November 30, 2012
Table of Contents
Revolutionary Spirit
Published
November 30th, 2012
Why Socialism? by J. Bialek
An ABC of Communism: A Study Course by Tony Clark
A Brief Guide to the Ideological Differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism: A Study Course by Tony Clark
Prostitution and Ways of Fighting It by Alexandra Kollontai
Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution and a Legal Response to the Demand for Prostitution by Janice G. Raymond
Ernesto "Che" Guevara: A Rebel Against Soviet Political Economy by Helen Yaffe
Resolution on the Situation in Syria by International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO)
Resolution on the West African Region and Mali by International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO)
On the International Situation by International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO)
The Colonies and Oppressed Nations in the Struggle for Freedom by League Against Imperialism and for National Independence
Socialism – class struggle in the Soviet Union (1936-1953). The revolutionary trials of the 1930’s as the continuation and escalation of the class struggle by the Movement for the Reorganisation of the Communist Party of Greece 1918-55
Published
November 30th, 2012
Why Socialism? by J. Bialek
An ABC of Communism: A Study Course by Tony Clark
A Brief Guide to the Ideological Differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism: A Study Course by Tony Clark
Prostitution and Ways of Fighting It by Alexandra Kollontai
Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution and a Legal Response to the Demand for Prostitution by Janice G. Raymond
Ernesto "Che" Guevara: A Rebel Against Soviet Political Economy by Helen Yaffe
Resolution on the Situation in Syria by International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO)
Resolution on the West African Region and Mali by International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO)
On the International Situation by International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (ICMLPO)
The Colonies and Oppressed Nations in the Struggle for Freedom by League Against Imperialism and for National Independence
Socialism – class struggle in the Soviet Union (1936-1953). The revolutionary trials of the 1930’s as the continuation and escalation of the class struggle by the Movement for the Reorganisation of the Communist Party of Greece 1918-55
Why Socialism?
by J. Bialek
The spectre which once haunted Europe long ago in
1848, materialized in corporeal form in 1917 and was seemingly exorcized in
1991 has returned in force. This time the “spectre of communism” is haunting
the entire world. In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published the Manifesto of the Communist Party, also
called The Communist Manifesto, in
order to explain to the population at large the general beliefs of communists,
and to differentiate communists from liberals and other social movements which
existed during that revolutionary era.
Today it cannot be denied that we are once again living in a revolutionary era. As capitalism continues to degenerate, demonstrating with each passing day that it has outlived its usefulness to the vast majority of humankind, we see violent explosions of popular rage, ranging from peaceful demonstrations to chaotic riots. The ruling class and its “free” press would have us believe that even in these dark times progress is being made. We have the Arab Spring, a series of revolutions supposedly made possible thanks to the help of the Western-developed Twitter and Facebook. The Occupy protests, which complained of a media blackout during its infancy, soon managed to capture the attention of the world and to make its mark on the year 2011. As the media would have it, all that is necessary to solve the ills of the world are “democratic” revolutions in certain countries such as Egypt, but not in others such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Yemen, and of course maybe a little more participation for “the little guy” in American politics. While the press has in recent years admitted that there are some flaws in the global economic system, those who have been paying attention since the start of this crisis might have noticed an explosion of increasingly shrill anti-communist propaganda.
The renewed interest in Marx and his theories, along with a rising tide of dissatisfaction and nostalgia for pre-1989 life within the former Eastern Bloc nations and the ex-U.S.S.R., has clearly sent chills down the spines of Europe’s elite. Their message could not be more clear. On one hand the media concedes that something is broken with the capitalist system, but on the other hand it warns the working class not to consider alternatives to capitalism. They are once again trying to exorcize this spectre that is haunting them, and indeed terrifying them; they insist that the working class limit their protests against the system so as to fit within the boundaries established by the ruling class. For them the greatest tragedy would be the rejection of the slogan that there is no alternative to capitalism and the assumption that mankind has reached its peak of societal evolution in the system of free markets and commodity trading. So here we are again, so far from 1848, and communists are again compelled to disclose their ideas and distinguish themselves from all other factions who claim to have a solution to our present crisis.
In these times of crisis it comes as no surprise that working people find themselves faced by a large number of proselytizers from a wide spectrum of ideological backgrounds preaching the superiority and explanatory power of their ideas. Each has an explanation as to why we are in this crisis today and a set of proposals which can supposedly solve the problem. In this marketplace of ideas, Marxists cannot pretend as though we sit above the fray, treating our theory as some kind of esoteric revealed knowledge in a manner similar to many of those aforementioned ideologues. We have an explanation, a theory, but what sets us apart is not simply our assertion that these are true, but rather that what we are truly offering is not so much a set of pre-packaged answers which constitute some kind of universal truth, but rather a methodology of analysis which allows people to find what can reasonably be judged as true. This is not to state that we do not believe in the correctness of our theories, but that Marxism is a living theory to which we add our observations and experiences year after year, rejecting that which has been found to be no longer accurate and adopting that which is relevant and observable.
Other ideologies will claim that our problems stem from lack of regulation, too much regulation, the Federal Reserve, hierarchical authority, the Illuminati, the breakdown of the family, “multiculturalism” and a whole host of other scapegoats either real or imagined. By contrast, while Marxist analysis has identified certain laws or truth about the history of human society and the capitalist system, it is up to us in modern times to apply this analysis to our changing world, and to come up with answers based on our analysis rather than simply accepting some alleged axioms and then setting about to envision our ideal world. In this sense, Marxism does not reject all ideas outside of itself; in fact it does acknowledge the validity of many other ideas or concepts. However, Marxists see in many of these other ideological strains the neglect, either by accident or design, of certain factors which, without being accounted for, cause these other ideological analyses to be lacking and one-sided.
If we consider as an example neo-classical or “mainstream” economics, we cannot fault its proponents for ignoring class struggle, denying the existence of exploitation, and not dealing with the question of creating a more egalitarian, just society. Neo-classical economics was never intended to deal with these matters, and indeed, a common answer to questions about inequality and social injustice under capitalism is that these problems are outside the realm of economics, which of course means neo-classical economics, and that these are issues for sociologists to discuss. Marxism, on the other hand, sees all things in the world as being interrelated; any effect can have potentially infinite causes and any cause can have potentially infinite effects. This is important to keep in mind when one encounters a common straw man argument against Marxism, such as the claim that Marxism is “economic determinism,” or that Marxism sees class struggle as the main focal point of all human history. Marxism sees many factors influencing human society. On the other hand, class has been, via observation of history, a crucial factor in understanding inequality within society, and thus if one wants to change society in order to eliminate inequality and exploitation, Marxist theory says we must take this into account as a crucial factor. Of course, if one is not interested in changing society in such a way that deals with these problems, then class isn’t so important. Every individual who professes a political ideology insists that they want a more just society, but justice to the worker differs greatly from the justice of the owners of capital.
For the sake of argument, let us assume a position that declares the world as it is to be unjust, and in need of a significant change. From this starting point, let us now deal with the questions, “Why socialism? Why do we need revolution and why can’t we do something else?” For practical purposes this text will deal primarily with “left-wing” objections to socialism under the assumption that bearers of such arguments are at least sympathetic to ideals such as social justice and equality. However, while they really deserve to be dealt with in separate articles, we will have a look at some objections coming from the right and even the far-right. Right-wing reactionaries have a history of clothing their arguments in populist language so as to propagate their message among otherwise unsuspecting people who would never give them the time of day if they knew exactly who they were dealing with.
A word of caution - the reader should not assume that what follows is a false dichotomy insisting that Marxism is the only path out of the current crisis. Crisis is both inherent and cyclical in capitalism, and thus we can assume that the current crisis will eventually work itself out. This process may be violent, and in the end yesterday’s winners may be tomorrow’s losers, but the system will go on. It is important to understand that a system’s ability to perpetuate itself isn’t necessarily a merit; it only means that humans simply do not give up and resign control over their society. What this text argues is not simply “socialism or else,” but rather that while other solutions may have progressive and positive outcomes, so long as capitalism and its core contradictions are not dealt with these same painful effects will only return a few years down the road. Furthermore, these ad hoc solutions will not resolve some of capitalism’s cruelest effects such as starvation, war, imperialism, death due to preventable diseases, and the like. The second thing this text will not attempt to do is try to play a logical game so as to lead the reader to the idea that Marxism is “right” based on formal reason alone. If one does not see inequality or exploitation as morally wrong or at worst a necessary evil, no amount of logical arguments can convince them that socialist revolution is necessary. Logic dictates that those who stand to benefit from the system as it is are likely to defend it.
Why do we need revolution? Why can’t we fix the problem through the electoral system? You have to work within the system to make changes otherwise you’re just a dreamer who’s wasting everyone’s time.
Here we have typical arguments from lifelong supporters of the Democratic Party. They acknowledge that they too are disappointed in their hero Obama, but they warn us that things will be much worse under a Republican president. When we express our disapproval of Obama, they accuse us of being dreamers and spoiled children who are now throwing a fit because we didn’t get everything we wanted from the president. Communists find this argument somewhat amusing, seeing as how we never expected anything from Barack Obama. Communists do not see Obama in a vacuum, but rather as part of a clear and obvious rightward trend within the Democratic Party. The truth about “what Obama has done so far” is not a matter for this article. Media outlets such as the outstanding Black Agenda Report have easily cut through the excuses and lies of Obama and his party lackeys. For those pressed for time, sites like obamatheconservative.com catalogue nearly every hard right turn this supposedly “progressive” president has made, complete with sources for each item. Mainstream leftists often label Obama’s compromises with the radical right as “disappointments” at best and “betrayals” at worst. To communists on the other hand, everything is going as intended, not because these actions are part of some secret plan, but because the state is merely carrying out the very function it was designed to do. In other words, our opposition to supporting Obama has nothing to do with Obama himself; it is in fact opposition to voting for anybody. The state is designed to provide a foundation for a capitalist society, and however much “freedom” it may permit in its best moments, it will never permit the freedom to abolish capitalism and its relations of production. The system is meant to self-perpetuate, and the system inevitably favors the wealthy.
To some this might sound like political cynicism, but this is a readily observable fact throughout history. Let us first consider the remedies that liberals have offered us thus far in the endeavor to limit the influence of wealth in American society. Some demands will simply never be fulfilled. Congressmen are not going to consciously eliminate their own perks, including those which they gain from courting lobbyists both when they are in office and after they leave or retire from public service. The idea that politicians can be convinced to give up the vast privileges they gain from their relations with corporations and lobbyists simply based on an appeal to their conscience about “fairness” is simply laughable, and even more so when it comes from the mouth of an Obama supporter who chides leftists for not being realistic.
What of regulation, which will supposedly keep banks and corporations in line? Any attempt to pass such regulation through Congress will inevitably be met with a massive blitzkrieg by lobbyists, but for the sake of argument let’s say they somehow pass. What comes next? The advocates of regulation are fond of referring back to some earlier period in American history when various regulations of industry and banking still existed. The massive trend of deregulation since the 1980s is responsible for our problems, these people say. In this case we are forced to ask, if regulations can solve our economic problems, how did this deregulation take place to begin with? Perhaps more importantly, what will ensure that the new regulations won’t be overturned ten, twenty, or thirty years down the road? How can we be sure the exact same thing won’t happen again? As to why the regulations failed, we are again faced with the reality that the republican system we live under in the United States of America favors those with money, which inevitably means corporations and wealthy individuals. It cannot do otherwise. Some have suggested measures such as ending corporate personhood, but this is about as realistic as limiting or abolishing access for lobbyists. The politicians are not going to cut their own throats.
There are some on the so-called “left” who accuse us of being unrealistic, overly-cynical, and counter-productive by not working within the system. We are accused of wanting our way or no way, and that if we were really serious about change we would participate in the political process and then perhaps we would get the change we wanted, if only incrementally. First, the change we seek is radical; it is revolutionary and not a matter of reforms. Does this mean that we totally reject any participation in the political system as it is, or that we reject any reform in favor of total revolution? Absolutely not; every reform that the working class can squeeze out of the state for their benefit is a small victory. On the other hand, we will not cede massive ground to the right in exchange for a few crumbs from the table, nor will we line up to support candidates that do not represent our interests. To those who say we should stop complaining and vote “our people” into office, we may respond thusly: we would happily cast our vote for “our people,” that is candidates who represent our working class interests, but we will not vote your people into office. Moreover, if we somehow manage to find “our people” to vote for, we will reject all your attempts to blame us for the failure of your people if they should fail. You cannot accuse us of being unrealistic contrarians for not using the choices we supposedly have, and then condemn us when our choice differs from yours.
Getting to the bottom line, we must acknowledge that if we dare to say our problems stem from capitalism, as an increasingly larger segment of mainstream liberals and “leftists” are, we must set about finding a way to abolish capitalism, the root of the problem. By extension, we cannot expect to abolish capitalism via the very same state structure which serves as its foundation and defense. On this point we must agree with the anarchists who say “smash the state.” Politics can be likened to a sort of game, wherein players are permitted to make various decisions and perform actions so long as they do not violate the rules of the game. You can make many moves in chess but you cannot substitute its rules for those of another game, and you must make your moves on the chessboard. If for any reason we can achieve meaningful goals within the rules of the game, we will happily use these opportunities so long as they do not compromise our end goals. What we will not do, is accept the assumption that the game cannot be changed entirely and that we must forever struggle to achieve our gains within the confines of a system which is stacked against us.
Why can’t we fix capitalism? Can we not eliminate the negative effects of capitalism while keeping its benefits?
This is a relatively easy question, which has been somewhat answered in the previous section. However, it is worth taking a closer look at this argument because one can propose a radical change in government without necessarily eliminating capitalism and its trappings, or as we call them, its relations of production. Here we won’t bother debunking the efficacy of reforms or regulations, but rather we will pose a question ourselves, along with a novel answer. People have been working against the ills of capitalism ever since its emergence in human society, yet to this day we still experience the same problems, oftentimes on a worse scale than before. Awareness of poverty, super-exploitation of workers in developing countries, and even modern-day slavery is higher today than it was in previous decades, but has any of this actually solved these problems? It is simply untrue that the resources necessary to solve these ills do not exist; rather it is one of capitalism’s hallmarks that resources necessary for life can be created in abundance, yet those who are in charge of their creation will not do so unless it proves profitable to them. In fact “relief” is often itself a very profitable industry, to the point that experienced relief workers often warn donors to carefully evaluate charity organizations before handing over their money. In any case, the solution to these problems lies not in increasing charity, but rather eliminating the conditions which make charity necessary.
Finally on this point, when we speak of eliminating the ills of capitalism while preserving its benefits, we would assert that this does describe socialism to an extent. We seek to create a society in which the great productive power brought into being by capitalism is put to use by the masses, for the benefit of the masses, as opposed to a minority of owners and investors. So long as these means of production are owned by a minority of individuals driven by the quest for profits, this cannot happen. Socialism is a synthesis which arises from the struggle to eliminate the contradictions inherent to capitalism, and when it triumphs, we will ultimately be left with capitalism’s benefits without its disadvantages. This may be a long, arduous process, but we have no reason to assume that it cannot be done. And if our struggle for a better, more just world never achieves our highest ideals, what does it matter so long as we strove to achieve all that we could?
The problem isn’t capitalism! We don’t live in a capitalist society! Our society is corporatist, or even socialist!
This kind of objection is as absurd as it is common in today’s discourse. It has often been propagated by Libertarians (typically followers of the Ron Paul cult), fellow admirers of the Austrian school of economics, and all manner of right-wing populists. We might ignore such absurd claims were they only espoused by such reactionaries, but because of their propensity for attempting to inject their ideas into left-wing movements, and the mainstream left’s susceptibility toward superficially radical attacks on everything “corporate,” we cannot avoid addressing such claims. Granted, this is a subject which demands its own article, and in fact many on this subject already exist. Here we will deal with it for the benefit of an audience which sees itself as left-wing or progressive, and we will do so in an abbreviated manner.
If capitalism is not the system under which we live now, then we must ask not only what capitalism is, but also when it has existed. If one asserts that it has never existed, as a few fanatical libertarians will occasionally admit under pressure, this is in itself an indictment of capitalism. Who can fault the U.S.S.R. for not achieving communism in seventy years if people have been championing the idea of capitalism for several centuries without ever having established it anywhere? But we need not concern ourselves with this rarer, ludicrous argument. Instead we will deal with the assertion that our modern system has transformed from some kind of “good” capitalism into something more grotesque. This assertion is especially troubling for those progressives and even more “radical” leftists who assert this argument, as it logically implies that there was some better time in the past, which is remarkably similar to the claims of right-wing ideologues.
The corporation, which earns so much hatred from the mainstream left, did not fall out of the sky one morning. It came into being through a natural process of capitalism’s evolution. The claim that our system is different than it was thirty, forty, or fifty years ago, regardless of who is making the argument, is based on a wholly metaphysical view of the world and in particular of capitalism. It presents capitalism as defined by a particular ideal, and then asserts that if reality should differ from this ideal, then reality must then be something other than capitalism. This way of thinking does not allow one to see capitalism as a system which went through changes from its inception to the present day. It is essential to deal with capitalism as it exists today, and as it has existed hitherto, as opposed to some abstract ideal.
In limiting our objections to this argument only as it is asserted by “leftists” as opposed to reactionary free market fanatics, then we find that we have come full circle back to the idea of “fixing capitalism.” To attack corporations and champion small and local business amounts to attacking the weeds without pulling up the roots. Again, these corporations did not fall from the sky one day, fully formed. To deny the connection between small businesses and multi-national corporations is akin to an economic Intelligent Design theory, as though the latter were once called into existence as they appear today. Even small local businesses will put their money into banks which will loan it out all over the country, if not the world. Communists seek not to cut the weeds of capitalism, but rather to uproot it entirely.
Can’t we subvert capitalism by changing our lifestyle and choices as consumers?
From the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s emerged an idea which began as a bastardization of Marxist thought, one that has recently gained popularity again, stripped of any hint of Marxism whatsoever. The gist of this idea goes like this: capitalists and by extension the capitalist system itself are compelled to sell their products in the market, and thus must ensure that consumers will continue to spend money on an ever-increasing array of products. Many of these products are not necessary to human life, and some wholly unnecessary, making it essential to somehow convince people they need such products. The conclusion of these observations is that capitalism requires conformity in order to survive. Via aggressive and seemingly omnipresent advertising, people are encouraged to follow trends and buy what other people are buying. This leads to the rise of what is generally termed “consumerism,” a lust for ever more material goods that always seems to afflict other people, as opposed to the person decrying it.
From this argument it follows that this system can be subverted via a revolt against consumerism, and in particular, the “jamming” of cultural messages which promote this lifestyle, namely advertisements. We allege that these theories are nothing but idealistic nonsense, wholly divorced from even a superficial analysis of how capitalism works. Capitalism does not require that people act alike and have the same tastes; on the contrary, it thrives when people seek to express their individuality via their lifestyle and purchases. There will always be a capitalist willing to fulfill some desire so long as there is profit to be had. Decades of counter-cultural rebellion have failed to put a dent in the capitalist machine, and there is no reason to believe that “fair trade” products, defaced advertisements, and the occasional street rave will succeed at overthrowing capitalism in the future. Moreover, making the struggle against capitalism a matter of purchases is little more than funneling money from big capitalists to small or medium-sized capitalists.
Aren’t you reducing everything down to economics? What about feminism, the struggle for people of color, and so on?
Marxists fight for an egalitarian society which means we fight against racism, xenophobia, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and all other social ills which create division and conflict within the working class. Despite this, we are still continually accused of reducing all matters to economics or class struggle, which is a woefully bad interpretation of Marxist theory. This accusation comes from a variety of directions but occasionally it is voiced by some die-hard followers of certain identity politics movements. Some, but by no means all or even a majority, put the struggle of their particular group above all others. History has shown identity politics to be largely a failure when it comes to achieving equality, much less overthrowing capitalism and its systematic division and oppression of people based on ethnicity, gender, sex, and so on. While many recognize the role of class in the oppression of their particular group, there are those who prefer to spend their time bickering over redefinitions of what it means to be a part of this or that group, who is more oppressed and how, and tit-for-tat arguments about who is “co-opting” their movement.
Marxists on the other hand recognize a historically observable fact that oppression of women, ideas of race, caste systems, and other forms of systematic oppression are very much rooted in class society. They all serve the purpose of maintaining, in one form or another, a system whereby one class exploits another. We may liken class society to a disease, and things like sexism, racism, and so on represent symptoms of that disease. History has shown that struggles for civil rights and the liberation of women have often failed because they focused on symptoms without having any kind of historical material analysis of that which they were struggling against. In many cases, this often led dedicated fighters into alliances with their class enemies, all in the name of liberation for a particular repressed group. The promised liberation has yet to come. Marxists do not reduce every issue down to class struggle, but if we are analyzing two particular subjects, specifically the history of human society and formulating a way to build a better one, we see that class plays a major role in relation to both.
Of course this should not be taken to mean that problems like racism or patriarchy will simply disappear once the capitalist class is overthrown. Some forms of oppression are quite old; patriarchy, in particular, dates back to the dawn of class-based society. And while a struggle must be waged during and after the revolution to right these wrongs, one thing is clear- we simply cannot ultimately triumph over these social ills until we overthrow that system and its ruling class which has a vested interest in maintaining a complex society of privileges designed to divide the exploited class and incite them against one another. This having been said, Marxists have an obligation to set the standard for the kind of society they wish to live in by waging the day-to-day struggle against forms of oppression such as racism and patriarchy both inside and outside of their organizations and parties. Those who feel that this question can be put off till “after the revolution” are shirking their responsibility and not setting a good example of what could be possible once the system of class-based organization is overthrown.
Today it cannot be denied that we are once again living in a revolutionary era. As capitalism continues to degenerate, demonstrating with each passing day that it has outlived its usefulness to the vast majority of humankind, we see violent explosions of popular rage, ranging from peaceful demonstrations to chaotic riots. The ruling class and its “free” press would have us believe that even in these dark times progress is being made. We have the Arab Spring, a series of revolutions supposedly made possible thanks to the help of the Western-developed Twitter and Facebook. The Occupy protests, which complained of a media blackout during its infancy, soon managed to capture the attention of the world and to make its mark on the year 2011. As the media would have it, all that is necessary to solve the ills of the world are “democratic” revolutions in certain countries such as Egypt, but not in others such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain or Yemen, and of course maybe a little more participation for “the little guy” in American politics. While the press has in recent years admitted that there are some flaws in the global economic system, those who have been paying attention since the start of this crisis might have noticed an explosion of increasingly shrill anti-communist propaganda.
The renewed interest in Marx and his theories, along with a rising tide of dissatisfaction and nostalgia for pre-1989 life within the former Eastern Bloc nations and the ex-U.S.S.R., has clearly sent chills down the spines of Europe’s elite. Their message could not be more clear. On one hand the media concedes that something is broken with the capitalist system, but on the other hand it warns the working class not to consider alternatives to capitalism. They are once again trying to exorcize this spectre that is haunting them, and indeed terrifying them; they insist that the working class limit their protests against the system so as to fit within the boundaries established by the ruling class. For them the greatest tragedy would be the rejection of the slogan that there is no alternative to capitalism and the assumption that mankind has reached its peak of societal evolution in the system of free markets and commodity trading. So here we are again, so far from 1848, and communists are again compelled to disclose their ideas and distinguish themselves from all other factions who claim to have a solution to our present crisis.
In these times of crisis it comes as no surprise that working people find themselves faced by a large number of proselytizers from a wide spectrum of ideological backgrounds preaching the superiority and explanatory power of their ideas. Each has an explanation as to why we are in this crisis today and a set of proposals which can supposedly solve the problem. In this marketplace of ideas, Marxists cannot pretend as though we sit above the fray, treating our theory as some kind of esoteric revealed knowledge in a manner similar to many of those aforementioned ideologues. We have an explanation, a theory, but what sets us apart is not simply our assertion that these are true, but rather that what we are truly offering is not so much a set of pre-packaged answers which constitute some kind of universal truth, but rather a methodology of analysis which allows people to find what can reasonably be judged as true. This is not to state that we do not believe in the correctness of our theories, but that Marxism is a living theory to which we add our observations and experiences year after year, rejecting that which has been found to be no longer accurate and adopting that which is relevant and observable.
Other ideologies will claim that our problems stem from lack of regulation, too much regulation, the Federal Reserve, hierarchical authority, the Illuminati, the breakdown of the family, “multiculturalism” and a whole host of other scapegoats either real or imagined. By contrast, while Marxist analysis has identified certain laws or truth about the history of human society and the capitalist system, it is up to us in modern times to apply this analysis to our changing world, and to come up with answers based on our analysis rather than simply accepting some alleged axioms and then setting about to envision our ideal world. In this sense, Marxism does not reject all ideas outside of itself; in fact it does acknowledge the validity of many other ideas or concepts. However, Marxists see in many of these other ideological strains the neglect, either by accident or design, of certain factors which, without being accounted for, cause these other ideological analyses to be lacking and one-sided.
If we consider as an example neo-classical or “mainstream” economics, we cannot fault its proponents for ignoring class struggle, denying the existence of exploitation, and not dealing with the question of creating a more egalitarian, just society. Neo-classical economics was never intended to deal with these matters, and indeed, a common answer to questions about inequality and social injustice under capitalism is that these problems are outside the realm of economics, which of course means neo-classical economics, and that these are issues for sociologists to discuss. Marxism, on the other hand, sees all things in the world as being interrelated; any effect can have potentially infinite causes and any cause can have potentially infinite effects. This is important to keep in mind when one encounters a common straw man argument against Marxism, such as the claim that Marxism is “economic determinism,” or that Marxism sees class struggle as the main focal point of all human history. Marxism sees many factors influencing human society. On the other hand, class has been, via observation of history, a crucial factor in understanding inequality within society, and thus if one wants to change society in order to eliminate inequality and exploitation, Marxist theory says we must take this into account as a crucial factor. Of course, if one is not interested in changing society in such a way that deals with these problems, then class isn’t so important. Every individual who professes a political ideology insists that they want a more just society, but justice to the worker differs greatly from the justice of the owners of capital.
For the sake of argument, let us assume a position that declares the world as it is to be unjust, and in need of a significant change. From this starting point, let us now deal with the questions, “Why socialism? Why do we need revolution and why can’t we do something else?” For practical purposes this text will deal primarily with “left-wing” objections to socialism under the assumption that bearers of such arguments are at least sympathetic to ideals such as social justice and equality. However, while they really deserve to be dealt with in separate articles, we will have a look at some objections coming from the right and even the far-right. Right-wing reactionaries have a history of clothing their arguments in populist language so as to propagate their message among otherwise unsuspecting people who would never give them the time of day if they knew exactly who they were dealing with.
A word of caution - the reader should not assume that what follows is a false dichotomy insisting that Marxism is the only path out of the current crisis. Crisis is both inherent and cyclical in capitalism, and thus we can assume that the current crisis will eventually work itself out. This process may be violent, and in the end yesterday’s winners may be tomorrow’s losers, but the system will go on. It is important to understand that a system’s ability to perpetuate itself isn’t necessarily a merit; it only means that humans simply do not give up and resign control over their society. What this text argues is not simply “socialism or else,” but rather that while other solutions may have progressive and positive outcomes, so long as capitalism and its core contradictions are not dealt with these same painful effects will only return a few years down the road. Furthermore, these ad hoc solutions will not resolve some of capitalism’s cruelest effects such as starvation, war, imperialism, death due to preventable diseases, and the like. The second thing this text will not attempt to do is try to play a logical game so as to lead the reader to the idea that Marxism is “right” based on formal reason alone. If one does not see inequality or exploitation as morally wrong or at worst a necessary evil, no amount of logical arguments can convince them that socialist revolution is necessary. Logic dictates that those who stand to benefit from the system as it is are likely to defend it.
Why do we need revolution? Why can’t we fix the problem through the electoral system? You have to work within the system to make changes otherwise you’re just a dreamer who’s wasting everyone’s time.
Here we have typical arguments from lifelong supporters of the Democratic Party. They acknowledge that they too are disappointed in their hero Obama, but they warn us that things will be much worse under a Republican president. When we express our disapproval of Obama, they accuse us of being dreamers and spoiled children who are now throwing a fit because we didn’t get everything we wanted from the president. Communists find this argument somewhat amusing, seeing as how we never expected anything from Barack Obama. Communists do not see Obama in a vacuum, but rather as part of a clear and obvious rightward trend within the Democratic Party. The truth about “what Obama has done so far” is not a matter for this article. Media outlets such as the outstanding Black Agenda Report have easily cut through the excuses and lies of Obama and his party lackeys. For those pressed for time, sites like obamatheconservative.com catalogue nearly every hard right turn this supposedly “progressive” president has made, complete with sources for each item. Mainstream leftists often label Obama’s compromises with the radical right as “disappointments” at best and “betrayals” at worst. To communists on the other hand, everything is going as intended, not because these actions are part of some secret plan, but because the state is merely carrying out the very function it was designed to do. In other words, our opposition to supporting Obama has nothing to do with Obama himself; it is in fact opposition to voting for anybody. The state is designed to provide a foundation for a capitalist society, and however much “freedom” it may permit in its best moments, it will never permit the freedom to abolish capitalism and its relations of production. The system is meant to self-perpetuate, and the system inevitably favors the wealthy.
To some this might sound like political cynicism, but this is a readily observable fact throughout history. Let us first consider the remedies that liberals have offered us thus far in the endeavor to limit the influence of wealth in American society. Some demands will simply never be fulfilled. Congressmen are not going to consciously eliminate their own perks, including those which they gain from courting lobbyists both when they are in office and after they leave or retire from public service. The idea that politicians can be convinced to give up the vast privileges they gain from their relations with corporations and lobbyists simply based on an appeal to their conscience about “fairness” is simply laughable, and even more so when it comes from the mouth of an Obama supporter who chides leftists for not being realistic.
What of regulation, which will supposedly keep banks and corporations in line? Any attempt to pass such regulation through Congress will inevitably be met with a massive blitzkrieg by lobbyists, but for the sake of argument let’s say they somehow pass. What comes next? The advocates of regulation are fond of referring back to some earlier period in American history when various regulations of industry and banking still existed. The massive trend of deregulation since the 1980s is responsible for our problems, these people say. In this case we are forced to ask, if regulations can solve our economic problems, how did this deregulation take place to begin with? Perhaps more importantly, what will ensure that the new regulations won’t be overturned ten, twenty, or thirty years down the road? How can we be sure the exact same thing won’t happen again? As to why the regulations failed, we are again faced with the reality that the republican system we live under in the United States of America favors those with money, which inevitably means corporations and wealthy individuals. It cannot do otherwise. Some have suggested measures such as ending corporate personhood, but this is about as realistic as limiting or abolishing access for lobbyists. The politicians are not going to cut their own throats.
There are some on the so-called “left” who accuse us of being unrealistic, overly-cynical, and counter-productive by not working within the system. We are accused of wanting our way or no way, and that if we were really serious about change we would participate in the political process and then perhaps we would get the change we wanted, if only incrementally. First, the change we seek is radical; it is revolutionary and not a matter of reforms. Does this mean that we totally reject any participation in the political system as it is, or that we reject any reform in favor of total revolution? Absolutely not; every reform that the working class can squeeze out of the state for their benefit is a small victory. On the other hand, we will not cede massive ground to the right in exchange for a few crumbs from the table, nor will we line up to support candidates that do not represent our interests. To those who say we should stop complaining and vote “our people” into office, we may respond thusly: we would happily cast our vote for “our people,” that is candidates who represent our working class interests, but we will not vote your people into office. Moreover, if we somehow manage to find “our people” to vote for, we will reject all your attempts to blame us for the failure of your people if they should fail. You cannot accuse us of being unrealistic contrarians for not using the choices we supposedly have, and then condemn us when our choice differs from yours.
Getting to the bottom line, we must acknowledge that if we dare to say our problems stem from capitalism, as an increasingly larger segment of mainstream liberals and “leftists” are, we must set about finding a way to abolish capitalism, the root of the problem. By extension, we cannot expect to abolish capitalism via the very same state structure which serves as its foundation and defense. On this point we must agree with the anarchists who say “smash the state.” Politics can be likened to a sort of game, wherein players are permitted to make various decisions and perform actions so long as they do not violate the rules of the game. You can make many moves in chess but you cannot substitute its rules for those of another game, and you must make your moves on the chessboard. If for any reason we can achieve meaningful goals within the rules of the game, we will happily use these opportunities so long as they do not compromise our end goals. What we will not do, is accept the assumption that the game cannot be changed entirely and that we must forever struggle to achieve our gains within the confines of a system which is stacked against us.
Why can’t we fix capitalism? Can we not eliminate the negative effects of capitalism while keeping its benefits?
This is a relatively easy question, which has been somewhat answered in the previous section. However, it is worth taking a closer look at this argument because one can propose a radical change in government without necessarily eliminating capitalism and its trappings, or as we call them, its relations of production. Here we won’t bother debunking the efficacy of reforms or regulations, but rather we will pose a question ourselves, along with a novel answer. People have been working against the ills of capitalism ever since its emergence in human society, yet to this day we still experience the same problems, oftentimes on a worse scale than before. Awareness of poverty, super-exploitation of workers in developing countries, and even modern-day slavery is higher today than it was in previous decades, but has any of this actually solved these problems? It is simply untrue that the resources necessary to solve these ills do not exist; rather it is one of capitalism’s hallmarks that resources necessary for life can be created in abundance, yet those who are in charge of their creation will not do so unless it proves profitable to them. In fact “relief” is often itself a very profitable industry, to the point that experienced relief workers often warn donors to carefully evaluate charity organizations before handing over their money. In any case, the solution to these problems lies not in increasing charity, but rather eliminating the conditions which make charity necessary.
Finally on this point, when we speak of eliminating the ills of capitalism while preserving its benefits, we would assert that this does describe socialism to an extent. We seek to create a society in which the great productive power brought into being by capitalism is put to use by the masses, for the benefit of the masses, as opposed to a minority of owners and investors. So long as these means of production are owned by a minority of individuals driven by the quest for profits, this cannot happen. Socialism is a synthesis which arises from the struggle to eliminate the contradictions inherent to capitalism, and when it triumphs, we will ultimately be left with capitalism’s benefits without its disadvantages. This may be a long, arduous process, but we have no reason to assume that it cannot be done. And if our struggle for a better, more just world never achieves our highest ideals, what does it matter so long as we strove to achieve all that we could?
The problem isn’t capitalism! We don’t live in a capitalist society! Our society is corporatist, or even socialist!
This kind of objection is as absurd as it is common in today’s discourse. It has often been propagated by Libertarians (typically followers of the Ron Paul cult), fellow admirers of the Austrian school of economics, and all manner of right-wing populists. We might ignore such absurd claims were they only espoused by such reactionaries, but because of their propensity for attempting to inject their ideas into left-wing movements, and the mainstream left’s susceptibility toward superficially radical attacks on everything “corporate,” we cannot avoid addressing such claims. Granted, this is a subject which demands its own article, and in fact many on this subject already exist. Here we will deal with it for the benefit of an audience which sees itself as left-wing or progressive, and we will do so in an abbreviated manner.
If capitalism is not the system under which we live now, then we must ask not only what capitalism is, but also when it has existed. If one asserts that it has never existed, as a few fanatical libertarians will occasionally admit under pressure, this is in itself an indictment of capitalism. Who can fault the U.S.S.R. for not achieving communism in seventy years if people have been championing the idea of capitalism for several centuries without ever having established it anywhere? But we need not concern ourselves with this rarer, ludicrous argument. Instead we will deal with the assertion that our modern system has transformed from some kind of “good” capitalism into something more grotesque. This assertion is especially troubling for those progressives and even more “radical” leftists who assert this argument, as it logically implies that there was some better time in the past, which is remarkably similar to the claims of right-wing ideologues.
The corporation, which earns so much hatred from the mainstream left, did not fall out of the sky one morning. It came into being through a natural process of capitalism’s evolution. The claim that our system is different than it was thirty, forty, or fifty years ago, regardless of who is making the argument, is based on a wholly metaphysical view of the world and in particular of capitalism. It presents capitalism as defined by a particular ideal, and then asserts that if reality should differ from this ideal, then reality must then be something other than capitalism. This way of thinking does not allow one to see capitalism as a system which went through changes from its inception to the present day. It is essential to deal with capitalism as it exists today, and as it has existed hitherto, as opposed to some abstract ideal.
In limiting our objections to this argument only as it is asserted by “leftists” as opposed to reactionary free market fanatics, then we find that we have come full circle back to the idea of “fixing capitalism.” To attack corporations and champion small and local business amounts to attacking the weeds without pulling up the roots. Again, these corporations did not fall from the sky one day, fully formed. To deny the connection between small businesses and multi-national corporations is akin to an economic Intelligent Design theory, as though the latter were once called into existence as they appear today. Even small local businesses will put their money into banks which will loan it out all over the country, if not the world. Communists seek not to cut the weeds of capitalism, but rather to uproot it entirely.
Can’t we subvert capitalism by changing our lifestyle and choices as consumers?
From the counter-cultural revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s emerged an idea which began as a bastardization of Marxist thought, one that has recently gained popularity again, stripped of any hint of Marxism whatsoever. The gist of this idea goes like this: capitalists and by extension the capitalist system itself are compelled to sell their products in the market, and thus must ensure that consumers will continue to spend money on an ever-increasing array of products. Many of these products are not necessary to human life, and some wholly unnecessary, making it essential to somehow convince people they need such products. The conclusion of these observations is that capitalism requires conformity in order to survive. Via aggressive and seemingly omnipresent advertising, people are encouraged to follow trends and buy what other people are buying. This leads to the rise of what is generally termed “consumerism,” a lust for ever more material goods that always seems to afflict other people, as opposed to the person decrying it.
From this argument it follows that this system can be subverted via a revolt against consumerism, and in particular, the “jamming” of cultural messages which promote this lifestyle, namely advertisements. We allege that these theories are nothing but idealistic nonsense, wholly divorced from even a superficial analysis of how capitalism works. Capitalism does not require that people act alike and have the same tastes; on the contrary, it thrives when people seek to express their individuality via their lifestyle and purchases. There will always be a capitalist willing to fulfill some desire so long as there is profit to be had. Decades of counter-cultural rebellion have failed to put a dent in the capitalist machine, and there is no reason to believe that “fair trade” products, defaced advertisements, and the occasional street rave will succeed at overthrowing capitalism in the future. Moreover, making the struggle against capitalism a matter of purchases is little more than funneling money from big capitalists to small or medium-sized capitalists.
Aren’t you reducing everything down to economics? What about feminism, the struggle for people of color, and so on?
Marxists fight for an egalitarian society which means we fight against racism, xenophobia, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, and all other social ills which create division and conflict within the working class. Despite this, we are still continually accused of reducing all matters to economics or class struggle, which is a woefully bad interpretation of Marxist theory. This accusation comes from a variety of directions but occasionally it is voiced by some die-hard followers of certain identity politics movements. Some, but by no means all or even a majority, put the struggle of their particular group above all others. History has shown identity politics to be largely a failure when it comes to achieving equality, much less overthrowing capitalism and its systematic division and oppression of people based on ethnicity, gender, sex, and so on. While many recognize the role of class in the oppression of their particular group, there are those who prefer to spend their time bickering over redefinitions of what it means to be a part of this or that group, who is more oppressed and how, and tit-for-tat arguments about who is “co-opting” their movement.
Marxists on the other hand recognize a historically observable fact that oppression of women, ideas of race, caste systems, and other forms of systematic oppression are very much rooted in class society. They all serve the purpose of maintaining, in one form or another, a system whereby one class exploits another. We may liken class society to a disease, and things like sexism, racism, and so on represent symptoms of that disease. History has shown that struggles for civil rights and the liberation of women have often failed because they focused on symptoms without having any kind of historical material analysis of that which they were struggling against. In many cases, this often led dedicated fighters into alliances with their class enemies, all in the name of liberation for a particular repressed group. The promised liberation has yet to come. Marxists do not reduce every issue down to class struggle, but if we are analyzing two particular subjects, specifically the history of human society and formulating a way to build a better one, we see that class plays a major role in relation to both.
Of course this should not be taken to mean that problems like racism or patriarchy will simply disappear once the capitalist class is overthrown. Some forms of oppression are quite old; patriarchy, in particular, dates back to the dawn of class-based society. And while a struggle must be waged during and after the revolution to right these wrongs, one thing is clear- we simply cannot ultimately triumph over these social ills until we overthrow that system and its ruling class which has a vested interest in maintaining a complex society of privileges designed to divide the exploited class and incite them against one another. This having been said, Marxists have an obligation to set the standard for the kind of society they wish to live in by waging the day-to-day struggle against forms of oppression such as racism and patriarchy both inside and outside of their organizations and parties. Those who feel that this question can be put off till “after the revolution” are shirking their responsibility and not setting a good example of what could be possible once the system of class-based organization is overthrown.
An ABC of Communism
by Tony Clark
WHAT IS CLASS SOCIETY?
Class society is thousands of years old. Basically class society exists when one part of society exploits, robs and cheats the other part. In class society one part of society works for another part who own the conditions, or means of production. In simple terms class society is the form taken by the exploitation of the many by the few.
Class society is basically about the exploitation of the many by the few. It is organised exploitation and robbery of the working people for the benefit of the few. We can say quite definitely that class society is synonymous with exploitation, i.e., robbery.
THE EXISTENCE OF CLASSES IS THE FORM OF APPEARANCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF EXPLOITATION BY ONE SECTION OF SOCIETY OF ANOTHER SECTION.
WHAT IS THE STATE?
When classes are formed, when exploiters and exploited become a feature of society, when one part of society lives by exploiting, robbing and cheating another part of society, they cannot do so without force, that is, a means of coercion.
Capitalist society is the latest, and Marxists believe, the last form of exploitation. Like previous class societies, such as slave society or feudal society, capitalism is also based on the exploitation of the many by the few. Under capitalism, like former class society, one part of society lives by exploiting, and robbing the other part of society.
The essence of capitalist exploitation is that workers are only paid for part of the labour service they provide to the capitalist employers. The other part of the labour provided goes unpaid. The proceeds from this end up in the pockets of the capitalists. So in the working day the worker is engaged in earning money for him/herself, i.e., wages, and also earning money for the capitalists from which profits are derived.
UNDER CAPITALISM PEOPLE WORK FOR EXPLOITERS WHO PRIVATELY OWN THE SOCIAL MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
Lenin described revisionism as the struggle against Marxism within the Marxist movement itself. The revisionists strive to revise Marxism in the direction of serving the interest of the capitalist class, who want the working people to continue working for exploiters. Revisionists are the ideological representatives of the bourgeoisie in the communist movement. The revisionists wear a ‘communist’ mask so that they can better divert the communist movement from accomplishing its historical mission of destroying capitalism.
In short, revisionism is the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. They seek to undermine the principles on which the Marxist-Leninist movement is founded. What the revisionists seek more than anything else is to remove Marxism-Leninism from the leadership of the communist movement. The struggle against revisionism is therefore a class struggle; it is the highest form of the ideological struggle against the bourgeoisie because in this case their representatives disguise themselves as communists.
The former Soviet Union is a good example of this. In this case, after the death of Stalin, the Soviet revisionists, the servants of the capitalist class, concealing themselves behind a communist mask, gained control of the leading positions in the Communist Party and state and opened the door to the restoration of capitalism. Stalin was continually denounced by the revisionists as the people were returned to exploitation and robbery.
The supporters of imperialist exploitation will do everything in their power to preserve exploitation and robbery. This means doing whatever is necessary to oppose Communism. Acting through the revisionists, the supporters of capitalist exploitation seek to gain control of the Communist movement and use it to serve their own class interests. The revisionists, the concealed representatives of the capitalist class in the Communist movement, must be unmasked and driven out of our movement.
THE BOURGEOISIE, ACTING THROUGH THE REVISIONISTS, SEEK TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT, TO USE IT TO SERVE THEIR OWN CLASS INTERESTS, THAT IS, TO DEFEND CAPITALISM. BUT ANY DEFENCE OF CAPITALISM IS A DEFENCE OF THE EXPLOITATION OF THE WORKING PEOPLE BY A ROBBER CAPITALIST CLASS.
WHAT IS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY?
Social Democracy is the ideology of class collaboration. It is a petty-bourgeois ideology in the working class movement. The adherents of this ideology use the support of the working class to defend capitalism. The historical role of the representatives of Social Democracy is to defend capitalism by making certain concessions to the working class where this is possible. Social Democracy is therefore a petty-bourgeois movement that preaches class collaboration to the working class. Social-Democracy serves the interests of the upper strata of the petty-bourgeoisie, and the relatively privileged upper sections of the working class, the ‘labour aristocracy’, who fuse to form a party on the basis of defending capitalism by making some concessions to the working class.
THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IS TO DEFEND CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION BY MAKING CONCESSIONS TO THE WORKING CLASS. THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY PREACH CLASS COLLABORATION TO THE WORKERS AND SO DIVERT WORKERS AWAY FROM CLASS STRUGGLE AND ANY THOUGHT OF REVOLUTION.
WHAT IS IMPERIALISM?
Lenin defined Imperialism as monopoly capitalism, the highest and final stage reached by capitalist society. In the imperialist epoch, giant transnational corporations dominate the world economy.
Originating in the developed capitalist countries, these giant companies are able to rob and exploit the poor countries. They make superprofits and use part of this to create and bribe an upper section of the working class, who come to form a labour aristocracy, which renounces the revolutionary struggle against capitalism. Imperialism facilitates the domination of the working class movement by the gang of class collaborators who lead the Social-Democratic movement, which we have seen defends capitalism by making some concessions to the working class. Imperialism makes it possible for these Social-Democratic people to hold back the working class from destroying capitalism by revolution, although capitalism is now a threat to humanity and the planet we live on.
Imperialism, because it makes life easier for large masses of people in the advanced capitalist countries, is one of the main factors holding back the world revolution against capitalism. However, imperialism is nearing its end. This was signalled by the 1914-1918 war, which led to the Russian revolution of 1917, and subsequent events. Marxism-Leninism teaches that the downfall of imperialism will usher in the world revolution.
IMPERIALISM IS MONOPOLY CAPITALISM, THE HIGHEST AND FINAL STAGE REACHED BY CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT. IMPERIALISM MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO CREATE A PRIVILEGED SECTION IN THE WORKING CLASS WHO RENOUNCE REVOLUTION AND SUPPORT CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION OF THE MASSES OF WORKING PEOPLE, HOLDING BACK THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST CAPITALISM.
WHAT IS PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM?
Marxists put forward the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!". But this is no sentimental slogan, pious dream or wish. This slogan reflects the actual state of the present day world economy, which is based on interdependence. The world economy forms an uneven integral unity. Take for example the construction of a motor car, it is made up of hundreds or thousands of components which are imported from different countries. This is internationalism; countries trading with each other. Proletarian internationalism is a slogan, which expresses objective reality. Lenin argued that true internationalism is fighting for the revolution in our own countries. Only in this way can we really support the revolutions in other countries.
PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM REFLECTS THE TRUE STATE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY. TO SUPPORT REVOLUTIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES WE MUST FIGHT FOR THE REVOLUTION IN THE COUNTRIES WHERE WE ARE.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM OF ‘BUREAUCRACY’ IN THE TRANSITION TO SOCIALISM?
Bureaucracy, it is often said, can be a good servant but a bad master. The Russian socialist revolution certainly raised the issue of bureaucracy in the communist movement, as the writings of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky show. While both Lenin and Stalin recognised that the struggle against bureaucracy was a long-term affair, Trotsky put forward a pseudo-left, (i.e., ultra-left) slogan calling for a ‘political’ revolution to overthrow the Soviet bureaucracy. By a pseudo-left slogan we mean a slogan, or policy which on the surface seems left and rather militant, but in its content would serve the interest of the enemies of communism, i.e., those who believe in the exploitation and robbing of the working people.
However, on the basis of social ownership of the means of production the contradiction between the bureaucracy and the working class was not irresolvable, or rather could be resolved without revolution, which often entails civil war. For Marxist-Leninists there are two basic types of contradictions, namely:
Antagonistic contradictions and non-antagonistic contradictions. In a country building socialism, the contradiction between the working class and bureaucracy is of the latter type of contradiction.
Bureaucracy will not vanish overnight, or on the morrow of the socialist revolution, bureaucracy fades away with the progress of socialism, the first stage of communist society. However, a bureaucracy in any society, including a socialist society, is in a strategically powerful position to arrogate power and privilege to itself. The working class and its communist party must remain constantly vigilant, and be ready to purge bureaucrats if they seek to feather their own nests. There is no doubt that communists must fight against bureaucracy, beginning by opposing its negative features.
‘That it is necessary to combat the elements of bureaucracy, and that this task will confront us all the time, as long as we have state power, as long as the state exists, is also a fact’. (J. V. Stalin. Works, 10; p.327)
The fight against bureaucracy is a long term affair. This was recognised by both Lenin and Stalin. In the transition to socialism, which is the first stage of communist society, the working class, led by the communist party, must remain vigilant and be ready to purge bureaucrats who deviate from socialism. At the same time, a pseudo-left approach to fighting bureaucracy can only serve the interests of those who want to exploit the working people, i.e. the counterrevolution, and must be resisted. Marxism-leninism teaches that Trotskyism represented a pseudo-left approach to fighting bureaucracy.
CONCLUSION
The two conflicting principles are: exploitation of the working people versus Communism. The choice today is either to embrace the principle of exploitation, that is, Capitalism, or to rally behind the principle of Communism, in which people work for the community instead of working for exploiters.
THIS IS THE CHOICE WHICH EVERY MEMBER OF SOCIETY FACES, THE CHOICE OF THE 21ST CENTURY.
WHAT IS CLASS SOCIETY?
Class society is thousands of years old. Basically class society exists when one part of society exploits, robs and cheats the other part. In class society one part of society works for another part who own the conditions, or means of production. In simple terms class society is the form taken by the exploitation of the many by the few.
Class society is basically about the exploitation of the many by the few. It is organised exploitation and robbery of the working people for the benefit of the few. We can say quite definitely that class society is synonymous with exploitation, i.e., robbery.
THE EXISTENCE OF CLASSES IS THE FORM OF APPEARANCE OF THE EXISTENCE OF EXPLOITATION BY ONE SECTION OF SOCIETY OF ANOTHER SECTION.
WHAT IS THE STATE?
When classes are formed, when exploiters and exploited become a feature of society, when one part of society lives by exploiting, robbing and cheating another part of society, they cannot do so without force, that is, a means of coercion.
In a society founded on exploitation and robbery, that is to say class society, the state emerges out of the contradiction between the robbers and the working people. Thus the exploiters use the state to keep themselves in power. The role of the state in this case is to suppress, curb the resistance of the working people to exploitation which they face daily. The state, therefore, is a machine for the domination of one class by another class.
In a society divided into exploiters and exploited, into robbers and their victims, i.e., the working people, the state serves the interests of those who live by exploiting the working people.
IN A SOCIETY BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF CLASSES THE STATE IS A MEANS OF FORCING THE EXPLOITED CLASS TO SUBMIT TO EXPLOITATION.
WHAT IS CAPITALIST SOCIETY?
Capitalist society is the latest, and Marxists believe, the last form of exploitation. Like previous class societies, such as slave society or feudal society, capitalism is also based on the exploitation of the many by the few. Under capitalism, like former class society, one part of society lives by exploiting, and robbing the other part of society.
The essence of capitalist exploitation is that workers are only paid for part of the labour service they provide to the capitalist employers. The other part of the labour provided goes unpaid. The proceeds from this end up in the pockets of the capitalists. So in the working day the worker is engaged in earning money for him/herself, i.e., wages, and also earning money for the capitalists from which profits are derived.
UNDER CAPITALISM PEOPLE WORK FOR EXPLOITERS WHO PRIVATELY OWN THE SOCIAL MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
WHAT IS COMMUNIST SOCIETY?
In the historical sequence of things communist society comes after capitalism. The basic difference between capitalism and communism is that in a capitalist society the few exploit and rob the many, i.e., the working people. In this society the state actually defends the robbery and exploitation of the working class people by the capitalists. It is therefore called a capitalist state.
In a communist society people do work, but they work for the community (themselves) instead of working for a class of exploiters and robbers. In a communist society one section of society does not live by exploiting and robbing another section. In a communist society productive property comes under social ownership and serves the interest of all the members of society, not just a few.
Communist society, that is when people work for the community instead of a robber class, as under capitalism, is divided into two stages: i.e., a lower stage and a higher stage. The first, lower stage of communist society is usually called socialism. This is the stage of communist society as it emerges from capitalist society, its traditions and habits. At the socialist stage of communist society people take from society the equivalent of the amount of labour they give to it minus deductions for the common good. At the higher stage of communist society, simply referred to as ‘communism’, people take from society according to their needs.
When there is no more capitalism, that is, when people no longer work for exploiters and robbers, but instead work for the community, profit will also cease to be the goal of production. With increasingly advanced technology society’s labour time can be reduced, giving people the time to spend on other pursuits.
A COMMUNIST SOCIETY IS A SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE WORK FOR THE COMMUNITY ON THE BASIS OF SOCIAL PROPERTY, AS OPPOSED TO WORKING FOR AN EXPLOITING CAPITALIST CLASS ON THE BASIS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. ANY OPPOSITION TO COMMUNISM MEANS DEFENDING THE EXPLOITATION OF THE WORKING PEOPLE BY CAPITALIST ROBBERS.
In the historical sequence of things communist society comes after capitalism. The basic difference between capitalism and communism is that in a capitalist society the few exploit and rob the many, i.e., the working people. In this society the state actually defends the robbery and exploitation of the working class people by the capitalists. It is therefore called a capitalist state.
In a communist society people do work, but they work for the community (themselves) instead of working for a class of exploiters and robbers. In a communist society one section of society does not live by exploiting and robbing another section. In a communist society productive property comes under social ownership and serves the interest of all the members of society, not just a few.
Communist society, that is when people work for the community instead of a robber class, as under capitalism, is divided into two stages: i.e., a lower stage and a higher stage. The first, lower stage of communist society is usually called socialism. This is the stage of communist society as it emerges from capitalist society, its traditions and habits. At the socialist stage of communist society people take from society the equivalent of the amount of labour they give to it minus deductions for the common good. At the higher stage of communist society, simply referred to as ‘communism’, people take from society according to their needs.
When there is no more capitalism, that is, when people no longer work for exploiters and robbers, but instead work for the community, profit will also cease to be the goal of production. With increasingly advanced technology society’s labour time can be reduced, giving people the time to spend on other pursuits.
A COMMUNIST SOCIETY IS A SOCIETY WHERE PEOPLE WORK FOR THE COMMUNITY ON THE BASIS OF SOCIAL PROPERTY, AS OPPOSED TO WORKING FOR AN EXPLOITING CAPITALIST CLASS ON THE BASIS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. ANY OPPOSITION TO COMMUNISM MEANS DEFENDING THE EXPLOITATION OF THE WORKING PEOPLE BY CAPITALIST ROBBERS.
WHAT IS THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT?
The ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ is the form taken by working class political power in the transition to communist society. A period of transition is needed to make the change from a society based on robbery and exploitation to a society where people no longer exploit other people. Many if not the majority, of those who live by exploiting the working people, will resist the change to a society where people simply work for the community. If they are able to, they will do everything to undermine the new society. What they fight for is a return to the old society based on exploitation and robbing the working people. In order to stop these enemies of the people from achieving their selfish aims, they must be resisted and fought. Iron dictatorship against the counterrevolutionaries is called for. This dictatorship is against those who support robbing and exploiting working people. Those who oppose the dictatorship of the working people against the robbers and exploiters are in fact servants of the latter. The dictatorship of the proletariat itself will fade away when exploitation and robbery are things of the past.
THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT IS WORKING CLASS POLITICAL POWER, DIRECTED AGAINST THE EXPLOITERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS TO FORCE THEM TO GIVE UP EXPLOITING THE WORKING PEOPLE FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.
WHAT IS THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT?
The Communist Movement, which exists in every country, is a political movement made up of all those people who are against a society based on one group, or class of people living by the exploitation of another group or class. In short, Communists are against societies based on robbery and exploitation. In the struggle between communism and exploitation, Communists follow the teachings of Karl Marx, 1818-1883, whom they regard as the father of modern, scientific communist ideas. A notable ally of Marx was Frederick Engels.
The ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ is the form taken by working class political power in the transition to communist society. A period of transition is needed to make the change from a society based on robbery and exploitation to a society where people no longer exploit other people. Many if not the majority, of those who live by exploiting the working people, will resist the change to a society where people simply work for the community. If they are able to, they will do everything to undermine the new society. What they fight for is a return to the old society based on exploitation and robbing the working people. In order to stop these enemies of the people from achieving their selfish aims, they must be resisted and fought. Iron dictatorship against the counterrevolutionaries is called for. This dictatorship is against those who support robbing and exploiting working people. Those who oppose the dictatorship of the working people against the robbers and exploiters are in fact servants of the latter. The dictatorship of the proletariat itself will fade away when exploitation and robbery are things of the past.
THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT IS WORKING CLASS POLITICAL POWER, DIRECTED AGAINST THE EXPLOITERS AND THEIR SUPPORTERS TO FORCE THEM TO GIVE UP EXPLOITING THE WORKING PEOPLE FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT.
WHAT IS THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT?
The Communist Movement, which exists in every country, is a political movement made up of all those people who are against a society based on one group, or class of people living by the exploitation of another group or class. In short, Communists are against societies based on robbery and exploitation. In the struggle between communism and exploitation, Communists follow the teachings of Karl Marx, 1818-1883, whom they regard as the father of modern, scientific communist ideas. A notable ally of Marx was Frederick Engels.
Marx taught that the forms of society were determined by the level of development of the productive forces it contained. This explanation is called by Marxists ‘historical materialism’. What Marx argued was that as the productive forces developed, they broke down the old forms of society. That is to say the new productive forces begin to clash with the old forms of society. The growing contradiction between the new and the old eventually erupts into revolution. The revolution leads to a new society adapted to the new level of the productive forces. For instance, feudalism gave way to capitalism. Eventually capitalism must give way to communism, which is the most rational, most modern adaptation to the new, enormous productive forces which now exist in the world. The present contradictions in the world cannot be resolved by capitalism. Society’s enormous productive capabilities are utilised by the capitalist class to make wars. For many capitalists war is good business, so is the environmental destruction of the planet.
The old society proves the point of Marx that it no longer deserves to exist when it uses the colossal productive power at its disposal, science and technology, to make wars and impose incalculable misery on humanity, misery imposed by the few on the many.
THE AGE-OLD STRUGGLE BETWEEN THOSE WHO DEFEND EXPLOITATION AND ROBBERY AND THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT, LED TO THE BIRTH OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT. COMMUNISTS ARE PEOPLE WHO SIDE WITH THOSE WHO OPPOSE EXPLOITATION. KARL MARX IS THE FATHER OF THE MODERN COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.
The old society proves the point of Marx that it no longer deserves to exist when it uses the colossal productive power at its disposal, science and technology, to make wars and impose incalculable misery on humanity, misery imposed by the few on the many.
THE AGE-OLD STRUGGLE BETWEEN THOSE WHO DEFEND EXPLOITATION AND ROBBERY AND THOSE WHO OPPOSE IT, LED TO THE BIRTH OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT. COMMUNISTS ARE PEOPLE WHO SIDE WITH THOSE WHO OPPOSE EXPLOITATION. KARL MARX IS THE FATHER OF THE MODERN COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.
WHAT IS REVISIONISM?
Lenin described revisionism as the struggle against Marxism within the Marxist movement itself. The revisionists strive to revise Marxism in the direction of serving the interest of the capitalist class, who want the working people to continue working for exploiters. Revisionists are the ideological representatives of the bourgeoisie in the communist movement. The revisionists wear a ‘communist’ mask so that they can better divert the communist movement from accomplishing its historical mission of destroying capitalism.
In short, revisionism is the bourgeoisie inside the communist movement. They seek to undermine the principles on which the Marxist-Leninist movement is founded. What the revisionists seek more than anything else is to remove Marxism-Leninism from the leadership of the communist movement. The struggle against revisionism is therefore a class struggle; it is the highest form of the ideological struggle against the bourgeoisie because in this case their representatives disguise themselves as communists.
The former Soviet Union is a good example of this. In this case, after the death of Stalin, the Soviet revisionists, the servants of the capitalist class, concealing themselves behind a communist mask, gained control of the leading positions in the Communist Party and state and opened the door to the restoration of capitalism. Stalin was continually denounced by the revisionists as the people were returned to exploitation and robbery.
The supporters of imperialist exploitation will do everything in their power to preserve exploitation and robbery. This means doing whatever is necessary to oppose Communism. Acting through the revisionists, the supporters of capitalist exploitation seek to gain control of the Communist movement and use it to serve their own class interests. The revisionists, the concealed representatives of the capitalist class in the Communist movement, must be unmasked and driven out of our movement.
THE BOURGEOISIE, ACTING THROUGH THE REVISIONISTS, SEEK TO GAIN CONTROL OF THE COMMUNIST MOVEMENT, TO USE IT TO SERVE THEIR OWN CLASS INTERESTS, THAT IS, TO DEFEND CAPITALISM. BUT ANY DEFENCE OF CAPITALISM IS A DEFENCE OF THE EXPLOITATION OF THE WORKING PEOPLE BY A ROBBER CAPITALIST CLASS.
WHAT IS SOCIAL DEMOCRACY?
Social Democracy is the ideology of class collaboration. It is a petty-bourgeois ideology in the working class movement. The adherents of this ideology use the support of the working class to defend capitalism. The historical role of the representatives of Social Democracy is to defend capitalism by making certain concessions to the working class where this is possible. Social Democracy is therefore a petty-bourgeois movement that preaches class collaboration to the working class. Social-Democracy serves the interests of the upper strata of the petty-bourgeoisie, and the relatively privileged upper sections of the working class, the ‘labour aristocracy’, who fuse to form a party on the basis of defending capitalism by making some concessions to the working class.
THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY IS TO DEFEND CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION BY MAKING CONCESSIONS TO THE WORKING CLASS. THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SOCIAL DEMOCRACY PREACH CLASS COLLABORATION TO THE WORKERS AND SO DIVERT WORKERS AWAY FROM CLASS STRUGGLE AND ANY THOUGHT OF REVOLUTION.
WHAT IS IMPERIALISM?
Lenin defined Imperialism as monopoly capitalism, the highest and final stage reached by capitalist society. In the imperialist epoch, giant transnational corporations dominate the world economy.
Originating in the developed capitalist countries, these giant companies are able to rob and exploit the poor countries. They make superprofits and use part of this to create and bribe an upper section of the working class, who come to form a labour aristocracy, which renounces the revolutionary struggle against capitalism. Imperialism facilitates the domination of the working class movement by the gang of class collaborators who lead the Social-Democratic movement, which we have seen defends capitalism by making some concessions to the working class. Imperialism makes it possible for these Social-Democratic people to hold back the working class from destroying capitalism by revolution, although capitalism is now a threat to humanity and the planet we live on.
Imperialism, because it makes life easier for large masses of people in the advanced capitalist countries, is one of the main factors holding back the world revolution against capitalism. However, imperialism is nearing its end. This was signalled by the 1914-1918 war, which led to the Russian revolution of 1917, and subsequent events. Marxism-Leninism teaches that the downfall of imperialism will usher in the world revolution.
IMPERIALISM IS MONOPOLY CAPITALISM, THE HIGHEST AND FINAL STAGE REACHED BY CAPITALIST DEVELOPMENT. IMPERIALISM MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO CREATE A PRIVILEGED SECTION IN THE WORKING CLASS WHO RENOUNCE REVOLUTION AND SUPPORT CAPITALIST EXPLOITATION OF THE MASSES OF WORKING PEOPLE, HOLDING BACK THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST CAPITALISM.
WHAT IS PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM?
Marxists put forward the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!". But this is no sentimental slogan, pious dream or wish. This slogan reflects the actual state of the present day world economy, which is based on interdependence. The world economy forms an uneven integral unity. Take for example the construction of a motor car, it is made up of hundreds or thousands of components which are imported from different countries. This is internationalism; countries trading with each other. Proletarian internationalism is a slogan, which expresses objective reality. Lenin argued that true internationalism is fighting for the revolution in our own countries. Only in this way can we really support the revolutions in other countries.
PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM REFLECTS THE TRUE STATE OF THE WORLD ECONOMY. TO SUPPORT REVOLUTIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES WE MUST FIGHT FOR THE REVOLUTION IN THE COUNTRIES WHERE WE ARE.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM OF ‘BUREAUCRACY’ IN THE TRANSITION TO SOCIALISM?
Bureaucracy, it is often said, can be a good servant but a bad master. The Russian socialist revolution certainly raised the issue of bureaucracy in the communist movement, as the writings of Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky show. While both Lenin and Stalin recognised that the struggle against bureaucracy was a long-term affair, Trotsky put forward a pseudo-left, (i.e., ultra-left) slogan calling for a ‘political’ revolution to overthrow the Soviet bureaucracy. By a pseudo-left slogan we mean a slogan, or policy which on the surface seems left and rather militant, but in its content would serve the interest of the enemies of communism, i.e., those who believe in the exploitation and robbing of the working people.
However, on the basis of social ownership of the means of production the contradiction between the bureaucracy and the working class was not irresolvable, or rather could be resolved without revolution, which often entails civil war. For Marxist-Leninists there are two basic types of contradictions, namely:
Antagonistic contradictions and non-antagonistic contradictions. In a country building socialism, the contradiction between the working class and bureaucracy is of the latter type of contradiction.
Bureaucracy will not vanish overnight, or on the morrow of the socialist revolution, bureaucracy fades away with the progress of socialism, the first stage of communist society. However, a bureaucracy in any society, including a socialist society, is in a strategically powerful position to arrogate power and privilege to itself. The working class and its communist party must remain constantly vigilant, and be ready to purge bureaucrats if they seek to feather their own nests. There is no doubt that communists must fight against bureaucracy, beginning by opposing its negative features.
‘That it is necessary to combat the elements of bureaucracy, and that this task will confront us all the time, as long as we have state power, as long as the state exists, is also a fact’. (J. V. Stalin. Works, 10; p.327)
The fight against bureaucracy is a long term affair. This was recognised by both Lenin and Stalin. In the transition to socialism, which is the first stage of communist society, the working class, led by the communist party, must remain vigilant and be ready to purge bureaucrats who deviate from socialism. At the same time, a pseudo-left approach to fighting bureaucracy can only serve the interests of those who want to exploit the working people, i.e. the counterrevolution, and must be resisted. Marxism-leninism teaches that Trotskyism represented a pseudo-left approach to fighting bureaucracy.
CONCLUSION
The two conflicting principles are: exploitation of the working people versus Communism. The choice today is either to embrace the principle of exploitation, that is, Capitalism, or to rally behind the principle of Communism, in which people work for the community instead of working for exploiters.
THIS IS THE CHOICE WHICH EVERY MEMBER OF SOCIETY FACES, THE CHOICE OF THE 21ST CENTURY.
A Brief Guide to the Ideological Differences Between Marxism-Leninism and Revisionism
by Tony Clark
INTRODUCTION. EVER since Lenin died in 1924, Trotskyism has challenged Marxism-Leninism for the ideological leadership of the international communist movement. J.V. Stalin, 1879-1953, was able to meet and saw off this challenge, to the extent that Trotskyism became a marginal, exterior tendency in relation to the communist movement. However, the attacks on Stalin by the Khrushchevite leadership in the Soviet Union, and the consequent rise of revisionism in some of the most influential parties of the communist movement, served to breathe new life into the project inspired by Trotsky.
This creed, Trotskyism, gained a substantial intellectual following in all the main imperialist countries due to its attacks on what they and the bourgeoisie call ‘Stalinism’. In attacking Stalin, and in fact, every country of socialist orientation, and regarding themselves as representing authentic Marxism, the activities of these pseudo-left sectarians promoted the propaganda interest of the imperialist bourgeoisie. However, the claims of Trotskyism rest not only on attacking Stalin and the countries of socialist orientation. These claims rest also on convincing certain intellectuals that Trotskyism is the continuation of Leninism. This is why it may be considered useful for us to present a synoptic exposition of the main ideological differences between Marxism-Leninism and Trotskyism as a guide for those who seek to examine this matter more deeply.
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.
Trotskyites argue that the October, Russian revolution of 1917 was the realisation of Trotsky’s theory of Permanent Revolution. The Marxist-Leninist position is that the revolution was made possible by the peculiar circumstances created by the 1914-1918 war and that without these conditions the transition to the socialist revolution would not have been possible.
LABOUR POLICY.
Following the revolution and civil war, Trotskyites argued for the militarisation of the trade unions, that is a policy of coercion towards the unions. Marxist-Leninists around Lenin, including Stalin, opposed the Trotskyite militarisation policy, arguing instead that emphasis must be placed on persuasion rather than coercion. This led to a serious factional dispute in the communist party between the Marxist-Leninists and the Trotskyites between 1920-1921. Lenin himself regarded Trotsky’s policy on the trade unions as representing a ‘reactionary movement’.(See: Lenin: Collected Works, Vol.32)
THE WORLD REVOLUTIONARY PROCESS IN REGARD TO SOCIALISM.
For Marxist-Leninists, socialism in one or several countries is a stage in the world revolution. Trotskyites argued that the policy of building socialism in one country was opposed to Marxism. The Marxist-Leninists argued building socialism in one country was an integral part of world revolution and, in fact would serve this process, in aiding the development of the latter. Since Trotsky did not raise the issue with Lenin, Marxist-Leninists can only assume that Trotsky’s real motives were of a factional nature. Or, with Lenin out of the way, following his death in 1924, Trotsky sought to impose his Permanent Revolution theory on the party.
INDUSTRIALISATION POLICY.
The Trotskyites sought to impose an industrialisation and collectivisation policy on the communist party at a time when the party and the dictatorship of the proletariat were in a weak position. Marxist-Leninists around Stalin wanted to wait until the party and the state had gathered enough strength to oversee such a policy. This meant defending the mixed economy of the NEP period until the party had strengthened itself in the working class and in the countryside.
THE QUESTION OF FIGHTING BUREAUCRACY
Trotskyites argue that after the death of Lenin a “Stalinist bureaucracy” emerged in the Soviet Union. This bureaucracy would undermine the revolution and to forestall this a political revolution would be necessary to remove the bureaucracy from power. Marxist-Leninists argue that the Soviet bureaucracy was more anti-Stalinist than ‘Stalinist’, a fact underlined by the frequent purges directed against it. In addition, Marxist-Leninists rejected the Trotskyite theory of a counterrevolutionary bureaucracy as completely one-sided, and argued that what was needed was not a political revolution to overthrow a supposedly counterrevolutionary bureaucracy, but rather there was a need to expose and purge the counterrevolutionary elements from the bureaucracy. The Trotskyite talk about a 'political' revolution to overthrow bureauracy represented a break from Marxism to Anarchism.
THE POLICY OF PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.
Soon after coming to power the Bolshevik communists, led by Lenin pursued a policy of peaceful coexistence with the capitalist states. The thinking behind this was to force the capitalist States, particularly the imperialists States, to live in peace with socialism, as far as foreign relations were concerned. This was not only based on the recognition that combined the imperialists States were by far stronger than the Socialist State, it was also because socialism, unlike capitalism, is not a warlike system. It is capitalism which needs war to increase profits for the monopolists, not socialism. While it is true that, on the one hand, the Khrushchevite revisionists distorted the communist policy of peaceful coexistence, it is also true, on the other hand, that the Trotskyites, and other pseudo-leftists rejected Lenin’s policy, wanting the socialist countries to act like capitalists and embroil the world into war.
THE COUNTERREVOLUTION IN THE SOVIET UNION.
Trotskyites claim that the counterrevolution in the Soviet Union was the work of a supposedly “Stalinist bureaucracy”. Such a claim made no sense because not only was there no entity which could be called the “Stalinist bureaucracy”, but the Stalinists, i.e., supporters of Stalin, had been purged by the Khrushchevites in the 1950s. Marxist-Leninists maintain that the Soviet counterrevolution was led by the revisionists who had come to power after Stalin’s death. This counterrevolution was begun by Khrushchev and completed by Gorbachev.
COMMUNIST HISTORY.
Trotskyites blame the defeat of revolutions in China, Germany, France and Spain on Stalin’s leadership of the Communist International. Marxist-Leninists have long argued that Stalin was in a minority in the Comintern. Therefore, the defeats experienced by the communist movement cannot simply be dumped at Stalin’s door. Only a concrete analysis, based on Marxism-Leninism, can throw light on how individual defeats came about.
REVISIONISM.
One of the slanders aimed at Stalin by the open and concealed Trotskyites is that he led the international communist movement into the camp of revisionism. However, neither now or in the past, have they been able to provide any documentary evidence to support these claims based on Marxism-Leninism. The truth is, that any study of the writings of Stalin shows, without any shadow of doubt that he remained a committed Marxist-Leninist all his life.
EVALUATION OF STALIN.
Trotskyites argue that Stalin betrayed the 1917 socialist revolution. However, in 1936, stunned by the gains that the Soviet Union had made under Stalin’s leadership, Trotsky had to pretend that this had nothing to do with Stalin. Marxist-Leninists argue that Stalin was a defender of the socialist revolution in the most inauspicious of circumstances. Furthermore, in his time Stalin successfully defended the socialist orientation of the Soviet Union against revisionists and other two-faced elements posing as communists in the party and State. When these concealed enemies of socialism were found out they were unfailingly purged by Stalin.
CONCLUSION.
Trotsky and his followers joined the bourgeoisie and their henchmen, the Mensheviks, in a campaign to convince the workers, peasants and communists that socialism was impossible in the Soviet Union. They tried to undermine the confidence of the working people using an argument opposed to Lenin’s standpoint. The only conclusion is that Trotskyism played a counterrevolutionary role, hiding behind pseudo-left rhetoric. Promoting defeatism was the essential role of Trotskyism in regard to the Soviet Union.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
