The main source of this series of articles is the book, Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That? (1986), and this article is also drawn from Part 2 of  Birds Cannot Give Birth to Crocodiles, But Humanity Can Soar Beyond the Horizon, written by Bob Avakian, and his other works on democracy/dictatorship. 

In this series of articles so far, we have critiqued all types of democracies within the framework of capitalism. We said that all societies that exist today are characterized by oppressive relations, exploitation and inequality. The long history of society being divided into exploiting and exploited classes has been characterized by the dictatorship of the economically dominant class. Here, “dictatorship” is not the word as it is commonly used, but a scientific description of the state in a class-divided society. The flip side of the coin is that there is democracy for the part of society that exercises this dictatorship.

Democracy is not and cannot be an abstract thing unto itself or an end in itself. It cannot exist in “pure” form: it always assumes form as part of the state—that is to say, the dictatorship—of one class or another, and specifically in this era, of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. But there is a profound qualitative difference in the content of democracy under the rule of the one class and the other, that is, between democracy under socialism and democracy under capitalism.¹

In a previous article [in this series] we also noted that the communist approach to democracy is not entirely negative. 

There is a profound and qualitative difference between these two class-states, i.e., between democracy under socialism, and democracy under capitalism. Even though a socialist state is also a dictatorship/democracy, the exploiting classes (i.e., the minority that monopolizes the economy, exploits the labor of others, and accumulates capital) do not hold power. Furthermore, and more importantly, the mission and goal of the socialist state (proletarian dictatorship/democracy) is to step by step eliminate the conditions that make itself necessary. 

Socialist society is simply the period of transition from capitalism to world communism. And, despite having ruptured with capitalism, the effects and birthmarks of capitalism’s social divisions and traditional ways of thinking linger for a long time, and become the source of ongoing class struggle. Global capitalism’s encirclement of the socialist society inflates and reinforces the existing bourgeois tendencies in socialist society. All these issues necessitate the existence of the state, the dictatorship/democracy of the proletariat, throughout the period of socialist transition. 

Preserving the socialist character of this state, however, depends on creating the conditions for it to wither away. This is done by advancing two tasks that have a synergistic relationship:  continually revolutionizing the economic and social relations, the political outlook and the ideology that predominates in socialist society itself; and, serving the growth and development of the world revolution. In this way, as society moves towards communist world, the state does as well.

The pursuit of this goal (i.e., the establishment of a communist society that is possible only on a world scale) characterizes the socialist state throughout the long period of socialist transition to communism and shapes its policies. Because the capitalist system—its social and production relations, and the ideas that flow from it are a global system, eradicating it is also a global process. Consequently, internationalism is a component of the [proletariat] exercising dictatorship/democracy, whose concrete expression is that a socialist state anywhere in the world acts as a base area for the world revolution.

In this article, we briefly address two questions: 1) If socialism is a qualitative advance over capitalism and other types of exploitative relations, and if the proletariat represents the interests of the majority of people, and if the socialist era is moving towards the elimination of all exploitation and oppression, then why is dictatorship necessary in a socialist society? 2) How will democracy in the New Socialist Republic differ from democracy under capitalism?

To answer the first question, let's return to the fundamental point that the political and ideological superstructure of every society is in a dialectical relationship with its economic base, and ultimately it is the economic base that conditions and limits a society’s political and cultural institutions. In the socialist state, the proletariat alters the character of the economic base by seizing control of the political superstructure, and uses this power to abolish private ownership of the means of production, and removes profit and the law of value from a commanding role in the economy. Of course, these changes proceed through a long and complex process of struggle. These developments in the economic infrastructure make a different superstructure not only possible, but necessary. And, with every step that deepens these developments in the economic base, great changes are also made in the superstructure, and vice versa. 

Eliminating capitalist relations of production and related laws that are an obstacle to the growth of the productive forces (concretely, the private ownership of means of production, and the anarchy of production), and step-by-step rooting out of ways of thinking generated by the previous system of oppression and exploitation—will unleash a great freedom for the people to exercise a sovereignty that meets the needs of society, and overcomes all class distinctions and oppressive social relations. It actually provides the material basis for socialist democracy, but this requires a tortuous epoch of class struggle. Lenin rightfully said that,

 …expropriation alone, as a legal or political act, does not settle the matter…. [W]hen history presents the question of whether age-old and thousand-year-old privileges are to be or not to be—at such a time to talk about majority and minority, about pure democracy, about dictatorship being unnecessary and about equality between the exploiter and the exploited! What infinite stupidity and abysmal philistinism are needed for this!²  

This is because, as Bob Avakian, the architect of the new communism and revolutionary leader explains, socialist society is a period of transition to communism. Even after the bourgeoisie has been overthrown and the property of previous exploiters has been expropriated, even after the means of production that previously was privately owned (in one form or another) has been transferred to public ownership, the transition to a classless and completely communist society still requires a hard struggle on many fronts.

The struggle to achieve this goal means confronting and uprooting traditional property relations and traditional ideas; these traditions that have accumulated over thousands of years have deep roots. They are huge obstacles that need to be completely uprooted. One cannot suddenly overcome the kinds of social “…contradictions and inequalities inherited from the old society, which cannot be overcome all at once, but in varying ways and to varying degrees will persist for some time. And on top of all this, experience has shown that it is extremely unlikely that socialism will be established all at once in anything like all, or even a majority of, the countries of the world, but is likely to be established in only one or a few in any particular conjuncture of world contradictions.... So, especially viewed in the light of all this, it becomes clear that not only does the bourgeoisie still retain the upper hand in the world as a whole—and is likely to for some time—but this interpenetrates with, and indeed sets the overall framework and foundation for, the struggle to carry forward the revolutionization of society in any particular socialist country.”³

In this sense, the socialist state must, in an urgent way, at every stage, and to the maximum degree possible, not only solve the contradictions within society that are left over from the past, and the relations between people—such as male supremacy and misogyny, racism, the gulf between mental and manual labor, the gap between the center and the periphery, etc.—it must solve them as quickly as possible at each stage. But it must solve them in a way that enhances possibilities to advance and deepen socialism among people and to transform people’s thinking—through their involvement and leadership in solving the contradictions in society—as well as by spreading revolution beyond the borders of the socialist state.

Flowing from the nature of socialist society, including its role as a transition to a world free of exploitative and oppressive relations and social divisions, is the open identification, and constitution, of the socialist state as an expression of the interests, in the largest sense, of a particular class, the proletariat— leading ultimately to the emancipation of humanity as a whole from class divisions and all relations of exploitation and oppression and the destructive antagonistic conflicts to which these relations give rise—and the open role of this socialist state as an instrument of suppression of interests and forces that are, and that act, in antagonistic opposition to this. Yet, while the Constitution of a socialist state—and the governmental institutions, structures, and processes which it provides for—must take into account the social divisions which have been "inherited" from previous societies based on exploitative relations (and which will persist, in varying degrees and in various forms, for a long time in socialist society), at the same time the "rule of law" which must be embedded in the Constitution of a socialist state, as well as the specific laws that are promulgated on the basis of that Constitution (and which must be judged, as to their validity, in accordance with that Constitution) must be applied equally to every person in society. This is another contradiction that is difficult to handle but must be handled correctly.⁴

The Differences

Contrary to bourgeois theorists’ portrayal of the “rule of law” as the antithesis of dictatorship and promoting freedom and democracy as an end in itself, the reality is that in any form, the “rule of law” is a component of dictatorship, and enforces the rule of the dominant class. To put it bluntly, laws and rights are part of the political superstructure of society and have a specific class character. Under socialism, they have a proletarian class character because they serve the socialist transformation of society and open the way to realize a communist society on a world scale.  Once communism is achieved, there will be no need for law. In a socialist society there are institutions to apply its laws (the executive branch and its apparatus), but applying the law is combined with mobilizing the masses and increasingly involving them in advancing the goals of the socialist state.

The Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America is in line with the reality that socialism encompasses an economic system, a specific system of governance (the dictatorship of the proletariat), and a period of transition to communism. In every phase of this process and at every step of this transition, the constitution must take into account two things: first, it must reflect the current level of development of the production and social relations at any given point in the transition process, and the goals suitable to that stage; second, it should promote and foster the struggle to push forward the transition to more advanced stages of socialism, and essentially towards communism (along with the struggle for such a goal all over the world). 

But this will not be an easy or smooth process, because there is a conflict between the most fundamental and basic need of the people—advancing towards communism—and what the people spontaneously want at any given time. And this contradiction provides the objective basis for the accusation that socialist governments want to force people into impossible utopia! But the correct resolution to this contradiction is not going to be the use of “force,” but for the Constitution to establish the framework and set the general terms in which the functioning of society will take place, at any given point, including encouraging the contestation of opposing views and programs.

This contention between competing ideas, involving people in debate and struggle over fundamental issues, will play an important role in resolving these contradictions, so that at every juncture, to the maximum extent possible, people's attitudes will come to align with their fundamental interests. In other words, the other role of the Constitution is to provide the framework for continuing struggle against spontaneous tendencies among people. 

The institutionalized leading role of the communist vanguard spelled out in the Constitution, in the functioning of the government and, in general, in the political process of the socialist society, will provide the “solid core” of this struggle. Based on this solid core, namely the communist leadership, there will be a lot of elasticity or flexibility for the emergence of various and opposing tendencies and orientations in society, to the extent that the socialist state will go to “the brink of being drawn and quartered,”⁵ but not to the point of being overthrown. 

The fundamental difference between the Constitution and political processes of socialist society and those of capitalist societies in general, arises from the profound difference in the nature and dynamics of the two systems—differences in economic base and infrastructure, in production and social relations, and in the goals and class character of their political processes. 

Take elections, for example. In both socialist democracy and bourgeois democracy, there are elections. But as we said in previous articles, in bourgeois democracies elections are merely a means to transfer power within various sections of the ruling class and to create the illusion that the people have a role in the political life of society. But in a socialist democracy, the positive role played by elections is more about getting people to debate the crucial issues of society, and to become aware of how different programs correspond to differing class interests. Elections will also be a tool for the Communist Party to measure its performance in transforming people’s outlooks. But for both kinds of state, elections are not—nor can they ever be—the expression of people's highest aspirations and most fundamental interests.⁶

The fundamental difference between democracy in these two kinds of systems is also reflected in the rights of the people. It is not just that under socialism people have more rights—there is a difference in the scope and the framework of these rights. That is because, as Marx pointed out, “Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.” 

With the victory of the communist revolution and the objective changes in how the economic [base] is structured and [related change in the] socio-cultural superstructure of society, new possibilities are created for the people’s rights. As Mao said that the rights of labor are not limited to wages, hours and the quality of the work environment

…there is no discussion of labor’s right to run the state, the various enterprises, education and culture. Actually, this is labor’s greatest right under socialism, the most fundamental right, without which there is no right to work, to an education, to sick leave, etc. The paramount issue for socialist democracy is: does labor have the right to subdue the various antagonistic forces and their influences? ... In sum, people must have the right to manage the superstructure.⁷

The most fundamental right of the people in socialist society—which is not possible in even the most advanced democracies within the framework of capitalism—is the right to exercise political power in accordance with their fundamental interests and to participate in decisions affecting society.   

In conclusion, we must emphasize that the most characteristic aspect of a socialist society is its role and goal during a historical period of a transition and moving, together with revolutionary struggles around the world, toward the ultimate goal of establishing communism in the world—toward a world in which class divisions and other social inequalities and oppressive relations have been completely uprooted and the state, as an apparatus of oppression whatever its form, will cease to exist. [This will mean the end of] the special institutionalized role the state plays in directing the administration of society, the rule of law and even of rights. As Marx said, this future will mean a leap beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois right—a profound leap in the historical development of human social relations.⁸  The socialist state

 is not only a  million times more democratic, it is democratic in a qualitatively new and profoundly different way: it represents and depends on the broadest, and ever-deepening, participation of the formerly oppressed and exploited masses in every sphere of society—and more than that requires their increasing mastery of affairs of state, of economic management, and other aspects of administration, and indeed of the superstructure as a whole, including culture as well as other spheres of ideology. All this goes far beyond—again, it is qualitatively different from—the mere question of formal democracy and formal rights.⁹