Reposted from the International Communist Review: http://www.iccr.gr/site/en/issue2/communist-and-the-so-called-socialism-of-the-21st-century.html
Pável Blanco Cabrera
Member of the central committee of the Communist Party of
México
In memory of Vladimir Ilich Lenin, on the
occassion of the 140th anniversary of his birth.
The world counterrevolution of the end of the 20th century
gave impulse on the ideological field to the thesis of the end of the
history, a campaign directed to affirm capitalism for all eternity,
centered on questioning the validity of Marxism-Leninism and to disarm to the
working class and the opressed people in their struggle for emancipation. Also
known as deideologization this pretension designed by thinkers in
service to imperialism had as premise to discredit the theory of communism and
the praxis of socialist construction using the effect of the crisis that
carried to the temporary retrogression of the working class in the USSR and
other countries of the socialist field in Europe, Asia and Africa. At the
same time, taking advantage of the confusion of the momment in the workers'
movement and in the communist parties – several of which renounced to their identity
and objectives in order to transform themselves into socialdemocrat parties-,
it cultivated the surge of new forms of dominant ideology, such as
postmodernism and other variants to influence not only in universities and
centers of formation, culture and art, but to permeate unions, popular
movements and organizations, left political forces, progressive intellectuals
and also to impact negatively in communist and workers parties.
The general objective of imperialist strategy was not
achieved, since reality cannot be holded to a straight jacket, and class
struggle did not stop for a single second, regardless of the fact that
counterrevolution, triumphant at that moment, presented with propaganda
historical events distorted to its favor. Today –two decades after the Berlin
Wall and all that volley of irrationality- capitalism at crisis has the working
class and the communist and anti-imperialist movements confronting it in all
continents. Nevertheless in a secondary way this served as breedign ground
for a series of approaches that today can become constraints to carrying the
struggle to new favorable levels for the international working class and the
peoples of the world. Various of these approaches converge in the so
called "Socialism of the 21st century".
The so called "Socialism of the 21st century"
cannot be identified with the theoretical elaboration of a single political and
ideological current, since its the confluence of diverse currents identified by
their hostility to Marxism-Leninism and to the international communist
movement: for example various trotskyist groups; heirs of the new left; latinoamericanist
marxists; supporters of movementism and neo anarquist; intellectuals that
consider their contribution produced in the frameworks of the academy as
indispensable and essential for social processes. The paternity of such
concept can not be attributed to a single current, to a single author, although
they all have sought as platform the actual processes in Latin America,
particularly in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, but without renouncing to be
considered as universal and disqualifying like unfeasible all that can not be
grouped under its approaches. Another element of their positioning is
that they insist on the "new", “innovative”, "novel" character
of their proposal in front of which they consider the workers' movement of the
20th century and the ideas of Marxism-Leninism as old and out dated.
In class struggle, since the conditions of social
development made possible the creation of the materialistic conception of
history, its not the first time that communists confront themselves with
currents that in the name of socialism present the positions of the petite
bourgeoisie, its not the first time that reform or revolution are placed face
to face.
In The German ideology and in The Manifesto of the
Communist Party, just fot citing two works of Karl Marx and Friederich
Engels, adjustments are done with "true socialism", "reactionary
socialism" ("feudal", "petite bourgeois"), with
"reactionary or bourgeois socialism" and with
"critic-utopian communism and socialism". In another work,
result of the polemic of Marx and Engels with Düring (although the work as was
custom in the division of tasks of the teachers of the proletariat carried only
the sign of one of them) the following is affirmed: "Since the
capitalist mode of production has appeared in the arena of history there has
been individuals and entire sects who projected more or less vaguely, as a
future ideal, the appropriation of all means of production by society.
However, so that this was practical, so that it became a historical necessity,
the objective conditions for its execution were needed to be given first.[1]”
A synthesis of the criticisms of Marx and Engels shows us
that not everything that is presented in the name of socialism has to do with
the historical role of the proletariat and of the communists:
The negation of socialism built in the 20th century.
Among the promoters of the so called "Socialism of the
21st century" there is a fundamental coincidence: the demarcation and
rejection to the socialist construction experience in the USSR and in other
countries of Europe and Asia. Some of them go further blaming the own
October Revolution assuming the old ideas of Kautsky and the opportunists of
the II International on the immaturity of the conditions for the conquest of
political power by the working class and the impossibility of socialism because
what corresponded was to develop capitalism, deriving from here the bases for
the alleged separation between democracy and communism; to explain that It was
all condemned beforehand to failure. However the generality is that
although they vindicate 1917 October the developers of "Socialism of the
21st century" assume the Trotskyist critics towards socialist construction
and to the role of the Bolshevik Party particularly, and to Marxism-Leninism in
general, in fundamental matters that we are going to examine further
ahead. In this they are can not be differentiated from for example the
theses assumed by the opportunistic group of Bertinotti for the V Congress of
the Refoundation Communist Party of Italy in the year 2002, that planted a
"radical interruption with regard to the experience of socialism as it
was carried out", something to which they also refer as to a
"radical break with stalinism".
Some of those –really reactionary- ideas preached as
characteristics of the so called "socialism of the 21st century", is
argued, are not criticized in the name of tactics. In order not to
torpedo the process in Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador that are in the center of
the anti-imperialis struggle of Latin America. There are even communist parties
that integrate such concept to its routine vocabulary, to propaganda and to the
programmatic question.
We do not believe –upon setting our divergent and critical
point of view- to lack respect for those processes, which we support, of which
we are supportive. These processes were not born with the flag of
"socialism of the 21st century" and they have advanced a lot with
relation to their initial programs, but is necessary to add that they are not
consolidated processes and that the ideological confusion that is promoted with
the "socialism of the 21st century" can carry them to defeat.
With Marx we say that a step of the real movement is worth more than a thousand
programs, adding that an erroneous program as north of the movement can conduct
it off the cliff. It is a duty of the communists to place scientific
socialism as the road of the working class and of all the peoples, defending
Marxist-Leninist theory and the praxis of socialist construction in the USSR
and in other socialist countries.
Before proceeding to a serious, scientific study of the
experience to extract the necessary lessons for overthrowing capitalism the
historical experience of the working class is condemned based on premises
elaborated by reaction or by opportunism, reformism and revisionism.
Communists reaffirm that in the same way in which the little more than 70 days
of the Comune of Paris provided extraordinary teachings that enriched the
revolutionary theory of the proletariat, the experience of socialist construction
that started with the Great Socialist Revolution of October constitutes a
valuable patrimony for the heritage of the proletariat in its fight for
socialism and communism and that it constitutes a serious error to reject or
avoid it. We coincide with what is expressed in the document of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of Greece On the 90th
anniversary of the Great Socialist Revolution of October "One of the
main tasks of communist ideological front is to restore to the eyes of the
working class the truth about socialism in the 20th century, without
idealizations, objectively, free of petite bourgeois slanders. The
defense of the laws of development of socialism and, at the same time, the
defense of the contribution of socialism in the 20th century suppose an answer
to the opportunistic theories that speak of "models" of socialism
adapted to "national" pecularities, they also respond to the
defeatist discussion about errors.[2]”
Emerging subjects versus working class
The developers of "Socialism of the 21st century"
coincide all in that the revolutionary role of the working class today is
occupied by other "subjects", calling inclusive to the construction
of new social agents; They resort to arguments of the new left, of
marcusianism, of t 60’s and 70’s, on the gentrification of the working class,
on their fragmentation, on the "end of labor". They call to
rethink the concept of "worker" and without performing that exercise
they pass to claim social movements, indigenous, the "multitude" as
the center of the transformation.
A very important aspect of Marxism-Leninism is the
clarification of the role of the proletariat. Lenin express it
thus: "The fundamental thing in the doctrine of Marx is that it
emphasizes the historical international role of the proletariat as the builder
of socialist society" and further on the same work he expresses:
"All doctrines of socialism that have not a class character and of the
politics that are not of the class, showed to be a simple absurd[3]”.
There have been changes that is true, but in no way they destroy the
contradiction in capitalism that is the one existing between the bourgeoisie
and the proletariat; in no way do they destroy the fact that the proletariat is
the only consistently revolutionary class to carry to the very end not only the
overthrow of bourgeois order, but the emancipation of the whole human
genre. They do not take into account that their role is determined by
their place in production, by their objective role in economy. The proletariat,
the working class, the workers, in function of acquiring class conscience
"for themselves" not only emancipate themselves, but all human kind.
Nobody will deny that in political struggle the working
class needs and should forge alliances with the opressed mass of the peoples.
But there exists a distance with that and the affirmations of those who search
for "new social actors" assigning them a liberating role above class
conflict when reality shows how passenger movements are.
Socialism without Revolution and… without party
"Socialism of the 21st century" claims that
neither the conquest of power or destruction of the State is necessary, but
with the conquest of government it is possible to initiate a new road. Because
of it all its developers do not speak of overthrowing, of breaking, of
Revolution, but jumping that vital need, they present post capitalism and they
devise already programs to transit to a new society. Because of it in the
speech of this political-ideological nonsense not the most minimum strategic
approach exists that conducts to the destruction of the State.
Consequently neither any worry regarding the construction of a revolutionary
party of the working class exists, a party of vanguard, a communist party.
What for? if it does not claim the working class as the interested in burying
the exploiters?, If Revolution is not claimed as the moment in which the
working class overthrows capitalism?, If the possibility of undertaking post
capitalist transformations is claimed in the framework of the old bourgeois
State?
Let us take into account that besides planting that "in
the Socialism of the 21st century" private and social property are able to
and should coexist, inclusive the praise of a socialist market is done.
When the programmatic approaches of "Socialism of the
21st century" are observed one can not stop from noting the similarity
with what was the democratic- bourgeois Revolution of 1910 in Mexico and the
period of greater radical nature in the developments that happened during the
government of Lazaro Cardenas in 1934-1940. During that six-year period
it was established that in schools, social organizations and in state
administrations along with the national anthem, The Marsellaise and The
Internationale were sung; an impressive distribution of lands was carried out,
a true agrarian reform; oil up till then in the hands of the American and
English monopolies was nationalized and in general a politics of
nationalizations was opened that conducted to the result that in the 80’s 70%
of the Mexican economy was nationalized; even a great aid to the Spanish
Republic was given. From this, under the influence exercised by
browderism illusions on the Mexican Revolution as way to socialism grew. Just
like the followers of today’s "Socialism of the 21st century" then
they spoke of a State placed above classes and of class struggle, as a lever
for development. For Marxists-Leninists the State is not a referee above
the classes in combat, its the apparatus of domination, of repression, in the
case of capitalism, of the class that has the property of the means of
production and of change, the bourgeoisie. Nationalizations are not by
themselves socialists, therefore in the case of Mexico they showed to be a
mechanism for centralization and concentration of capitalism.
In stead of contradiction among capital and labor: north
against south, center against periphery.
Another notion sustained by "Socialism of the 21st
century" notes as a fundamental problem to resolve the contradiction
between the rich North and the poor South, parting from deceitful statistics
and above all leaving sideways that both in the north and the south of the
Planet class struggle exists; the same thing is the harmful idea of the center
versus periphery that intends to ignore that we live in the monopolist phase of
capitalism, the higher phase of capitalism which is imperialism and that all
the countries are immersed in it, as well as with relations of interdependency.
It is not a matter of minor differences but of different
roads.
There are those who sustain that in reality such proposal
has come to bring up to date the debate on the alternative against capitalism
today in crisis; that that is its value and relevance and that besides its a
critical focus that with a similar ideological base than ours helps to
surpass the errors of socialist construction bringing fresh air.
We try to show here some questions in which the followers of
"Socialism of the 21st century" converge, however it is necessary to
affirm that we face a proposal that is not structured, but that results from a
mixture of positions, in some cases based on aspects of marxism, of
christianity, of the ideas of bolivarianism; eclecticism dominates.
They express that participatory democracy, cooperatives and
self-management will come to give answer to the "authoritarianism" of
the Dictatorship of the proletariat. And in short they throw
incoherent concepts with the purpose of torpedoing communist theory; but without
arguments; nowadays a position, tomorrow another; full confusion as the calling
to the construction of a "V International" with enemies of the
workers like the Institutional Revolutionary Party of Mexico.
Contemporary struggle requires to advance firmly grouped
around the red flag of communism, for the transformation of the material
conditions of life, for the abolition of bourgeois relations of production by
the only possible way, the revolutionary way. Confusion helps In nothing, the
maelstrom of incoherent approaches that are raised with the debated concept and
that in last instance only are presented to retouch capitalism trying the
unrealizable operation of "humanizing it". For the working
class, and not only in Latin America, for the class-conscious forces and
revolutionary forces the duty is to fortify the communist parties that inscribe
in their principles and program, in their action the historic experience of the
workers of the world to overthrow capitalism and to build socialism, from the Paris
Comune to the October Revolution.
It is nevertheless necessary to conclude that “Socialism of
the 21st century” is an alien position and even opposed to
Marxism-Leninism and to the international communist movement in not only
questions of politics but ideological matters. It corresponds to the
communist parties to raise the red flag for the development of class
conscience, the organization in class of the proletariat and the assembly of
exploited and opressed workers, the construction of the necessary alliances
with all interested in overthrowing capitalism with an objective that since
1917 has full force and validity, Socialist Revolution. Its a task of the epoch
that we live at, that of imperialism and proletarian revolutions, and there is
no space left for "compromises" neither for confusion.
Bibliography
Marx, K.; Engels, F.; Collected Works in two Tomes; Progress
Editorial; Moscow; 1971
Marx, K.; Engels, F.; The German ideology; Ediciones de
Cultura Popular; México; 1979
Lenin, V.I.; Collected works in three tomes; Progress
Editorial; Moscow; 1977.
[1]
Engels, F.; From utopian to scientific socialism; in Collected Works by
Marx & Engels in two Tomes; Tome II; Progress Editorial; Moscow; 1971; Pg.
149
[2]
Communist Party of Greece; On the 90th anniversary of the Great Socialist
Revolution of October; in Propuesta Comunista number 51; Ediciones del
Partido Comunista de los Pueblos de España; 2007; Pg. 48.
[3]
Lenin, Vladimir Ilich; Historical destiny of K. Marx’s doctrine; in
Marx, Engels, Marxism; Foreign Languages Editions; Moscow; 1950; Pág. 77 y 78.
******************************************************************************
Editor's Note: Compare this then to Sam Webb's "A Party of 21st Century Socialism: What it says and what it does"... - Koba
No comments:
Post a Comment