![]() ![]() Far from posing an alternative to capitalism, these efforts resulted in state-capitalist regimes that were neither socialist nor democratic. For statist and authoritarian Marxists, democracy became viewed as a “cumbersome mechanism” that could be cast aside in the transition to socialism-if not entirely suppressed (as with Stalin, Mao, and “Marxist-Leninist” regimes in the developing world). Yet while few doubted that democracy is vital in paving the way for socialism, there was less unanimity about democracy as a form of organization of socialism. ![]() Engels, Kautsky Plekhanov, Luxemburg, and Lenin all held this position. The socialists of the First and Second International saw no contradiction between promoting democratic reforms within existing society (such as universal suffrage, freedom of speech and the press, universal public education, etc.) while calling for the abolition of capitalism indeed, they assumed that expanding democratic liberties would enable workers to wage the class struggle to a successful conclusion. Prior to the rise of Stalinism (in the 1920s), socialists were in virtual unanimous agreement that a democratic republic was the form best suited for waging the struggle for a new society. He writes, “I therefore wish to state the following at the outset: the enigma of democracy, as a form of transition to socialism and as a form of organization of a socialist society and its political avant-garde per se, has not been solved.” This is a striking statement, given the enormous amount of discussion and debate among socialists over questions of democracy over the past two centuries. It represents, in the mind of this writer, one of the most important works on Marx and Marxism to have appeared in the last decade.Ĭhrysis suggests throughout his study that his account of the young Marx’s passage from a radical democrat to a socialist or communist is not merely of historical or academic interest. While the young Marx (1837-43) has been exhaustively explored by many scholars, Chrysis goes further than others in showing that the young Marx’s advocacy of democracy informed the very understanding of communism found in his later work. The book (the first in a series by Chrysis on Marx’s political theory) is about the young Marx, before he broke from bourgeois society and embraced communism. It does not directly explore how post-Marx Marxists viewed the relation between democracy and socialism nor does it pretend to present Marx’s views on the subject as a whole. In light of this, it becomes important to explore theoretical sources that provide direction for working out a truly revolutionary democratic socialism for our times.Īlexandros Chrysis’s ‘True Democracy’ as a Prelude to Communism: The Marx of Democracy represents a vital contribution to this effort. Envisioning and forging a truly democratic socialism and a socialist democracy has proven to be an extremely fraught and difficult project. This spectre cannot be simply willed away, since it is objectively rooted in 100 years of radical theory and practice that either emphasized democratic liberties at the expense of a revolutionary uprooting of capitalism or reduced “socialism” to authoritarian state control that suppresses democracy. As a new generation of activists seeks to develop a viable alternative to capitalism, the spectre of failed efforts to create a socialist society-both in the past and present-looms large. The past several years has witnessed an explosion of interest in socialist theory and practice-and especially of democratic socialism. Review of Alexandros Chrysis, ‘True Democracy’ as a Prelude to Communism: The Marx of Democracy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018)įarsi translation, appeared on May 1 in O.R.W.I Organization of Revolutionary Workers of Iran (Rahe Kargar), edited by Alireza Kia ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |