The fundamental crisis of Marxism at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries was because, contrary to orthodox Marxism, the proletariat – the primary “victim of capitalism” – never became the driving force of the communist revolution. Also, because of the rise in the culture and quality of life, the proletariat began to lose the main signs of a class of victims. In other words, the proletariat has lost its attractiveness to Marxism as the main representative of the “oppressed class.”
The crisis of Marxism led it to a new stage of revisionism and modifications, based on the search for a suitable class of victims.
Many branches of Marxism came to existence, differing only in the chosen class of victims. Consequently, all branches of both neo-Marxism and Marxism, without exception, are united in their ultimate goal. This goal is a classless society, the inherent definition of “Communism.” There are even contradictions by clans of leftists within the party, who may be united in their choice of one particular class of victims, but unclear on how to use them in the struggle for political power.
Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?
The classic Marxists had chosen the primary victim of capitalism (i.e., the main driving force of the revolution) the “oppressed proletariat.” Lenin had chosen colonies as such victims, “oppressed” by the metropolitan power states. One chosen colony, Russia, although formally an Empire, was on the economic and financial periphery. She was in fact, a raw material and agricultural appendage of European metropolitan power countries.
Chairman Mao Tse-tung had chosen the peasantry as a victim, but with the proviso that the proletariat (which, ironically, was practically absent back then in China) is still the leader of the peasantry. It should be noted that Mao Tse-tung understood socialism very differently from how European or American socialists understood it. He recognized it as a form – transitional to communism – when both the capitalist and the communist economy coexist simultaneously (which we are witnessing in China at present).
The Italian fascists had chosen its victim, a nation-state (agrarian Italy was “oppressed” by the more powerful industrial countries of Europe). The German fascists had chosen their victim to be the non-existent Aryan race (“oppressed” by the victorious countries in World War I).
During which time, Hitler “borrowed” the term “National Socialism” (“Nazism”) from Mussolini fascists, who in fact built the true national socialism in Italy. In the Third Reich, if we would use the traditional leftist terminology, not national socialism, but rather racial (more precisely, Aryan) socialism was built.
Generally, leftists traditionally like to “borrow” other people’s terms and use them either as a smokescreen or as their own. Recall the various ways the leftists call themselves – Marxists, Progressive, Social Democrats, Social Revolutionaries, Democrats, Liberal Democrats, Fascists, National Socialists, Communists, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Globalists…
This list is quite long, but the leftists in America prefer to call themselves “liberals,” and, using the methods of politically correct dictatorship, force all others to call themselves so. They borrowed this term from the Founding Fathers of the United States, who were students of the liberal philosophy, and who were true classical liberals of the 18th century (now, in the 21st century, called conservatives).
Another example of borrowing or substituting of terms is the appropriation of red colour to Republicans (partially right-wingers), and blue colour to Democrats (mostly leftists). Even though the parties of the left, not the right, throughout the history of mankind, were designated red (remember the flags of the Third Reich and the USSR), it was keenly reversed.
Let me remind you that before 1917, Marxism was just a theory. No one, not even Marx himself, knew how to make a transition from capitalism to communism in practice. For decades the leftists fought a ruthless dispute among themselves, on how best to do it. Long before the communist coup in Russia in 1917, two main camps were formed: the Mensheviks (the term means “members of the minority”) who were supporters of the evolutionary transition, and the Bolsheviks (“members of the majority”), supporters of the revolutionary transition.
The Mensheviks (the irony here is that “the minority” was, in fact, the majority) were clustered around the ideas of the Fabian society. They argued that the transition must be carried out smoothly and gradually, with the help of democratic institutions. Otherwise, the revolutionary confiscation and redistribution of the property will turn into a bloody feud.
After the coup of 1917 and the terrible civil war in Russia, the leftist thinking faced a new challenge – how to retain power in a socialist country surrounded by capitalist countries. Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks have split again. So, the main competing leftist ideologies subsequently became four. For their designations we will use terms that have been established to date, which do not necessarily coincide with the historical names of these ideologies:
- Stalinist-Leninists (“Bolsheviks”) argued that terror could hold socialist power in a single country for a period sufficient enough to build communism. History confirmed the fallacy of this approach.
- The Trotskyists (“Bolsheviks”) argued that power in one socialist country in a capitalist encirclement would not be retained by any terror, and it would be necessary to simultaneously make socialist revolutions/coups in all countries without exception. History confirmed that Trotsky was right that the power cannot be held.
- The Fascists (“Mensheviks”) argued that the bloody revolutionary redistribution of the wealth would only deter the people from socialist ideas. They proposed a more “humane” method – instead of forcibly taking away private property, establish totalitarian state control over both it and its owners. History confirmed that this approach does not work either.
- The Globalists (“Mensheviks”) argued that the victory of socialism could be achieved only by practically simultaneous implementation in all countries and in a peaceful, democratic way. As the primary method of socialist transformation, they chose the plan proposed by the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci – “Cultural Marxism.” That is, the path to socialism was supposed to begin with the transformation of education, culture, literature, journalism, cinema, etc.
Three branches of the leftists from this list have practically disappeared by the beginning of the 21st century (except for such countries as Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea). In most countries, the Stalinists, the Trotskyists, and Fascists, if they exist, are in the form of marginal groups, which often do not even remember (or maybe do not want to recall) their past. For example, many modern National Socialists have entirely forgotten their socialist, fascist roots, and are concentrated only on one point (out of 25) of the Nazi party program – racism.
However, the fourth branch of neo-Marxism – Globalism – continues its disastrous spread across the planet. The difference between the 21st-century Globalism and all other leftists is that Globalists are politically omnivorous, that is, they accept all classes of “victims” in their ranks.
It’s easy to understand why Antonio Gramsci, so revered by Globalists, wrote about the 1917 communist coup in Russia, that this revolution was “a revolution against Marxism,” and why “the Bolsheviks rejected Karl Marx.”
Globalism is not only the most cynical but also the highest phase of Marxist revisionism.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by iPatriot.com.