Classical Marxism’s conception of the transition period contains a central, persistent and unresolved contradiction. Marx, for example, was a strong advocate of the progressive role of the centralized state, yet he was also a partisan of the decentralized and federalist Paris Commune. Lenin later popularized Marx’s writings on the Commune, claiming that they portrayed a superior ‘proletarian’ form of democracy when contrasted to the ‘bourgeois’ parliamentary system; but Lenin also agreed with Marx on the importance of the centralized revolutionary state. The first period of Bolshevik power witnessed an effort to transform the Soviets—created by the workers themselves—into a practical governmental structure. In my opinion, the failure of this attempt exposed the impossibility of directly combining the decentralized Soviet system with the needs of a modern centralized state, as well as revealing ambiguities in the Leninist counterposition of ‘proletarian’ versus ‘bourgeois’ democracy. In contrast to some left critics of existing state socialismfootnote1 who continue to propose a return to the early Soviet system or its
Marx and Engels wrote little about the transitional period no doubt because it is difficult to write much about what does not yet exist (though this has not inhibited religious writers). Our world has changed dramatically from Marx’s world. New societies, claiming to be transitional to, or even to have achieved, socialism cover one-third of the earth’s surface. In Poland, workers have rejected ‘existing socialist society’ as they have experienced it—a monolithic, statist, oppressive system. So far their actions have not gone beyond an attempt to defend themselves from what is supposed to be ‘their’ state through independent trade-union organization. These actions pose a question which must be clearly and concretely answered: If what exists is to be rejected as oppressive of the class it is supposed to represent, what then is the alternative? What is needed is a model not simply of what should be but also of what can be, precisely because the social forces are gathering which permit change of a fundamental sort in state socialist society. This article attempts to make a contribution to the construction of such a model. I intend to develop only one aspect of this question, the problem of democratic form or structure. I intend to discuss the structural antinomy as found in Marx and Lenin, and in the institutionalization of the Soviet system. On this basis, I will make some suggestions on how democratic forms can best express an actual revolutionary change in content, in social relations.
When Marx travelled from radical democracy to socialism in late 1843 he embraced the vision of a classless, stateless communal society developed by Saint Simon and other utopian socialists. This vision remained with him to his death—without change, without development. ‘What I did that was new,’ Marx wrote to Weydemeyer in 1852, ‘was to demonstrate: 1) that the existence of classes is merely linked to particular phases in the development of production, 2) that class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, 3) that this dictatorship itself constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.’footnote3 During this transitional periodfootnote4 the proletariat would use the political power of the
It is extremely important to note that this entire process of social change rests upon a political act; it is a political revolution which forcibly hastens the social transformation. It is this which led Karl Korsch to state that the revolutionary doctrine of Marx and Engels had a ‘Jacobinic pattern’.footnote7 Certainly their writings on the revolutions of 1848 in both France and Germany expressed a preoccupation with the pattern of the French Revolution of 1789. David Riazanov notes: ‘Neither Marx nor Engels had had any other experience except that which had been provided by the Great French Revolution. Marx had studied most attentively the history of that revolution and had endeavoured to work out principles of tactics for the epoch of the coming revolution. . . .’footnote8 Marx had seen how the French Revolution, in its most radical Jacobin stage, utilized a centralized state power to ruthlessly wipe out every last vestige of feudal institutions, laying the basis for the untrammeled development of the capitalist mode of production. It was quite natural for him to see the proletarian revolution as a similar process: the proletariat would seize political power and use this political power to wipe out capitalist economic relations and hasten evolution ‘forcibly’ towards the new classless socialist society.
We must also situate Marx within the framework of contemporaneous political processes. In Europe as a whole the process of creating centralized government was far from completed. This was particularly true in Germany. The major forces resisting centralization were the forces of the ancien regime. This encouraged in both Marx and Engels the concept of a centralized state as progressive while federalism was viewed as reactionary. Both views—the primacy of the political act in the revolutionary process and the progressive nature of the centralized state—were defended in bitter polemics against Proudhon and Bakunin.footnote9 For instance, Marx writes in 1850: ‘The workers . . . must not only strive for a single and indivisible German republic, but also within this republic for the most determined centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They must not allow themselves to be misguided by the democratic talk of freedom of communities, of self-government, etc. . . .’footnote10
This Jacobin model of the revolutionary centralized state, whose task was
Already the elements of an unresolvable antinomy can be seen in Marx’s and Engels’s conception of transitional society. The centralized state as a combined repressive institution and revolutionizer of social relations appears to be inconsistent with the concept of a state as already in the process of dissolving itself into the people. More consistent with the latter view would be an image of a state decentralized and federalist in structure, permitting a high degree of local autonomy. Such a structure would place government power closer to the mass of people and in this fashion represent an important evolution towards breaking down the distinction between state and people. Yet such a view was closer to the thinking of Proudhon and Bakunin than it was to Marx and Engels. This antinomy, implicit in the earliest formulations of Marx and Engels on the transitional period, found its sharpest expression in their writings on the Paris Commune. The Paris Commune of 1871, predicted by no one and dominated by political foes of Marx and Engels—Blanquists and Proudhonists—was warmly embraced by them. This enthusiasm reflected a natural tendency for revolutionists to defend revolutionary events, particularly when, like the Commune, they are subjected to bloody suppression and vilification. Further, it was important politically for the First International to capture, as far as possible, the prestige of the Commune in the eyes of the masses, rather than to allow it to be used by political enemies on the left—particularly the Proudhonists and anarchists. While Marx nowhere specifically called the Paris Commune the dictatorship of the proletariat, Engels stated in 1891: ‘Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.’footnote13 Marx did say, however, that the Paris Commune was ‘the finally discovered political form under which the economic liberation of labor could be consummated.’footnote14