plete liberty and possibilities of development of the workers, individually and as a class.
The Communists think that they are uttering deep wisdom when they speak of "formal democracy." They teach us that the equality of citizens under democracy is but a formal equality, as economic inequality is not thereby removed. That the mere casting of a vote is an empty form, as the economic relations of power are not thereby disturbed. We knew all this quite well at a time when the present Communists were still in their cradles, but it has not prevented us from agitating for democracy. For it spells freedom of investigation, of discussion, of propaganda; the freedom of public meeting, and of organisation; the fullest participation in the self-government of municipalities and provinces, in the legislation of the State, and in the control and determination of the Government.
Only a fool can assert that all these liberties and possibilities are of a merely formal nature, and make no difference to the position, the capacities, and strength of the: proletariat, and the labouring masses.
In lucid moments the Communists themselves recognise the importance of democracy, and believe it will be of use to them, as they say that the proletariat needs democracy—which in their eyes is an instrument of capitalist domination—only so long as the capitalist class rules. So soon, however, as the proletariat has captured the power, democracy ceases, according to Communist doctrines, to be a means for the development of proletarian strength and capacity. Then it becomes a danger for the proletariat; henceforth the proletariat must renounce all independence, and submit itself blindly to the absolute domination of the Government which it has placed in power. According to this conception, the proletariat needs democracy only when it is in the fighting stage, but when it is successful it requires an Absolutism, which is different from Czardom only by its communist enlightenment. It may well be wondered how such a doctrine could find dis-
45
