In the capitalist system, economic processes are separated from democratic oversight, and the concept of a self-regulating market prevails. When the economy determines the living conditions of the majority yet the majority lacks democratic participation in economic decision-making, the legitimacy of democracy becomes a fundamental and often overlooked issue. Against this backdrop, Katarina Peović argues for a democratic protagonism of the working masses in her contribution to the “Deep Democracy” series.
*
Parliamentary democracy is frequently characterized as being in crisis. Although the ‘end of history’ was proclaimed after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, nearly four decades later, a credible alternative has yet to materialize. Recent calls for reform are exemplified by the mass protests in Serbia in 2024 and 2025, organized by students, against the regime of Aleksandar Vučić. These protests began after the collapse of a canopy at the Novi Sad railway station, which resulted in sixteen fatalities. Since November 1, 2024, demonstrations have persisted with minimal interruption. The largest protest, held on March 15, 2025, in Belgrade, reportedly attracted approximately 300,000 participants.
The student movement promotes direct democracy through mechanisms such as plenums, grassroots political engagement, the absence of prominent leaders, depersonalization, the establishment of working groups, and collective decision-making. These practices are largely absent from mainstream parliamentary politics. In their public statements, students consistently emphasize the importance of direct democracy. For instance, in the ‘Letter to the People of Serbia,’ they attribute their successes to self-organization grounded in the principles of direct democracy and plenary sessions, contrasting this with representative democracy, where power and responsibility are delegated to elected officials. According to the students, direct democracy guarantees that all individuals are equally consulted and share equal responsibility for decisions that affect them.
The student movement exemplifies revolutionary practice, in which the working class (understood in the widest possible sense) becomes a transformative agent through collective struggle. Revolutionary practice involves both the transformation of living conditions and the self-transformation of participants. As Karl Marx asserted, “The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.” This perspective indicates that protesters are themselves transformed through collective action. Practice, collective engagement, and the pursuit of governance for the common good are fundamental to the establishment of participatory democracy.
This approach differentiates contemporary movements in the 21st century from the socialist experiments of the previous century. Current struggles prioritize protagonism and participatory organization. Full human development is considered achievable only through active participation in a democratic and protagonistic society. Consequently, participatory democracy is regarded as essential for 21st-century socialism, whether in the workplace, community, or broader society. A key lesson from previous socialist experiments is that revolutionary change cannot be accomplished solely by a vanguard party; broad inclusion and participation are required, and participatory democracy is fundamental to both collective action and individual transformation.
Nondemocratic character of production in capitalism
Critiques of parliamentary democracy frequently focus on issues such as tolerance, human rights, and access to public services, while the organization of production is often overlooked. Despite the nominally democratic nature of many societies, the majority does not participate in decisions about what, how, or for whom goods are produced. Capitalism often leads to the production of unnecessary or even harmful goods for profit, while essential goods may be neglected if they are unprofitable or produced in insufficient quantities. Production, a fundamental human activity that transforms society and nature, is subordinated to the reproduction of capital. In capitalism, the circulation of commodities primarily serves to increase capital.
The capitalist economy has led humanity to a point where its continued collective existence is threatened. The climate crisis, armed conflicts, and global migrations present states of emergency of such magnitude that the possibility of the end of human civilization has become a credible concern.
The organization of student protests in Serbia was preceded by significant demonstrations against the corporation Rio Tinto between September 2021 and 2022. These earlier environmental protests demanded the rejection of mining investments and lithium exploitation, which posed pollution risks in Serbia while supplying materials for lithium-ion batteries primarily used by the automobile industry in Germany. This case, among others, demonstrates the absence of democratic oversight in capitalist production, a condition that contributes to the risk of future environmental catastrophe. Currently, major global institutions, particularly those regarded as democratic, warn of critical challenges such as global warming, biosphere destruction, excessive resource extraction, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, and the urgent need for disarmament in response to nuclear threats.
“Capitalo-parliamentarism”
The division between the economic sphere, which is frequently situated outside the purview of parliamentary democracy, and liberal democracy with its parliamentary mechanisms, intensifies the problem. The economy, encompassing the production and distribution of goods, constitutes a fundamental human activity. In the capitalist system, economic processes are separated from democratic oversight, and the concept of a self-regulating market prevails. When the economy determines the living conditions of the majority yet the majority lacks democratic participation in economic decision-making, the fundamental and often overlooked issue of the legitimacy of democracy arises. As Nancy Fraser stated, this issue is “the institutional separation of ‘economy’ from ‘polity’– a separation that expels matters defined as economic from the political agenda of territorial states, freeing capital to roam in a transnational no-man’s land where it reaps the benefits of hegemonic ordering while escaping political control.”
Philosopher Alain Badiou describes this phenomenon as “capitalo-parliamentarism.” While democracy is generally viewed positively and capitalism is subject to critique, the central issue is that capitalist parliamentary democracy has institutionalized the separation between the capitalist economy and democratic decision-making. In this system, decisions regarding what, how, and for whom to produce are inaccessible to the social majority. To maintain minority control and the appropriation of societal benefits, the majority is fragmented and divided, with competitiveness imposed among workers rather than unity, organization, and solidarity.
The professional-managerial class perspective
The political left has shifted its base from the working class to the middle class. Members of left-wing parties are now predominantly drawn from the middle class, rather than the traditional working class, as was the case with communists before World War II. Previously, middle-class intellectuals advocated for workers’ rights alongside proletarians. Barbara and John Ehrenreich identified a new class emerging in the 1950s and 1960s, termed the “professional-managerial class.” This group consists of educated professionals, including scientists, engineers, teachers, social workers, writers, journalists, accountants, lawyers, and middle managers. The professional-managerial class is positioned in opposition not only to capitalist interests but also to those of the working class.
The radicalism of the left during the 1960s, culminating in 1968, reflected the increasing self-confidence of the professional-managerial class. Although this class, like the working class, sells its labor power, it occupies a position of relative autonomy from capital and faces distinct competitive pressures in the labor market. Due to its more favorable position in the social division of labor, the professional-managerial class is associated with intellectual and high-skill occupations and often displays contempt for manual and low-skill workers, commonly referred to as blue-collar workers. Within the new left, this dynamic has produced an anti-worker divide, characterized by patronizing attitudes and disdain. Conversely, within the working class, there has been a rise in anti-communism, often fueled by right-wing populists. This anti-communism frequently highlights the perceived snobbery and elitism of members of the professional-managerial class.
The composition and status of the professional-managerial class have changed since its peak in 1968. Since the 1980s, the decline of the welfare state, reductions in public spending, and the reorganization of the social division of labor have reduced the relative autonomy of the professional-managerial class and increased competition in favor of private capital. The nature of the professional-managerial class roles is also evolving. Some roles are losing significance, while others are gaining prominence. One possible approach for a mass revolutionary left movement is an alliance between radicalized members of the professional-managerial class and workers.
Class struggle is impossible without socialist theory
This recalls Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s 1902 pamphlet “What is to be Done?,” in which he argued that the awakening of working-class consciousness and awareness of class struggle is impossible without socialist theory, a body of thought developed by members of the bourgeois class, notably Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founders of scientific socialism. As Lenin stated, “Without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement.” A key lesson from the 20th century and the experience of real-existing socialisms grounded in Marxist theory is the centrality of democracy. These regimes often diverged from Marxist principles and ideals of equality, solidarity, and justice, ultimately generating anti-communist sentiment among the working class.
The differences between optimistic spontaneity, which is the belief that the working class will overthrow capitalism due to its position and historical necessity, and the avant-garde scenario, in which a determined minority takes the lead, are acknowledged but not addressed here. In practice, vanguard parties and party elites frequently claimed to represent the will and interests of the working class (‘dictatorship of the proletariat’), yet failed to prevent undemocratic rule by a minority.
Therefore, the democratic protagonism of the working masses is essential to overcoming the capitalist system of social hierarchy. Such changes are urgently needed. The question of a post-capitalist society must be situated within the broader framework of class analysis. The form of democratic protagonism evident in the current protests in Serbia is one possible model for change.