The main source of this series of articles is the book Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That? written by [revolutionary leader] Bob Avakian and, in this article, his books Breakthroughs: The Historic Breakthrough by Marx, and the Further Breakthrough with the New Communism and A Horrible End or an End to the Horror.

In [Part 8], we discussed that under socialism, democracy co-exists with the dictatorship of a class—a class that is different from all the exploiting classes of the past—and this difference is reflected in the content of a socialist democracy/dictatorship. When people read our criticisms of bourgeois democracies/dictatorships as well as of the [two] previous socialist countries that existed in the past, many say: “You are critical of everything!” and ask, “What is your solution?” 

The Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in Iran by the Communist Party of Iran, Marxist Leninist Maoist, based on the fundamental principles for a new, socialist democracy/dictatorship that are embodied in the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America authored by Bob Avakian, presents our alternative model clearly, concretely and fully. By studying and learning from the experience of the two socialist states that existed in the 20th century (the Soviet Union from 1917 to mid-1950s, China from 1949 to 1976), this model for the New Socialist Republic has broken with the shortcomings and weaknesses [of those two socialist states] and, building on the positive elements in that experience along with knowledge gained from many different spheres of human endeavor, it has synthesized this at a higher level that has been integrated into a new framework [of communism]. Therefore, to understand the new character of the future that humanity can actually achieve, one must read and thoroughly examine this Constitution, and compare it to all states currently in existence and to those [two] truly socialist states of the past. In this article we will focus on this Constitution to examine the practice of democracy in the new socialist republic and on how this democracy relates to the leadership of the Communist Party on the one hand, and to other class programs and class ideas on the other hand.

This Constitution is a response to [questions regarding] what kind of society and world should [socialism] bring into being? What should it strengthen? What, concretely, should be the fundamental character of its superstructure—its political, cultural and educational institutions? What kinds of institutional tools are needed to solve the deep and complex contradictions of the period of socialist transition to communism without putting guns in the backs of the masses of people and force-marching them to a so-called “paradise”?! How can it work hard to solve old class and social contradictions, while at the same time creating vast and unparalleled space for dissent and intellectual ferment, and use the energy created by that to step by step eliminate the class and gender inequalities and backward ways of thinking left over from the old society? More generally, how can it serve to liberate all of humanity from the capitalist system and usher in the world historic transition from the bourgeois era to the era of communism?

This new approach to resolving the contradictions and inequalities left over from the past, as well as new contradictions that arise in socialist society, comes from seeing contradictions not as mere problems but, if dealt with properly, as the source of energy that can propel further leaps towards communist society. This new approach comes, not from some naive optimism, but from a more dialectical materialist understanding of contradictions in general and of the contradictions of socialism in particular. 

For example, as we mentioned previously [in Part 8], socialism is faced with the profound contradiction between the fact that communist revolution and advance to communism is in the objective interests of the masses of humanity, but [even in socialist society] not all of the people want that, all of the time. Bob Avakian addresses this new way of raising and answering the questions of socialism in the Constitution for the New Socialist Republic in North America, writing:

It is a fact that, nowhere else, in any actual or proposed founding or guiding document of any government, is there anything like not only the protection but the provision for dissent and intellectual and cultural ferment that is embodied in this Constitution, while this has, as its solid core, a grounding in the socialist transformation of the economy, with the goal of abolishing all exploitation, and the corresponding transformation of the social relations and political institutions, to uproot all oppression, and the promotion, through the educational system and in society as a whole, of an approach that will “enable people to pursue the truth wherever it leads, with a spirit of critical thinking and scientific curiosity, and in this way to continually learn about the world and be better able to contribute to changing it in accordance with the fundamental interests of humanity.” All this will unchain and unleash a tremendous productive and social force of human beings enabled and inspired to work and struggle together to meet the fundamental needs of the people—transforming society in a fundamental way and supporting and aiding revolutionary struggle throughout the world—aiming for the final goal of a communist world, free from all exploitation and oppression, while at the same time addressing the truly existential environmental and ecological crisis, in a meaningful and comprehensive way, which is impossible under the system of capitalism-imperialism.¹ (Emphasis added by Atash)

This paragraph summarizes the approach of the new socialist state to the period of socialist transition to communism (worldwide) and the ways to resolve its contradictions. One of the important points is to see the dialectical relationship between the socialist transformation of the economic base and the corresponding changes among the people, in their ways of thinking and their consciousness, which is the most important transformation that occurs under socialism. It is for this reason that the contestation between opposing views—dissent and intellectual and cultural ferment—must be encouraged and supported, not as some democratic right, but in order to promote a spirit of critical thinking and scientific curiosity. 

Many people say: you may say these things now, but when you take power, we won't be allowed to criticize you! The answer is that, by the way, we will have a hard time convincing you to criticize anyone in authority! If you have submitted to this cruel system of oppression and exploitation, you will also submit to authority in a socialist system which is a million times better. But people should not just “acquiesce” [to authority], because doing so runs the risk of restoring capitalism. Be that as it may, the issue of keeping the new ruling class (not specific individuals in this particular party, but an increasing number of people who, along with the vanguard party, have become part of the solid core that came to political power during the communist revolution) on the socialist path to communism, and preventing restoration [of capitalism] requires that opposing views get thrashed out. 

Bob Avakian emphasizes that the need for “confrontation of opposing views, the thrashing out of diverse ideas, and indeed the role of dissent from the governing ideas and policies—all this too is not an end in itself, but a means to an end: arriving at a more profound grasp of the truth and utilizing this to further transform society, and nature, in the interests of humanity.” Here we come to an important difference with the “pluralists” and democrats who argue that [as Bob Avakian refutes below]:

…the conflict of opinions and ideas itself is more important, higher than objective truth—or even that there is no objective truth, only different points of view, with each as true (and as untrue) as the other. But in the final analysis the “pluralists,” by acting as if all ideas are equal and can compete equally—when in reality the bourgeois ruling class has a monopoly on the dissemination of ideas and exercises dictatorship in the realm of ideas, as it does in every other sphere—actually aid this ruling class in defining and enforcing as truth whatever suits its own class interests and outlook.

Whereas, 

The reason and purpose of communists in encouraging and unleashing this wrangling over ideas, the critical spirit, the challenging of convention, the dissent from the established norms, is that this is in accordance with the basic laws of development of all life and society and with the interests of the proletariat, which must also lead all this to contribute in various ways to the advance to communism.² 

We must emphasize that when we speak of the interests of the proletariat, it is those interests in the world historic sense: the abolition of the “four alls” (the abolition of all class distinctions, of all the production relations on which those class distinctions rest, of all the oppressive social relations that correspond to those production relations, and the abolition of all traditional ideas and values that correspond to those social relations). It is in that sense that all policies, practice and institutions of the socialist state, its democracy/dictatorship, are in the interests of the proletariat, not that they are in the immediate interests of any particular group of proletarians.

There is a need for the leadership of the Communist Party in this process of following the search for truth, wherever it may lead, because as long as we are in a society divided into classes, individuals or groups of people in the society must first decide what the most important issues to be discussed are. The fact is that in society, some kind of authority will guide, direct, lead, and in the final analysis, exercise dictatorship, in determining what will be widely discussed, and on what basis it is made available to people to think about and discuss. The result is that:

It is also impossible to arrive at the truth without centralism—leadership (though this will take a qualitatively different form in communist society). All ideas should not get “equal time” nor could they, under any social system or set of circumstances. There has to be some means for determining what will be given priority, what will be posited as true, and what will be focused on as a target of criticism. What these means are and whether they correctly reflect material reality as fully as possible will depend on the social system. Further, it is impossible not only to arrive at an all-around understanding of the truth but to make it a material reality without social struggle—which means above all class struggle in class society.³ 

Leading on the basis of the basic interests of the masses is possible primarily because [genuine communist] leadership has the knowledge to objectively determine what the interests of the people are. But this leadership will not be like forcing everyone to march in that direction. There should be plenty of room for people to move in different directions. But there's a contention here, too. 

[T]ruth should not “be directly equated (and sometimes it should not be equated at all) with the governing ideas and policies of any particular proletarian state at any given time (even a genuine socialist state) to say nothing of a nonproletarian, reactionary state, whether openly such or in ‘Marxist’ disguise.”⁴

Alongside this question and the crucial leadership role of the Party, we face the contradiction of a Party becoming drained of its revolutionary content and being turned into its opposite. This problem does not arise from the nature of the Party, but because the contradictions in the larger world that make a vanguard necessary are also the contradictions that can lead that vanguard back onto the road of capitalism. This is why on the one hand, the question of the political line and methodology and scientific approach of the leading core is decisive, and on the other hand, one must rely on mobilizing the masses to consciously transform themselves and transform the world, including through constant interactions with the Party. This reaffirms the importance of engaging people in ideological work and struggle and creating an atmosphere of intellectual ferment.

A key aspect of socialist society in this regard is that 

they must provide the means for those who were exploited and oppressed in the old society—and were effectively locked out of the exercise of political power and the governance of society, as well as the spheres of intellectual endeavor and working with ideas overall—to increasingly take part in these spheres, with the aim of continually transforming society in the direction of communism…. In other words, there is a purpose and a direction to this. It’s not some supposed pure democracy without social content—there can be no such thing. Rather, it is within a certain framework and with a definite direction and purpose.⁵ 

Many will say, you “giveth with one hand, and taketh away with the other.” You talk about the participation of the masses, but you do not allow the masses to decide which direction to go! The answer is that while [the Party] cannot govern by force against the will of the masses, it would be truly criminal if the forces that won leadership through a revolutionary process in which so many people sacrificed so much were to allow the former oppressive order to easily regain power; [it would be] contrary to the interests of those same masses of people. So, within the framework of the socialist state, there is a dialectical relationship between the solid core of leadership and the elasticity of various social strata in society, a society based on the solid core.

This view of the socialist state is not only different from various kinds of bourgeois democracies/dictatorships, it also differs considerably from the prevailing views of socialism. The [socialist state outlined in the New Constitution] differs from both the pluralistic, consultative-councils [Soviets] model where people—including workers, oppressed nations, women, etc.—participate in economic, political and social affairs, but without a solid core to provide direction or social content, and from the classic image in which the socialist state is completely directed by the Party, so that the state and the Party are one and the same. [In the New Socialist Republics] the leading role of the Party in relation to the state does not mainly take the form of the Party organizationally dominating the various institutions of the state, though organizational roles and mechanisms do exist, especially in relation to certain key institutions such as the armed forces. Above all, and fundamentally, the Party exercises its leading role through ideological and political influence, and by continually struggling to win the masses of people to communist revolution.  As mentioned earlier, the ultimate goal—a communist world free of oppression and exploitation—sets the overall direction [for the socialist state]. The measures taken at each stage, and in each country, must be based on the principle of furthering this goal. 

For this reason, internationalism is a crucial element of the socialist state, and a fundamental difference in how it exercises democracy/dictatorship. Internationalism is reflected in its economic and political do's and don’ts, in people’s rights (including the rights of immigrants and formerly oppressed nations), and in international relations, on both the macro and micro level. In order to maintain its socialist character, this socialist state must act as a base area for communist revolution throughout the world, for only by eradicating all class distinctions, all the exploitative productive relations that lead to these distinctions, all the oppressive social relations that exist on the basis of these relations of production, and all the traditional ideas and values that strengthen these relations, can it open a new era [of human history]. As Engels wrote, communist society: “will put the whole machinery of the state where it will then belong: into the museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze axe.”⁶  And democracy will find its proper place alongside them.⁷

As this series of essays ends, we conclude with what is said [on the final page of] Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That? “We can and must.”