In conducting propaganda among the workers, the Social-Democrats cannot avoid political problems, and they would regard any attempt to avoid them, or even to push them aside, as a profound mistake and a departure from the basic principles of international Social-Democracy.

...

That is why the merging of the democratic activities of the working class with the democratic aspirations of other classes and groups would weaken the democratic movement, would weaken the political struggle, would make it less determined, less consistent, more likely to compromise On the other hand, if the working class stands out as the vanguard fighter for democratic institutions, this will strength the democratic movement, will strengthen the struggle for political liberty, because the working class will spur on all the other democratic and political opposition elements, will push the liberals towards the political radicals, will push the radicals towards an irrevocable rupture with the whole of the political and social structure of present society. We said above that all socialists in Russia should become Social-Democrats. We now add: all true and consistent democrats in Russia should become Social-Democrats.

[Led Zeppelin]

According to the materialist conception of history, the way people produce the goods they need to survive (otherwise known as the relations of production, appropriate to a given stage in the development of the forces of production) conditions (the word "determine" would imply a simplistic and limited causation) a society's political institutions, cultural values, intellectual life, etc. Given this understanding of history, why is it that the emergence of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class (and hence the development of capitalism) has led to the introduction of political democracy, whereby, in place of feudal structures based on lineage, government is now based on electoral participation? How does democracy (however limited democracy may be under capitalism) support the rule of the bourgeoisie? Would it not be more effective for the bourgeoisie to maintain power through an authoritarian system of government, which would prevent the proletariat from creating independent political organizations?

The degree of political democracy is directly related to the degree of stability which the bourgeois enjoys in a given period of time.

After the French Revolution for example it seemed natural that the bourgeoisie would enjoy political democracy forever...until it actually got into trouble, which is when the naked dictatorship saved it.

This has been the case in many bourgeois-democracies, but that doesn't really answer your question.

It all has to do with ownership, or private property laws.

As long as a capitalist economic system exists and is stable, the bourgeois has nothing to worry about (more or less, that is, acts of repression still occur when things get "too heated"), in the political field they are unmatched given their ownership of the tools which create consciousness on a mass level, schools, papers, all types of media in general etc.

It's still a dictatorship, no doubt, but it's much easier to maintain when people believe in the illusion of democracy, and as Bob The Builder rightly said, it was a great tool in fighting feudalism politically. It wasn't really necessary to fight it economically anymore, since it was already defeated long ago and the bourgeoisie had proven its worth in that sphere, but politically the bourgeoisie had to mobilize the masses to destroy the structure which was holding them back.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ May I suggest a new weapon, then: participatory democracy? This actually goes hand in hand with my new article, "Program of a New Type."

[Decolonize The Left]

^^^ May I suggest a new weapon, then: participatory democracy? This actually goes hand in hand with my new article, "Program of a New Type."

For clarification, are you claiming that participatory democracy is a weapon of the ruling class?

- August

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ No: a new weapon for US.

[Decolonize The Left]

^^^ No: a new weapon for US.

Participatory democracy only functions within a 'representative democracy'. By definition, representation is incompatible with democracy as representation cannot function as rule 'of and by the people.'

Now, your suggestion to use this as a weapon alludes to using the platforms of representation as a means to put forth leftist ideas and messages. If this is the case, then I feel it has some merit.

On the other hand, using broken means to achieve a whole end is incoherent. Perhaps a better use of our time, if we wish to dedicate it to democracy, would be to instill and engage in as much direct democracy as possible?

- August

[Labor Shall Rule]

The electors in both the U.S. and France were male property owners that had a clear legal record. This meant that an erroneously high amount of people couldn't even vote - not just oppressed Blacks and women, but also farmers that had gone through debt prison.

Madison's writings on the post-revolutionary construct of the U.S. constitution showed that the main purpose of their 'democracy' was to safeguard the "liberty" of the "accomplished people" to retain their assets: "the protection of unequal faculties of acquiring property is the first object of the government," as he wrote himself in the Federalist Papers. They started off (and kept) a degree of political control over their lower-class subjects - it was initiated as a very 'totalitarian' project as so.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Participatory democracy only functions within a 'representative democracy'. By definition, representation is incompatible with democracy as representation cannot function as rule 'of and by the people.'

Now, your suggestion to use this as a weapon alludes to using the platforms of representation as a means to put forth leftist ideas and messages. If this is the case, then I feel it has some merit.

On the other hand, using broken means to achieve a whole end is incoherent. Perhaps a better use of our time, if we wish to dedicate it to democracy, would be to instill and engage in as much direct democracy as possible?

- August

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy

In the above, direct democracy is a variant, while representative democracy isn't seen as being "participatory."

[BobKKKindle$]

Participatory democracy only functions within a 'representative democracy'. By definition, representation is incompatible with democracy as representation cannot function as rule 'of and by the people.'

Direct democracy is only effective under certain conditions, and so there is a need to discuss alternative mechanisms of decision-making which could be used in a post-capitalist society, and the extent to which these mechanisms are compatible with the values of democracy. Representative democracy should be used, but the representatives who are elected should not be given special benefits such as higher wage income, and should also be subject to recall throughout the term of office, so they can be replaced if they do not effectively represent the interests of the people who elected them.

In addition to advancing the scope of popular participation, a post-capitalist society should also adopt measures to encourage greater deliberation and thereby improve the quality of the decisions which are made.