Workers' Liberty 17, January 1994. Socialism and Democracy

Socialism and Democracy: democracy, direct action and the class struggle

Submitted by martin on 8 April, 2015 - 5:19

Was advocating extra-parliamentary direct action to bring down the elected Thatcher government anti-democratic? Are 'by democratic means' and 'by parliamentary means' identical concepts?

Add new comment

1917 was a democratic revolution!

Submitted by sm on 4 August, 2007 - 7:07 Author: Max Shachtman

The 1917 revolution was one of the greatest democratic moments in history.

The Bolshevik Party, which is now lyingly identified in both outright bourgeois and hypocritical Labour Party- style anti-socialist propaganda, as an enemy of democracy, was, above all else, the great force for democracy in the Russia of 1917. It was a force, moreover, without which the workers and peasants of the former Tsarist empire would have been crushed and their drive for democratic self-rule drowned in blood. These are the truths propounded and convincingly argued for by Max Shachtman.

Add new comment

The movement of the majority

Submitted by martin on 8 April, 2007 - 1:45

By James P Cannon, from Socialism on Trial, 1941. This is an extract from Cannon's evidence in the court where, during World War 2, he and other American Trotskyists and trade unionists were put on trial and jailed for hindering the US war effort.

Q: And how will the dictatorship of the proletariat operate insofar as democratic rights are concerned?

Add new comment

Labour Party: the sham of "one member, one vote"

Submitted by sm on 7 April, 2007 - 7:42

By John Bloxam and John O'Mahony

"After the rising of the 17th of June [the East Berlin workers uprising of 1953] the Secretary of the Writers Union had leaflets handed out in the Stalinallee in which it can be read that the people had forfeited the confidence of the government, and could only win it back by redoubled efforts. Would it not be simpler if the government dissolved the people and elected another?"

Bertold Brecht, The Solution

Add new comment

Vladimir Lenin on democracy and dictatorship

Submitted by sm on 5 April, 2007 - 2:32

Lenin called for the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a great expansion of democracy.

By "dictatorship" he meant the rule of a class, not of a Hitler or a Stalin. This is an abridged version of Lenin's "Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat", adopted by the founding congress of the Communist International in March 1919. Long-forgotten contemporary references and examples have been cut.


Submitted by USRed on Wed, 26/02/2014 - 21:54

"The most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists."

This doesn't seem consistent with what the AWL usually says about bourgeois democracy. And it shouldn't be. Because the "no more than" part is simply false.

And in any event it was hypocritical for Lenin to write like this because the Soviet Union of 1919 was hardly a workers' democracy, a "state of the Paris Commune type." One could argue that under the circumstances it simply couldn't be anything other than an "authoritarian workers' state," but Lenin never acknowledged this.

Add new comment

Democracy, Direct Action and Class Struggle: the Defects of Bourgeois Democracy

Submitted by sm on 25 March, 2007 - 9:23 Author: John O'Mahony

The malaise of bourgeois democracy in Britain is now a subject of much discussion and concern. The discussion on democracy, early in 1982, between Michael Foot, then leader of the Labour Party, and Socialist Organiser, a forerunner of AWL, may help readers form a clearer picture of the issues beyond small-scale financial corruption.

Add new comment

Michael Foot: My kind of democracy (part 1)

Submitted by sm on 25 March, 2007 - 9:18

Why parliament? Can those old arthritic limbs still move as the nation needs?

Why parliamentary democracy? Why should democratic socialists and, more especially, democratic socialists in Britain, continue to assert their faith in the supremacy of Parliament? Were those who framed the Labour Party constitution right in their sense of balance when they declared that their objective was to sustain a Labour Party in Parliament and in the country?

Add new comment

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.