The Democratic Mystification by Jacques Camatte

Thought it would be a good idea to get some French neo-Bordigism in this group.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/demyst.htm

Democracy can only really appear from the moment when men have been completely divided, and the umbilical cord linking them with the community has been cut; that is, when there are individuals.

very true and insightful. it seems that in this era voter apathy and disregard of democracy by the proletariat might lead to community ties re-forming and the development of the proletarian class-consciousness.

Humanity will constitute itself in a collective being, the Gemeinwesen. This is born outside the democratic phenomenon, and it is the proletariat constituted as party which transmits this to society.

this indicates to me that the history of man and community in between primitive communism and scientific communism is the history of man becoming individualized and then rejoining the community.

5.1.2. Democracy was born from the moment that there was a division between men and the allocation of possession. That is to say, it arose with private property, individuals and the class division of society, with the formation of the state. It follows that it becomes increasingly pure as private property becomes more general and as classes appear more distinctly in society.

I do agree with the rest of what the above says, but I was wondering what proof there is that democracy came about in such a way?

5.1.3. It presupposes a common good which is divided-up. Limited democracy in ancient society presupposed the existence of the ager publicus and slaves who were not men. In modern society this common good is more universal (touches a greater number of men). It is also more abstract and illusory : the homeland.

The above is absolutely correct.

Actually, in the beginning the economic processes divided men (process of expropriation) who had been united in the primitive community. Ancient social relations were destroyed. Gold became a real power replacing the authority of the community. Men were opposed to each other because of material antagonisms that could break up society and make it impossible. Democracy appeared to be a means of reconciling opposites, as the most suitable political form to unite what was divided. It represented conciliation between the old community and the new society. The mystifying form lay in the apparent reconstruction of a lost unity. Mystification was progressive.

Very interesting. I agree with the above as well.

5.1.6. It is often said that the seeds (or some even say the forms) of democracy are to be found in the origins of the life of our species, in primitive communism. However it is a misunderstanding to see the manifestation of the seeds of a higher form appearing sporadically in an inferior form. This "democracy" appeared in very specific circumstances. Once these had ended, there was a return to the former mode of organisation. For example : military democracy at its beginnings. The election of the leader took place at a particular time and for specific tasks. Once these were accomplished, the leader was reabsorbed into the community. The democracy which appeared temporarily was reabsorbed. It was the same for those forms of capital which Marx called ante-deluvian. Usury was the archaic form of money-capital which could appear in ancient societies. But its existence was always precarious, because society defended itself against its solvent effects and banished it. It was only when man became a commodity, that capital could develop on a safe foundation, and could no longer be reabsorbed. Democracy can only really appear from the moment when men have been completely divided, and the umbilical cord linking them with the community has been cut; that is, when there are individuals.

I really like the above.

During the communist revolution, the masses will have already been organised by capitalist society. They will not seek new forms of organization but will structure a new collective being, the human community. This appears clearly when the class acts in time as an historical being, when it constitutes itself as party.

It has been said a number of times in the communist movement that the revolution is not a problem of forms of organisation. For capitalist society, on the contrary, everything is an organisational question. At the beginning of its development, this appears as the search for good institutions; at the end as the search for the best structures to enclose men in the prisons of capital : fascism. At both extremes, democracy is at the heart of this search : first political democracy, then social democracy.

I like the above, but I do somewhat disagree. I do think that forms of organization would be something that the communist movement will have to take into consideration, albeit not something too great.

5.1.11.

"Democracy and parliamentarianism are indispensable for the bourgeoisie after its victory by force and terror because the bourgeoisie want to rule a society divided into classes."
('Battaglia communista' no. 18, 1951.)

It required conciliation to be able to dominate for it was impossible that domination should endure solely through terror. After its conquest of power by violence and terror, the proletariat does not need democracy, not because classes disappear from one day to the next, but because there must no longer be any masking or mystification. Dictatorship is required to prevent any return of the opposing class. Moreover, the accession of the proletariat to the State, is its own negation as a class, as well as the negation of the other classes. It is the beginning of the unification of the species, of the formation of the community. To demand democracy would imply the need for conciliation between classes and that would amount to doubting that communism is the solution to all antagonisms, that it is the reconciliation of man with himself.

The above is perfect. We do not seek "democracy" with the communist revolution, but the dictatorship of the proletariat until the abolition of classes and their organ of rule.

In the fascist state reality subjugates the idea to make a real idea of it. In the democratic state the idea subjugates reality to make an imaginary reality of it. The democracy of capital's slaves suppresses mystification the better to achieve it. The democrats wish to highlight it when they believe it can reconcile the proletariat with capital.

Society having found the being of its oppression (which abolishes the duality, the reality/thought imbalance), it is necessary to oppose to it the liberatory being which represents the human community : the communist party.

The above is absolutely correct.

It is true that it is possible to say, that with the communist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, a greater section of humanity than before enters the domain of this ideal demoracy; and that by generalising the proletarian condition to the whole of society, the proletariat abolishes classes and achieves democracy (the 'Communist Manifesto' stated that the revolution is the conquest of democracy). However it is necessary to add, that this passage to the limit, this generalisation, is at the same time the destruction of democracy. Because at the same time, the human mass does not remain constituted with the status of a simple sum of individuals, all equivalents in right if not in fact. That can only be a reality for a very short moment of history, due to forced equalisation. Humanity will constitute itself in a collective being, the Gemeinwesen. This is born outside the democratic phenomenon, and it is the proletariat constituted as party which transmits this to society. When one passes on to future society, there is a qualitative change, and not merely a quantitative one. For democracy is "the anti-marxist rule of this powerless quantity, for all eternity, to become quality". To demand democracy for post-revolutionary society is to demand impotence. In addition, the communist revolution is no longer a partial revolution. With it, progressive emancipation finishes, and radical emancipation is achieved. Here again there is a qualitative leap.

The above is very interesting and I agree with it.

Overall, a very, very good read.