Dictatorship vs. Democracy

rship of th

s stubbornly defended in 1891, shortly before his death-the idea that the political autocr

And it is quite clear that, if our problem is the abolition of private property in the means of production, the only road to its solution lies through the concentration of State power in its entirety in the hands of the proletar

roletariat does not exclude, of course, either separate agreements, or considerable concessions, especially in connection with the lower middle-class and the peasantry. But the proletariat can only conclude these agreements aft

ajority." That is, he discerns in the revolutionary regime of the proletariat those very features by which the honest Soc

nly of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but of Marxism and of the revolution altogether. If, in principle, we are to subordinate Socialist policy to the parliamentary mystery of majority and minority, it follows that, in countries where formal democracy prevails, there is no place at all for the revolutionary struggle. If the majority elected on the basis of universal suffrage in Switzerland pass draconian legislation against strikers, or if the executive elected by the will of a formal majority in Northern America shoots workers, have the Swiss and American workers the "right" of protest by organizing a general strike? Obviously, no. The political strike is a form of extra-parli

nly possible form of its control of the State. Kautsky himself more than once repeated this definition. Hence, by the way, we can see wh

rantee the supremacy of the proletariat. If the Socialist revolution requires a dictatorship-"the sole form in whic

consolidate the dictatorship, one has to prevent the bourgeoisie from undermining the State power of the proletariat. Kautsky apparently thinks that this can be achieved by tear

orpions of the democratic State. Is it possible that Kautsky is leaning to the idea that the bourgeoisie can be held down with the help of the categorical imperative, which in his last writings plays the part of the Holy Ghost? We, on our part, can only promise him our material assistance if he decides to equip a Kantian-humanitarian mission to the realms of Denikin and Kolchak. At all events, there he would have the possibility of convincing himself that the counter-revolutionaries are not naturally devoid of character, and that, thanks to their six years' existence in the fire and smoke of war, their character has managed to

rmed counter-revolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship

es to generalize his slanders against the revolution and the dictatorship of the prole

ighteenth century, which by measures of merciless terror destroyed the rule of absolutism, of feudalism, and of clericalism, really prepared the way for more peaceful and milder solutions of social problems. But, even if we admit this purely liberal standpoint, even here our accuser will prove to be completely in the wrong; for the Russian Revolution, which culminated in the dictatorship

ethods. But in this connection there was always less thought" (amongst whom?), "of the bloody use of arms, and more of the working class weapon peculiar to the proletariat-the mass strike. And that a considerable portion of the

lization of the proletariat and its setting up against its enemy, the State; but that the strike in itself cannot produce the solution of the problem, because it exhausts the forces of the proletariat sooner than those of its enemies, and this, sooner or later, forces the workers to return to the factories. The general strike acquires a decisive importance only as a preliminary to a conflict between the proletariat and the armed forces of the opposition-i.e., to the open revolutionary rising of the workers. Only by breaking the will of the armies thrown against it can the revolutionary class solve the problem of power-the root problem of every revolution. The general strike produces the mobilization of both sides, and gives the first serious estimate of the powe

fact, the argument itself is not new. Once upon a time the Revisionists gave it a character more based on principle. They strove to prove that the growth of proletarian organizations under democra

of democracy, the class contradictions of capitalist society grew deeper, and that this

the regime of its dictatorship. But it was clear to all that the number of victims will vary with the strength of resistance of the propertied classes. If Kau

ught about a degradation of morals and accustomed men to violent methods and action, and completely stripped the bourg

ces are not proletarian and bourgeois manikins produced in the retort of Wagner-Kautsky, but a rea

he whole world, Kautsky sees only the result of a fatal laps

er, up to the world war, was, in spite of its great activities, preserved from great defeats. And the

ominating Socialist teaching, democracy threw out firm roots in Western Europe, and began the

arantees, forsooth, a painless transition to a new and "wiser" order. This is the most vulgar liberalism, a belated piece of rationalism in the spirit of the eighteenth century-with the difference that the ideas of Condorc

parties proved bankrupt. Those features of their previous work which Kautsky now wishes to render permanent-self-adaptation, repudiation of "illegal" activity, repudiation of the open fight, hopes placed in democracy as the road to a painless revolution-all these fell into dust. In their fear of defeat, holding back the masses from open conflict, dissolving the general strike discussions, the parties of the Second International were preparing their own terrifying defeat; for they were not able to move one finger to avert the greatest catastrophe in world history, the four years' impe