Democracy in Marxism

Marxism holds that "democracy is the road to socialism," as Karl Marx believed (although no one can find this line in his complete works), democracy being Greek for "rules of the masses " !he Marxist view is fundamentally opposed to what capitalists call liberal democracy, believing that the capitalist state cannot be democratic by its nature, as it represents the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie Marxism views liberal democracy as an unrealistic utopia !his is because they believe that in a capitalist state all "independent" media and most political parties are controlled by capitalists and one either needs large financial resources or to be supported by the bourgeoisie to win an election "enin (#$#%) believed that in a capitalist state, the system focuses on resolving disputes within the ruling bourgeoisie class and ignores the interests of the proletariat or labour class which are not represented and therefore dependent on the bourgeoisie&s good will' "(emocracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich ) that is the democracy of capitalist society *f we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the +petty, ) supposedly petty ) details of the suffrage (residential -ualifications, exclusion of women, etc ), in the techni-ue of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for +paupers".), in the purely capitalist organi/ation of the daily press, etc , etc , ) we see restriction after restriction upon democracy !hese restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of #0, if not $$ out of #00, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category)1 but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and s-uee/e out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy , ("enin, 2tate and 3evolution, 4hapter 5) Moreover, even if representatives of the proletariat class are elected in a capitalist country, Marxists claim they have limited power over the country&s affairs as the economic sphere is largely controlled by private capital and therefore the representative&s power to act is curtailed 6ence Marxists7"eninists see a socialist revolution necessary to bring power into hands of oppressed classes http'88en wikipedia org8wiki8(emocracy9in9Marxism http'88www iefd org8articles8democracy9in9america php http'88anselmocarranco tripod com8id:5 html http'88www counter7currents com8author8kbolton8 http'88henryckliu com8page#05 html

Michael Harrington: Marxism and Democracy

!he purpose of Michael 6arrington;s essay is to document and interpret the democratic foundations of Marxism through three different ways' first, reviewing Marx;s analyses of democracy and his political conclusions1 second, dealing with Marx;s theory of democracy and capitalism1 and finally, discussing bureaucratic collectivism in the <former= 2oviet >nion and the role of democracy in collectivi/ed societies Karl Marx (and ?rederich @ngels) was a democratic socialist in the most profound sense of the phrase More importantly for the purposes of this essay, the vision, methodology and analyses which are Marx;s living heritage are democratic as theories and as guides to praxis *ndeed, * would argue that the development of Marxism since the death of Marx and @ngels has made this last point so compelling that <A= those who do not understand it or, worse, who take up arms against it, are anti7Marxists no matter what they call themselves !he anti7democratic societies of the 3ight and pseudo7"eft have demonstrated conclusively that collectivism without democracy is the specific form for perpetuating class rule in the late twentieth, and twenty7first centuries 2o * do not write simply as a scholar but as a militant as well !o be sure, * will try to be scrupulously careful in documenting and interpreting the democratic foundations of the Marxist perspective But that intellectual task is obviously related to the search for an emancipatory socialist politics under conditions which Marx himself never experienced or, for that matter, even imagined * turn to the past in Marx;s spirit' to gain insights for transforming the present and future * will develop these ideas in three different ways ?irst, there will be an interpretative review of MarxCs analyses of democracy and the political conclusions which he drew from them Dext * will deal with Marx;s theory of democracy and capitalism ?inally, * will discuss bureaucratic collectivism in the 2oviet >nion and its role in forcing Marxists to understand how central democracy is precisely in collectivi/ed societies !hat will suggest a few thoughts ) unfinished, speculative, in progress ) about Marxism, democracy and the !hird Eorld * *n an essay containing much of great value, Goran !herborn wrote, +(emocracy is one of the key words of contemporary ideological discourse, despite ) or perhaps precisely because of ) the fact that so little serious research has been devoted to it *t is hardly surprising that the classical Marxist writers produced almost nothing of substance on the -uestion, for none of them had personal experience of a fully7fledged bourgeois democracy, <#= Dow it is obviously true that the classical Marxists ) including Marx and @ngels ) had no personal experience of a +fully7fledged, bourgeois democracy But it is false that they produced +almost nothing of substance on the -uestion , Fn the contrary !he politics of Marx and @ngels during their lifetime can be -uite usefully understood in terms of their relationship to democracy as a theory and as a movement "et me examine that proposition from two different vantage points' first, in terms of Marx;s and @ngels; tactical and strategic conceptions and practice with regard to the democratic movement1 secondly, with regard to the centrality of democracy in Marx;s analysis of capitalism and socialism

Marx began his political life as a member of the democratic party 6is first writings are concerned with freedom of the press and are permeated by ?euerbachian values and 6egelian methods !he censorship law, he wrote in the 3heinische Geitung in May, #HI:, is not (really) a law but a police measure and a poor one at that 2hortly thereafter, he wrote that the state must be organi/ed according to the criteria of reason and freedom, for it is the great merit of Machiavelli, 4ampanella, 6obbes, 2pino/a, 3ousseau, ?ichte and 6egel to have freed the analysis of politics from the domination of the theologians *t was only some months after he took up the role of Journalist that he discovered ) while covering the debate on the law with regard to wood gathering ) that the government was being used as the means of enforcing private interest rather than reason or the common good <:= Kll of this is familiar enough and hardly re-uires elaboration *n the summer of #HIL, Marx analy/ed democracy at great length in his 4riti-ue of 6egel;s Mhilosophy of 3ight !he themes which he developed there, we shall see, stayed with him throughout his entire life !hey marked an important stage in Marx;s transition from +pure, (bourgeois, rationalist) democracy to socialist (or communist) democracy !his is not immediately obvious to the general reader since Marx develops his analysis in a 6egelian language which is difficult enough for the specialist to penetrate But these passages are of such importance in defining the relationship of Marxism and democracy that one is Justified in examining them rather carefully 6egelCs book was a rather ingenious attempt to reconcile the claims of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in a modern industrial society *t recogni/ed, as Marx noted in his criti-ue, that civil society was the arena of the war of each against all and sought to deal with that problem by means of syndicalist (+corporation,) representation, monarchist sovereignty and a neutral mediating bureaucracy Eithout getting into the interminable argument over precisely where to locate 6egel on the political spectrum, it can at least be noted that, by the standards of the time and of Mrussia in particular, his point of view was certainly not reactionary (Kant, who supported the ?rench 3evolution even after the !error had disenchanted most of his contemporaries, was for the principled exclusion of propertyless workers and all women from the franchise) Marx made a democratic, and to a certain extent democratic socialist, criti-ue of 6egel;s theory ?irst, there is the assertion that +(emocracy is the truth of monarchy1 monarchy is not the truth of democracy , *n the 6egelian method, one idea is +the truth of, another idea when it enables one to resolve the former;s internal contradictions !he concepts of essence and accident are the +truth of , the experience of sense certainty1 4hristianity is the +truth of, all other religions since it explicitly states the divinity of man (or the humanity of God) which was implicit in all of its predecessors, albeit in imperfect and one7sided form Monarchy is contradictory because it asserts the domination of the part (or +moment+) over the whole ,*n monarchy,+ Marx comments, +the totality, the people, is subsumed under one of its modes of empirical existence, the political constitution1 in democracy the constitution itself appears as only one determination, and that the self7determination, of the people, <L= Dow the notion of self7determination as a key political idea is a liberal commonplace of the time *t is found, for instance, in both Kant and the young ?ichte But Marx;s formulation of the idea is much more socialistic than that of his forbearers +4hristianity is the religion above all others, the essence of religion, deified man, as a particular religion 2o is democracy the essence of all political constitutions, sociali/ed man, as a particular political constitutionA, (p :L#) *n democracy, +Man does not exist for the law, but the law for manA, (*bid ) +6egel departs from the state and makes men into the state seen from a subJective point of view </um versubJektivierten 2taat=1 democracy departs from man and makes the state the obJectification of men, (*bid )

2econdly, in a particularly complex and difficult passage, Marx makes a first formulation of an idea which will play a key role in his thought throughout his life, one that bears most importantly on both his early and mature analysis of democracy *n the +abstract state form,, one considers the political structure without regard to the social and economic relations of the system in which it functions *n all pre7democratic societies, the state does not actually permeate, or dominate, those material relationships but is only their organi/ing form !he (bourgeois) republic is the extreme case of this situation and differs in degree, but not in kind, from monarchy +Mroperty, etc , in sum the total content of law and the state is, with a few modifications, the same in Dorth Kmerica as in Mrussia !hus, the Dorth Kmerican 3epublic is as much a mere form of the state as the Mrussian monarchy !he content of the state is external to its constitution, (p :L:) !his is, in embryonic form, the concept of bourgeois democracy which will preoccupy Marx all of his life Knd +democracy+ pure and simple, as Marx uses the term here, is clearly an anticipation of social democracy, i e , of democracy not simply as the principle of an +abstract form of the state,, as in the Dorth Kmerican republic, but as the principle of the +material state, (p :LL) *n the Middle Kges, Marx continues, the economy is political and man is the basic principle of the state ) but the +unfree man , !hen, as landed property and trade are freed from the medieval constraints, the material sphere becomes private and independent, which clears the way for a republican political system !he republic is the negation of monarchy but within the same sphere as monarchy, for it merely creates a heavenly beyond of political e-uality within an earthy framework of continuing ine-uality (p :LL) (!his same thought is developed in the discussion of the relationship between political and social7economic emancipation in !he Newish Ouestion ) !hus, * would argue that Marx came to his socialist conclusions precisely through consciously developing a consistent democratic criti-ue, not simply of feudal reaction, but of bourgeois liberalism as well <I= Because of an historical accident Marx provided, at the same time, the basis of a democratic socialist criti-ue of 2talinism (or, to depersonali/e and internationali/e that phenomenon, of bureaucratic collectivism) !hat accident (which was not at all +accidental, in its own social7economic context) was the bureaucratic character of German society at the time as it was refracted in 6egel;s ideali/ation of bureaucracy Marx wrote that +the corporation+ ) the private sector organi/ed in pursuit of its own self interest ) +is the bureaucracy of civil society1 the <governmental= bureaucracy is the corporation of the state, (p :I%) !he political bureaucracy, Marx continues, presents itself as the representative of the universal, of the common good But in fact the bureaucracy +has the essence of the state, the spiritual essence of society, in its possession1 it is its private property, (p :I$) +!he universal spirit of bureaucracy,, Marx notes in a Justly famous passage, +is the secret, the mystery, maintained internally by means of hierarchy and as against the outside world by means of a closed corporationA Kuthority is therefore the principle of its knowledge and the deification of authority is its basic conviction, (*bid ) Knd a little later on, in critici/ing 6egel;s attempt to utili/e medieval notions of the +estate, (2tand) in a class society, Marx comments that +@states in the medieval sense remain only within the bureaucracy where the economic <bPrgerliche= and political position are immediately one and the same, (p :HI) Kt every point in this theoretical analysis, Marx used explicit democratic concepts and values to move toward, and in some cases arrive at, socialist conclusions 6is asides on the subJect of bureaucracy, motivated by the same commitment to bottom7up ) democratic ) transformations are, we will see, an important element in the socialist criti-ue of bureaucratic collectivism Moreover, Marx took these ideas of #HIL so seriously that they can be fairly said to have permeated his politics for the next six or so years !he first Marxist strategy was to urge a united front of the nascent socialist (and Marxist)

groups and the much larger democratic movement 4onsider Just a few fragments of the abundant evidence for this statement *n #HIQ, in an address to the 4hartist (democratic) leader ?eargus FC4onnor, Marx and @ngels described themselves as +German democratic communists + *n #HI%, @ngels wrote, +!he communists, far from starting useless arguments with the democrats in the current situation, appear for the moment in all practical party matters as democrats (emocracy in all civili/ed lands has the political rule of the proletariat as a necessary conse-uence and the political rule of the proletariat is the first precondition of all communist measures , *n his communist +catechism, of #HI%, Ouestion #H is +Ehich road will this <communist= revolution takeR, @ngels answers, +Kbove all, it will be a democratic political structure <2taatsverfassung= which will thereby, either directly or indirectly, establish the political rule of the proletariat (irect rule in @ngland where the proletariat already constitutes the maJority of the people1 indirect rule in ?rance and Germany, where the maJority of the people are not yet proletarian, but is also constituted by a small peasantry and petty bourgeoisie <aus kleinen Bauern und BPrgern besteht= which are only now in transition to the proletariat and which are more and more dependent upon the proletariat in all of their political interests and therefore must support the demands of the proletariat , *n the speech on Moland in #HI%, @ngels once again spoke of +we German democrats, <5= But the most obvious, and important, statement of MarxCs democratic+ strategy is to be found in the 4ommunist Manifesto, particularly in 2ection *S, +!he Mosition of the 4ommunists with regard to the various Fpposition Marties, <Q= !here Marx and @ngels clearly advocate united fronts with radicals, democrats, even (in the >nited 2tates) with mere land reformers demanding private property in the fields for the working class Moreover, in the outline of immediate demands in the Manifesto one reads that +the first step in the labor revolution is to raise the proletariat to the position of a ruling class, the winning of democracy, <%=

2o there is a continuity of theory and praxis from #HIL, when MarxCs principled democratic commitment led him to the criti-ue of bourgeois liberalism and the recognition of the necessity of socialism, passing through the 4ommunist Manifesto and lasting at least until #HI$ !hat attitude is probably most brilliantly and succinctly rendered in the third !hesis on ?euerbach with its criticism of any philanthropic, +top7down, liberation of the proletariat (and even "ouis Klthusser admits that the !heses constitute the very first statement of Marxism as he defines it) <H= !he revolutionary events of #HIH7I$ caused a temporary break in MarxCs democratic strategy !he Kddress of the 4entral 4ommittee to the <4ommunist= "eague is filled with a sense of disillusionment with the non7proletarian allies +!he relationship of the revolutionary worker;s party to the petty7 bourgeois democracy,, Marx and @ngels wrote in that document, +is this' the workers; party goes together with the petty7bourgeois democrats against that faction whose overthrow both seek1 but it is opposed to those democrats in everything it wants to do on its own !he democratic petty7bourgeoisie is far removed from wanting to transform the entire society for the revolutionary proletariat1 rather it strives for changes in social conditions which will make the prevailing society as bearable and comfortable as possible for itself , *t was in this period that Marx took up the Blan-uist slogan of +dictatorship of the proletariat,, a position which is affirmed in the Kddress in the paragraph after the lines Just -uoted <$= !here is a problem here, one which * treated at length in an earlier book and will therefore only summari/e at this point <#0= Ehen Marx said dictatorship of the proletariat he did not mean the

repression of the democratic rights of non7proletarians or even of non7violent anti7socialists !his is clear enough in !he 4lass 2truggles in ?rance which appeared in the Deue 3heinische Geitung between Nanuary and Fctober, #H50 (i e , in precisely the period during which Marx was rethinking his attitude toward the democratic movement) *n that essay, Marx described +the constitutional republic, as the +dictatorship of their <the peasant;s= united exploiters1 the social democratic, the red, 3epublic is the dictatorship of its allies, <##= +(ictatorship,, then, can be constitutional and republican, even +social democratic, in the ?rench meaning of that term in #HIH !he term applies to the social content, and the conse-uent limits, of a regime, not to its political structure ?or, as Marx made -uite clear a little later on, during that time of +dictatorship, the proletariat enJoyed the freedom of press, speech and organi/ation <#:= !he difficulty, as * remarked in my earlier discussion of these matters, is that the average reader ) or the not7so7average 2talinist ) is -uite likely to interpret +dictatorship, as meaning dictatorship, pure and simple By the end of #H50, however, both Marx and @ngels had turned back ) sadder, wiser and with fewer illusions about the democratic movement ) to their older strategy !he faction fight within the 4ommunist "eague with Eillich and 2chapper pitted them against an +utra7"eft, view, not unlike the one which they themselves proposed in the Kddress to the "eague *n ?rance, they said, the secret organi/ations of the proletariat ) forced into the underground by the loss of those freedoms which they have enJoyed during the constitutional +dictatorship, ) must seek to overthrow the bourgeoisie But in Germany, they must still work with the petty bourgeois democrats Knd in @ngland, Marx continued to support the 4hartists ) a democratic workers; movement ) arguing somewhat naively that +universal suffrage is, for the @nglish working class, synonymous with political power, for the proletariat there constitutes the great maJority of the population and, in the course of a long, though sometimes concealed, civil war won through to a clear consciousness of its class position, <#L= Ehat is remarkable is that Marx and @ngels insisted upon their realistic ) and often tactically +democratic, ) strategy even though it had serious personal costs for them Ks Krthur 3osenberg put it in his very interesting study, (emocracy and 2ocialism, +!he situation of #H5# represents the lowest point in the political career of Marx and @ngels, and in their relationship to the working class Marx was personally embittered that the former Mrussian lieutenant Eillich had so easily deprived him of the leadership of the international labor movement Devertheless, as far as their cause was concerned, Marx and @ngels remained completely unshaken, <#I= Kt this point, since the basic themes are established, let me briefly summari/e some important later developments *n #HQL7I, Marx and @ngels became deeply involved in the establishment of the first workers; international which brought together liberal7democratic trade unionists from @ngland and the ?rench followers of Mroudhon *n his famous speech to the founding 4ongress, Marx referred to the !en 6ours "aw as a triumph of the political economy of the working class over that of the middle class (a view which is reiterated at considerable length in Solume * of (as Kapital) *t was in this period that Marx and @ngels, in the course of the struggle with Bakunin and the anarchists, urged the formation of workers; political parties !o be sure, during the 4ommune, Marx once again spoke of the +dictatorship of the proletariat, ) but he defined it in ultra7democratic terms (the right of recall of all elected officials who would be paid workers; wages) *n the period right after the 4ommune, as 3osenberg points out, the very idea of a revolutionary democratic movement all but ceased to exist in @urope *n ?rance, he writes, as a living movement revolutionary democracy had come to an end in #H%# (uring the same period the 4hartist tradition had been completely forgotten in @ngland 2imilarly after #H%# the history of the 3evolution of #HIH

appeared like news from a strange world to the inhabitants of the German @mpire !he German bourgeoisie, the intellectuals and the middle class had long since abandoned their revolutionary feelingsA *n *taly and 6ungary the tradition of #HIH remained alive even after #H%#, but it was only the national side of the revolution, which continued to exist in the cults of Garibaldi or Kossuth, and not the democratic aspect !he decline of the historic democratic movement in @urope was accompanied by a change in the opinion of general suffrage >ntil #HIH its friends as well as its foes had taken general suffrage -uite seriously *t was considered as absolutely self7evident that the ac-uisition of general suffrage would initiate the unrestricted political and economic rule of the broad massesA Dow general suffrage no longer appeared to be such a menace to the monarchies and the wealthy upper classes Fn the other hand, the radical labour groups doubted that it would ever be possible to defend the true interests of the working people with the help of general suffrageA +Knyone who Judges the historical facts of the nineteenth century obJectively,+ 3osenberg argues, +must come to the conclusion that the social significance of general suffrage was greatly exaggerated before #HIH and Just as greatly underrated afterwards, <#5= *n the #HI0;s and again in the #HQ0;s, * have suggested, Marx and @ngels saw the socialist movement as growing out of and fulfilling the promise of the revolutionary democracy (socialist democracy would, in 6egelian terms, aufheben bourgeois democracy ) not simply destroy it, but rather transform it) *n #HHI one can glimpse @ngels coming to a Judgment much like 3osenberg;s, and a little later on 3osa "uxemburg was to deal with the same problem !heir way of handling it is -uite illuminating in terms of the relation between Marxism and democracy Fne passage by @ngels is worth -uoting at some length Eriting in !he Frigin of the ?amily he said' *n most states in history the citi/ens were assigned rights in proportion to their wealth !his explicitly made it clear that the state is an organi/ation of the owning class for defense against the non7owning classes !his was true in the Kthenian and 3oman classes based on wealth *t operated in the Middle Kges when political power positions were articulated in terms of land ownership Knd it exists in the electoral census in the modern representative state 6owever this political recognition of differences in ownership is in no way essential Fn the contrary, it characterises a lower stage of political <staatlichen= development !he highest form of the state, the democratic republic, is more and more becoming an unavoidable necessity under modern societal relations *t is the only state form in which the last, decisive struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie can be fought out !his democratic republic does not officially recogni/e differences in ownership *n it, ownership exercises its influence indirectly and is, because of that fact, more secure *t does so, on the one hand, in the form of the direct corruption of officials, for which Kmerica provides the classic model and, on the other hand, in the form of an alliance between the regime and stock exchange which is all the more easily consummated the more the public debt increases and stock companies concentrate, not only transport, but production in their hands and find their middle point in the stock exchangeA !he owning class rules by means of universal suffrage 2o long as the repressed class, in our case the proletariat, is not yet mature enough for its self7emancipation, Just so long will the maJority of its members recogni/e the existing societal order as the only possible one and thus they act as the rail of the capitalist class, its extreme left wing !o the degree, however, that the proletariat matures in the direction of its self7emancipation, it constitutes itself as its own party, elects its own representatives, and not those of the capitalists >niversal suffrage is thus the thermometer which measures the ripeness of the working class *t can be nothing more than that in the contemporary state1 but that is enough <#Q=

*n a letter to Kugust Bebel that same year (#HHI), @ngels added still another complexity to his more sophisticated view of democracy *n Germany, he commented, +pure democracy, (which in this letter clearly means bourgeois democracy) has less of a role to play than in the older industrial nations But, he continued, that does not rule out a strategy in which the entire +reactionary mass;; would pretend to be bourgeois democratic when threatened by socialist revolution <#%= *n the lengthy discussion of democracy in 3eform or 3evolution, 3osa "uxemburg argued that liberalism (bourgeois democracy) had become superfluous given the development of capitalist society 2he then went on to write, Fut of the fact that bourgeois liberalism, fearful of the rising labor movement and its program, has given up its soul, it only follows that the socialist labor movement is today the only support for democracy !hus the destiny of socialism does not depend upon bourgeois democracy but inversely the fate of democratic development is bound up with the socialist movement 2o democracy is not viable to the degree that the labor movement gives up its struggle for emancipation, but to the degree that the socialist movement is strong enough to battle the reactionary conse-uences of world politics and of bourgeois <democratic= surrender Eho seeks the strengthening of democracy must wish for the strengthening, not the weakening, of the socialist movement and the giving up of the socialist struggle is the giving up of democracy as well as of the working class <#H= *n sum, Marx came to socialism precisely by an immanent criti-ue of the theory and praxis of democratic liberalism *n the course of his life he tactically oriented toward both petty bourgeoisie and working class (4hartist) democracy Ks time went on, both Marx and @ngels rightly became more suspicious of the manipulation of bourgeois democracy and reali/ed how wrong their naive and youthful hopes about universal suffrage had been Tet they, and "uxemburg, remained committed to democratic values, insisting now that they could only be attained within the framework of a socialist revolution But Marx;s concern with democracy was not confined to politics, or even to the theory of politics *t forms an essential element in his masterpiece, (as Kapital, and is profoundly relevant to its analysis (as Kapital offers the most sustained explanation of why the earlier democratic hopes of Marx and @ngels had to be disappointed * turn to it now ** *n the Frigins of the ?amily, as we have seen, @ngels stressed the structural relationship between bourgeois democracy and capitalism, characteri/ing it as +an unavoidable necessity, and noted that this system, precisely because it does not give formal political recognition to social class distinctions, is conse-uently more secure than earlier, more openly repressive formations !his does not mean that there is a simple, one7to7one link between the bourgeoisie and democracy @ngels himself had insisted in #H$: that +it seems a law of historical development that the bourgeoisie was unable to con-uer political power in any @uropean land ) at least not for a long period of time ) in the way that the feudal aristocracy did during the Middle Kges, <#$= *n @ngland, the political agency of the bourgeois revolution was a landed aristocracy, in ?rance a petty bourgeoisie, in Germany and Napan an aristocratic bureaucracy *n some cases, most notably ?rance, capitalism emerged through a genuine revolutionary process1 in others, particularly Germany and Napan, there was a top7down transformation *n the latter instances, as 6arrington Moore has documented, the failure to settle accounts with feudalism was a factor in disposing societies towards fascism <:0= Moreover, Goran !herborn;s article, cited earlier, usefully reminds us that it took a long, long time for bourgeois democratic rights to be extended to all citi/ens *n the >nited 2tates, for instance, women did not get the ballot until after Eorld Ear *, and a significant stratum of 2outhern blacks were excluded from the franchise until the second half of the nineteen sixties 2o when one asserts a connection between capitalism and bourgeois democracy, one is talking ) as is

the case with almost all Marxist +laws, ) about a tendency, a structural predisposition, which can be and often is modified or even denied *n the extreme instance of fascism, capitalism becomes, of course, openly anti7democratic Knd yet, with all of these -ualifications Marxism does see a link between the bourgeois economy and bourgeois democracy *n a singularly important passage of the third volume of (as Kapital, Marx;s analysis illuminates that relationship !he discussion focuses upon the -uestion of rent <:#= *n the case of labor rent, Marx comments, the fact that surplus value is unpaid labor is an obvious fact (which is not the case in capitalism) Eherever the immediate producer is the possessor (Besit/er) of the means of production necessary for subsistence, Marx continues, the property relationship is immediately a relationship of domination and servitude !his is even the case in *ndia where there is communal property and surplus value takes the form of a tax paid to the authorities !his is not to be e-uated with slavery, where the producer works with alien instruments of production, but it does necessarily involve personal unfreedom !his passage, it will be noted, repeats (from an economic perspective and in a much more developed way) some of the insights which are to be found in the 4riti-ue of 6egel;s Mhilosophy of 3ight, Fn the Newish Ouestion, and Fn the (ifference Between Medieval @states and Modern 4lasses Ee can generali/e this point' pre7capitalist societies extract the surplus from the direct producers by political means1 capitalist coercion is economic !he worker under the latter system, Marx always insists, is +free , *ndeed, the appearance of the +free worker, is one of the pre7conditions of capitalism !hus, exploitation under capitalism is a +phenomenal form,+ i e , its reality is not what it seems to be (unlike labor rent where surplus value takes the immediate form of unpaid labor) !he world of Kapital is one in which all the agents of production are paid a fair price, and yet the exchange of e-uivalents yields a fundamental ine-uivalency 2uch a formation does not re-uire political repression in ordinary times More importantly, as Marx pointed out so often, the +heavenly, e-uality of e-ual political rights served to mask the +earthly, ine-uality of the social classes Bourgeois democracy is not merely a rationali/ation of capitalist ine-uality ) Marx always regarded the freedom to organi/e and speak and publish as of enormous value for the proletariat ) but that is certainly one of its most important functions MarxCs analysis parallels an important perception of Max Eeber about +legitimacy , !here are, Eeber said, three kinds of legitimacy' charismatic, traditional and rational, and the latter is characteristic of the modern, capitalist age >nder +legal, (rational) forms of domination +the legitimacy of commanding, for the possessor of the power, rests upon rational, statutory rules which are agreed to or handed down, and the legitimacy of the statutory rules rests upon a rational, statutory or interpreted, Cconstitution ; 4ommands are made, not in the name of personal authority but in the name of an impersonal normA, <::= Knd such a system, as @ngels rightly emphasi/ed, will be more secure because of this indirect, +rational, form of legitimacy *n recent times, the Marxist who best understood this point was Dicos Moulant/as in his last book on democracy and socialism <:L= *n summary, then, MarxCs and @ngelsC attitude toward democracy was dialectical in the profound sense of that often abused and triviali/ed word *t emerges historically as bourgeois democracy, and in this guise one of its important functions is to provide an ideological rationali/ation for exploitation ?or the first time a ruling class is able to command the free and rational acceptance of its domination, in normal times at least !he doctrine, and even the imperfect reality, of political e-uality conceals the decisive fact of economic and social ine-uality which permeates the democratic life and subordinates it to the purposes of a small elite But this very same system must therefore extend real rights to workers and the citi/enry in general !hese are, as Marx explicitly stated in his analyses of both the 3evolution of #HIH and the 4ommune,

of enormous importance for the organi/ation of the socialist alternative1 they provide, as @ngels recogni/ed in !he Frigins of the ?amily, the political framework in which the final conflict of bourgeoisie and proletariat takes place !he +truth of , bourgeois democracy ) the resolution of its internal contradictions, the preservation7transformation of all that is positive in it ) is socialist democracy !herefore, in tactical terms, Marx and @ngels favored a united front with all democrats in the late eighteen forties and a united front of working class democrats and Marxists in the eighteen sixties @xperience eventually taught them that some of their earlier hopes ) that universal suffrage in a country with a working class maJority would automatically lead to socialism ) were illusory @ngels, and later "uxemburg, saw that reaction could use bourgeois democracy as a last defense against socialist democracy But even then, their more sophisticated analysis of bourgeois democracy did not lead them to abandon their commitment to the democratic principle 3ather, as "uxemburg stated so plainly, Marxists now saw socialism as the necessary pre7condition for the desirable deepening of all that had been positive in bourgeois democracy, a task to be achieved by stripping the latter of its bourgeois integument *n short, contrary to what sometimes parades as +Marxism,, Marx and @ngels were critical of bourgeois democracy, not because it was democratic, but because it was bourgeois, and they proposed to effect their criti-ue in practice by utili/ing the space provided by bourgeois democracy for the achievement of socialist democracy *** 2talinism, or bureaucratic collectivism, was and is the great challenge to this Marxist conception of democracy !his does not merely relate to the fate of the 3ussian 3evolution *t has to do with the future of socialism in the late twentieth and twenty7first centuries, and it has profound implications for the !hird Eorld as well as for the 4ommunist and advanced capitalist systems Fne of the very best Marxist guides in these matters is 3osa "uxemburg, particularly because the analyses and norms which she applied to the 3ussian 3evolution were first developed in the struggle against the +revisionist, 3ight led by @douard Bernstein *ndeed, * believe there is a curious symmetry between the most conservative wing of social democracy and 2talinism since both propose to institute socialism top7down without excessive interference, or participation, by the great mass of people * should immediately add, however, that the conservative social democrats never dismantled the basic institutions of the working class as the 2talinists did *n any case, there is an admirable Marxist consistency in "uxemburg, whether she was writing about Bernstein or "enin ?or her, as for Marx, the emancipation of the working class was the task of the working class itself, not of saviours from on high *n the course of critici/ing what she took to be the opportunism of MillerandCs entry into Ealdeck7 3ousseau;s bourgeois government, "uxemburg noted that socialists were not on principle precluded from such a tactic 2he wrote' !here can be moments during the development, or more precisely the decline, of capitalism when the final sei/ure of power by the representatives of the proletariat is still impossible, and yet their participation in a bourgeois regime appears as necessary !his would occur where it is a -uestion of the freedom of the nation or of democratic gains, like the republic, and the bourgeois regime is already too compromised and disorgani/ed to command the loyalty of the people without the support of the labor movement *n such a case, the representatives of the working people cannot allow devotion to some abstract principle as principle to make them shirk from the defense of the common good Fnly the participation of the social democrats in the regime must take a form which gives no doubt to either the bourgeoisie or the people about the temporary nature and specific purpose of their act <:I=

Ks spokesperson of the "eft wing of the German Marty, then, and in the course of a criticism of opportunism, "uxemburg saw the defense of democratic con-uests of the working class as Justifying, under exceptional circumstances and in a specific form, socialist participation in a bourgeois government But, it must be stressed again, this was an exceptional case, for, in the very same period, "uxemburg stressed the difference between bourgeois and socialist democracy *n this case she directed her fire against @douard Bernstein at the #H$$ 4ongress of the German 2ocial (emocratic Marty and her comments, as we will see, provide the Marxist theoretical basis for her later criti-ue of the 3ussian 3evolution +!he weakest side of the theoretical conceptions of Bernstein,, she said, +is the theory of the so7called economic power which the working class must first con-uer within the framework of the contemporary society before it can successfully carry through a political revolution , 2he continued' Marx proved that each political movement of a social class has a specific, economic basis Knd he showed that all previous classes in history had achieved economic power before they succeeded in winning political power !his is the model which (avid, Eoltmann and Bernstein apply slavishly to contemporary social relations Knd it demonstrates that they have not understood either the earlier struggles or those taking place today Ehat does it mean that the earlier classes, particularly the third estate, con-uered economic power before political powerR Dothing more than the historical fact that all previous class struggles must be derived from the economic fact that the rising class has at the same time created a new form of property upon which it will base its class dominationA Dow * ask, can this model be applied to our relationshipsR Do Mrecisely because to chatter about the economic might of the proletariat is to ignore the great difference between our class struggle and all those which went before !he assertion that the proletariat, in contrast to all previous class struggles, pursues its battles, not in order to establish class domination, but to abolish all class domination is not a mere phraseA *t is an illusion, then, to think that the proletariat can create economic power within capitalist society *t can only create political power and then transform (aufheben) capitalist property <:5= Molitical power, "uxemburg argues, is the uni-ue essence of the socialist transformation "et me expand on that thought for a moment *n terms of that famous (and normally misleading) metaphor of base and superstructure, in pre7socialist society the base determines the superstructure, the economic relations determine the limits within which the ruling class operates1 in socialist society, the superstructure shapes the base and consciously works for the abolition of all class privilege !herefore, to hold working class freedom in abeyance in the name of creating the economic +basis, of classless society is to attack the most decisive single precondition of that classless society' working class (more broadly, human) freedom *n critici/ing the illusions of the social democratic 3ight about the potential of unions and cooperatives within a capitalist society, "uxemburg was laying the groundwork for her criti-ue of "enin and !rotsky;s abolition of democratic freedoms in revolutionary 3ussia Knd that, in turn, bears upon the murderous assault which 2talin launched against every last vestige of those freedoms and the class society which he created as a result "uxemburgCs criti-ue of the 3ussian 3evolution, it must be membered, was written when there were still some of the democratic and socialist con-uests of Fctober in existence 6er remarks, then, apply

with a thousand7times greater force to the 2talinist, or post72talin, 2oviet >nion "uxemburg wrote' "enin says' the bourgeois state is an instrument for the repression of the working class, the socialist state ) for the repression of the bourgeoisie *t is, so to speak, merely the capitalist state stood on its head !his simplistic concept abstracts from the essential Bourgeois class domination needs no political schooling and education for the broad mass of the people, at least not beyond narrow limits ?or the proletarian dictatorship that schooling and education is a necessity for life, the very air without which it cannot exist K little later on she continues' !he silent assumption of the theory of dictatorship in the "eninist and !rotskyist sense is that the socialist transformation is an event for which the recipe is to be found in the pocket of the revolutionary party and which only needs to be energetically implemented >nfortunately ) or rather fortunately ) that is not so ?ar from being a sum of fixed and pre7existing doctrines which one only need implement, the practical implementation of socialism as an economic, social and legal system is a matter which lies completely in the mist of the future Ehat we have in our program are merely some great guides to the road to travel, the direction to take, in which the measures must be sought <for that implementation=, and our propositions are mostly negative in characterA 2ocialism then, in its very nature, cannot be decreed, introduced through ukases *t has as precondition a series of powerful measures ) against property, etc !he negative, the tearing down, can be decreed1 the positive, the building up, cannot be decreed K page later there is this prophetic insight' Eithout universal suffrage, unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, the free battle of opinion, the life in those <"enin and !rotsky= institutions will become a mere show and the bureaucracy will be the only active element Mublic life will gradually be put to sleep, a few do/en party leaders of inexhaustible energy and limitless idealism will direct and rule, under them a do/en outstanding brains will lead and an elite of labor will be convened from time to time to applaud the speeches of the leaders, to vote prearranged resolutions unanimously, so that there will basically be the dictatorship of a cli-ue *n short, there will be, not the dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship of a handful of politicals, i e , dictatorship in the pure bourgeois sense, in the sense of the Nacobin ruleA !he basic error of the "eninist7!rotskyist theory is precisely that it, precisely like Kautsky, counterposes dictatorship and democracy C(emocracy or dictatorship; is the way the Bolsheviks and Kautsky both pose the -uestion !he latter naturally opts for democracy ) for bourgeois democracy since that is what he represents as the alternative of socialist transformation "enin7!rotsky opt, on the other hand, for dictatorship as against democracy and thereby for the dictatorship of a handful of people, i e , for bourgeois dictatorship Knd finally, *t is the historic task of the proletariat when it sei/es power to replace bourgeois democracy with the creation of socialist democracy not to do away with any kind of democracy <:Q= "uxemburg defended her libertarian ideas in the name of the +dictatorship of the proletariat, and that

brings up an extremely important political7semantic point *f the interpretation in this essay is right, the meaning which Marx intended to give to that term, as well as the meaning of it which is immanent in his work, is democratic *n between Marx7@ngels and 2talin there were Marxists, like "uxemburg, who read the phrase as Marx did ) and those who did not 2talin took the issue out of the sphere of exegesis and, using Marx;s words as a Justification, created a structure which was profoundly anti7Marxist * think it was a tragedy that Marx;s phrase lent itself to this outcome even though * do not think (as "es/ek Kolakowski now does) that Marx is responsible for its misuse, or rather, its inversion into its opposite <:%= Devertheless, * think Marxists should stop using the phrase altogether !his is not one of those cases where Marx was wrong and must be revised within the framework of his own methodology and actual experience (e g , the anticipation of an early victory of socialism and Gramsci;s reinterpretation of the point) 3ather it is an instance where Marx;s real meaning is compelling but his words almost inevitably invite the wrong reading of it 2talin is, of course, the monstrous case in point * will not repeat my own theoretical account of 2talinism which is already available at considerable length <:H= 3ather, let me summari/e (uring 2talin;s life7time a number of Marxist thinkers ) 4hristian 3akovsky, Bruno 3i//i, "ucien "aurat, Max 2chachtman ) suggested that 2oviet society was anti7capitalist and anti7socialist, a new form of class society with a new ruling class, the bureaucracy *n at least one instance (3akovsky), Marx;s comments in the 4riti-ue of the 6egelian Mhilosophy of 3ight were taken as a point of departure !hat is -uite appropriate, not because Marx foresaw 2talinism, but because his method and values allow one to understand it better Bureaucracy, as * have already -uoted, was seen in that essay as the one area of modern life in which the principle of the political etermination of economic class position still operated Moreover, within that context Marx understood that a bureaucracy could +own, a state as its private property and that when it did, it would make a fetish out of internal hierarchy and external secrecy "et me generali/e ) and the concept is important, not simply for coming to grips with 2oviet (or any other 4ommunist with a capital +4,) society, but for dealing with one of the most basic problems of the modern world Ehen the state owns (or directs or controls) the means of production, the critical -uestion is, who owns the stateR !here is only one way for the people to own the state' through the democratic right to change its policies and personnel at will Ehether this is done through a parliament or a soviet (in the original sense) or any other form is not the essential point (though * should note that * believe that a mix of representative and occupational democracy strikes me as most appropriate) 4an workers and citi/ens, in a routine and ordinary way without risking anything, command those who carry out technical and administrative functionsR *f not, there is no democracy, then the bureaucracy tends to +own, the state as its private property Knd where there is a principled, totalitarian exclusion of the people from such control, that tendency becomes absolute !his was, and is, the case in 2talin and post72talin 3ussia1 it is ambiguously the case in Moland because the workers, through heroic efforts, have achieved a de facto veto over the party in the great strikes of #$H0 2econdly, the historic function of bureaucratic collectivism is to carry out a process of totalitarian accumulation in semi7backward or outrightly backward societies in which the bourgeois revolution is no longer a possible road to modernity !herefore bureaucratic collectivism is a tendency in all !hird Eorld nations, the anti74ommunist as well as the 4ommunist !he Bra/ilian generals, for instance, have nationali/ed almost all of the decisive means of production now owned by multinational corporations *n 2udan and *ra-, governments have persecuted the 4ommunist Marty and carried out substantial parts of its program 2talinism, then, might be defined as the variant of bureaucratic collectivism which arises out of a Marxist movement and is rationali/ed in the name of Marx <:$=

*t is of considerable interest ) and hope ) that at least one contemporary 4ommunist reached conclusions similar (but not identical) with mine from within bureaucratic collectivism * am speaking of 3udolf Bahro;s !he Klternative in @astern @urope (though * should also mention an earlier case, Milovan (Jilas; Dew 4lass) ?or Bahro in +actually existing socialism, (his phrase, and not necessarily a felicitous one, for what * call bureaucratic collectivism) +the abolition of private property in the means of production has in no way meant their transformation into the property of the people 3ather, the whole society stands propertyless against its state machine !he monopoly of disposal over the apparatus of production, over the lion;s share of the surplus product, over the proportions of the reproduction process, over distribution and consumption, has led to a bureaucratic mechanism with the tendency to kill off or privati/e any subJect initiative , Knd, a little later, +!he essence of actually existing socialism is conceived as one of sociali/ation in the alienated form of stratification, this being based on a traditional division of labour which has not yet been driven to the critical point that topples it over, <L0= !here are points at which * take issue with Bahro, for example, his belief that 2talinism is somehow progressive because it does carry out an important economic transformation !hat is certainly a notion which a Marxist can entertain if ) and in the not so long run, only if ) he or she adds that it is progressive in the sense that Marx regarded British imperialism in *ndia as progressive, i e , criminally progressive, and to be opposed at every turn in the name of simple humanity and alternative ways of carrying out the same ransformation But he rightly and profoundly understands that democratic demands are of the essence in such societies, that they provide the possibility of popular control over the collectivist means of production !he winning of the freedom of speech and assembly, he stressed, could merely make life tolerable for, and confer power upon, the stratum of intellectuals and experts located one or two rungs below the ruling bureaucracy in the present system *f democracy is to become socialist democracy it must, Bahro insists, actually empower people throughout the society and be a part of a process of the radical reorgani/ation of the labor process and a redistribution of the +emancipatory, pursuits from top to bottom ?inally, Bahro raises the -uestion of the !hird Eorld 6e writes' +!he state as taskmaster of society in its technical and social moderni/ation ) this fundamental model can be found time and time again since #$#%, wherever pre7capitalist societies or their decisive minorities have organi/ed themselves for active entry into the :0th century *f from this standpoint the 2oviet >nion is identical not only with 4hina, but also with Burma, Klgeria or Guinea, and not only with Guinea but recently also with Meru or Gaire, and not only Gaire, but even *ran where a 2hah stemming from an era before classical anti-uity is conducting his own Cwhite revolution; ) this only underlines the fundamental value of the state in this context, (p #:$) Bahro;s last phrase about the state is somewhat pu//ling since * assume that he is not (was not) a supporter of the 2hah;s +white revolution,, that he is describing and analy/ing it, not praising it Knd * would add that the alternatives are as limited as they are in some considerable measure because of the continuing power of Eestern capitalism on the world market <L#= !hese last complexities should be underlined !he theory of bureaucratic collectivism ) of undemocratic sociali/ation, if you will ) can be usefully extended to an entire range of phenomena But for precisely this reason, important distinctions have to be made !he bourgeois democratic version of the trend, the stratification of planned capitalism, still provides certain basic freedom to the workers; movement1 the 2talinist, or neo72talinist, variant does not !he 2hah;s *ran was a corrupt, explicitly anti7democratic, top7down authoritarianism1 Dyerere;s !an/ania has warred on corruption, sought to involve the people at the base as far as is possible and yet has certain authoritarian features, like the oneparty system Fnly a blind man would e-uate the 2hah;s *ran and Dyerere;s !an/ania

Moreover, there is a -uestion of when authoritarianism is a result of a functional necessity and when it has become simply a prop of a bureaucratic ruling class !he pre7conditions of democracy are -uite intricate, historical and cultural as well as economic (3obert (ahl;s Molyarchy is a very interesting attempt at systemati/ing these factors) <L:= *n *ran, to continue with that analogy, the 2hah;s income from oil exports solved a good deal of the problem of capital accumulation *t would have been economically possible to follow a much more democratic road than !an/ania, but the 2hah was much more repressive *n !an/ania, the moral and political -uality of Dyerere has led to more of an emphasis upon democratic values and ethos (particularly in the struggle against corruption in the party and government, a tactic which limits some of the worst conse-uences of bureaucratic collectivism) than in *ran where the authoritarianism was a hallowed principle, not an unfortunate necessity !his context, finally, also gives a new meaning to democratic demands >nder bureaucratic collectivism, the struggle for any classic bourgeois democratic right takes on an immediate socialist thrust *t is one thing to demand the right of free speech, assembly or press in a society of the indirect rule of the bourgeoisie1 it is a -ualitatively different thing to make that identical demand in a society of statist planning and privilege *n the latter case, any democratic right has the potential of undermining the power of the ruling class and opening the way to the rule of the people1 in the former, as we have seen, that is not necessarily the case at all 2o it was that the democratic movement in 6ungary and Moland in #$5Q, in 4/echoslovakia in #$QH and again in Moland in #$H0 was inevitably a movement for socialist democracy Marx reali/ed the centrality of democratic demands even when, within the context of a capitalism ruled by economic rather than political coercion, they could have only limited effect *ndeed, he defined socialism in the most profound sense of the word as the +truth of, bourgeois democracy, as democracy stripped of the structural limitations imposed upon it by capitalist class society !hat recognition of how decisive self7determination is for socialist theory and praxis had the conse-uences * have already described Dow, in the late !wentieth century, democracy becomes even more critical for Marxists ?or in the stratified economies which, with enormous national and structural differences, now exist throughout the entire world, democratic demands are no longer a matter of formal and individual rights1 they are the very substance of the social and economic rule of the people1 they are, indeed, the only way that the people can rule and are, therefore, more than ever before, the sina -ua non of socialism DF!@2 # +!he 3ule of 4apital and the 3ise of (emocracy,, Dew "eft 3eview #0: (May7Nune, #$%%), p I : Marx7@ngels Eerke (hereafter M@E) (Berlin, #$5%), Sol *, pp #I, Q0, #0L and #II L M@E *, p :L# I !hough * disagree on some details, * find 6al (raperCs treatment of this development in Marx;s thought -uite persuasive 2ee his Karl Marx;s !heory of 3evolution (Dew Tork, #$%%), Mart #, 4hapter L 5 M@E *S, pp :I, L#%, L%:7L and I#% Q M@E *S, pp I$:7L % *bid , p IH# H H Mour Marx (Maris, #$Q5), pp :% ff $ M@E S**, p :I% #0 2ocialism (Dew Tork, #$%:), 4hapter ***, 2ection L ## *bid , p HI #: M@E S***, p I5H

#L *bid , pp I5H and LII #I Krthur 3osenberg, (emocracy and 2ocialism (Dew Tork, #$L$), p #I: #5 *bid , pp :#H7:0 #Q M@E UU*, pp #Q%7H #% M@E UUUS*, p :5: #H Gesammelte Eerke (Berlin, #$%I), Sol *, p I:Q #$ M@E UU**, p L0% :0 2ocial Frigins of (ictatorship and (emocracy' "ord and Measant in the Making of the Modern Eorld (Boston, #$QQ) :# M@E UUS, p %$H :: Gesammelte KufsVt/e /ur 3eligionsso/iologie (!Pbingen, #$%: <#$::=), pp :Q%7H :L "CWtat, "e Mouvoir, "e 2ocialisme (Maris, #$%H) :I Gesammelte Eerke, op cit *7#, pp IH57Q :5 *bid , pp 5Q%7H :Q *bid , Sol *S, pp L5$7LQL :% Main 4urrents of Marxism (Fxford, #$%H), *, pp I#H7$ :H 2ocialism (Dew Tork, #$%:) :$ *n a remarkable insight, Max Kdler, the great Kustro7Marxist, hypothesi/ed that there might be an +industrial feudalism+ in which there would be better wages, a shorter working day, health insurance, etc , but no socialist ideal or reality !his would be a benign ) perhaps Kmerican or Eest @uropean ) variant of bureaucratic collectivism Marxistische Mrobleme (Bonn, #$%I <#$::=), p #LI L0 3udolf Bahro, !he Klternative to @astern @urope ("ondon, #$%H), pp ##, #L L# 2ee my !he Sast MaJority (Dew Tork, #$%%) L: Molyarchy (Dew 6aven, #$%#) ?rom Mraxis *nternational, (#'#) Kpril #$H# 3edigiti/ed by 4entral and @astern @uropean Fnline "ibrary ) www ceeol com

Democracy in America: Two Perspectives (Marx and Toqueville)

This is chapter one o Marx and !ngels: Their "ontri#ution to the Democratic $rea%through $y August &imt' !o understand Karl Marx and ?rederick @ngels&s reading of the >nited 2tates it would be useful to begin with an overview of their communist proJect, its origins and evolutionXone which has often been misrepresented, particularly its democratic component "ike many German 3hinelanders of their generationXthose who came of age politically in the aftermath of the ?rench 3evolution of #%H$X they sought an answer to the most pressing political -uestion of the day' how could Mrussian authoritarianism be replaced by democratic rule and who or what segment of society would lead such a transformationR ?or the young Marx, working as a cub reporter in #HI: for the liberal daily 3heinische Geitung (3hineland Maga/ine), and fre-uently at odds with government censors, there were more specific -uestions Ehy would a government deny its citi/ens such basic liberties as freedom of the press and free speechR Ehy are peasants and the poorer layers of society routinely disadvantaged in the political processR Ehy are the wealthy privilegedR

Marx saw the need to return to 6egel, the intellectual mentor of his generation, who had drawn on the insights of the liberal economists Names 2teuart and Kdam 2mith to produce the best that Eestern thought had to offer on political theory and political economy 2tanding on 6egel&s shoulders, Marx soon recogni/ed the inade-uacies of this towering intellect, especially his disdain for "true democracy " *t was precisely the -uest to reali/e "true democracyXthe sovereignty of the people," that motivated Marx to begin his lifelong in-uiry into political economy # 6is in-uiries pointed to the emergence and role of private property in social evolution, a development that reached its logical conclusions with the rise of the capitalist mode of production in the second half of the eighteenth century Klong with the alienation of individuals from one another, or the erosion of community, came the commodification of all of society including most of all human labor Mrivate ownership of the means of production, uni-uely associated with capitalism, generated increasing ine-uality !he simultaneously unprecedented increase of wealth and poverty appeared as one of the most striking aspects of the new system of production for those who survived its arrival !he ine-ualities of previous class societies, those based on private property, began to pale in comparison Marx concluded as early as #HIL that as long as social ine-ualityXclass societyXpersisted, real democracy, the "sovereignty of the people," was impossible 6is position was not uni-ue Ks 4 B Macpherson persuasively argues, almost all Eestern visions of democracy before the nineteenth century assumed a "classless or a one7class society, not merely a political mechanism to fit such a society ": >nlike other socialists and selfstyled communists, Marx argued that the fight for social Justice could not be successfully pursued unless it was linked to the struggle for democratic rights !hus, the prere-uisite for the socialist revolution was the democratic revolutionXthe con-uest of political democracy, which provided the best terrain on which the oppressed could prepare itself for taking power and self7rule Ks 6al (raper correctly notes, "Marx was the first socialist figure to come to an acceptance of the socialist idea through the battle for the consistent extension of democratic control from below <6=e was the first to fuse the struggle for consistent political democracy with the struggle for a socialist transformation "L Many years later, @ngels acknowledged that it was the 4hartists, the working class fighters for democratic rule in @ngland in the second -uarter of the nineteenth century, who taught them about the importance of the political struggle I Based on his newly7arrived at claim that the proletariat constituted the only class that had both the capacity and interest to reali/e the "sovereignty of the people"Xto which his aforementioned letter to "incoln alludedXMarx, now in partnership with @ngels, provided the small communist tendency of the broader socialist movement for the first time an explicit program that clarified its relationship to the democratic struggle (rawing on @ngels&s draft for the Manifesto of the 4ommunist Marty, Marx incorporated the essence of this position in its second section, "Mroletarians and 4ommunists"' "the immediate aim of the 4ommunists is the same as that of other proletarian parties' formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, con-uest of political power by the proletariat " !he goal of this struggle, is as stated later in that section, "to win the battle of democracy "5 ?or communists, the most "advanced" or "extreme wing," as they described it, of the "democratic party," the fight for political democracy is an essential task *t must be stressed that in moving from radical democracy to communism Marx and @ngels did not abandon the demand for the former Marx polemici/ed in #HI% that, like the 4hartists in Britain, the German proletariat, "can and must accept the bourgeois revolution as a precondition for the workers& revolution 6owever, they cannot for a moment accept it as their ultimate goal "Q 4larity on this essential point distinguished communists from other democrats Ks they stated repeatedly, political

democracy was the best means for socialist transformation and, thus, had to be fought for and defended Ehen a critic charged in #H$: that Marx and @ngels ignored forms of democratic governance, @ngels retorted' "Marx and *, for forty years, repeated ad nauseam that for us the democratic republic is the only political form in which the struggle between the working class and the capitalist class can first be universalised and then culminate in the decisive victory of the proletariat "% !he task now is to see more concretely how the two, particularly Marx, arrived at their conclusions about the relationship between democracy and communism !he "essons of the "Most Mrogressive Dation" !o reach such conclusions, Marx&s new method re-uired that he draw on, as he liked to call it, the "real movement of history " 6e emphasi/ed, above all, the actual course of the democrati/ation process in various settings and times ?or him, the reality of the >nited 2tates, "the most progressive nation," as he sometimes called it, provided the best example H *t was also, as he described in his notebooks some fifteen years later, a "country where bourgeois society did not develop on the foundation of the feudal system, but developed rather from itself where the state, in contrast to all earlier national formations, was from the beginning subordinate to bourgeois society, to its production, and never could make the pretense of being an end7in7itself "$ !hough lacking a feudal base, what was so revealing for Marx was the fact that class ine-uality was -uickly emerging there in the absence of a tradition of class ine-ualityXa claim supported by modern scholarship to be discussed later !his offered crucial evidence for his thesis about the conse-uences of private ownership of the means of production Ehat was the specific evidence about the > 2 reality that the young Marx drew upon to reach his communist conclusionsR Ks the "most progressive nation" in the world, it was especially useful in his method of in-uiryXthe study of a "pure" case "Daturalists seek by experiment to reproduce a natural phenomenon in its purest conditions Tou do not need to make any experiments Tou find the natural phenomenon of freedom of the press in Dorth Kmerica in its purest, most natural form "#0 K year later in his criti-ue of 6egel he addressed the issue of elections and suffrage !hough he made no explicit reference to the >nited 2tates there is no doubt he had the >nited 2tates in mindXthen the country with the most democratic elections But for Marx, it was a -uestion "of the extension and greatest possible generalisation of election, both of the right to vote and the right to be elected "## !o what degree the >nited 2tates conformed to such a standard is an issue to be discussed shortly Marx&s first sustained discussion of the > 2 political reality came at the end of #HIL in his two articles, "Fn the Newish Ouestion " Kgain, it must be emphasi/ed that this was written during Marx&s pre7 communist years, or perhaps more accurately, en route to his communist "world view "#: 2ome of his discussion about civil society and the state carried with them much of the "phraseology" of German philosophy 6e admitted as much two years later in !he German *deology, the work that first presented his and @ngel&s historical materialist perspective #L Krguably the key text of this period, the central claim of the "Newish Ouestion"Xnotwithstanding its titleXis that political liberation, or what would later be called liberal or bourgeois democracy, however much an advance for humanity, should not be mistaken for human emancipation #I !o substantiate his argument, Marx drew on the reality of what was until then the two most advanced developments in political democracy, revolutionary ?rance and the >nited 2tates Ks the German *deology explained, "one has to &leave philosophy aside& one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers "#5 !he > 2 "actuality" would provide the most insights ?irstly, as he argued, it was in the >nited 2tates that the "political state exists in its completely developed form in its purity" because "the state ceases to adopt a theological attitude towards

religion "#Q Tet, in that most "developed" state form religion was pervasive in societyX"pre7eminently the country of religiosity " !he "existence of religion is the existence of a defect"Xbecause it promoted narrowness and sectarianism, alienating humans from one another, an earlier conclusion that Marx and the "eft 6egelians had reached #% !hus, the > 2 case revealed that even in the most developed state such a "defect" could exist !he problem, then, was to be sought in the nature of the secular state, in its limitations and its own narrowness !his necessitated an interrogation not of religion but the state itself !he -uestion in particular was why the secular state is not only inade-uate for the achievement of but an obstacle to "human emancipation," or, as Marx explained, "the relation of political emancipation to human emancipation "#H *t&s worth noting that in his criti-ue of religion Marx was actually arguing for freedom of religionXin this case, for NewsXespecially since he wrote this shortly before his often misrepresented comment about religion being "the opium of the people " *t makes clear that his criti-ue wasn&t part of a campaign to ban religion 3ather, it expressed his concern to know why such defective thinking persisted !he answer, he argued, and the motivation of his lifelong political economy proJect, was to be found in civil society, the basis of the secular state 2econdly, Marx looked at the limitations of political emancipation in another arenaXprivate property *ndeed, as revealed by laws in various > 2 states, the state might free itself of private property by banishing property -ualifications in voting But such a measure did not abolish private property, it "even presupposes it " !he basis for the state&s claims of universality, which comes with the banishment of property -ualifications, rest on the existence of private property !he particularity of private property was, in other words, a necessary given for the universality of the secular state !he state, therefore, "allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way to exert the influence of their special nature ?ar from abolishing these real distinctions, the state only exists on the presupposition of their existence "#$ Ks long as ine-ualities in wealthXas well as education and occupationXpersisted, Marx noted, there would be ine-ualities in access to the electoral process including the "right to be elected"Xa reality of > 2 politics that obviously has deep roots Kgain, the > 2 case revealed that "political emancipation is not human emancipation " !hirdly, as the "most progressive nation" the >nited 2tates, along with ?rance, was where "the rights of man" existed in "their authentic form " But these rights were those of the citi/en on the one hand and the individualistic man of civil society on the other !hey did not, however, lead to real liberation as long as they were treated as uncriti-ued givens !hey rested on the erroneous assumption that human fulfillment was based "not on the association of man with man, but on the separation of man from man" and the related claim that individualistic or "egoistic" man was the actual basis for society 3eal "human emancipation" could only be accomplished by reJoining individual and political man in every arena in daily lifeXciti/en and manXmerging his individual and social being as the reali/ation of his real "species7being ":0 Marx set himself the task of trying to understand how the reintegration of the social and political being of humans could be accomplished 6is criti-ue of private property, the material basis of civil society&s individualistic character, would soon lead him to a criti-ue of capitalism and a program for its overthrowXthe necessary step for human or, in later terms, social emancipation ?inally, the >nited 2tates revealed how "money has become a world power" even within the world of 4hristianity Knticipating the even more blatant commodification of religion in today&s Kmerica, Marx stated "in Dorth Kmerica the preaching of the Gospel itself and the 4hristian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel Just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals ":# Marx was describing one manifestation of what later

historians called the "market revolution" of Nacksonian KmericaX about which more will be said later Ehile critical of the "most progressive nation," Marx made clear that "political emancipation is a big step forward," though not the "final form of human emancipation in general " :: 6is acknowledgment of what had been achieved in Dorth KmericaXa necessary step on the road to real emancipation Xwas indeed sincere *f citi/enship was limited because it represented only political emancipation, it&s ac-uisition was not to be dismissed *n the German *deology, again written within two years of the "Newish Ouestion" thus expressing the views of the communist Marx and @ngels, they were clearly supportive of this advance "!he workers attach so much importance to citi/enship, i e , to active citi/enship, that where they have it, for instance in Kmerica, they &make good use& of it, and where they do not have it, they strive to obtain it 4ompare the proceedings of the Dorth Kmerican workers at innumerable meetings, the whole history of @nglish 4hartism, and of ?rench communism and reformism," the two wrote :L "ater, when one7time ally ?erdinand "assalle told Marx in #HQ: that the "Tankees have no &ideas& &!he freedom of the individual& is merely a &negative idea&, etc ," he dismissed "assalle&s comment as "anti-uated, mouldering, speculative rubbish " :I !he theoretical and therefore, political import of the > 2 case for Marx was that it revealed the best that "really existing" democracy had to offer *t was Just such a conclusion that drove Marx to look beyond "political emancipation"Xto reach communist conclusions Ehere did Marx obtain his evidence about the >nited 2tatesR 6ow valid was itR 6e drew on three sources in the "Newish Ouestion" articles, one of which was !oc-ueville&s (emocracy in Kmerica, published eight years earlier Fther than employing the latter to substantiate his point about the > 2 being "pre7eminently the country of religiosity," Marx did not make any other explicit reference to !oc-ueville 6e was informed by the writings of !oc-ueville&s travel companion to Dorth Kmerica, Gustave de Beaumont(#H0:)#HQQ) and secondarily !homas 6amilton(#%H$)#HI:), an @nglish writer !hough Beaumont&s work, Marie or, 2lavery in the >nited 2tates was a novel published in #HL5, the same year as his companion&s bookXabout a romance between a young ?renchman and mulatto woman doomed by the racial preJudices of the eraXit contained highly informative appendices and notes about Blacks, *ndians, women, religion and other subJects 6is data about religious life was the basis for Marx&s observations about its role and character in > 2 society *n reference to the overall theme of his bookXracism in the >nited 2tatesXBeaumont addressed in the foreword why his book might give the reader "different impressions" of the >nited 2tates than !oc-ueville&s work "!he true reason is this' M de !oc-ueville has described the institutions1 * myself have tried to sketch the customs Dow, in the >nited 2tates, political life is far finer, and more e-uitably shared, than civil life <la vie civile, in original= Ehile men may find small enJoyment in family life there and few pleasures in society, citi/ens enJoy in the world of politics a multitude of rights ":5 !his is revealing in that it suggests that !oc-ueville, like Marx, also employed the civil7political society distinction !his might help explain why !oc-ueville treated the reality of Blacks, *ndiansXand women alsoXas peripheral to his analysis of democracy !he apparent assumption that the > 2 political community could be explained without an examination of civil society or, more specifically, slaveryXand vice versaXwas exactly what Marx argued and fought against *t might be argued that Beaumont&s comment refers only to the first volume of (emocracy in Kmerica and not to the second, published five years later, where the author addressed "customs" and "mores"X themes that properly belong to civil society !here is some merit to the retort but what !oc-ueville does present is a very incomplete description of civil society (Deither is it always clear, unlike the first

volume, if !oc-ueville is referring to >nited 2tates or @uropean realities ) Molitical economy, regarded then by many as the central component of civil society, is most undevelopedXan issue to be addressed later Ehatever the case, the reality of slavery, Blacks, *ndians, and women is even more tangential to his concerns in the second volume !homas 6amilton&s two7volume travelogue, Men and Manners in Kmerica, was published two years before (emocracy in Kmerica and Marie Beaumont drew on it in his discussion of > 2 religious life :Q Klthough the only explicit reference to 6amilton in the "Newish Ouestion" concerns electoral laws and the pervasiveness and commodification of religion, Marx&s extant notebooks indicate that he keenly read 6amiltonXin all likelihood the first detailed account of the >nited 2tates he had encountered :% !here is much to suggest that it was 6amilton&s reading of the >nited 2tates that Marx prioriti/ed for his assessment of the country and, by implicationXif my argument about the impact of the > 2 reality on him is correctXplayed a decisive role in the communist conclusions he would later draw :H Kgain, the focus here is the pre7communist Marx who had not yet concluded that the proletariat was the truly revolutionary class Mrecisely because he doesn&t understand this phase in Marx&s development, let alone his overall proJect, 2eymour "ipset gratuitously claims that Marx, on the basis of the latter&s reading of 6amilton, thought that socialism was on the > 2 political agenda as early as #H:$ :$ !he focus here is only on what Marx noted and excerpted from 6amilton&s work and what were some of the central claims 6amilton made about > 2 society Kside from the above7 mentioned references to 6amilton that Marx made, his notebooks excerpted other matters from the book Kmong them were the details of Sirginia&s electoral laws, specifically, the fairly high property -ualifications for who could vote and be electedXevidence for Marx about the limitations of the suffrage in what 6amilton called "the most democratic state in the >nion "L0 Marx cited a discussion on public schools in Dew @ngland including the interesting observation by 6amilton that their purpose was so that "every man shall -ualify for a useful member of the 2tate Do member of society can be considered as an isolated and abstract being, living for his own pleasure, and labouring for his own advantage "L# 4ould this have been an inspiration for Marx&s maJor argument about the desirability of reJoining egoistical and political manR "astly, there are the very important excerpts from 6amilton regarding class ine-uality and conflict in Dew Tork 4ity and the activities of what was apparently the recently formed Eorkingmen&s Marty, the first working class party anywhere !hese realities seemed to have escaped !oc-ueville&s observant eyes during his visit to the city at almost the same time, several months before 6amilton, in May #HL# 6amilton&s observations were exactly the evidence that Marx could rely on to make his case about the limitations of "political emancipation " !he last point speaks to a central difference between 6amilton&s entire book and (emocracy in Kmerica, its greater attention to both the class and racial ine-ualities in the >nited 2tatesXwhile recogni/ing at the same time what had been gained in the way of political democracy *t&s useful to note that his visit and book were prompted by the many claims being made in the newly7reformed parliament in "ondon about the wonders of > 2 democracy Ehile !oc-ueville sought to see what @uropeX?rance in particularXcould learn from the > 2 experience, 6amilton came with a certain degree of skepticism about the >nited 2tates as a model Ks for the class issue, 6amilton noted that it was the "Eorkies," as he called the Eorkingmen&s MartyX a tendency he was clearly leery of probably because they were in the forefront of the democratic impulseXthat demanded "e-ual and universal education " *t is false, they say, to maintain that there is at present no privileged order, no practical aristocracy, in

a country where distinctions of education are permitted !here does exist thenXthey argueXan aristocracy of knowledge, education and refinement, which is inconsistent with the true democratic principle of absolute e-uality !here are others who go still further, and boldly advocate the introduction of an KG3K3*KD "KE, and a periodical division of property !hese un-uestionably constitute the extreme gauche of the Eorky Marliament L: Marx&s above7cited comment about how the "state allows private property, education, occupation, to act in their way to exert the influence of their special nature" may indeed have been inspired by the "Eorky" program *t should be noted again that Marx wrote this before he had concluded that the proletariat would be the class to achieve the reali/ation of real democracy and, thus, human emancipation !hus, it may well be the case that the conclusions he would draw within a year and a half of writing the "Newish Ouestion" were profoundly influenced by what he learned from 6amilton !he latter had more to say not only about the Eorkies but other aspects of class ine-uality and tensions in the >nited 2tates, along with the prospects for class struggle Kgain, this is in sharp contrast to !oc-ueville&s account which says virtually nothing about the growing workers&s movement in the country !he other maJor theme in 6amilton&s account is its attention to racial ine-uality and the impact of slavery !hroughout both volumes he depicts the horrors of the institution and how it fostered racism beyond the slave holding states 6e reJected the views of the slave owners, with whom he discussed the issue, who claimed that they too favored abolition but were "slave holders by compulsion alone " 6amilton dismissed their excuses !he abolition they wanted was "of a peculiar kind, which must be at once cheap and profitable <to= enrich his master " !he real reason slavery was maintained was that its end would "put a stop to the cultivation both of sugar and rice in the >nited 2tates, and the compulsion of which the planters speak is the compulsion of money "LL *t was the "pecuniary interests" of the planters that explained its continuance ?or 6amilton material interests drove the "peculiar institution " More than anything, 6amilton viewed slavery as an affront to the democratic claims of the country, a "national disgrace " 6e was especially appalled by what he saw in the nation&s capital "Eashington the seat of government of a free people, is disgraced by slavery Ehile the orators in 4ongress are rounding periods about liberty in one part of the city, proclaiming, alto voce, that all men are e-ual, and that &resistance to tyrants is obedience to God,& the auctioneer is exposing human flesh to sale in another. <Fne day in Eashington he remembered when= the members of this enlightened and Kugust body <the 2enate= were driven to the 4apitol by slave coachmen, who were at that very moment waiting to convey them back, when the rights of man had been sufficiently disserted on for the day <!=hat slavery should exist in the district of 4olumbia, that even the footprint of a slave should be suffered to contaminate the soil peculiarly consecrated to ?reedom, that the very shrine of the Goddess should be polluted by the presence of chains and fetters, is perhaps the most extraordinary and monstrous anomaly to which human inconsistencyXa prolific motherXhas given birth "LI !he reality of Eashington helped to explain what he also took note ofXthe disproportionate influence of the slavocracy in the national government Ks for the future of the "peculiar institution'" "!o suppose that slavery can long continue in this country when other nations shall have freed themselves from the foulest stain which has ever polluted their humanity, is to contemplate a period when the >nited 2tates will become a nuisance upon earth, and an obJect of hatred and derision to the whole world " Knd in anticipation of the 4ivil Ear, 6amilton proclaimed' "My own conviction is, that slavery in this country

can only be eradicated by some great and terrible convulsion !he sword is evidently suspended1 it will fall at last "L5 *n no uncertain terms slavery for 6amilton had indeed made the >nited 2tates into a "defiled republic"Xwhat Marx would later note in his letter to "incolnXand undermined any claims for it as a model of democracy Ks will be seen shortly, this was clearly not the portrait that !oc-ueville had painted !hough none of this found its way into Marx&s extant notebooks it&s unlikely that it didn&t influence his reading of > 2 democracy ?or example, when he argued in the "Newish Ouestion" that even if the state was free of religious affiliation, religion could still have a hold on its citi/ensXthe tendency to encourage narrowness and separationXit&s likely that he had 6amilton&s narrative in mind, particularly, his account (see below) of racial segregation in Mrotestant denominations LQ Ehatever the case, 6amilton&s book, in combination with Beaumont&s Marie, introduced Marx to the reality of race and slavery in the >nited 2tates and doubtlessly was influential in his argument about the limits of political emancipation L% !oc-ueville&s Kmerica Klthough the only explicit reference Marx made to (emocracy in Kmerica concerns the country&s religiosity, it&s instructive at this stage of my analysis, before turning to the communist Marx, to look more closely at !oc-ueville !o start, how did the evidence from 6amilton and Beaumont that Marx employed in the "Newish Ouestion" and excerpted in his notebooks compare to what !oc-ueville had to offerR 2econdly, how did !oc-ueville&s account compare to what 6amilton had to say on the social ine-uality, race and slavery issues discussed aboveR Knd finally, how did !oc-ueville&s conclusions about > 2 democracy compare to those of MarxR 3egarding the >nited 2tates as "pre7eminently the country of religiosity," !oc-ueville, as already noted, was one of Marx&s sources for this characteri/ation "Fn my arrival in the >nited 2tates the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention," he stated But what is most notable about !oc-ueville&s account is the relative lack of concrete evidence about > 2 religious life 6is tendency instead was to make broad generali/ations without supporting evidence Kbout the >nited 2tates, for example, and no doubt betraying his admitted pro74atholic sympathies, "they,"Xthe 4atholicsX"constitute the most republican and the most democratic class in the >nited 2tates "LH Fr, in regard to 4hristians in general, "!hey are not hostile to anyone in the world they love their contemporaries while they condemn their weaknesses and lament their errors "L$ !o appreciate the reality of religion in the >nited 2tates, Marx turned to Beaumont and 6amilton !he picture they presented was more complex than !oc-ueville&s portrait and revealed that all was not as brotherly as he suggested 6amilton was critical, for example, of the racial practices of Mrotestants "Do white Mrotestant would kneel at the same altar with a black one 6e asserts his superiority everywhere, and the very hue of his religion is affected by the colour of his skin "I0 Beaumont cited 6amilton&s observation, possibly because it praised, he wrote, the 4atholic church for including "worshipers of all colours and classes" in their servicesXthe basis, perhaps, for !oc-ueville&s claim about 4atholicism&s democratic and republican credentials Beaumont also provided details on 4hristian sectarianism, particularly "l&hostilitY des protestants contre les catholi-ues1 la seconde est l&hostilitY de toutes les sectes chrYtiennes contre les unitaires "I# Ks a product and victim of Germany&s long history of religious sectarianism, all of this no doubt struck a responsive chord with Marx 3eligious sectarianism and the racial practices of Mrotestants to him were evidence of the "defect" of religionXagain, the separation of humans from one another

!hat Marx saw the need to cite !oc-ueville only once doesn&t mean, however, that he dismissed his account Fn the contrary, a case can be made that !oc-ueville&s observations about > 2 religiosity played a key role in the conclusions Marx drew about the limits of its democracy !he maJor theme in !oc-ueville&s discussion on religion was how, in distinction to @urope, the separation of church and state actually increased the influence of 4hristianity "*n the >nited 2tates religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion1 but it directs the customs of the community, and, by regulating domestic life, it regulates the state," !oc-ueville wrote I: 6e believed the influence of 4hristianity was one of the "causes to maintain democracy" in the >nited 2tates !he reality that !oc-ueville described in the >nited 2tates led Marx to draw very different conclusions !o understand why it must be noted that in his prior writings, especially his criti-ue of 6egel, Marx had argued that the problem in Germany, that of how to reali/e democracy, had to take into account the reality of civil societyXhumans in their social relations outside the state, such as the religious sphere !oc-ueville&s insight about the conse-uences of the separation of church and state in the >nited 2tates may indeed have been the basis for what Marx noted in !he 6oly ?amily, his first collaborative work with @ngels and written about a year after the "Newish Ouestion"' "religion develops in its practical universality only where there is no privileged religion (cf the Dorth Kmerican 2tates) " Marx continued, "in the developed modern state the dissolution of religion by the abolition of the state church, to this proclamation of their civil death corresponds their most vigorous life, which henceforth obeys its own laws undisturbed and develops to its full scope "IL Both statements are clearly consistent with !oc-ueville&s explanation for the flourishing of religion in the >nited 2tates II 2econdly, while !oc-ueville saw the non74hristian as suffering from an "aberration of intellect,"I5 for Marx, it was the religious believer who was afflicted with a "defect " *f !oc-ueville thought that 4hristianity&s regulation of "domestic life" sustained democracy because it regulated the state, Marx most certainly did not, as he argued in opposition to 6egel Dot only was religion a form of defective thinking, butXin anticipation of some feminist criti-ues of liberal democracyX"domestic" or "family life" for Marx meant the world of "patriarchal laws" which therefore made it "unfit where it was a -uestion of the political <i e democratic= state, of citi/enship IQ *n effect then, !oc-ueville provided Marx with Just the kind of evidence he needed to support his thesis about the limitations of a state7centered theory of democracy *f in the most democratic country in existence religious influence could not only persist but actually increase, then indeed political emancipation wasn&t sufficient for human emancipation !oc-ueville&s evidence and insight, therefore, allowed Marx to ground his thesis in a way he had not been able to until thenXfor Marx, a necessary step on the road to a communist perspective Ehat this suggests, thenXperhaps a moment in the development of nineteenth century political thought not appreciated until nowXis that !oc-ueville served as an important foil for Marx&s political development Eith regard to suffrage and related issues of private property and education, !oc-ueville claimed that "universal suffrage has been adopted in all the states of the >nion " ?urthermore, it was "the most powerful of the causes that tend to mitigate the violence of political associations in the >nited 2tates "I% Knother factor that helped to still the passions of the masses was that "in Kmerica there are no paupers Ks everyone has property of his own to defend, everyone recogni/es the principle upon which he holds it "IH 3egarding education, !oc-ueville noted that access to formal education was very limited and varied from one part of the country to the other, the least available in the 2outh and Eest !he "learned,"he offered, are very "few " Tet, he "was surprised to find so much distinguished talent among the citi/ens and so little among the heads of government "I$ !he most educated, evidently, were

not privileged when it came to the political arena ?or !oc-ueville, an inveterate elitist, this was not admirable " &Ehen the right of suffrage is universal, and when the deputies are paid by the state, it&s singular how low and how far wrong the people can go&, he had noted in his diary "50 Kn example of such an outcome was the election of (avy 4rockett to the 6ouse of 3epresentatives in #H:H from Memphis *f 4rockett, probably the most popular figure in the country after Kndrew Nackson, was a real hero for those wary of the increasingly elitist character of rule in the country, he was, for !oc-ueville, someone " &who has had no education, can read with difficulty, has no property, no fixed residence, but passes his life hunting, selling his game to live, and dwelling continuously in the woods 6is competitor, a man of wealth and talent, failed &" !oc-ueville&s diary account leaves little doubt about for whom he would have voted and his real opinion of universal suffrage Ks noted before, 6amilton&s account made clear that contrary to !oc-ueville&s assertion, universal suffrage was not a norm1 property -ualifications were very much in force 6is comments on education, however, were virtually in agreement with those of !oc-ueville !hese included the above7mentioned point about the low correlation between levels of education and occupation of political office Most divergent were their treatments of the issue of class and social ine-uality !oc-ueville did not deny the existence of social ine-uality in the > 2 Eith manufacturing came, he stated, "rich men," although "the class of rich men does not exist <they don&t act as a= definite class "5# But as is so often the case in !oc-ueville&s second volumeXwhere he addressed such -uestionsXit&s not always clear if he referred specifically to the >nited 2tates Ehatever the case he clearly feared that the ac-uisitive nature of > 2 society, especially that associated with the growing industrial revolution, would aggravate social ine-uality 5: !his was something Marx expected, "the effects of private property" acting "in their way " Kt the same time, !oc-ueville found that in the >nited 2tates, "fortunes are scanty and insecure" and the "e-uality of conditions prevents any <member of the community= from having resources of great extent "5L 6is chapter in the second volume, "*nfluence of (emocracy on Eages," is oftentimes insightfulXit even mentions "the constant struggle for wages between these two classes," i e "the workman" and "employer"5IXbut is not necessarily informed by the > 2 reality !hus, absent from !oc-ueville&s descriptions, especially in contrast to 6amilton, was the specificity of class conflict in the > 2 context 6is overall tendency was to focus on the factors that mitigated its possible eruption Knd since slavery, the most unambiguous expression of class ine-uality, was peripheral to his analysis of democracy, his forebodings about it centered at best on racial, not class conflict *n effect, !oc-ueville didn&t inform his reader about the class conflicts already underway in the >nited 2tates, let alone prepare them to understand how those conflicts would actually advance the democratic struggle !oc-ueville&s cursory attention to the class -uestion reflects a larger problemXthe absence of any sustained discussion on the > 2 political economy, particularly industrial development *t&s clear from his diary, notes and travel schedule that he simply had little or no interest in the matter, not only in the >nited 2tates but also in @ngland, which he visited a few years later "Beaumont also felt at a loss in trying to orient his friend <!oc-ueville= where it was a "-uestion of political economy "55 !his is in sharp contrast to his countrymen, Michel 4hevalier, who traveled to the >nited 2tates a couple of years later, for the same amount of time, and wrote extensively on the economic changes underway in the country !hat the latter was a follower of the utopian socialist 4laude 2aint72imon (#%Q0)#H:5) was no doubt determinant !hat !oc-ueville, on the other hand, was largely ignorant of political economy of any variety was also determinant Xin ways to be discussed later 2uffice it to note here the earlier observation, based on a comment by Beaumont, that political economy for !oc-ueville

appears to have been in the sphere of civil society and therefore, like race, and gender, tangential to the concerns of (emocracy in Kmerica !o the extent that he interested himself with economic matters in and beyond the book he came close to being a land determinist, believing that "<e=ssential political and psychological relationships in a society depended on the existing pattern of landholding "5Q !he contrast with Marx, who would soon conclude that socio7economic relations were central, couldn&t be starker Klthough !oc-ueville relegated the Black experience to the periphery, it&s important to look at what he did have to say 5% ?irst, his views on Blacks can only be described as racist' "we are almost inclined to look upon him as a being intermediate between man and the brutes," !oc-ueville claimed 5H 6e betrayed, as well, an essentialist opinion of race relations' "wherever the whites have been the most powerful, they have held the blacks in degradation or in slavery1 wherever the Degroes have been strongest, they have destroyed the whites' this has been the only balance that has ever taken place between the two races "5$ *t&s possible to dismiss such opinions on the grounds that they were representative of the times, which is partially true1 it&s not as if 6amilton was that much more progressive 6owever, there were others in ?rance who proceeded !oc-ueville who had far more enlightened ideas, specifically, KbbY GrYgoire, the author of the well7known anti7racist tract, (e la littYrature des DZgres, ou, 3echerches sur leurs facultYs intellectuelles (#H#0) *n this polemic, he critici/ed !homas Nefferson&s thesis of Black racial inferiority !oc-ueville had to be familiar with GrYgoire&s views Q0 Ks for his spin on slavery, !oc-ueville is certainly more tentative than 6amilton *t&s true that he considered that the free states were more "populous and prosperous" than the slave states Deither did he defend the institutionX"God forbid that * should seek to Justify the principle of Degro slavery "Q# But in devoting as much time as he does to explaining why it would be almost impossible to get rid of the "peculiar institution" he comes close to being its apologist Q: Merhaps this explains why his narrative, in comparison to 6amilton&s, gives little or no sense of the horrors of servitude for the slaves themselves !oc-ueville noted that while the laws in the 2outh were atrocious for slaves, the slavocracy, in fact, has "not augmented the hardships of slavery1 on the contrary, they have bettered the physical condition of the slaves "QL 6is description of sugar7cane cultivation in "ouisiana is strikingly at variance with 6amilton&s !oc-ueville was impressed by how "exceedingly lucrative" it was for the slave ownersXwhy it would be difficult to abolishXwhereas 6amilton, upon visiting such a plantation, was struck by how it "was only carried on at an appalling sacrifice of life" for the slaves QI *n providing a richly informed description of the depths of racial preJudice in the DorthX again, no doubt based on Beaumont&s researchX!oc-ueville suggests that things were actually worse there for Blacks than in 2outhern bondage Given the tone of his treatment, it&s no surprise that, unlike 6amilton, there is no sense of outrage in !oc-ueville&s account about slavery Ehile he had no hesitation in asserting that Nefferson was "the most powerful advocate democracy has ever had," 6amilton saw Nefferson, the slave owner, as the embodiment of the "national disgrace "Q5 *t becomes obvious why (emocracy in Kmerica, as well as Beaumont&s Marie, "appear to have excited no hostility toward <the authors= in the 2outh !hey caused no indignation among slaveholders "QQ Fr, it&s "no wonder that despite <Beaumont and !oc-ueville&s= condemnation of the principles and practices of slavery their works on Kmerica furnished ample material for the spokesmen of the anti7abolitionists in ?rance "Q% Deither is it surprising that a leading Black abolitionist "accused !oc-ueville&s writing of aiding &the perpetuation of Kmerican slavery &"QH Eith regard to slavery&s future and that of the union, !oc-ueville made a most telling comment about

his methodology' "2lavery has not created interests in the 2outh contrary to those in the Dorth 2lavery, then, does not attack the Kmerican >nion directly in its interests, but indirectly in its manners "Q$ !he differences between the Dorth and the 2outh, in other words, were not to be sought in matters of political economy, as 6amilton suggested, but rather in "manners" and "habits"Xtheoretical premises about which more will be said shortly *f !oc-ueville didn&t anticipate a war between the states to be fought over the slave -uestion, he was nevertheless pessimistic about the future of race relations in the country Given the situation in the Dorth, "* do not believe that the white and black races will ever live in any country upon an e-ual footing "%0 6ence, he predicted an all7out race war or the recoloni/ation of Blacks back to Kfrica as the only outcomes to the conflict Tet, in spite of his hedging, he was clearly opposed to slavery, but in typical !oc-uevillian fashion he seemed more fearful of what it would take to bring it to an endXa lot of bloodshed 6e doubted that such a price was worth the effort because "if liberty be given to the Degroes they will before long abuse it "%# *n contrast to 6amilton, !oc-ueville failed to foresee the 4ivil Ear and its significance for the advancement of democracy 6is foreboding about the coming carnage was sustained but clearly not in the way he thought Because of his assumption about democracy&s supposed fulfillment in the >nited 2tates, it could never occur to him that war would be necessary to make real democracy a living reality !hus, the absence of any discussion in his (emocracy in Kmerica of the seven year war that brought the democracy he so admired into existence 2ince slavery, for him, was a collateral issue, he could only be pessimistic about what it would take to end it Kny struggle to abolish it would be a detraction from the democratic impulse rather than an advance for it !hese, we&ll see, were Just the opposite of the conclusions drawn by Marx and @ngels Ehat most significantly distinguished Marx from !oc-ueville Xat this stage in the analysisXwas the former&s conviction that the vanguard example of the democratic movement was still very much a work in progress !oc-ueville&s portrait, including his claim that the >nited 2tates was the "absolute democracy," supplemented by those of Beaumont and 6amilton, revealed to Marx what remained to be done !he criteria he employed in reading !oc-ueville, based largely on his criti-ue of 6egel, allowed him to be more sober 3ooted on terra firmaXthe reality of the >nited 2tatesXMarx was now in a position to undertake the re-uisite in-uiry to learn what it would take to reali/e real democracy, the "sovereignty of the people " !he most politically liberated society had taught that as long as private propertyXthe fundamental underpinning of civil societyXwas in place then human emancipation, the reJoining of the social and political, was not possible *f there was now clarity on the diagnosis of the problem, then a prescription for its solution was in sight !his was the next stage in Marx&s -uest Fnly as a result of his political economy research in the next two years leading to what he and his new partner called their "materialist conception of history," would he be able to say in no uncertain terms that the overthrow of slavery was the necessary condition for full political emancipationXand thus, eventually, human emancipationXnot only in the >nited 2tates but in @urope as well Kgain, the conclusions Marx reached in #HIL about the limitations of the > 2 polity, based in part on his reading of !oc-ueville, were a necessary step in the position he would soon take on the "peculiar institution "%: !he Nudgement of 3ecent 2cholarship' K Balance 2heet 6ow has !oc-ueville&s portrait of > 2 democracy stood up to the test of modern scholarshipR Ehat about the conclusions that Marx reachedR !o be clear, the comparison at this time is their differing assessments of Nacksonian Kmerica, the period which informed (emocracy in Kmerica, as well as the texts of Beaumont and 6amilton !his was the historical moment, based on these texts, that informed

the young Marx en route to communism in making his earliest claims about the > 2 %L *n subse-uent chapters, especially !wo and !hree and the Kppendix, * will subJect Marx and @ngel&s views about developments leading up to and after the 4ivil Ear to the same kind of scrutiny Merhaps what testifies bestXfor the purposes of this bookXto Marx and @ngels&s accomplishments in the next two years is that their historical materialist perspective, and not !oc-ueville&s analysis, served as the framework for what is now considered to be the definitive account of the period, 4harles 2ellers&s, !he Market 3evolution' Nacksonian Kmerica, #H#5)#HIQ, published in #$$# 2ellers notes at the outset that his study is informed by "the most powerful conceptual tools for understanding Kmerica&s central transformation," namely, the perspectives of Marx and @ngels %I !he central theme of his work is that the Nacksonian period can best be understood as one engulfed in a gigantic class struggle between what he calls, on one side, the "developmentalist capitalist" forces and, on the other, the array of "patriarchal republicans " !he former constituted those who were prepared to employ and expand an activist state to put in place the re-uisite institutions and infrastructure to promote a capitalist mode of production !he latter embodied the Neffersonian ideal of the small rural white male property owner K particular strength of 2ellers&s work, and more relevant for present purposes, is that it treats the religious ferment underway in the country that !oc-ueville and Beaumont reported on as a key component of the anti7developmentalist coalition in all of its contradictory manifestations Ks 2ellers demonstrates, there was a deep reactionary side to the second "Kwakening," one that exhibited the kind of defective thinking that Marx associated with religion 2ellers shows how all of this was reflected in the political realignments of party politics Eith Nackson as its titular leader, the coalition sought to put a halt to the market revolution engineered by the "developmentalists " Kt stake was not Just the country&s heart and soul but its very direction' would it become a full7fledged and, later, advanced capitalist country with all that implied for class formation, or the agrarian republic in the image of Nefferson !he outcome, of course, was victory for the developmentalists But as 2ellers, pointedly concludes, on the eve of the 4ivil Ear, "market revolution made slavery the great contradiction of the liberal Kmerican republic "%5 !he portrait that 2ellers paints is -uite different than that of !oc-ueville *t isn&t the case that the latter necessarily misrepresented reality but provided a description that was totally incomplete Eith his almost exclusive focus on what Beaumont described as the political "institutions," !oc-ueville offers at best a snapshotXfull of errorsXthat lacks a sense of the big ferment underway that 2ellers describes or the seismic forces that drove the "great contradiction " Ehat !oc-ueville presents are political institutions, minus the driving force of the politics of civil society "ittle wonder that much of modern political science analysis finds !oc-ueville so attractive %Q *n contrast, there is the even more incomplete evaluation by MarxXagain, on the road to communist conclusionsXbut one whose outlines anticipates 2ellers !hough the historical materialist assumptions of his analysisXparticularly, the tensions and conflicts between different modes of productionXwould take Marx and @ngels two more years to formulate, the attention that 2ellers gives to the religious tumult underway in Nacksonian Kmerica is exactly what Marx honed in on while reading !oc-ueville, Beaumont, and 6amilton 6e already grasped, unlike !oc-ueville, that religiosity, religious conflict and sectarianism reflected more fundamental aspects of civil society that political institutions alone couldn&t explain *t was indeed this reali/ation that led him to an examination of, as he would later explain, the "anatomy of civil society," that is, political economy !wo years later, the "new world outlook" of historical materialism would emerge

Bruce "evine&s 6alf 2lave and 6alf ?ree' !he 3oots of 4ivil Ear, published a year after 2ellers&s book in #$$:, covers similar terrain but fleshes out the details of the "great contradiction" that the latter concludes with Ks the title indicates, "evine&s masterly synthesis of extant research argues that the 4ivil Ear was the result of "two antagonistic systems of social organi/ation " 4onsistent with Marx&s historical materialist perspective, he demonstrates convincingly that the "distinctive ways in which Dorth and 2outh organi/ed their labor systems left their mark on all aspects of regional lifeXincluding family, gender, and leisure patterns and both religious and secular life 2uch cultural changes, in turn, deeply influenced political life "%% !oc-ueville, it may be recalled, didn&t view the differences between the Dorth and 2outh in their political economies but rather in "manners" and "habits " !he latter, for !oc-ueville, appear to have an independent existence ?or "evine they are the product of the two very different systems of production More recently, Knthony Gronowic/&s, 3ace and 4lass Molitics in Dew Tork 4ity Before the 4ivil Ear verifies at the local level many of the developments that 2ellers and "evine describe nationally, but with the added emphasis on race Gronowic/ proves that previous research on the period, especially, 2ean Eilent/&s classic study, 4hants (emocratic,%HXthat tried to explain the class struggle without taking into account race and racial slaveryXwas woefully inade-uate Ehile !oc-ueville also slighted the effects and dynamics of chattel bondage in his accountXthat he spent time in Dew Tork during his visit is noteworthy Xfor Gronowic/ they are central in understanding the city&s politics in the Nacksonian era !he limitations of the workers&s movement prior to the 4ivil Ear on the race and slavery -uestions, what Gronowic/ focuses on and what 2ellers in part means by the "contradictions" of the anti7 developmentalist coalitionX"patriarchy, racism, and feesimple property"%$Xis exactly what Marx alluded to in his #HQI letter to "incoln More completely, he wrote' "Ehile the working men, the true political power of the Dorth, allowed slavery to defile their own republic1 while before the Degro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white7skinned labourer to sell himself and choose his own master1 they were unable to attain the true freedom of labour or to support their @uropean brethren in their struggle for emancipation " Fr, as he put it in 4apital three years later' "*n the >nited 2tates of Kmerica, every independent movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery disfigured a part of the 3epublic " Ks long as the movement of free labor, therefore, failed to fight for the liberation of bonded labor but rather "boasted" of what (avid 3oediger calls the "wages of whiteness," its own struggle against the "developmentalists" could never succeed !he details of Gronowic/&s work will be examined in chapter L Ks for the many specific claims in (emocracy in Kmerica, there exists a fairly extensive body of literature that severely -uestions !oc-ueville&s portrait @dward Messen&s book, 3iches, 4lass, and Mower before the 4ivil Ear, remains the most detailed and exacting challenge *ts purpose was "to determine the extent to which" the claim that Nacksonian Kmerica was an &era of the common man,& whose "chief architect was Klexis de !oc-ueville," is actually "borne out by the evidence "H0 Messen subJected key claims in !oc-ueville&s work to empirical data 3egarding !oc-ueville&s assertion that the "e-uality of condition" in the >nited 2tates prevented any of its citi/ens "from having resources of great extent," he concluded' "!he notion that antebellum Kmerica lacked substantial fortunes is not borne out by the evidence, primarily, as will be noted, because of its faulty assumption concerning the alleged distribution of &resources to all members of the community &"H# !he data also -uestioned !oc-ueville&s most basic claim about "the general e-uality of condition among the people " ?acts "establish that increasing ine-uality rather than e-uality was a central theme of Kmerican life during

the &era of the common man &"H: Ks to the claim that the wealthy were not involved in the country&s governance, the data suggested otherwise' "the more affluent classes and &those who carried on the business of the country& had a great deal of influence over the government of the nation&s cities during the second -uarter of the nineteenth century <to the contrary= the rich appear to have been a true &governing class & (espite his possession of the suffrage, the common man had little influence, let alone power, in the nation&s cities during the era named in his honor "HL *n general, the young Marx would not have been surprised at Messen&s findings given the position he had reached earlier about the "effects of private property to act in their way " Ks for the suffrage -uestion, Klexander Keyssar purports to contest in his recent work the supposed findingXwhose "most well7known early celebrant" was !oc-uevilleXthat "the history of suffrage," at least in the >nited 2tates, "is the history of gradual, inevitable reform, and progress " 6e presents overwhelming evidence that this was simply not the case !oc-ueville&s specific claim that "universal suffrage has been adopted in all the states of the >nion" was patently false, not only for women, non7 slave Blacks, migrants, the poor and felons but also for significant numbers of working class white males at the time when (emocracy in Kmerica was published in #HL5 Ehile it is true that the latter ac-uired, on average, more access to the vote before their cohorts in @urope did, Keyssar shows convincingly that they did so prior to becoming members of the working class as small farmers or petty artisans !he "critical fact," he concludes, is "that the reforms of the antebellum era were not designed or intended to enfranchise a large, industrial, and partially foreignborn working class "HI "evine also disputes !oc-ueville&s mantra about the e-uality of condition in the non7slave owning areas of the >nited 2tates 6e begins chapter two with a -uote from !oc-ueville to this effect and then systematically presents evidence to the contrary !he particular focus is on increasing disparities in wealth and ownership of property from the inception of the republic to the 4ivil Ear "evine presents data and opinions about > 2 social reality during the period of !oc-ueville&s visit that convincingly challenge his claim 6e concludes with the bleak assessment made by Mhilip 6one in #HI%' "Fur good city of Dew Tork has already arrived at the state of society to be found in the large cities of @urope1 overburdened with population, and where the two extremes of costly luxury and living, expensive establishments, and improvident waste are presented in daily and hourly contrast with s-ualid misery and hopeless destitution "H5 !oc-ueville&s description of the city in #HL# would not have prepared its readers for such an evolution Sarious retrospectives were made on the enduring value of the first volume of (emocracy in Kmerica on the ses-uicentennial anniversary of its publication *n #$H5, a number of these were collected in 3econsidering !oc-ueville&s (emocracy in Kmerica, edited by Kbraham @isenstadt !he volume brings together a number of distinguished scholars from various disciplines who subJect !oc-ueville to a critical review !o varying degrees they raise serious -uestions about his classic as an accurate portrayal of the reality he claimed to have describedXcriticisms that are elaborated on in the aforementioned works !he most recent, and perhaps most well7known, challenge to !oc-ueville&s overall reading of the >nited 2tates is the monumental effort of 3ogers 2mith, 4ivic *deals' 4onflicting Sisions of 4iti/enship in > 2 6istory 2mith argues that the main problem with the !oc-uevillian interpretation is that it focused only on the "political life" of the >nited 2tates, which appeared "remarkably egalitarian in comparison to @urope "HQ 2uch an interpretation tends to ignore the "array of fixed, ascriptive hierarchies" throughout the history of the countryXespecially, the subordination of women, Dative Kmericans and BlacksXthe painstaking details of which is the substance of his tome !he title of chapter eight, "6igh Doon of the Ehite 3epublic' !he Kge of Nackson, #H:$)#H5Q," leaves little to the

imagination 2mith describesXin great detailXhow the country that !oc-ueville visited in #HL#)#HL: was in the process of creating a democratic republic that excluded non7whites "*f ever an era fit <an= account in which racist, nativist, and patriarchal views structured Kmerican political development and conflicts as fully as liberal republican ones, this is it "H% 2mith&s criti-ue, nevertheless, is fundamentally within !oc-ueville&s own framework "ike the latter, his is the "political cause of liberal democracy "HH Ehat he faults !oc-ueville and his modern7day followers for is ignoring the existence of the "Ehite 3epublic" for most of the country&s history and failure for not advocating a more inclusive liberal democracy !he young Marx would have argued, on the other hand, that even if the ascriptive hierarchies had been dismantled, the liberal democratic polity would still have been inade-uate for the task of human emancipation H$ Given his affinities with !oc-ueville, it&s no accident that as comprehensive as 2mith&s case is it is devoid of what Marx considered crucial, the undemocratic impact of private property on the political processXin other words, the class -uestion * will critically revisit 2mith&s thesis in the 4onclusions ?inally, there is Michael Goldfield&s recent book, !he 4olor of Molitics' 3ace and the Mainsprings of Kmerican Molitics, an in-uiry also informed by Marx and @ngels&s perspective $0 6is main interest is the historical interaction between race and color in the >nited 2tates *n the process he draws on a number of their observations, some of which have been -uoted earlier Much of what Goldfield has to say will be addressed in subse-uent chapters 2uffice it to note here that with facts and figures he is able to show convincingly that there was in the >nited 2tates in the decades leading up to the 4ivil Ear Xthe Nacksonian era, and contrary to what !oc-ueville suggestedXa national ruling class profoundly tied to wealth, whose economic base was slavery *n sum, then, modern and current scholarship challenges, successfully in my readings, the portrait !oc-ueville painted of Nacksonian Kmerica and sustains the incipient class analytic perspective of the young Marx Ks a last piece of evidence for this claim, a case can be made that Marx offered a convincing explanation why !oc-ueville&s interpretation of the era misses the mark !o do so re-uires an appeal to Marx the communist, who was now armed with his historical materialist framework *n a letter to Noseph Eeydemeyer in Dew Tork in #H5:, Marx observed' "in the >nited 2tates bourgeois society is still too far immature for the class struggle to be made perceptible and comprehensible " $# 6e was referring, specifically, to the pre7eminent economist in the >nited 2tates, 6enry 4arey, and the limitations of his analysis, but his comment could Just as well have applied, and even more Justifiably, to !oc-ueville, whose work was based on observations made two decades earlier $: !here was a striking similarity between their views Both saw class conflict as relevant only in the @uropean setting and certainly not in the >nited 2tates, which lacked a feudal legacy *f, as Marx suggests, that it was difficult to see the class struggle in #H5:, then for !oc-ueville in #HL#, before the "developmentalist coalition" had consolidated its rule, it was even harder Marx&s observation is valid but it begs other -uestions1 why was 6amilton able to be sensitive to the incipient class struggle in the >nited 2tates and !oc-ueville notR !o employ the mature Marx again and his own experience, which he himself acknowledged, it was not until he went to the homeland of 6amilton in #HI5Xthe site of the most advanced capitalist country, BritainXthat he fully appreciated the industrial revolution then well underway *t was no accident that it was @ngels, who had spent two years in Manchester, in the entrails of the industrial revolution, who led Marx to study political economy !oc-ueville, owing to his class and national originsXthe relatively underdeveloped character of ?rance

vis7[7vis BritainXhad too many feet in the past to be fully cogni/ant of what was underway in the >nited 2tates 6amilton was located in a framework of the most advanced developments Ks noted earlier, !oc-ueville had difficulty interesting himself in political economy @ven in his first trip to @ngland in #HLL his "interest was in castles and landed estates rather than its factories and railroads "$L Deither did !oc-ueville&s intellectual ancestry prepare him to grasp what was unfolding Marx believed that his contributions were based on the pioneering work of intellectual giants like (avid 3icardo, Kdam 2mith and Names 2teuart, as well as 6egel, none of whom !oc-ueville, as far as can be determined, had been exposed !o the extent that !oc-ueville was informed by a theoretical presupposition, it was, as he stated in the introduction to his work' "!he gradual development of the principle of e-uality is, therefore a providential fact"Xa claim that he repeated in prefaces to subse-uent editions of his book $I (ivine intervention in the final analysis was the explanation for what he claimed to have found in the >nited 2tates *n a letter to Nohn 2tuart Mill in #HLQ, he described himself as a " &new kind of liberal,& seeking to base a stable civic culture not upon a materialistic individualism but upon a socially integrating religion "$5 Ehat this revealed, as 2eymour (rescher correctly argues, is that !oc-ueville lacked a "systematic theory of social change "$Q ?or Marx, the appeal to religion as a foundation for a philosophical, methodological or political perspective was exactly the kind of defective thinking that he critici/ed in 6egel and to which he sought an alternative !hat 4hristianity for !oc-ueville was the only valid religionX*slam and 6induism certainly weren&tXwas further evidence for Marx of the paucity of thought that religion fostered, expressing itself in all forms of sectarianism $% 6aving said this, * am fully aware of !oc-ueville&s subse-uent travels to Britain and the impact it had on him But this raises another interesting -uestion Ehy didn&t he address in introductions to later editions of (emocracy in Kmerica any reflections on new ideas or changes under way in the >nited 2tates, which he no doubt followedR Marx and @ngels often used prefaces and introductions to new editions of their works to revisit claims based on new developments or new data !hat !oc-ueville did utili/e the occasion of the twelfth edition of his work in #HIH, in the aftermath of the revolutionary upheavals in ?rance and elsewhere in @urope, to acknowledge the "sudden and momentous events&" revealed that he could indeed be conscious of the times in which each edition appeared Dot only did he not recogni/e the need to rethink anything about his analysis but he advocated even stronger for the >nited 2tates as a model for @urope Ehat the preceding suggests is that in addition to the inade-uacies and defects of his framework, there was another dimension of !oc-ueville that figured significantly in the image he drew of the >nited 2tatesXhis own political core, his most basic political instincts "ike Marx and @ngels, !oc-ueville, too, was the product of the ?rench 3evolution, perhaps even more so than Marx and @ngels But Just as 2talinism in the aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution left for some doubts about the desirability of revolutionary overturns, the !error in ?rance had performed the same function for many in the aftermath of its 3evolution !oc-ueville, owing to his class origins, was a victim of the 3evolution and a prime example of such sentiment !he guillotine had taken its toll on his own family !hus, his particular spin on the >nited 2tatesXthe reali/ation of democracy without a revolutionary struggleXthat has many latter7day adherents Ehile the drive toward e-uality was, as he argued, inexorable, his story of the >nited 2tates showed that it could be forged without revolutionary intervention by the masses Ks @urope erupted in revolution in #HIH, beginning in ?rance in ?ebruary, he urged the @uropean

readers of the latest edition of his book to look to the >nited 2tates as the embodiment of democratic governance "!he institutions of Kmerica ought to be a subJect of study for republican ?rance *t is not force alone, but good laws that give stability to a new government Kfter the combatants comes the legislator1 the one has pulled down, the other builds up," he wrote Knd in recognition of the revolutionary situation he had to faceXfor a truncated time hopefullyX"each has his office "$H !he belief that the legislative arena and not the streets was the center of politics is what Marx and @ngels soon came to callXon the basis of practical experience with individuals who held views similar to those of !oc-uevilleX"parliamentary cretinism " Dothing better captures !oc-ueville than this admission in a self7reflective moment sometime between #HL$ and #HI#' &My mind is attracted by democratic institutions but * am instinctively aristocratic because * despise and fear mobs Kt the most fundamental level, * passionately love freedom, legality, respect for rights, but not democracy * hate demagoguery, the disordered action of the masses, their violent and unenlightened intervention in public affairs * belong neither to the revolutionary nor the conservative party But, when all is said and done, * incline towards the latter rather than the former because * differ from the conservatives over means rather than ends, while * differ from the revolutionaries over both means and ends &$$ !his suggests that !oc-ueville was not incapable of seeing what Marx and @ngels anticipated and later explained, and is now verified by current scholarshipX> 2 class formation and conflict in the making 6is second volume, published in #HI0 five years after the first tome, clearly saw the possibility for such a messy reality since it was already underway in @urope But the political conclusions he would have had to drawXthe need for a revolutionary mass movement to prevent 2ellers&s "developmentalists" and all that !oc-ueville despised about them from establishing their hegemonyX went against his political grain !he 3evolution and the !error had cast too long a shadow over him !oc-ueville&s disposition reminds one of the individual that ?rederick (ouglass had in mind in his oft7 -uoted speech on the eve of the 4ivil Ear' "!hose who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground " Merhaps it was his fundamental dislike for the plow of mass struggle that led !oc-ueville to overstate the si/e of the harvest that he so desired, without sweat, blood, and all that accompanies the "disordered action of the masses " Marx and @ngels&s political core was Just the opposite of !oc-ueville&s !hey reveled in the fight !hey were heartened whenever the oppressed anywhere went into motion against their oppressors 2heldon Eolin, in his new book on !oc-ueville, is right to say that in contrast to the latter, "Marx thought of politics as a form of combat " But the remainder of the comparison is invidious !o posit that "!oc-ueville might be the last influential theorist who can be said to have truly cared about political life" and that "<f=ew of his contemporaries did," is dead wrong #00 !here was nothing in Marx&s life, nor that of @ngels, to suggest that either "truly cared about political life" any less than !oc-ueville But what he and his partner understood and the latter could not fathom was that "caring" wasn&t enough 4ombat is at the heart of class politicsXon either side of the barricades !he -uestion is whether one is willing to put in the re-uisite time, energy, and sacrifice to Join the battle 6istory revealed that !oc-ueville was not so disposed while Marx and @ngels were, and single7mindedly so !he excerpt from (ouglass&s aforementioned speech could easily have been authored by either of them @xactly because they sincerely believed, like (ouglass, that "*f there is no struggle there is no progress," they understood in their bones what it would take to bring about real democracy in the >nited 2tatesXthe subJect to which we now turn

Dotes ?or details on Marx&s political evolution at this stage see my Marx and @ngels' !heir 4ontribution to the (emocratic Breakthrough (Klbany, D T ' 2>DT Mress, :000), chapter # 4 B Macpherson, !he "ife and !imes of "iberal (emocracy (Fxford' Fxford >niversity Mress, #$%%), p #0 6al (raper, Karl Marx&s !heory of 3evolution, Sol * (Dew Tork' Monthly 3eview Mress, #$%%), p 5$ :%, p I05 Q, pp I$H, 50I *n the catechismic style of his draft, @ngels wrote, in reply to the -uestion, "Ehat will be the course of this <proletarian= revolutionR"' "*n the first place it will inaugurate a democratic constitution and thereby, directly or indirectly, the political rule of the proletariat "(Q, p L50) (raper, !he Knnotated 4ommunist Manifesto (Berkeley' 4enter for 2ocialist 6istory, #$HI), pp #%5)%%, makes a convincing case that unlike @ngels in his draft, Marx was deliberately vague in his usage of "democracy" here and in other passages in the Manifesto, mainly because he was not as clear as his partner on the role of the democratic struggle in the transition to socialism Eithin a year, however, he had clearly embraced @ngels&s position Q, p LLL :%, p :%# LH, p #0: Marx, Grundrisse (Middlesex, @ngland' Menguin Books, #$%L), p HHI (hereafter, Grundrisse) #, p #Q% Marx wrote this in #HI: Dote the similarity to what he said twenty7five years later in the Mreface to 4apital about his reason for beginning the in-uiry with the analysis of the commodity' " in the analysis of economic forms neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of assistance !he power of abstraction must replace both But for bourgeois society, the commodity7form is the economic cell7form," or, later, "its elementary form " 4apital, Sol * (Dew Tork' Menguin, #$%%), pp $0, #:5 !he commodity, in other words, as the "pure case" for understanding of capitalism L, p #:0 !his crucial fact about Marx&s writings in this period is exactly what 2eymour "ipset ignores or doesn&t understand in his clumsy effort to challenge Marx&s understanding of the > 2 reality 2ee his "Ehy Do 2ocialism in the >nited 2tatesR" 3adicalism in the 4ontemporary Kge, eds 2eweryn Bialer and 2ophia 2lu/ar (Boulder, 4olo ' Eestview Mress, #$%%) More about "ipset&s legerdemain later ?or a most informative discussion on Marx&s usage of "civil society" see Nan 3ehmann, " &Kbolition& of 4ivil 2ocietyR' 3emarks on a Eidespread Misunderstanding in the *nterpretation of &4ivil 2ociety,& " 2ocialism and (emocracy, Sol #L, Do : (?all)Einter #$$$) (raper&s discussion of the articles and their context is first rate as well as his appendix, "Marx and the @conomic7New 2tereotype," which convincingly disputes the anti7semitic charge often directed at the work (Karl Marx&s !heory of 3evolution, vol #, respectively, chapter 5 and pp 5$#)Q0H) Gary !eeple&s reading of the two articles is also useful, especially if read together with (raper1 Marx&s 4riti-ue of Molitics' #HI:)#HI% (!oronto' >niversity of !oronto Mress, #$HI), pp #00)#0H ?or a more recent reading that also does Justice to Marx&s argument, see T Meled, "?rom !heology to 2ociology' Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx on the Ouestion of Newish @mancipation," 6istory of Molitical !hought #L(L)' IQL)H5, ?all #$$: 5, p :LQ L, p #50 !he replies of evolutionary biologist (avid 2loan Eilson to a reporter&s -uestions about his study of religion would have probably resonated with the young Marx and the "eft 6egelians Ehile religion

may have promoted what he calls a "guarded egalitarianism" and "willingness of people to cooperate with others," it could also be divisive "3eligions and other social organi/ations may preach kindness and cooperation within the group, but they often say nothing about those outside the group, and may even promote brutality toward those beyond the brotherhood of the <bee= hive !hat has been the dark side <Marx&s "defect"= of religion" (Dew Tork !imes, (ec :I, :00:) ibid , p #5# ibid , p #5L ibid , pp #Q:)QH ibid , p #%# 4ommenting on the brief spurt in religiosity in the > 2 in the aftermath of 2eptember ##, 3obert Euthnow, director of the 4enter for the 2tudy of 3eligion at Mrinceton >niversity, made a comment that Marx would have understood all too well' " &Ee are in some ways a very religious country, especially compared to Eestern @urope,& Mr Euthnow said &But we&re of two minds, and the other mind is that we are pretty secular Ee are very much a country of consumers and shoppers, and we&re -uite materialistic Knd as long as we can kind of paste together a sense of control through our ordinary work and our ordinary purchases, we&re pretty happy to do that& "(Dew Tork !imes, Dov :Q, :00#, p BQ) Marx later remarked on the > 2 )Eestern @urope difference1 see below, pp #:)#L ibid , p #55 5, p :#% *t&s possible that Marx relied on !homas 6amilton&s observations, cited below, about the Eorkingmen&s Marty in Dew Tork in making this point I#, p L$0 Gustave de Beaumont, Marie or, 2lavery in the >nited 2tates (Baltimore' !he Nohns 6opkins Mress, #$$$), p % !homas 6amilton, Men and Manners in Kmerica, : volumes (@dinburgh' Eilliam Blackwood, #HLL) >nfortunately, the #$$$ edition of Marie doesn&t include the appendix on religious groups that refers to 6amilton&s book ?or the reference, see Marie ou "&esclavage aux Wtats7 >nis, 5me Wdition (Maris' 4harles Gosselin, #HI:), p :%# Marx8@ngels, Gesamtausgabe, Kbt I, bd : (Berlin' (iet/ Serlag, #$H#), pp :QQ)%5 6amilton&s characteri/ation of the money7grabbing Dew @nglanderX"!he whole race of Tankee pedlars resemble the News"Xmay have been the basis for Marx&s central argument in the second article about the Nudai/ation of the 4hristian world 2ee 6amilton, Sol #, pp ::$)L0 Maximilien 3ubel, "Dotes on Marx&s 4onception of (emocracy," Dew Molitics, vol #, no : (Einter #$Q:), pp HL)H5, also argues that 6amilton exercised a decisive influence on Marx 6is treatment, however, is far more suggestive and less systematic than what is presented here "ewis ?euer, "!he Dorth Kmerican Frigin of Marx&s 2ocialism," Eestern Molitical Ouarterly, vol US*, no # (March #$QL), pp 5L)Q%, makes a similar argument but with particular focus on 6amilton&s treatment of the Eorkingmen&s Marty of Dew Tork and in greater detail K close reading of both 3ubel and ?euer reveals that my argument differs significantly from their reading of Marx&s reading of the >nited 2tates "ipset, pp L5)LQ 6amilton, vol #, p :#% Marx and @ngels, Gesamtausgabe, Kbt I, Bd :, pp :QH)Q$ ?or the comparable pages in 6amilton, see Sol #, pp ::#):: 6amilton, Sol #, pp :$$)L0# ?or details on the party in Dew Tork at the time see Knthony Gronowic/, 3ace and 4lass Molitics in Dew Tork 4ity Before the 4ivil Ear (Boston' Dortheastern >niversity Mress, #$$H), chapter L 6amilton, Sol :, pp ::Q):% ibid , pp #I:)IL 6amilton also denounced !homas Nefferson for hypocrisy' "4ontinually puling about liberty, e-uality, and the degrading curse of slavery," he not only fathered children by his slaves but later, according to 6amilton, sold them into slaveryXa charge that has greater credence given the recent (DK findings about his descendants 2ee Sol #, pp L:I):5

ibid , pp ::5, ::% ibid , p :#0 !here are other interesting issues addressed by 6amilton worth noting but are not necessarily germane to the topic at hand Fne, for example, was the protective tariffs& policy of the > 2 government, which 6amilton opposed *t&s possible that this was not only Marx&s introduction to the topic but one from a perspective, i e against protectionism, that would figure significantly in his political economy writings *t should be made clear that no claim is being made here that Marx necessarily agreed with all of 6amilton&s views !oc-ueville, vol #, p L## ibid , p L:I 6amilton, vol :, p :#0 Beaumont (#HI: edition), pp :%:)%5 Kgain, unfortunately the recent @nglish edition of Marie does not include the appendix, 2ur le Mouvement 3eligieux aux Wtat7>nis !oc-ueville, vol #, pp L#I)#5 I, pp ##Q)#% *f Marx was indeed informed by !oc-ueville&s insight, it reveals Xespecially in the context of his larger argument in which these statements originateXthe difference between the feudal and the modern state, Marx went much further to explain the fundamental differences between both states, i e , beyond Just how they related to religion ibid , p L:# "4ontribution to the 4riti-ue of 6egel&s Mhilosophy of "aw," L, p $I !oc-ueville&s claim must have seemed contradictory to Marx given his assertion that other components of > 2 civil society such as slavery and the treatment of *ndians were "collateral" to an explanation of democracy 6is other assertion, that the 4atholic 4hurch was a paragon of democracy, must have appeared ludicrous to Marx in view of his criti-ue of the 4hurch (p 5#) Marx&s criti-ue of "patriarchal laws" anticipates 3heinhardt&s criti-ue of !oc-ueville&s defense of "Kmerica&s gendered hierarchy"(p Q$) !oc-ueville, vol #, pp :0Q, :0I ibid , p :5I ibid , pp L:%, :0% George Eilson Mierson, !oc-ueville in Kmerica (Baltimore' Nohns 6opkins >niversity Mress, #$$Q), p Q0H !oc-ueville, vol :, p #%0 * owe this insight about !oc-ueville to "aura Nanara, specifically, chapter I of her dissertation, "Kfter the Mother' Kuthority, Kutonomy and Massion in !oc-ueville&s (emocracy in Kmerica," >niversity of Minnesota, #$$H !oc-ueville, Sol :, pp :50, :5H ibid , p #$$ !oc-ueville makes another interesting observation in explaining why the modern state tends to grow in power' "the manufacturing classes <workers= re-uire more regulation, superintendence, and restraint than the other classes of society, and it is natural that the powers of government should increase in the same proportion as those classes " ibid , L:% 6ere, he makes clear that he is only referring to @urope though the implications for the > 2 in his thinking can only be speculated on 2eymour (rescher, (ilemmas of (emocracy' !oc-ueville and Moderni/ation (Mittsburgh' >niversity of Mittsburgh Mress, #$QH), p 5In *bid , p 5Q !hough it would be instructive to look at !oc-ueville&s views on Kmerican *ndians, given the almost complete absence of anything comparable in Marx * have confined this discussion to the situation of

Blacks in his analysis ?or a thoughtful criti-ue of his views on *ndians, see Eilliam @ 4onnolly, "!oc-ueville, !erritory and Siolence," !heory, 4ulture \ 2ociety, Sol ##(#$$I), #$)I0 !oc-ueville, vol #, p L%: 3egarding Marx and @ngels&s views on Blacks, see, p :5 n H5 ibid , p L%L !oc-ueville was active in ?rance&s abolitionist circles (more about in 4hapter !wo), a milieu that was influenced by GrYgoire&s book ?or the new @nglish edition, see 6enri GrYgoire, Kn @n-uiry 4oncerning the *ntellectual and Moral ?acilities, and "iterature of Degroes (Dew Tork' M @ 2harpe, #$$%) !oc-ueville, vol #, p L$I ?or a somewhat similar assessment, see Meter Kugustine "awler, "!oc-ueville on 2lavery, Kncient and Modern," 4omparative *ssues in 2lavery, ed Maul ?inkelman (Dew Tork' Garland Mublishing, *nc , #$H$) ibid , p L$5 ibid , p L%Hn1 6amilton, vol :, p ::$ !oc-ueville, vol #, p :H0 (rescher, (ilemmas of (emocracy, p #HIn *bid , p #%% 3einhardt, p QI *n the section of his book from which this comes, 3einhardt makes a case similar to the one presented here !oc-ueville&s "evasion of the politics of actively confronting slavery is more than a refusal to invent easy and fanciful solutions to complex and stubborn problems1 it amounts, despite his moral distress and the acuity of his analyses, to the subversion of his condemnations, to a backhanded legitimation of this condition " (p QQ) ibid , p I#: ibid , p LH$ ibid , p L$% !his is a curious comment Eas he referring to the 6aitian 3epublic or, perhaps, the Dat !urner rebellion in #HL#, the year of his visit, to which he made no explicit reference anywhereR !he argument here is anticipated to some degree in Maximilien 3ubel, "Marx and Kmerican (emocracy," Marx and the Eestern Eorld, ed Dicholas "obkowic/ ("ondon' >niversity of Dotre (ame Mress, #$Q%), and 3obert Eeiner, "Karl Marx&s Sision of Kmerica' K Bibliographical and Bibliographical 2ketch," !he 3eview of Molitics, vol I: (Fct #$H0), Do I 6owever, a close reading of both articles reveals that in the former the thesis is not really proven to the degree it is here while in the latter the significance of Marx&s reading of !oc-ueville is not fully appreciated *t&s likely that other materials also informed him but the extant record only reveals these sources 4harles 2ellers, !he Market 3evolution' Nacksonian Kmerica, #H#5)#HIQ (Dew Tork' Fxford >niversity Mress, #$$#), p Qn *bid , p L$Q !his is not to imply in any manner that Marx and @ngels, in their move toward political economy, ignored political institutions !o the contrary Kny close and honest read of the young Marx would reveal not only sincere interest in but detailed attention to the state and its various institutions ?or a useful summary of the evidence for this claim, see !eeple, chapter 5 "evine, pp #I)#5 2ean Eilent/, 4hants (emocratic' Dew Tork 4ity and the 3ise of the Kmerican Eorking 4lass, #%HH)#H50 (Dew Tork' Fxford >niversity Mress, #$HI) 2ellers, p Q @dward Messen, 3iches, 4lass, and Mower Before the 4ivil Ear ("exington, Mass ' ( 4 6eath, #$%L), p # 2ee also, Messen&s debate with a !oc-ueville partisan on some of these -uestions in 3evue !oc-ueville (#$H#)#$H:) ibid , p :Q ibid , p IL

ibid , pp :$H)H$ Klexander Keyssar, !he 3ight to Sote' !he 4ontested 6istory of (emocracy in the >nited 2tates (Dew Tork' Basic Books, :000), pp xvii, %Q "evine, p %0 3ogers M 2mith, 4ivic *deals' 4onflicting Sisions of 4iti/enship in > 2 6istory (Dew 6aven' Tale >niversity Mress, #$$%), p #% *bid , p #$$ *bid, p I%: !his was exactly what he understood about the oppression that News faced in Germany in both the political and civil spheres1 he was resolute, it should be -uickly added, in defending religious and political freedom for News ?or details, see (raper, Karl Marx&s !heory, Sol #, pp ##0)#L Michael Goldfield, !he 4olor of Molitics' 3ace and the Mainspring of Kmerican Molitics (Dew Tork' !he Dew Mress, #$$%) L$, p Q: 2ee @ric ?oner&s "Dew *ntroductory @ssay" in his ?ree 2oil, ?ree "abor, ?ree Men' !he *deology of the 3epublican Marty Before the 4ivil Ear (Dew Tork' Fxford >niversity Mress, #$$5), p xxi (rescher, p !oc-ueville, vol #, pp xi, Q Nack 6ayward, Kfter the ?rench 3evolution' 2ix 4ritics of (emocracy and Dationalism (Dew Tork' Dew Tork >niversity Mress, #$$#), p #I$ (rescher, p :%H ?or a critical assessment of !oc-ueville&s religious views, see Michael "evin, !he 2pectre of (emocracy' !he 3ise of Modern (emocracy as 2een by its 4ritics (Dew Tork' Dew Tork >niversity Mress, #$$:), pp ##5)#H !oc-ueville, vol #, p ix !oc-ueville, Mon *nstinct, mes opinions," -uoted in Kntoine 3Ydier, 4omme disait M de !o-ueville (Maris, #$:5), p IH1 -uoted in 6ayward, p #I$ 2ee Klso, KndrY Nardin, !oc-ueville' K Biography (Dew Tork' ?arrar, 2traux, Giroux, #$HH), p L05, for a more abbreviated version of this statement !o understand in a broader sense what !oc-ueville meant see 3oger Boesche, !he 2trange "iberalism of Klexis de !oc-ueville (*thaca' 4ornell >niversity Mress, #$H%), and Klan 2 Kahan, Kristocratic "iberalism' !he 2ocial and Molitical !hought of Nacob Burckhardt, Nohn 2tuart Mill, and Klexis de !oc-ueville (Dew Tork' Fxford >niversity Mress, #$$:) 2heldon 2 Eolin, !oc-ueville Between !wo Eorlds' !he Making of a Molitical and !heoretical "ife (Mrinceton' Mrinceton >niversity Mress, :00#), p 5