Reconsider Marx’s Democracy Theory

Abstract

Marx’s democratic theories are also the unity of both universal and particular； moreover， the aspects of democratic universal have been ignored in the modern academic research. Marx’s democratic theories have his general conception， universal value and its common formations. Marx’s democratic thoughts have not departed from the historical development of human democracy and democracy practice， but have absorbed the outstanding achievement of the democratic politics.

Key words： Democratic theory； General conception； Universal value； Common formation

INTRODUCTION

These years， Marx’s theory of democracy has been explained from three aspects， one is its feature of classes， one is the feature of its destination， and another one is the feature of its discrepancy. Marx has emphasized the fundamental position of the economy， and concludes that there is no democracy which can surpass the classes. He believes that the democracy system is the formation and the means of the ruling class to carry out their political plan. The existence of the democracy system is to preserve more interests of the ruling class， and make the state steadier； however， Marx holds that， in different social formations， the structure of the democracy can be changed， and this is what Marx called the discrepancy. However， besides these characteristics， there still exist several aspects that can manifest the general features of Marx’s democracy theory. This is the aspects of democratic unity.

1. FIVE CONCLUSIONS MADE FROM MARX’S DEMOCRATIC THEORIES

There are five conclusions about Marx’s democratic theories which cannot be denied. Firstly， Marx believes， democracy as a state institution must be established on the basis of economy， and ultimately， it serves to the economical basis. According to the general logic of historical materialism， any formation of county including the democratic county must adapt itself to a certain productive relationship and serve to this relationship. Marx considers the productive relationship or the civil society as the natural basis of all the state formation from ancient slavery system to the modern democratic state system. He argues：

The modern state acknowledges the humanity is similar to the acknowledgement of slavery system by the ancient country which means just like the natural basis of the ancient country is the slavery system， the natural basis of the modern state is the civil society and the human in the civil society…， however， modern state acknowledges the natural basis through the way it acknowledges the general humanity， but it doesn’t create this basis. （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.35）

Secondly， Marx emphasizes on the significance of democratic classic nature. Marx believes in the classic society， democracy is nothing but the political formation to achieve the classic benefits， and essentially， democracy is a means of rule between the classes. Marx considers that any kind of state formation， including democratic politics is affiliated to the ruling class in which each individual try to obtain their private or common benefits. So Marx argues that：

The entire interior struggles including the struggles between democratic regime， aristocratic regime， and monarchy regime are all belong to the illusive formation which is an illusion formation of community； under these formations， there are various real struggles between different classes. （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.77）

To disclose the classic feature of democracy is the most distinctive characteristics of Marx’s democratic theories.

Thirdly， Marx believes democracy cannot be separated from dictatorship， actually they are the two aspects of one thing； some persons’ democracy is the other persons’ dictatorship. Since democracy becomes the ruling method for the ruling class， it can be consequently concluded that democracy must protect the political benefits of the ruling class， once the political benefits of the ruling class has been threatened， the governing authority must deprive the political rights of the ruled class without any hesitation， until the benefits of the ruling class can be maintained. Marx makes an example with “fraternity”. So called “fraternity” is the love between the classes including one depriving， and the other be deprived， it is the same meaning of civil war which essential characteristic is the struggle between labour and capital. Once the benefits of the ruling class have been threatened， they would replace the slogan of “Freedom， Equality， Fraternity” with “cavalry， Infantry， Artillery” （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.136）.

Fourthly， the main contents of Marx’s democracy theories are the criticism on the capitalism. Though Marx recognizes the magnificent progress from the feudal autocratic system to the modern capitalism， he has a clear picture of the limitation of capitalism， and pays a lot of effort to criticize the capital democratic hypocrisy. Marx believes the capitalism democratic politics always compatible with capitalism private ownership； it is the best political mask essentially protects capitalists’ benefits. For most mass， this kind of democracy is not only hypocrisy but also a kind of exploitation and oppression. For instance，

For each paragraph of the Constitution contains its own antithesis， its own Upper and Lower House， namely， freedom in the general phrase， abrogation of freedom in the marginal note. Thus， so long as the name of freedom was respected and only its actual realisation prevented， of course in a legal way， the constitutional existence of freedom remained intact， inviolate， however mortal the blows dealt to its existence in actual life. （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.115）

Fifthly， Marx believes democracy is a history category， it is a product of the long development of human society and eventually， it would perish together with the state. One of the basic principles of Marx’s democratic theory emphasizes that the state is the product of private ownership and the class society； with the development of productivity. Both private ownership and class would be vanished； and so does the state. Since the state is a history category， the democracy of a state should also affiliate to the history， consequently， it can be figured that one day， and the political democracy will perish in the human society development either.

These five characteristics distinctively distinguish Marx’s democratic theory with other democratic theories in the history， and these characteristics are also to be discussed by recent research， however， there are still many other characteristics can be found in Marx’s democratic theories.

2. GENERAL DEMOCRACY

The term “democracy” can be derived from the early 15BC of the ancient Greece. But in the long period of history， the democratic politics is not always being prevalent as recent years； no matter Aristotle， or many politicians and researchers， who live in Mars’s time， does not pay more attention on the political term. Just like what Colin Mercer has said： “Before 1850， the term ‘democracy’ has the same meaning of ‘blood political event’ or ‘violent ruling’.” （Hunt ， 1980 p.45） Until the beginning of modern society， the term “democracy” has been accepted by most states and politicians. As a conception of describing political life， “democracy” initially comes from “demos” and “kratia” which are the ancient Greek words. The former “demos” means “mass”， the letter “kratia” means “ruling”， and the whole meaning of this world is “government by the people”. However， how to define the term “people”， “mass”， “ruling” or “govern” is still a complicated issue； consequently， the definition of “democracy” is also controversial. But no matter what definitions have been made， the essential meanings of the term “democracy” which means “ruled by mass” or “mass govern sovereignty” never changed. Marx opposes to analyse “democracy” abstractly， and emphasises its classic and economical characteristics， however， he does not deny the general interpretation of “democracy” and considers that the term “democracy” is a conception of category which possesses general features. In Marx’s Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right， Marx elaborately discusses the general conception of the democracy. According to his explanation， the general meaning of democracy is the “people’s self-determination”. Marx holds that：

In democracy the constitution of the people. Democracy is the resolved mystery of all constitutions…only the specific difference of democracy is that here the constitution is in general only one moment of the people's existence， that is to say the political constitution does not form the state for itself. （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.29）

State constitution consists of political constitution， economic constitution and social constitution. State constitution determines the subject of state government， political structure， power distribution， dominate model and administrative courses， it is the essential part of the whole political life. It can be easily discover the nature of a state or its regime by analysing its constitutor of the state constitution， the fraction or the individual for whom it provides benefits. If a state law and its constitution eventually determined by the monarch， and it represent the will of the monarch， this kind of state constitution can be called monarchy constitution. If a state constitution is determined by minority political elites， this kind of state can be called as aristocratic constitution. If a state constitution is determined by the people， and represents the will of the mass， the state terminal power is belonging to the entire people， and this constitution can be called democracy. Therefore， the democratic politics is the state constitution that determined by its people， and the people are the crucial part of the state democratic political life.

Concern with the general conception of democracy， another three aspects must be considered. Firstly， the standpoint and the destination of democracy constitution are the general person， at least in the aspects of law formation or constitutional determination， the subject of the state democracy is the entire people. Secondly， in some way of the relation between the constitution and the individual， human is the destination of the constitution not the reverse. Thirdly， during the course of the political or democracy process， all the decisions are determined by people. Marx holds that in the state of non-democratic constitution， the basis of the state is not the people in the reality， however， in the democratic state； the basis of the state is the mass in the real life. Marx argues：

Here not merely implicitly and in essence but existing in reality， the constitution is constantly brought back to its actual basis， the actual human being， the actual people， and established as the people’s own work. The constitution appears as what it is， a free product of man. （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.29）

Firstly， before the proletariats obtain their leader position， and still live under the domination of the bourgeoisie， the labours should strive for their democratic right in all kind of legal formation. Marx clearly considers that， in the system of bourgeoisie， the democracy is nothing but a false formation， and the essence of the democracy is the ruling of the capitalist. Marx considers that the capitalist always verbally boast of their democracy， however， they only admit the validity of the democratic principles but never put them into practices. He firmly points out that the proletariat should adopt the democratic formation of the capitalist to strive for their own democratic rights. In the Manifesto of the Communist Party， Marx and Engels have explicitly pointed out 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.” （Karl， 1975， p.504） In Introduction to K. Marx’s The Class Struggles in France Engels has pointed out：

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…. With this successful utilisation of universal suffrage， however， an entirely new method of proletarian struggle came into operation， and this method quickly took on a more tangible form. （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.515）

Secondly， after the proletariats successfully obtain their regime， the political value of the labour mass is to carry out the true democracy. Marx bitterly criticizes the democracy of the capitalism， however， this doesn’t mean Marx has denied the value of democracy itself， Marx has discovered the limitation of the capitalism democracy. The democracy of capitalism is the democracy of the minority； the mass labour can obtain their social status and enjoy their rights of the state master only after they destroy the political and economic system of the capitalism and build socialism. So it is clearly that Marx’s socialism is not a system without democracy， but an association which possesses the true democracy. The democracy is much more important to the proletariats after they have successfully obtained the regime because the proletariats’ socialist system can provide the political and economic basis. Just like Engels has said：

Democracy nowadays is communism. Any other democracy can only still exist in the heads of theoretical visionaries who are not concerned with real events， in whose view it is not the men and the circumstances that develop the principles but the principles develop themselves. Democracy has become the proletarian principle， the principle of the masses. （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.5）

The second is the political democracy needs universal suffrage. Under the indirection system， whether the representative organization and the government organization can really represent the will of the people becomes the criterion to define a true value of the democracy. How to ensure the government and the officers can fully represent the will of the people is a serious problem need to be deal with. Until now the most efficient method is to encourage the people to choose their own representatives in an occasion of free and fair election； if not the state power will be lack of the basis of the mass and there is nothing to do with the “ruling by people”. In The Festival of Nations in London， Marx has thought highly of the general selection of Paris Commune， he believes：

The commune was formed of the municipal councillors， chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town， responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men， of acknowledged representatives of the working class. （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.331）

Through Marx’s imagination of Paris Commune， it can be concluded four characteristics of Marx’s election system of the socialist state. Firstly， eachhas his right of selection and being selected expect for those who have been deprived of their political rights due to their social crime. Secondly， the majority of the state managers should be the representatives of the mass worker. Thirdly， the function of the universal suffrage is no longer to determine who will be the manager to control the social life of the state but to guarantee the social affairs can be managed directly by the people. Fourthly， the range of the universal suffrage should be enlarged， the entire government officer， the police and the judge should be chosen by the mass.

The third is the political democracy needs the social autonomy. Democracy is the self-government by the social members， with the development of the democracy. The degree of the autonomy should be improved. In Marx’s opinion， when there is a true and thorough autonomy， the democracy begins to diminish. There are two basic modes of the social autonomy； one is the autonomy of the vocation. The other is the autonomy of the region； and it is clearly that Marx holds the positive view of the Paris Commune. Essentially， Paris Commune is the autonomy of the workers， because the organizers of this system are all workers. If this new mode of political regime could be improved， the autonomy of the regions would be required necessary. In the modern capitalist state， in order to separate the state power from the central regime， the system of local autonomy has been adopted in different patterns. Marx thinks that the existence of the Paris Community： “The very existence of the Commune involved， as a matter of course， local municipal liberty， but no longer as a check upon the， now superseded.” （Marx & Engels， 1975， p.334） In another words， in Marx’s imagination of the democratic formation， the local autonomy is no longer the opposition of the current state regime， it is the new formation of the citizen to realize themselves.

CONCLUSION

Marx considers the social democracy as the essential context of the modern economic society， he finds the relationship between the social democracy and social stability which is influenced by the social order made by the government. And he also argues that the theory of social democracy can transform into the personality of an individual， because it is a kind of social spirit or a kind of social ideology； and a good social order needs social democracy to conduct and educated all the social members.

REFERENCES

Hunt， A. （1980）. Marxism and democracy （p.54）. London： Prometheus Books.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. The holy family. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected works （Vol. 4）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. The German Ideology. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected works （Vol. 5）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. The eighteenth brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected works， （Vol. 11）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. Critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected works （Vol. 3）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. Critique of the Gotha programme. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected works （Vol. 24）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected Works， （Vol. 3）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. Manifesto of the Communist Party. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected Works， （Vol. 6）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. Capital. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected works， （Vol. 35）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. Principles of communism. In In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected Works （Vol. 6）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. Introduction to K. Marx’s the class struggles in France. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected works （Vol. 27）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. The festival of nations in London. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected Works， （Vol. 6）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. Letter to the labour parliament. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected works （Vol.13）. Moscow： Progress.

Marx， K.， & Engels， F. （1975）. The civil war in France. In J. Cohen & J. S. Allen （Eds.）， Collected works （Vol. 22）. Moscow： Progress.

Phiplip J. K. （1942）. Marxism and modern political theory （p.151）. New York： Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.