DEMOCRACY

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22003, 29 January 1937, Page 8

DEMOCRACY

TO THE EDITOB OP THE PRESS. Sir,—"Confident Democrat's" contribution to the discussion under the heading "Democracy" in to-day's issue leaves me with the responsibility of giving a definition and a differentiation of bourgeois and proletarian democracy. The ideals of bourgeois democracy are exemplified in its attitude in general towards all forms of social advancement and struggle op the part of the bulk of the people. The imperialist governments of the world must of necessity impose legislative' measures of a reactionary, repressive nature, incidental to their policy, of class oppression and exploitation. Between bourgeois democracy, representing the section of the community that visualises no other order than that of personal aggrandisement* and the masses in general, no logical balance can be struck. The retention of the improvements and concessions gained by the united efforts of class conscious individuals and organisations from this conservative democratic order is obviously vital. The inference of the correspondent that my attitude is that of pacifism is definitely correct, .so far as it applies to my determination of non-partici-pating in any war instigated for the

purpose of preserving the corrupt demagogy of capitalistic oligarchy. On the other hand, pacifism cannot possibly be considered in relationship to the inevitable clash between the forces of decadent capitalism, fascist organisations, in the awakening masses. You can term it a moral obligation, the sense of self preservation, but the cardinal point becomes more prominent daily, namely, that the survival of a pseudo democratic regime, championed by leading units in the British National Government, actively assisting Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, fylosley, and other aspirants to fascist "distinction" must be liquidated. The Spanish fascist offensive constitutes the greatest living indictment against the order sponsored by imperialism, through its pawns, Hitler and company, who have always termed themselves democrats. Historical social events of an international nature, which have occurred during the last few years, have demonstrated very visibly to observei-s that the path of social democracy has a decided trend for lascism, the direct antithesis of true democratic reform. The term democracy, as represented by the correspondent, covers too many contradictions to be accepted in a loose sense and an analysis is vitally imperative. All forms of class oppression are perpetrated in its name. Basically, to assume that a genuine democracy could possibly exist in an order which functions by one small class exploiting the majority is, to put it mildly, grossly illogical. "Confident Democrat" must determine with which phase of democracy he is to put himself in alignment—the spurious form which recognises armed state oppression and persecution to maintain its existence, or a true democracy which insists on functioning entirely divorced from class oppression, and domination. —Yours, etc., J. W. THOMPSON. Springfield, January 28, 1937.