Alexander Hope

The Origin of Revisionists: A result of Opportunists or Dialectics?

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a much better alternative and a much more serious form of Marxism-Leninism. The Marxism-Leninism of the Soviet Union meant the bourgeoisification of Russia through the New Economic policy. The more they tried to implement Socialism, the more the result was ‘‘capitalism’’ — Why do I say that Maoism is better? — Because Maoism critiques the previous Marxism-Leninism and flaws of the Soviet Union and it goes beyond them. Maoism has also started to realize the usefulness and truth in the doctrine of ‘‘Anarchism’’ — While the Bolsheviks outright condemned anarchism, the Maoists although they claimed that individualist anarchism was reactionary, they also implemented a lot of social anarchist theory in their communes. The communes as implemented in China through anarchism was a success, but Maoism is not ‘‘Anarchism’’ — it is merely a blend of Marxism-Leninism with a critique of the Soviet Union, fixing the flaws of bolshevism and implementing social anarchism projects within a Marxist-Leninist context. New useful extensions and theory was born under the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, including the Cultural Revolution, and concepts to deal with contradictions such as ‘‘Self-criticism’’ and ‘‘“unity — criticism — unity” and other such practices and methods that were utilized. That being said, although the extension of Maoism provided Marxism-Leninism with more success, one must admit that Maoism being based on the state will fail to bring about socialism.

The more time passed, the more Mao and the Chinese party reversed their original policy and they abolished the ‘‘communes’’ — as they originally were. From this point onwards, the more the Chinese party tried to implement ‘‘socialism’’ through the incorrect means of the state, the more they generated ‘‘capitalism’’ — as a result, today ‘‘Communist China’’ is more bourgeoisified than the previous Soviet Union, it is the most capitalist nation on Earth behind the United States and it will eventually catch up to the United States through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This makes Malatesta’s Essay on ‘‘Means and Ends’’ more relevant than ever, the simple argument that ‘‘One must use appropriate means if one hopes to achieve the required end’’ — meanwhile Marxism tries to do the opposite, it tries to abolish state via the state. Marxism uses the means of statism and the result of using these means is not implementing socialism, but implementing capitalism. It is simple logic — In a football game, you kick the ball from the front in order to score the goal, if you try to score by kicking the ball from behind by running backwards, you will never score in your opponent’s nest, but instead you might score in your own team mate’s nest and score an auto-goal for the opposite team — The same story is with Marxism, they try to kick the ball while running backwards and in so doing they give points for the opposing team — aka the capitalists. Without a doubt — Maoist theory is the result of dialectics at work — after all Maoism is more superior than the bolshevism of the Soviet Union, Maoism is Russian Bolshevism revised in Chinese conditions which can be applied universally.

This is a fact. But I say, ‘‘If dialectics means the success of Maoist theory, then it also implies it’s failure’’ — The Maoists blame the ‘‘Dengists’’ for the destruction of socialism in China, but really they should also be blaming themselves as dialecticians in this failure. After all, according to Marxists theory, ‘‘Capitalism’’ through it’s own actions developed it’s own dialectical demise, in the same argument, the pseudo-Bolshevik Socialism with capitalist characteristics in both the Soviet union and China through it’s own actions developed its own dialectical demise. It is no wonder why China and Russia ended up restoring capitalism, not only was Marxism Leninism intiating policies that were petit-bourgeois in nature, leninism itself is founded on incorrect means of achieving socialism. One of these incorrect means is called ‘‘Democratic Centralism’’ — which when you look at it a bit deeply functions almost like a corporation — No wonder then Russia and China ended up restoring capitalism. Leninists merely elevate capitalism into the state, in such a way that is no longer the free market ‘‘outside of the state’’ that rules, but a market within the state itself. Engels in his book, ‘‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’’ would have called this the ‘‘Nationalist bourgeoisie stage’’ — which is not socialism at all, but the highest point of a capitalist climax before the proletarian revolution takes place.

According to Engels, eventually capitalism would transform itself into ‘‘state capitalism’’ and only then will there be a proletarian revolution. What Leninism did was the opposite, it did a revolution — Sure… the people indeed were endowed with a revolutionary spirit and consciousness, but those in power — the bolsheviks were not — their heads were entagled in the webs of state capitalism.

According to Engels, this is the process by which capitalism transforms itself into state-capitalism.

‘‘ B. Growing predominance and increasing effectiveness of the laws governing the production of commodities. Unbridled competition. Contradiction between socialized organization in the individual factory and social anarchy in the production as a whole.

C. On the one hand, perfecting of machinery, made by competition compulsory for each individual manufacturer, and complemented by a constantly growing displacement of laborers. Industrial reserve-army. On the other hand, unlimited extension of production, also compulsory under competition, for every manufacturer. On both sides, unheard-of development of productive forces, excess of supply over demand, over-production and products — excess there, of laborers, without employment and without means of existence. But these two levers of production and of social well-being are unable to work together, because the capitalist form of production prevents the productive forces from working and the products from circulating, unless they are first turned into capital — which their very superabundance prevents. The contradiction has grown into an absurdity. The mode of production rises in rebellion against the form of exchange.

D. Partial recognition of the social character of the productive forces forced upon the capitalists themselves. Taking over of the great institutions for production and communication, first by joint-stock companies, later in by trusts, then by the State. The bourgeoisie demonstrated to be a superfluous class. All its social functions are now performed by salaried employees.’’ — Frederick Engels
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

According to Engels, the bourgeoisie will gradually attain a partial recognition of the social character of productive forces that the capitalists enforce in themselves. According to Engels, capitalism implants its own demise, and this is attained firstly: ‘‘By recognition of the social character of productive forces’’ — the capitalists will start to develop their own sort of ‘‘messed up form of socialism’’ through capitalism in order to combat actual socialist tendencies, and they do this by taking over the institutions of production by nationalizing them through the state, by taking over communications, by join-stock companies, later on by trusts, finally by the state. Hence we see the transformation from capitalism into ‘‘State capitalism’’ — According to Engels, only after this state, where the mode of production rises in rebeillion against the form of exchange, can finally the proletariat truly intiate their revolution and the take-over of public power.

The Leninists reverses this process — First they did a proletarian revolution, then they developed capitalism because they realized that their situation was still feudal. Therefore they couldn’t even begin to implement socialism. It’s all ‘‘Backwards’’

Engels — First capitalism transforms into state-capitalism, Mode of production in rebeillion with form of exchange, then a proletarian revolution.

Leninists — Proletarian revolution in feudal societies, capitalism is developed and to an extension this leads to state-capitalism. (In order for Russia and China) to be able to get rid of state-capitalism they would have needed yet another revolution. These worker revolutionaries that were forming as a reaction to the Soviet Unions’s state capitalism were being crushed in the Soviet Union, once such example was the Kronstadt rebellion. The Marxist-Leninists will never admit, that there needed to be yet another revolution to overthrow the state-capitalist state that had formed, instead they find new excuses to propogate the existence of that state. Every state in history, even leninists states used numerous excuses to preserve their existence, and they will continue to do so. When the reality of ‘‘capitalist restoration’’ finally kicked in, rather than revolutionize the workers against this new state capitalist state that had formed, numerous Marxists who have now converted themselves to bolshevism needed to find a scapegoat, an excuse — and that excuse was ‘‘Revisionists’’ — of course one cannot deny that these revisionists are to blame, yet if we analyze the origins of revisionists, it had begun the moment Lenin and the party commenced on their bourgeois policy and continues to expand on them. Numerous Marxists jumped in the same pool to defend marxism-leninism from critique by instead blaming these men.

It’s laughable when Marxists use dialectics to proclaim the victories of ‘‘Marxism’’ — yet when it comes to the loss, they simply blame ‘‘Kruschevites and Dengists’’ — perhaps within this ‘‘Bolshevism’’ in feudal conditions which they have created, they also implanted the seeds of their own demise. Capitalist restoration in China and Russia did not come from some ‘‘Great Man theory’’ — capitalist restoration in ex-socialist countries did not come from particular ‘‘opportunists’’ or ‘‘class traitors’’ — rather capitalist restoration came about because of Marxism’s failure as an ideological basis for constructing socialism and to an extension communism. Capitalist restoration was born from the womb of bolshevism in Russia and Maoism in China, just like capitalism was born from feudalism. Bolshevism merely transitioned from a feudal tsarist society into a state capitalist society of the New Economic Policy. The more time passed, the more capitalists these pseudo-socialists nations became.

Capitalist restoration in Ex-socialist countries was not born from individual men, but from Marxism itself that had already determined itself to a capitalist restoration future. Why do the Marxists preach dialectics only when there’s a victory? But never when there’s a loss? If the Maoists won the revolution, the Marxists quickly jumps and says ‘‘It was bound to happen, you see…. Capitalism plants the seeds of socialism, it was inevitable and it was a dialectical process’’ — but when it comes to capitalist restoration in which socialism is lost, not one Marxist comes forth and says, ‘‘You see… it was bound to happen, the bourgeois reforms of the new economic policy and new democracy according to Marxist theory had planted the seeds of socialism’s own destruction, it was a dialectical process’’ — rather they quickly resort to an undialectical explanation of why there was ‘‘capitalist restoration’’ — they seem to forgot all of dialectical materialism and instead they say, ‘‘Damn those revisionists, it was their fault, if there weren’t any revisionists, we wouldn’t have suffered the loss of socialism’’ — They seem to forget that the revisionists themselves have their origins in the Communist Marxist party of the revolution and therefore it is the fault of the Marxist party for breeding men that are antithetical to the party’s propositions and beliefs. The Antithethical experience unites with the opposing thesis of Marxism and it builds an even far worse synthesis, that of an even bruter form of ‘‘Capitalist Statism’’ — just like China in modern times, a capitalist nation with brutal state repression, the two most horrible aspects from two worlds. China has become the embodiment of everything that’s terrible about capitalism and everything that’s terrible about socialism. It has nothing ‘‘Good’’ about it, it has only appropriated the ‘‘bad’’ aspects of both ideologies.

When socialism wins, the Marxists’s favorite afternoon chat surrounds ‘‘dialectics’’, eating crumbs of biscuit and drinking tea in peace, mubling at every turn. When socialism loses, the Marxist suffers from severe Dementia and doesn’t even recall having heard the word ‘‘Dialectics’’ in his life.