Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Making Sence Out of Everything that is Called Marxism or Socialism

 

Nowadays many ideologies and political movements calling themselves socialist and Marxists. Despite that they often have little to nothing in common with each other. To make matters worse, all of them like to stake claim on Marx's legacy and claim to be the real Marxist who represent actual views of Marx. Thus, what are Marx's views became distorted and corrupted over time.

 To make sense out of all this mess I decided to write an explanation of what all these movements are and how they all relate to each other. I already wrote couple of articles on this topic, but I think I need to go into more details.

What Marx Wrote

To begin with there was just Marx and he wrote some critique on the economic system that was contemporary to him, that is the middle of 19th century. In this critique he described many issues system already have as well as correctly predicted many future challenges this system with face. To tackle these challenges a system will have to be significantly reformed in order to continue functioning. The reformed system however will be significantly different from its predecessor thus warrant a new name for itself. 

Marx called the contemporary 19th century system a capitalism. A system that will replace it he dubbed socialism and then system that will in turn replace socialism a communism.

Every such replacement will happen naturally and only once level of industrialization and economic development would reach a certain level. The only time Marx mentioned a revolution was a transition from socialism to communism. He argued that amount or change needed would be too great and too hard for some to accept, thus a revolution might be needed to achieve that. In contrast transition from capitalism to socialism would go smoother.


How all that Worked

Now looking back, we can tell that transition from capitalism to socialism indeed happen just as Marx predicted. We do not call this system socialism but for all intends and purposes it is socialism as Marx defined it.

As for how it happens, then in the late 1920s there was a Great Depression. System indeed came to a halt and cannot restart itself on its own. In response to that, Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched a series of weeping reforms that dramatically increased role of the state in economy. As a result, the US government became the biggest employer of the US and either directly or indirectly controlled the entire economy in the interest of the public and state. FDR did not call it socialism but rather New Deal, but for all intends and purposes it was socialism as Marx have defined it several decades ago.

Now Financial Crisis or 2009 calls for a further reform and some brighter minds already have the answer, UBI. However, the conservative side of the world resists. Thus, indeed a revolution might be needed to bring about UBI, or as Marx dubbed it, communism. Once again, we do not use terms Marx used, because these terms are not appropriated by a different people for their own needs.


Marxism

Marx ideas did not go unnoticed and already in 19th century, way before Great Depression and FDR there were people who liked Marx ideas so much, they wanted to bring them into reality here and now.

Marx himself cautioned against that, saying that socialism and communism can only happen when economic development and industrialization reaches certain level. Trying to bring it forward is pointless and stupid as trying to build a 7th floor of the apartment block without completing the 6th floor first. (my metaphor) 

Marxists of course promptly ignored Marx and begun discussing how they will bring about socialism, communism and better future here and now. To that end they decided to form International Workingmen's Association and begun discussing how to bring about the better future, promised to them by Marx, who refuted that as I mentioned before.


Marxists Split into Several Groups

As time went differences in opinions eventually led towards rifts in the association. First to be expelled were anarchists. The association voted to expel Guillaume and Bakunin because they claimed that if a Marxist party will come to power, its members would be as bad as the current ruling class. 

Guillaume, Bakunin and their supporters went to establish their own congress in St. Imier Congress. The St Imier congress did not last long, but rejected authoritarianism, promised mutual defense of its members and declared aspiration to create truly free economic system. 


Black International aka Anarchists

After the St. Imier Congress they continued as International Working People's Association or so called Black International. Later they will acquire label Anarchist. Nowadays Anarchism is often associated with chaos, however of all leftists and Marxists this group was by far the most freedom loving and sensible.

Members of Black International would continue to meet only occasionally, often to commemorate various key dates of their history. They use terms such as Syndicalism, Mutualism as well as other terms with Anarcho- prefix to describe themselves and their views.

In practice Black International could not come up with a policy that would satisfy its desire to free the working class from exploitation. They could see problems with the current system but at the same time they saw even more problems with every solution proposed by Marxists. In the end they opted to do nothing over the solution that in their opinion was worse than the problem it was meant to solve.

The rest soon went full throttle.


2nd International and How it Split

The rest of Marxist continued as 2nd (Socialist) International. For the most part they were more radical than the Anarchists, even more moderate among them such as Possibilists still claimed that revolution is their final aim. Unlike the "anarchists" from the rival organization, most members of second international supported strong state.

Just like the first international, the second one ended up splitting up, but that only happened during the WWI and Russian Revolution. 

The key difference here was nationalism vs internationalism. Certain members or second international went to support their nations in the Great War. 

Other instead denounced war and proclaimed that socialists should be opposed war and nations in general. Instead, they should topple their governments while they are busy fighting the war. They should aim to use this once in a lifetime opportunity to topple all government and establish worldwide communism.


The latter internationalist position eventually became Communist or Third International (Comintern). They succeeded in using war to topple Russian Imperial government and establish a revolutionary state in its place. A state where they could attempt to bring their ideas into reality.

The nationalist side at first divided into two rival organizations based on what side their country was during the WWI. The Axis members became International Working Union of Socialist Parties and Allied powers reunited into Berne International. However eventually they agree to merge into Labour and Socialist International


Socialist International After WWI, WWII and Nowadays

Nationalist Labour and Socialist International eventually became simply Socialist International. Once again war, this time WWII interrupted its existence, but it was re-founded afterwards. 

Overtime it became more and more moderate. Many current center-left parties that govern in Europe and other parts of the world are or were members of this Socialist International. Recently a Progressive Alliance have split from this organization due to dispute over governance and acceptance of undemocratic parties. 

Despite the split and some high-profile defections Socialist International continues and unites many left to center left parties across the globe.

Members and member parties use terms Progressive, Labour, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialism and sometimes simply Socialism to describe their ideology and their views.


Trotskyism Splits from Comintern

In contrast Communist International continued to splinter into many new groups. Most notably the 4th or Trotskyist International. 

Trotsky and his supporters disagreed with Stalin on many core issues. One was building socialism in one country, the USSR and instead believed in the original Comintern idea of a global communist revolution. They backed it with the pre-WWI theories that claimed that a single socialist state surrounded by capitalist world cannot function and will collapse. To solve this problem, they wished to overthrow every single capitalist government in every single country of the world and establish global communist.

Stalin did not disagree with them that global revolution should be ultimate goal but believed that socialism in one country has to be intermediate solution as they bide their time to make global revolution a reality.

The other point of contention was Trotskyist criticism of Soviet ruling class. Trotsky argued that revolution created so called new class that is as bad as the previous bourgeoisie ruling class that revolution overthrew. These views were voiced by the Anarchists before and later was also echoed by George Orwell's Animal Farm.

Here Stalin refused to compromise and expelled Trotsky from USSR and later assassinated him.


Comintern and Communism

The Stalin Trotsky split was echoed in the individual members as well as parties. Parties that supported Stalin and his version of communism, practiced in the USSR often adopted term communist for themselves. 

They however continued to use terms such as Socialist and Marxist. Many would hyphenate Marxism with Leninist to emphasize that it is a version of Marxism modified by Lenin and USSR's experience.

Many of such Marxist-Leninist parties were de facto satellites and puppets of USSR. At first USSR controlled them through Comintern and even run a special school to teach foreign communists how to overthrow their government. Many famous communists such as Mao Zedong were graduates of this institution.

Stalin abolished Comintern at request of his WWII Allies, but that was just a token measure and did not remove his ties with other Marxist-Leninist parties. After the WWII they run a Cominform, but eventually abolished that as well.

These relationships continued all the way to the dissolution of the USSR and in certain cases even afterwards. Even nowadays North Korea sends its soldiers to help Putin wage his war in Ukraine. However most communist parties across the globe felt lost and confused after USSR collapse. Many had to do a lot of soul searching to find their new ideology and role in the world. Some continued Soviet orthodoxy and others adopted some novel left-wing ideas.

Usage of term socialist by communist parties would confuse them with members of the Socialist International despite the huge differences between them. For communist term socialism somewhat echos Marx own usage, albeit in a distorted way. Here socialism is an intermediate state on social development between capitalism and communism. Capitalism is used to call the system that existed before communist party took over, socialism is used to describe the system they currently have, and communism is used to call a system they ultimately want to establish.


Trotskyism and 4th International

Trotskyists are both the most radical and the most ideologically purist group. Only after implementing Marxism in USSR did, they realize that Anarchists were right all along. 

Unlike Anarchists who understood impossibility of solving their problem, Trotskyists believed that corruption from within destroyed true socialism in USSR and it could work if done right.

Nowadays they are small fringe, but very active group. It is them who like to say that real socialism was never tried, and they sure would get it work this time around.

Members unite themselves into Fourth International that was dissolved at one point but then was re-founded.

4th International uses the most confusing terminology that overlaps with pretty much every other group. They do not try to distinguish themselves from other groups but rather try to monopolize all Marxist legacy as the only true to Marx group. Often, they simply call themselves Socialist, despite their views and policies being as far from Socialist International as one could be. Sometimes they use term Worker's and such. The only term they somewhat avoid is communist, to distinguish themselves from Comintern.


New Left, Green, Euro Communism and 5th International

As Socialist International was moving further and further center, there were some who were dissatisfied with this and came to believe that this was no longer left enough. At the same time, they did not want to be like USSR and their Marxist-Leninist communism. 

There movements and parties adopted variety of names and terms. Sometimes they would simply call themselves left. Other times they would use some completely different term altogether. Very often they call themselves Green or ally themselves with ecological movements who call themselves Green.

There groups are often oblivious of Trotskyists, so their relationships are nonexistent. However sometimes they could mix up with each other by accident or by desire to improve their electoral changes.

Their policies are typically social democratic but taken to the extreme. They simply want more redistribution than center-left willing to commit to. Unlike other groups they do not seek to change economic system, nor are they bothered with understanding any such complex matter. Instead, they rely on populism. 

Syriza and Podemos are examples of such parties.


Bookchin and American "Socialism"

Now we finally reached the craziest of them all, various American varieties of Socialism.

Unlike all other forms of Marxism and Socialism, American varieties did not split from any of the European organizations. Neither they are based on any theory from these organizations. Instead, American Socialism often based on American anti-Socialist propaganda mixed with each individual author own views. It was not created by working class people for their benefit but rather by some university intellectuals with some strange love for dystopian life and aesthetics.



Because of that pretty much all versions of American Socialism are ultimately grotesque and dystopian. 

Even the most dedicated supporter of USSR style communism would justify all problems with the system as mistakes or necessary evil. Drab look of Khruchevkas was due to desire to save time and money and build more hosing in short time to house as many people as possible. Disposing of business owners and nationalizing businesses was for the benefit of the people who work there. A private owner would make employees work as much as possible and pay them as little as possible to maximize his profits. Sure, business owner would lose his business, but it's a one-man loss over many people under his employ gain. 

The reason for executing or imprisoning former business owners was the fact that such people would want to return ownership over their business and therefore likely to support a conservative coup or foreign intervention from a country who is likely to restore them their former businesses. That would make former business owners extremists who seek destruction of the state and therefore a danger to society.

A government appointed, socially and politically reliable manager would instead prioritize fair treatment of workers and their wellbeing. When in practice these managers would manage Ukraine's Kolkhozes into starvation of millions, they would explain it with miscalculation from Moscow. People who set targets in 5-year plan thought these productivity targets were reasonable, but actual reality on the ground was different. Managers chose to follow their directives from Moscow and ignored problems on the ground before it was too late. 

At the very least they maintained their intention were best interest of working people. Optimist could believe they acted in good faith and their intention were benevolent. Cynic might say they are lying. Realist might point out that Anarchists predicted it will end up this way. Managers, dependent on goodwill of Moscow bosses will always prioritize pleasing them over the people on the ground who cannot fire them. 

A bad system was replaced with a system bad in a different way. However, it was a system made by working class people who never owned a business for the benefit of other people who never owned business just like them. All forms of socialism with exception of American maintain that.



In contrast American socialism often looks at worst examples of continental socialism as something to imitate. They do not want to make life of working class better. Far from it, they want to make everyone's life worse on purpose. They find some strange pleasure in drab socialist aesthetics and want to see it imposed on society on purpose.

Often such people are motivated by some moral conviction that justifies doing this. In one of my other articles, I connected them to puritans and their extreme religions. 

Regardless of where they are coming from. this is the most strange and dubious form of "socialism" out there. In most ways it is the opposite of any other form of Marxism out there. It's like LDS Mormon Church that calls itself Christian but not recognized as such by other Christians.

American varieties of "Socialism" are the most insane dystopian projects out there. I truly baffle me to think of people who would support it and why?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Names of Ukraine

  In my previous article I mentioned how Russia insisted that Ukraine stopped using name Rus' for itself. Khmelnitsky only agreed to it ...