THE LEFT AND MARXISM
Türkçe English Deutsch Italiano Français Ελληνικά Kurdî Español LEFT AND MARXISM By the left I mean the socialist left. The left's reckoning was limited to its own past, it may have thought of coming to terms with Marxism, but it did not, in fact it could not. The 20th century can also be considered as the history of socialism in power. I have written books and made videos on the subject, I will not repeat them, I will only make brief remarks. All of the articles and speeches are available to everyone. I will give their addresses at the end of the article. The first objection is that 20th century socialism and Marxist socialism are different. For example, the state has not died out. This is normal because the Marxist conception of socialism envisages a world revolution. Socialism has no powerful capitalist rivals. This did not happen, and therefore the Marxist conception of socialism should have ceased to be valid. Another socialism had to be implemented, but without a clear name (see Back to the Future). In Marxist theory, the changing force of society is the working class. In the revolutions of the 20th century, we have seen that the small producers played as important or even more important a role in the democratic and socialist revolution as the working class. In the October revolution, the workers took power together with peasants dressed as soldiers. These were peasants, not poor peasants, because in semi-feudal Russia the peasantry was poorly differentiated. It was only with the active co-operation of the peasants that the revolution, which took place in a few cities, could spread across the vast country, which covers one-sixth of the globe. In the second great revolution of the 20th century, the Chinese revolution, the main force of the revolution was the peasantry. In the semi-colonial, semi-feudal country there are very few workers. The socialist revolution was made by the peasantry under the leadership of the Communist Party. In Europe, Yugoslavia and Albania, where socialist governments were established without the support of the Red Army, are peasant countries with very few workers. Vietnam's situation is similar to China's. Cuba was a dependent capitalist country. The Socialist Party (communist party), which was active in the trade unions, was opposed to the guerrilla war launched by the 26 July Movement in the Sierra Maestra. The Cuban revolution was the first revolution not led by a communist party. The main forces of the revolution were urban and rural small producers and the student movement. The workers joined the revolution only after it became clear that the guerrilla war would win. The result of the 20th century revolutions is that the main force is the workers (including agricultural workers), urban and small producers. In this case, after the revolution, not the dictatorship of the proletariat, but the dictatorship of the working class + small producers will be established. This is why Mao spoke of the democratic dictatorship of the people after 1949. Enver Hoxha will do the same. One can speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat only after the country has industrialised and the workers have become a significant force. Socialist society is not the first stage of communist society, but a separate social system with its own legalities. Walter Ulbricht, Secretary General of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED), first argued this in 1970. (See Berlin Wall 1989) His reasoning was that socialism would last for a long time. It is a view that I have adopted. Let us come to the collapse of socialist countries... Capitalism has been established in the former USSR and in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. Where did the bourgeoisie in power in these countries come from? It came from the leadership of the Communist parties and their subsidiary organisations. How do you explain this? Even the fastest Marxist-Leninists among the socialists are silent about this. A study of history is necessary here. There are five books on this subject: 1989 The Berlin Wall (the GDR has a special case), Che Guevara A Short Life (history of Cuba), The Transition from Socialism to Capitalism - The Examples of Bulgaria and Romania, Albania 1912-1992. In these books I have shown, by giving names, how in the transition from socialism to capitalism the members of the communist party formed the bourgeoisie of the new order. Did you say that there has been a return? Isn't it a strange reversal? Mao died in 1976, and in 1978 the Chinese Communist Party rejected the continuation of the class struggle in socialism, which was the main determination of the Cultural Revolution, and removed it from the agenda. Stay in power for 27 years between 1949 and 1976, and then in two years your fundamental determinations are rejected! The situation was no different for the Albanian Labour Party, which accused both the USSR and China of revisionism. Enver Hoxha died in 1985, in 1990 his statue in the capital was destroyed by demonstrators, in 1992 the country was no longer socialist. Great changes cannot take place so quickly without strong roots in the past. China, Vietnam and Cuba have announced their transition to market socialism, which they had strongly criticised in the past. The first two countries in particular have made great economic progress. I plan to finish the book Chinese socialism (1949-2022) in the autumn. You can find the books I have mentioned at www.enginerkiner.blogspot.com. It is better to copy the link and search for them. Or you can find them all if you search for TDAS Bookshelf on Drive. You can find many videos on Marxism, China and other topics by typing my name or TDAS Platform on youtube. Finally; if you say that Marxism is a theory open to development, then do it, we have been waiting for at least 40 years. NOTE / MIGRATION.COM. We consider it our duty to publish the opinions of our authors and the opinions of everyone who has the right to reply.
