PART ONE OF A PROLOGUE TO A SERIES.
The following was written for the Marxism module of Politics A class in the HNC Social Sciences course. I was up until 6AM writing this five years ago. In fact, this was the only paper I bothered to hand-in before failing/dropping out of the course by early 2006.
Originally Written and Published 30th November 2005
This essay will explain the Marxist-Leninist view of the state, and also detail the core concepts of historical materialism, revolution and the withering of the state, and Lenin's contribution to Marxist theory. Finally, it will also explore the potential reasons as to why socialism did not develop in Russia between 1917 and 1992.
Before discussing any view of the state, it is first necessary to define what constitutes the state.
The state is a set of institutions; primarily the government, military, judiciary, education system, and the media. There are others such as the family or religion which differing groups may or may not agree on including. Regardless of what is or is not considered an institution, it remains the case that the state is comprised of institutions. This model of the state was developed by Karl Marx (1818-1888) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) - two German socialists, literary collaborators, and founders of revolutionary socialism. Unlike their contemporaries, Marx and Engels recognised the ability of the working class to emancipate themselves - rather than through the work of a small group of intellectuals - which is termed Socialism from Below.
When their most famous piece, the Communist Manifesto, was published in February 1848 at the request of the First International, the Industrial Revolution was still recent history. Around the turn of the 19th Century, the agricultural economy gave way to urbanisation and mechanisation in light of technological advances following the English Civil War (1642-1651, 1648-1699). This economic evolution from agriculture to industry (and the social and political effects) demonstrated that society can and does change. Looking back through human history, Engels identified six stages or "epochs" in his study "The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State". The following details these epochs...
- Primitive Communism : The earliest societies were based around hunting and gathering foods and provisions. Neither the state nor class existed in this time.
- Antiquity: The first civilisation to have classes was Sumeria in Mesopotamia beginning around 7500BC. Sumerian society was the technological hyperpower of its time - inventing the wheel, amongst a host of tools still in use today. However, its state was theologically based, rather than economically or politically, which is why Ancient Greece (specifically Athenia) is the common example of Antiquity. It was in Athens that dhemôs kratika (democracy) was born, but the ancient world was highly segregated - only free, white, native, middle-aged, land-owning men could participate in the running of the city-state. The ruling class of this epoch was the freeman (slave-owner, or "citizen") and the subject class (the oppressed and exploited) were the slaves. As the slaves generated wealth for their owners, the state came into being in order to protect the economic position of the ruling class. Physical force was used to ensure this, and thus, the modern police are an outgrowth of the use or threat of physical force to maintain law and order.
- Feudalism: As Western Europe was overrun by marauding Goths and the Western Roman Empire collapsed, the people seeked protection at any cost. For short of a millennia, people were protected by powerful land-owning individuals. The protected lived on these lands, but had to surrender all power to their Lord. The Lords functioned much like tax collectors for kings who ruled the region. The subject class were known as serfs. and were tied to the land they tended. Serfdom lies between the ownership of humans (slavery) and freedom.
- Capitalism: The stage the Developed World is currently experiencing. With the boom of industrialisation, a new class between aristocrat and peasant emerged. The bourgeoisie owned the factories and mines, whereas the new urban peasantry (the proletariat) owned only themselves and survived by selling their ability to work to the bourgeoisie. The ruling class in capitalism also has political and social control through the state. Though the subject class (the proletariat) may participate in the political process, the bourgeoisie's economic might will prevent any change of affairs: business may threaten economic disintegration by pulling-out of any country which attempts to improve the lot of the subject class. The government will conform out of self-interest, as massive unemployment and poverty would guarantee the loss of power at the next election.
- Socialism: Following a successful Marxist revolution, the proletariat would become the ruling class and the bourgeoisie would be the subject class. Under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; wealth, classes and private ownership would be actively eliminated over time. The proletariat would wield the facilities left by the bourgeoisie for their own benefit. As time progresses, a new society will emerge and the need for the state will cease - 'withering away' to paraphrase the Communist Manifesto.
- Communism: Money, class and the state will no longer be. The bourgeoisie will have been reintegrated into society and everyone will be free to pursue their wishes and improve themselves. In all but the first and last epoch, there exists exploitation - that of the subject class by the ruling class.
As previously mentioned in detailing the Capitalist Epoch, the ruling class has not only economic power, but social and political power. The state and its constituent are therefore controlled by the ruling class and working to preserve their status. Marxists consider work, family and religion to also be state institutions - employment keeps one from learning anymore than that required in their current job, family is a production line in which the next generation of workers are created, and religion pacifies grievances of Earthly conditions in exchange for the faithful residing in the peaceful eternity of the afterlife.
Returning to the definition of the state, government (and by extension, the entire political system) will not bring about peaceful revolution through reform because government consists of bourgeoisie, it would not give up its position of [apparent] power; and if it attempted reform, business interests would force it to capitulate. Nor can education be relied upon to instil change since it promotes the ruling class ideology - faith in the free market to provide, that communism is a pipe dream, that humans are inherently greedy and the capitalist system is the natural outcome, for example. Thus, it is necessary for the proletariat to free themselves and conduct their own revolution, as they must adhere to Socialism for it to succeed and they must also target the Economic Base. The Economic Base are the modes of production, divided into the relations of production - the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie, and the means of production - the ownership of the machines, buildings and raw materials by the bourgeoisie.
The institutions of the state have already been shown to be resistant to change. These institutions are termed the superstructure. However, the Economic Base is the source of the bourgeoisie's power and by seizing it, the revolution can proceed to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The possibility of the working class seizing state power is founded on the inherent contradictions of capitalism which will eventually precipitating an economic crisis - profit cannot be sustained forever with finite resources. In order to maintain profit, businesses will cut wages - the source of their initial tremendous profits. Unemployment will sharply rise in what Marx called "the immiseration of the proletariat" (Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, 1867, Public Domain). The unemployed will understand their situation as the superstructure collapses and false consciousness falls away - realising that capitalism is the root cause. With the end of capitalism, society enters a transitional state. Unlike the bourgeoisie who will not surrender power to the proletariat (necessitating the revolution), the democratic foundation of revolutionary socialism puts power into the hands of all - not a political elite. Due to the dissolution of classes during the socialist epoch, the state will cease to be required - as the state existed solely to uphold the power of the ruling classes. With the end of the state, humanity moves onto the final epoch.
However, the Communist Manifesto was vague in the details of the transition, resulting in a number of offshoot theories which attempt to fill in the blanks. Marxism-Leninism is the prime example of an update to the core theory of Marxism. This adaptation was the work of Vladimir Illich Ulyanov (nom de guerre: Lenin) (1870-1924) who was the leading figure of the Russian Communist Party (previously the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, later the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) from 1903 until his death in 1924. He adapted Marxist theory to the situation of his native Russia. Traditional Marxism (that of Marx and Engels' publications) focuses on society's progress through epochs - specifically in the order presented in the Historical Materialism section of this essay. Russia, however, had only officially abolished serfdom in 1861 (though it remained in practice for some time after); it had an adult literacy rate of 30-50% in 1900 when Britain, France and Germany were on or near 90%. The Russian economy was still predominantly agricultural - not sufficiently industrialised to support a workers' revolution.
Lenin argued in Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism that the workers of Western Europe had become comfortable with capitalism as several countries had acquired colonial empires which they exploit and use the large profits to keep domestic wages high - becoming a Labour Aristocracy with no interest in proletarian revolution. To Lenin, World War I, imperialism and a parasitic class living off interest, rent money, profit and stocks (which have no value through labour) were all a sign that capitalism was decaying and that revolution was only possible in an underdeveloped country such as Russia. After the October Revolution (November 1917), it was hoped the German Revolution would succeed with the end of World War I, inspiring a domino effect in Europe and eventually the world. He developed two more important ideas: the vanguard party, and the soviets. The 1902 pamphlet What is to be Done? set-out his idea of a communist party fostering class consciousness amongst the proletariat. The Vanguard Party is particularly controversial as it goes against Marx's insistence on self-emancipation. Better received is the "soviets" (English: Workers' Councils). It was envisaged that these Soviets would be the key to establishing direct-democracy (as per Athens, but with universal suffrage). The idea was replicated by Mao Zedong (1893-1976) when he established the Chinese Soviet Republic in 1931. The Soviet Union was so named to indicate where political power resided. The rise of the SDLP was founded on the Soviets' support, though it would not last into the creation of the Soviet Union.
The failure of Bolshevik Russia to progress into the socialist epoch can be attributed to a number of issues:
- The SDLP's split into two factions over Lenin's "democratic centralism", which required party members to agree on policy in public. In 1921 the principle was used to ban intra-party groups, an overtly authoritarian move.
- Russia was by no definition in the capitalist epoch, and therefore ill equipped to move into the socialist epoch. A feudal state must progress into capitalism.
- War Communism was introduced shortly after the revolution in order to fight the Russian Civil War. This put the factories out of soviet control and into government control. Dissenters were harshly punished, sometimes shot. This was deeply unpopular and strikes broke-out across the country. After the Krondstadt Rebellion it was replaced with New Economic Policy.
- If one terms Stalinism an interpretation of Marxism-Leninism, then blame can be placed on the authoritarian tendencies of individuals wielding centralised power. Trotskyism cites Stalin as corrupting Marxism and excluding the proletariat from the political process - the oppressed class spawning a bureaucratic class (dubbed the Nomenklatura in the 1960s). However, events after 1924 are long after any initial cause for the long-term failure of the Soviet Union.
------
Minor format edits and spelling corrections 1st November 2010My critique of this essay's conclusions on Russian socialism and my contemporary thoughts on Marxism will follow on the 30th of this month.
[2260]
No comments:
Post a Comment