Whether it has a democratic, semi-democratic, or dictatorial character, the apparatus of the bourgeois state remains “a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie” (Marx) and the “historical expression of the unity of the ruling class” (Gramsci). It would be fatal for workers to believe that they can change their fundamental condition as an oppressed class by selecting one or two components of this apparatus through “open” elections – in which the capitalist class generally ensures they remain in their hands through electoral restrictions and campaign lies.
Elections are periods where the bourgeoisie uses political competition among its various factions for popular support, to strengthen the facade of representation that is the essence of its “democracy”. As the state seeks at all times to conceal its class character working-class parties can sometimes also compete, although there are generally restrictions of all kinds. The visibility of the electoral dispute can be used as an opportunity for Marxist propaganda: to reinforce the slogans of the proletariat, to publicize and defend their struggles, as an auxiliary instrument to prepare the class, denouncing the role of the bourgeois state and pointing out the need for a socialist alternative to capitalism. Marxists need not abdicate anything in their program, nor must they commit to anything contrary to their program to seek short term success in elections. Such a tactic, however, is of a secondary order, and is not a priority for a small Marxist organization.
In the case of larger organizations, independent participation with a revolutionary program is the only principled way of participating in bourgeois electoral systems. The party must seek to project the clearest possible expression of its program and methods to the masses, which would not be possible in blocks with other organizations. However, especially for a small tendency with no presence in national political life, such a form of participation is not viable. Is electoral support for parties that are not revolutionary possible in this case? Let us return to the basic question involved in electoral participation: propagandizing in service of the socialist perspective and the interests of the working class. The central objectives of the participation of Marxists in elections are to publicize their program and their methods, and also to unmask the attempts of the bourgeoisie to influence the proletariat. Support for other working class partiescan be provided critically by revolutionaries, as long as they are running independently of the capitalist class, with a program that clearly defends the interests of workers against the bosses and their parties (never in coalition or with the desire of a coalition with them). Critical support is given by also presenting a systematic exposure of the disagreements and limitations of such campaigns.
We believe that any electoral support for capitalist parties, politicians or electoral blocs is a betrayal of class independence. This applies to liberal bourgeois electoral projects disguised as “progressive”. It is also the case with bourgeois campaigns that are also composed of workers’ parties or organizations (so-called “popular fronts”). In the latter case, the tactic of a Marxist tendency is to call for breaking the workers and their organizations from the coalition of collaboration with the capitalists, which necessarily excludes electoral support of any kind while the coalition persists.
A Constituent Assembly is not an institution capable of resolving the fundamental contradictions of society, or of giving real voice to workers. Some ostensible socialists present it as a “radically democratic” form of government or as a means by which the experience of popular participation would lead to socialist revolution. This is mistaken. The slogan for a Constituent Assembly can play a role as an auxiliary democratic demand in contexts of police or military dictatorships. But that is the limit of what it can be: a democratic demand. Class struggle will not advance through dispute within an institution like this, but through direct confrontation with the ruling class. For this reason, the Constituent Assembly cannot be the “crux of the matter” for revolutionaries, nor should they spread the false idea that it could be a solution to the needs of workers or the fundamental contradictions in capitalist society.
This does not mean that there is no difference between a democratic regime and a dictatorial regime with regard to the interests of the proletariat. Bourgeois democracy differs from bourgeois dictatorship in three fundamental aspects: freedom of organization, freedom of expression and formal participation of the broad masses in politics, especially with the choice of certain political positions in the state through elections. The importance of the first two is evident. Freedom of organization and expression means that the state apparatus tolerates a certain degree of public activity by proletarian organizations, especially that of trade unions and political parties.
Marxists must fight not only to defend workers’ democratic rights, but also to expand them, to free proletarian organizations from restrictions and to bring workers more and more into the political sphere, to get used to thinking politically and preparing ourselves for revolution. In countries where bourgeois dictatorships are in place, the struggle for the achievement of democratic rights for workers is a task that is especially on the agenda, but it should not be a barrier or replacement for agitation on the necessity of overcoming capitalism. On the contrary, the defense of democratic rights is subordinated to (and a means for) the defense of the socialist program. Democratic rights under capitalism must be seen as preparatory means for the real emancipation of the proletariat, and are not an end in themselves.
Bourgeois democracies are constantly in crisis as a symptom of the crises of capitalism. Countries at the periphery of the system feel even more strongly the effects of imperialist decay, being subject to ruptures in their fragile democracies by palace coups, military uprisings, manipulations in their electoral systems, and interventions of all kinds. Two frequent phenomena that undermine bourgeois democratic regimes are Fascist movements and coups d’état.
A Fascist party or a Fascist group is a reactionary organization that seeks to create its own paramilitary apparatus, mobilizing the petty bourgeoisie and sections of the proletariat (usually the unemployed) to attack the movements of the working class and oppressed, targeted as scapegoats for the crisis. This characteristic of mobilizing combat organizations is what differentiates them from the police and other reactionary organizations. Partly releasing the state apparatus from its responsibility as a repressive organ, the function of the Fascists for the bourgeoisie is to crush the resistance of the proletariat with their own hands, to pave the way for the liquidation of workers’ organizations.
A coup d’état is a deposition of one or more state organs by another, to resolve conflicts that could not be resolved by law or by the constitutionally provided procedure. Usually such coups happen when a faction of the ruling class sees the need to override others to impose tougher measures or conditions against the working class, whether in the sphere of social and democratic rights, in the arrangement of exploitation, in submissiveness to imperialists, etc. The level of violence and the depth of a coup d’état varies greatly with the context, from completely dismantling the configuration of the regime to simply imposing a temporary hiatus in the rules of bourgeois democracy. The establishment of police regimes is a means of attempting to destroy the organizations of the workers’ movement completely, crushing by force any resistance to the will of the victorious bourgeois faction. Often, coups d’état include legal facades to cover up their realization.
When there is resistance to Fascist insurrections or reactionary coups d’état, Marxists and workers have a side with such resistance, as the victory of the other side means the imposition of much harsher and more severe conditions for the working class. The defeat of these reactionary movements by the working class, in a context when proletariat is sufficiently organized, may put the bourgeois order as a whole in check. If the workers’ movement is not sufficiently prepared to harvest the fruits of the defeat of the reactionaries, it would at least prevent the immediate execution of overtly reactionary measures against the proletariat. In neither case should the position of the working class be dissolved in a bourgeois opposition camp, and Marxists must maintain their political independence and criticisms against all bourgeois factions.