Rambler's Top100

RPK
The Regional Party of Communists (Russia)

Russian
koi8-r
cp1251
cp866
iso-8859-5
German

 

 

Mail to Webmaster rpk@len.ru

TopList

 

What Is Socialism?

More than 150 years passed since the creation of socialist theory but we are still confronted with the question: what socialism is. The socialist movement at the end of 19th and beginning of the 20th century didn't get explicit answer to this question, partly because it didn't want to go much in details with its description of future society, partly because it had faith in the role of socialist state and vanguard political organization of working class in transformation of society. After October Revolution and other great historical political events in 20th century it became clear how wrong were presumptions of early socialists, including almost all communists for more decades. In those days it was not politically opportune to examine basic attitudes of the classics of Marxism. It was justified by the necessity of creation of united revolutionary front of all workers' parties all over the world.

Unfortunately, many communists are not able to liberate themselves from these ideological and dogmatic chains although it is clear that many things have been done and many things have been said in order to justify political moves of Soviet bureaucracy or its satellites in other countries of Eastern Bloc. At the moment it is not the most important task to adapt communist tactics to changed situation in the world. The main issue is to study again classics of Marxism and to learn those of their attitudes which have been hidden or forgotten at Stalinist and post-Stalinist era. Fundamental question, which is not answered yet and probably will never be answered finally and satisfactorily for all, is what happened to those societies which called themselves socialist. If those societies really were socialist ones and they yet collapsed, it must be examined whether it was because of their inherent failures or because of some other causes. Only when we find answer to this question we can be sure that our propaganda and political work for socialism will be successful. Otherwise the question: "Why should we fight for the system that once failed?" will become inevitable.

I don't think it is possible to justify collapse of Soviet bloc by mere accusing imperialist agents for espionage or domestic officials for lethargy. I won't elaborate this thesis except with two short details. First, it is well known that Soviet (and other Eastern) coercive apparatus was very strong and merciless for the enemies of the system. Secondly, ideological apparatus was also highly organised with total control over the system of communication and school. I don't see how it was possible in such situation for hostile "elements" to prowl and destroy the whole system. Some bureaucrats who were part of the system could try to justify inefficiency of the very system in this way, but it couldn't be scientific and theoretical way of research of this issue.

Second very important question is: what kind of society socialism is. Some authors claim that socialism has never existed and now I see that similar questions are posed when the discussion is about nature of Chinese or Vietnamese society. I think that this thesis is very important and true and I will try to motivate it with little help of Marx and Lenin.

For Marx socialism is such society where mankind is liberated from chains of exploitation and alienation. Of course, Marx has not been first and the only author who thought that socialism would bring such social relations and reach this goal. If we struggle for the new society then it must really be new. And it is possible only if it is based on genuine and direct democracy with more rights than people (and citizens) had in capitalism. If this is not case, then it is not socialism but new form of exploitative social relations. As Rosa Luxemburg once said: "There is no socialism without democracy and there is no democracy without socialism". I think this must be our main slogan, theoretical attitude and political aim, affirmed in the history of whole modern society and workers' movement, including some well known tragical experiences during the 20th century. Marx criticized citizens' rights, that's correct. But he didn't criticize their substance and necessity for their existence. Marx and especially Engels thought that universal suffrage, for example, is big step forward and important weapon in hands of working class. And it was certainly achievement of bourgeoisie revolution or even reform. So, the problem was not in the nature of citizens' rights but in disability of capitalism to fulfil them. Or, if you read Lenin's works from Summer of 1917 you will see that he thought it could be possible peaceful struggle of socialist parties inside soviets with guarantee of all political rights. The point is that socialism can't aim to liberate people if it limit their freedom at the same time. On the second hand, socialism couldn't be achieved without mass support and activity of big number of people. If it is true, then political rights couldn't be limited without danger for the revolution.

Marx wrote in the Statute of the First International that liberation of working class must be done by itself. It is expected to be done by it and only by it because if socialist revolution is fundamental change of one society with another, if it means that the class of owners who ruled for centuries have to disappear economically, it is impossible to reach this aim only with activity of political organization, no matter how well organised, mass and supported it is. It is said that new society is in the interest of great majority of people. If this society is to come, this majority have to understand and accept it as its interest and ideal. You can't liberate those who don't want liberation because they would understand it as new slavery.

But, what will happen when this new society comes? Will it be necessary to control political leaders? Or, will there be new political leaders at all? Someone will have to make decisions and it is certainly that everybody won't have same degree of power or influence. The substance of socialism is that there is no a group of people who will be in position to hold the power constantly and in that way to exclude all others from exercising democracy. This is situation in modern capitalist democracies and it was also situation in self-proclaimed socialist countries. If socialism is to bring real liberation, then it will have to provide as much elements of direct democracy as possible. It is also in the spirit (and words) of Marx's theory. For example, in the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels wrote about conquering of democracy and defined the state as "proletariat organised as ruling class". It is also known that both authors more than once criticized Blanqui because of his attempts to win socialism with small group of revolutionaries who will then organise new society in the way they think is the best. In the Critique of Gotha Programme Marx described the state as the servant of society. But could it be servant if state officials are not responsible to people? And could it be servant if it concentrates in its hands political and economic power?

The Paris Commune was the best example of self-governing society. As it is known, Marx higly evaluated this experience which had so strong impression on him that he wrote his famous Civil war in France, where he elaborated his political theory of the state. Engels also described the Paris Commune as a form of dictatorship of proletariat, although it proclaimed political freedoms, multi-party system and workers' self-management in enterprises (which were Commune's best features, in my opinion). Lenin wrote his State and Revolution having Commune in mind. The fact is that the bolsheviks abandoned this experience, but it was their evaluation of tactics in concrete political situation as well as of some theoretical problems. It may be claimed that it was necessary or wrong, but it was not their persistent theoretical standpoint but rather effort to find appropriate theoretical and political orientation.

It is often said that socialism was established because of total nationalisation of means of production. Then it could be said that socialism is partially established in England with the Labor, who nationalized 20% of industry in 1945. So, there were 20% of socialism in Britain. No doubt this is not serious argument. Nationalization is not enough for socialism. It is socialization what is needed. Who runs the economy? With nationalization it is the state and its officials. In such circumstances the position of workers haven't changed. Instead of one capitalist, who is a private owner, workers get another one, who is by Engels called "ideal capitalist". Marx knew the difference between the private character of appropriation and private character of ownership. Private character of appropriation is possible also without private ownership. Marx found the root of exploitation in the fact that those who create surplus value are not its controllers. In the liberal capitalism capitalists were controllers. In state capitalism the controllers were the state and private capitalists. But in so-called state socialism we still do not have situation that the controllers of surplus value are those who make it. Socialist bureaucrats still do this. Therefore I conclude that socialism is not possible in society where workers create but don't decide about products of their labor.

Apr, 6, 2005   Goran Markovic
President of the Workers' Communist Party
of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and Chief Editor of "The Voice of Freedom"

 



(L) Copyleft 1998 - 2024