This brief essay is inspired by the article "Iranian left in an era of breaks and transition" in iran bulletin issue no 21-22.

The concept of democracy has been around for several centuries, but especially recently the collapse of Soviet Russia and the Iranian revolution has given it a renewed existence. So much so, that many on the Iranian left have placed it on top of their political agenda. Democracy, as with other human concepts, is comprehended and defined in the context of class and history. It is this perception and definition that must be the basis of the renewed interest. Otherwise it becomes merely a political agenda as so many others. So what is new?

Historically the Marxist movement contains a great deal of ideological struggle around this issue. In 1918, Kautsky published a book entitled "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in which he defended democracy (bourgeois) as opposed to dictatorship (proletarian).

This initiated a series of debates in the movement, starting with Lenin responding with his famous pamphlet "the Proletarian Revolution and the ‘Renegade Kautsky’" in which he contended that proletarian democracy was greatly superior to bourgeois democracy. Of course, at that time Lenin founded his notion of proletarian democracy on the rule of Soviets. But as is known now the rule of the Soviets later developed into the rule of party through the mediation of the notion of "Democratic Centralism" embodied in the party’s central committee. This concept of democracy served as the basis of the most dictatorial states in history.

Around the same period Rosa Luxemburg, turned off by the rule of the party, staged a harsh criticism of it and instead put forth the idea of "socialist democracy". But she never really developed this concept and consequently she joined the party and succumbed to its rule.

The question now becomes: it is the lack of sensitivity of the Marxists to the concept of democracy that needs to be addressed at this stage of the game? Or is it our philosophical comprehension and working out of the idea of democracy that needs serious revisiting, if we are not to repeat the tragedy of the past.

To posit Marxist democracy against the rule of Capital while necessary, is not sufficient. To go beyond bourgeois democracy, capital must be abolished or any form of democracy will be secondary to the imperatives of capital which comprise an absolute despotic rule. To abolish the rule of capital, the commodity form must be abolished. But this cannot be accomplished unless its absolute opposite which is the "freely associated labour" is in place – chapter one of Das Kapital: Fetishism of Commodity. This corresponds to a certain level of objective/subjective development of the subject/proletarian/human being. This level of development in turn represents human freedom at its highest point, which is the new society.

In this context, democracy becomes an integral part of freedom and hence a true historical concept of democracy, beyond capitalism is accomplished. The struggle for democracy, by Marxists, must rely on this philosophical ground. The working out of this philosophical ground becomes a major task organisationally and socially.

All formal mediations such as parliamentary participation and democratic centralism without the objectively/subjectively developed freely associated subjects will not go beyond bourgeois democracy – and reflects a democratic! subjection to one rule or another.

Ali Atesh practices Clinical Psychology in the USA. He was deeply involved in the Iranian student movement abroad in the 60’s and 70’s.