Democracy Marxist authors have practically nothing of substance on


Democracy is one of the crucial concepts of modern-day political
discourse, precisely because so little thoughtful research has
been devoted to it. Some have argued that it is not a surprise that traditional
Marxist authors have practically nothing of substance on the query, for
none of them had private contribution of a complete democracy. However, it is not
fair to argue that Marxism produced virtually nothing of material on the enquiry.
On the contrary, the politics of Marx during his time can be relatively valuable
in understanding democracy as a concept and as a movement. However, below it
will be argued that Mill’s vision of democracy is the most rational
compared to Marx because Mill’s ideas allow mankind to exercise individual
rights than that of Marx.


Marx’ initial works are concerned with the liberty of the media and
are infused by Feuerbachian ideals and Hegelian approaches. The
restriction law, he wrote in the Rheinische
Zeitung in May 1842, is not a commandment but a police measure and
a poor one at that. Not long afterwards, he wrote that the state must be systematized according
to the standards of reason and liberty, for it is the countless excellence
of Hobbes, Spinoza, Machiavelli, Fichte, Rousseau and Hegel to have unregulated
the examination of politics from the dominion of the theologians. It was
only sometime after he took up the role of reporter that he discovered
while covering the debate on the law about wood gathering that the regime
was being used as the means of implementing secluded interest rather than
reason or the mutual good.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


Marx’ perspective Marxism and democracy were interlinked from the very first conflicts,
in the middle of the 19th century. As the American socialist Hal Draper inscribed,
the two things are intertwined collectively in Marx’s theory, which “moves
in the direction of defining
consistent democracy in socialist terms, and consistent socialism in the democratic term”
(Hal Draper, pg17, 2010). This movement from the greatest crucial building block
of Marxism that socialism must be the self-emancipation of the proletariat and
can’t be accomplished on its behalf. Our goal is only possible as the act of
the sentient multitudes of the mainstream class in the social order, and that entails
the completest development of democracy.  Workers achieving democracy is dependent on
their own actions and association or by relying on the privileges established
under the current system protected by their deployment.

Although the protectors of the capitalist organisation
need the contrary. They need to repress and comprehend mass participation,
whether within the dogmatic system or in fights and activities external to it.
Therefore, they sought to destabilise or weaken or even eradicate democracy.
This applies not just to conservative ideologues, whose disapproval for genuine
autonomy is apparent, but to liberals whose protection of rank places them in antagonism
to mass expressions of democracy that threaten it. For Marx, this struggle between
the development of democracy and the restriction of it was a vital part of the
class conflict.