Page:Lenin - The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky the Renegade (1920).pdf/35



Kautsky says: “The exploiters always formed but a small minority of the population" (p. 14).

This is certainly true. Taking it as the starting point, what should be the argument? One may argue in a Marxist, in a Socialist way, taking as a basis the relation between the exploited and the exploiter, or one may argue in a Liberal, in a bourgeois-democratic way, taking as a basis the relation of the majority to the minority.

If we argue in a Marxist way, we must say: the exploiters must inevitably turn the State (we are speaking of a Democracy, that is, of one of the forms of State) into an instrument of domination of their class over the class of exploited. Hence, so long as there are exploiters ruling the majority of exploited, the democratic State must inevitably be a democracy for the exploiters. The State of the exploited must fundamentally differ from such a State; it must be a democracy for the exploited, political order of suppression of the exploiters. But the suppression of a class means inequality in so far as this class is concerned, and its exemption from the privileges of "democracy."

If, on the other hand, we argue in a bourgeois Liberal way, we have to say: the majority decides and the minority obeys. Those who do not obey are punished. And this is all. There is no need of talking about the class character of the State in general, or about "pure democracy," in particular, since it would not be relevant. The majority is the majority, and the minority is the minority. That ends the matter. And this is just Kautsky's way of reasoning. He says:

"Why should the rule of the proletariat necessarily receive a form which is incompatible with democracy?"