Next chapter | Previous chapter | Top
H. W. Edwards, The Anatomy of Revisionism (Stockholm: Aurora, 1979)
Current chapter: (Introduction) Social Democracy and Scientific Socialism
[ xvi ]
SOCIAL DEMOCRACY AND SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM
As treated in this text, Social Democracy is by no means just a "simple, honest" ideological trend in the working class movement. It is, rather, a major agent of the class enemy – the bourgeoisie – operating inside the working class emancipatory movement along specific clearly-defined lines.*
But since Social Democracy speaks (mainly, nowadays, in "Third World" areas) with certain "Marxist" pretensions, it is also necessary to examine how it stands on each of the test principles of scientific socialism outlined above.
1. On theory as a guide to action
From the beginning of its betrayal of the working class movement in 1914, Social Democracy's "theory" has been and remains a bombastic eclecticism, mentioning Marx only where convenient.**
In reality, this theory warps and distorts all Marx's major principles, with the aim of thwarting the latter's main objective: working class revolution, especially (today) anti-colonial liberation as the world's current stage of that same revolution.
Lenin had established his famous condition:
"Without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement... This thought cannot be insisted on too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity."1
In practice, far from defending Marxist theory, Social Democracy became and remained its principal distorter. But –¬
[ xvii ]
not always recognizeably so. Lenin taught that any adulterator of Marxism had to be fought relentlessly. But, he had added, because
"Marxism was right ... it (is) necessary to fight against (it) hypocritically, not to oppose the principles of Marxism openly, but to pretend to accept it and at the same time to emasculate it by sophistry, to transform Marxism into a holy 'icon' that is harmless to the bourgeoisie ... and makes it suitable for justifying all sorts of concessions to opportunism."2
So, even where it "espouses Marxism," Social Democracy is merely cloaking its main aims and will never lead workers to action that is revolutionary or in their own basic (as opposed to short-term) interests.
The real material base of Social Democratic ideology is (a) the needs of the labor aristocracy as they fit into (b) the requirements of the imperialist ruling class. This is the real theory that Social Democracy always implements.
2. The need for a vanguard party
Lenin castigated Social Democrats on this subject because a segment of them wanted openly to do away with the vanguard party Lenin was building. This group was then known as "Liquidators." Their liquidationism took the form, not of wanting to do away with the vanguard party itself, but with its illegal or underground side, which repressive Russian conditions made necessary.
Lenin made clear that this aberration in theory was basic to Social Democracy:
"Liquidationism is ideologically CONNECTED* with ... OPPORTUNISM... But Liquidationism is not ONLY opportunism ... it ... is THAT BRAND of opportunism that goes to the length of RENOUNCING the Party...
"Liquidationism means not only the liquidation (i.e., the dissolution, the destruction) of the old Party of the working¬
[ xviii ]
class, it also means the destruction of the CLASS INDEPENDENCE of the proletariat, the corruption of its class consciousness by BOURGEOIS ideas."3
For this reason, Lenin's position throughout the struggle for socialism in Russia had been that, whatever happened, the vanguard must fight to keep distorters of Marxism out of their party:
"it is IMPOSSIBLE to tolerate the existence of SUCH A TREND WITHIN the Social-Democratic Labor parties* ... Socialism ... has ... entered the stage of revolutionary action; and there can be no doubt that the time has come for a complete rupture with opportunism and its expulsion from the workers' parties."4
3. Social Democracy and class struggle
In its theory, Social Democracy fulminates endlessly against class struggle. It pretends that, were it not for "communists," it (Social Democracy) could "reason with intelligent" sections of the bourgeoisie, whereby progress for the working class would then be achieved peacefully.
Social Democracy has conceived its main role to be that of calming any class struggle which might erupt. However, it will fight, up to a point, for the gains of the labor aristocracy whenever these are threatened; and, especially, if it is "out of office," as in Britain since 1971.
So, far from recognizing the bourgeoisie as the main class enemy, and irreconcilably so at that, Social Democracy assures labor that its "interests" lie in making capitalism "work better."
"Class collaboration" in the Social Democratic lexicon includes not only "peaceful agreements" with "benevolent" capitalists, but also specific and inevitable (though usually unspoken) Social Democratic ties with Fascism.**
On the practical side, having accepted the "inevitability" and the "progressive nature" of imperialism, Social Democracy quite logically makes class collaboration the very center of its program.¬
[ xix ]
This, in turn, usually leads to "agreements" that, while they usually bring concessions of some sort, are nevertheless harmful to the long-run interests of all workers, even the labor aristocracy which gets them.
Lenin had clarified the difference between reformists and Marxists in their respective positions on making agreements. The basis for deciding whether or not to make an agreement and what kind to make or when, Lenin showed, must be the unalterable attitude of workers toward their class brothers everywhere: proletarian internationalism. On numerous occasions, he exposed how opportunists violate this precept because of their economic position in society:
"an attempt to defend narrow craft interests ... is the same aristocratic spirit one finds among workers in some of the 'civilized' countries. They are in a privileged position, enjoy certain benefits, and are therefore inclined to forget the need for international class solidarity."6
Lenin contrasted the reformist with the Marxist attitude to internationalism:
"... the internationalism of (opportunism) amounted to this: to demand reforms from the imperialist bourgeois government, but to continue to support it...
"Theoretically, this shows a complete inability to dissociate oneself from the social-chauvinists and ... politically, it means substituting petty-bourgeois nationalism for internationalism, deserting to the reformists' camp and renouncing revolution."7
Here, Lenin had explained in advance the betrayal by Social Democracy of the workers' interests which led inevitably, by the 1930s, to its open association with and support for counter-revolutionary Fascism.
Finally, Lenin had emphasized the intimate connection between world revolution and proletarian internationalism:
"The Bolshevik tactics were the ONLY internationalist tactics, because they were based on ... a correct ... ESTIMATION of the revolutionary situation in Europe ... because they did the utmost possible in one country FOR¬
[ xx ]
the development and support and awakening of the revolution in ALL COUNTRIES."8
Social Democrats, Lenin charged, did not take this approach because of their
"cowardly fear of a world revolution ... a philistine lack of faith in it ... not 'caring a hang' about all the rest (of the working class)..."9
4. Ownership of the social means of production
In theory, Social Democracy has equated any type of nationalization of any industry or part thereof by any government as "social ownership of the means of production," regardless who has benefited from the "take-over." The British Labour Party, in or out of power, prates of "British Socialism." Many workers, including a great number of those in subjugated areas, are taken in by this.
Lenin challenged the specific view that "state ownership" constituted any kind of socialism:
"...what is most essential in the theoretical appraisal of the latest phase of capitalism, i.e., imperialism (is) that capitalism becomes monopoly CAPITALISM. The latter must be emphasized because of the erroneous bourgeois reformist assertion that monopoly capitalism or state-monopoly capitalism is NO LONGER capitalism, but can already be termed 'state socialism,' or something of the sort."10
On the practical side, the Social Democrats fought tooth and toe-nail at all times to protect existing ruling class ownership of the social means of production. Where this position led them in practice was illustrated, for example, in Italy.
There, in September 1920, responding to a lockout, Italian workers occupied factories in the northern section of the country. Soon a half million workers were in
"unchallenged occupation of the factories, establishing their own workers' committees and armed guards. The government and employers were powerless. The troops could not be counted on to act against the workers. The classic conditions of revolution were present.
[ xxi ]
"...What neither the employers nor the Government, nor the police, nor the armed forces could effect ... was effected by the reformist leadership – to get the workers out of the factories and hand them back to the capitalists."11
Social Democracy knows who the rightful owners of the social means of production are and, when the chips are down, protects their ownership.*
The resulting influence of Social Democracy's theoretical and practical stance on this crucial matter could be clearly seen in the attitudes of political leaders in colonial (usually neo-colonial) areas who, upon attaining political independence, promised the imperialists not to expropriate their property "without compensation."** Certainly, African countries have given examples of this.
5. Social Democracy and the state
Lenin had noted that the Second International, even when it "came right up against this question (of the state)," tried "TO EVADE it or else failed to notice it."12 He had added:
"In general, it may be said that EVASIVENESS as regards the ... relation of the proletarian revolution to the state – an evasiveness which was to the advantage of opportunism and fostered it – resulted in the DISTORTION of Marxism and its complete vulgarization."12
Lenin therefore fought a long tough battle against Social¬
[ xxii ]
Democracy everywhere on this vital matter. As always, he started with fundamentals: the Social Democrat, he said,
"fails to see the CLASS nature of the state apparatus, of the machinery of state ... the petty-bourgeoisie ... believes that 'after all is said and done' the state is something outside of classes, or above classes."
On the contrary, Lenin proved that
"The state is the product and the manifestation of the IRRECONCILABILITY of class antagonism. The state arises when, where and to the extent that class antagonisms objectively CANNOT be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that class antagonisms are irreconcilable."14
In contrast, Social Democrats, having denied "irreconcilable class antagonisms," Lenin noted,
"accepted the bourgeois political forms of parliamentary democratic state as the limit which should not be overstepped ... and denounced ... all desire to smash ... these forms."15
And what happened the moment they got a foot inside such a parliament? Precisely at this point entered the question of whether or not it was possible to utilize the old state machine. Lenin had declared that
"all the revolutions which have occurred up to now perfected the state machine, whereas it must be ... smashed.
"This conclusion is the chief and fundamental point in the Marxist teaching on the state. And it is precisely this fundamental point which has been ... completely FORGOTTEN by the dominant official Social-Democratic parties."16
From this "chief and fundamental point in the Marxist teaching on the state" followed the problem of what should replace the old state machine once it had been smashed. Lenin had stipulated that
"the old executive apparatus, the bureaucracy, which is¬
[ xxiii ]
connected with the bourgeoisie, would simply be unfit to carry out the orders of the proletarian state."17
What was fit to "carry out the orders of the proletarian state," as dealt with in Lenin's writings, was, as shown by the Paris Commune,
"the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors."18
This process, Lenin had also made clear, could be implemented only by instituting certain specific measures to provide the people with "cheap government." These included the suppression of the old standing army,19 the removal of "allowances" for "high dignitaries of state,"20 and the rendering of judicial functionaries subject to election and recall.21 The very measures, in a word, which would remove Social Democratic – and bourgeois – snouts from the public trough.
Yet it was against this dictatorship of the proletariat that the Social Democratic advocacy of the "peaceful" assumption of power was directed. Invariably, the opportunists opposed and finally sabotaged the whole concept.
Of the recommended actions to guarantee "cheap government," the key one, ensuring success of revolution once power had been seized, consisted in Lenin's view in
"the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people."22
Instead, interested in the sizeable crumbs dropped by the ruling class into the laps of "its" labor aristocracy, the Social Democrats "extended" the "theory" and practice regarding the state to mean class collaboration, proposing peaceful, i.e., the electoral, paths to "socialism." Governments like those of Ramsay McDonald in the 1920s or of Harold Wilson after 1964 illustrated this. Therefore, of course Social Democrats abhorred and feared the dictatorship of the proletariat, although they "justified" their hatred by using the name of "democracy."
[ xxiv ]
6. Attitude toward wars
As the First World War loomed, the Social Democrats began more and more loudly to wail how "impossible" it was that "peace may be broken." Lenin scoffed:
"Such simple-mindedness ... is not surprising ... IT IS IN THEIR INTERESTS to pretend to be so naive and to talk 'seriously' about peace under imperialism."23
Again, their general stance amounted to negating the class struggle. They ignored the Marxist method of judging each war according to the kind of politics it served (either condemning it as reactionary or supporting it as revolutionary). Rather, they came out for "disarmament" in general, for "peace" in general – except (significantly) in the case of the main – imperialist – war. They claimed that the growth of interlocking directorates and international cartels made disarmament a real possibility under capitalism because such cartels would have "the same interests" everywhere. To these arguments in particular, Lenin had replied:
"To deduce an economic tendency towards disarmament from the combining and interlocking of various national capitalists into one international whole means substituting the pious, philistine wish that class antagonism could be blunted for the actual sharpening of these antagonisms."24
But the crunch of the Marxist attitude on war lies just here. Peace, in and of itself, is primarily a means: and even when it becomes an end, it is still a revolutionary end, leading to the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie.
Such an outcome the Social Democrats wanted to avoid at all costs, as their position on disarmament proved. For, Lenin had specified that
"An exploited class that does not STRIVE to acquire arms, to master their use and the art of warfare, is a servitor class. Those who advocate disarmament in contradistinction to a people's militia ... assume the attitude of small-country petty bourgeoisie, pacificists and opportunists. For us, on the other hand, the decisive factor should be the¬
[ xxv ]
standpoint of ... the REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE (WHICH IMPLIES ALSO CIVIL WAR)."25
7. Attitude toward imperialism and colonialism
The Social Democratic position on both these topics proves that support for colonialism is (because Social Democracy represents the labor aristocracy) the specific, material foundation of opportunism in our time.
Lenin had frequently tangled with opportunism in his day on its attitude toward imperialism. Taking Kautsky as a leading spokesman of these, Lenin had said:
"K. Kautsky ... refuses to regard imperialism as a 'phase of capitalism' and ... defines (it) as the POLICY* 'preferred' by finance capital, as a tendency on the part of 'industrial' countries to annex 'agrarian' countries.
"Kautsky's definition is thoroughly false from the theoretical standpoint. What distinguishes imperialism is the rule NOT of industrial ... but of finance capital, the striving to annex NOT agrarian countries particularly, but EVERY KIND of country. Kautsky DIVORCES imperialist politics from imperialist economics, he divorces monopoly in politics from monopoly in economics in order to pave the way for his vulgar bourgeois reformism, such as 'disarmament,' 'ultra-imperialism' and similar nonsense.
"The purpose and significance of this theoretical falsity is to obscure the MOST PROFOUND contradictions of imperialism and thus to justify the theory of 'unity' with the apologists of imperialism, the outright social-chauvinists and opportunists."26
Actually, it was around the question of colonialism that Social Democracy played – and to this day continues playing – its most characteristic role.
Reproving Kautsky for "obscuring the deepest contradictions of imperialism, which inevitably becomes the embellishment of imperialism," Lenin had noted:
"The result of these tendencies (for domination) is reaction all along the line, whatever the political system, and¬
[ xxvi ]
an extreme intensification of existing antagonisms... Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexation, i.e., the violation of national independence."27
Lenin inveighed against chauvinism, noting that colonial countries, as well as those industrialized, have workers whose struggles need support. "But," he had added,
"even in those colonial countries where there are no workers, only slave-owners and slaves, etc., the demand for 'self-determination,' far from being ABSURD, is OBLIGATORY for every Marxist."28
So, what did the Social Democrats do? First, they refused to see imperialism as it was. Lenin had referred to opportunist
"efforts to make capitalism look more attractive, an occupation in which all the reformists are engaged."29
Their position had an aim: Lenin had exposed how
"the OPPORTUNISTS (social-chauvinists) are working hand in glove with the imperialist bourgeoisie PRECISELY towards creating an imperialist Europe on the backs of Asia and Africa, and ... objectively the OPPORTUNISTS are a section of the petty bourgeoisie and of certain strata of the working class who HAVE BEEN BRIBED out of imperialist super-profits and converted into WATCH-DOGS of capitalism and CORRUPTORS of the labor movement."30
Because of the crucial nature of support for anti-colonial revolution, Lenin incorporated, as Point 8, among his "Conditions for Affiliation to the Communist International," the following:
"Parties in countries whose bourgeoisie possess colonies and oppress other nations must pursue a particularly distinct and clear policy in respect to the colonial and oppressed nations ... (they) must support – by actions and not merely by words – every colonial liberation movement, demand expulsion of the imperialists from the colonies, educate the workers in a spirit of brotherhood with the laboring population of colonial and oppressed nations, and conduct systematic agitation among the armed forces against all colonial oppression."31
[ xxvii ]
Pursuing on the practical level the consequences of such an ideological position for the working class in power, Lenin had showed how foreign policy in any country fully exposes the real attitude of that country's ruling class toward oppression:
"The Soviet government has torn the veil of mystery from foreign policy in a revolutionary manner. Kautsky has not noticed this, he keeps silent about it, although in the era of predatory wars and secret treaties for the 'division of spheres of influence' (i.e., for the partition of the world among the capitalist bandits) the subject is one of CARDINAL importance for on it depends the question of peace, the life and death of tens of millions of people."32
Thus, on every count by which any alleged socialists can be tested for their relation to revolutionary Marxism-Leninism, Social Democracy from its inception and right down into our own epoch has failed to qualify. Neither its theory nor its practice (but only an occasional verbal pretension) has even the most superficial connection with scientific socialism.
The record of Social Democracy since Lenin's day, whether in Singapore or in Britain, has served to confirm Lenin's diagnosis of and polemics against them: no revolution has alleviated those oppressed by the minority imperialist ruling class in localities where Social Democrats thrive. Rather, an elite – its size depending on where in the world it lives – has been evoked by Social Democracy. That elite – a labor aristocracy in the West; an imperialist-tied comprador group in the world's Singapores – has grown under Social Democratic influence and assistance, and has added to the numbers of parasites leeching the international working class.
We shall return to this assessment of Social Democracy after having fully examined the theory and practice of Modern Revisionism in order to demonstrate the truth of our initial assertion: Modern Revisionism is a form of Social Democracy.
In the course of such demonstration, we shall attempt to document both the theory and practice of the leadership in the¬
[ xxviii ]
Soviet Union and its adherents, the designation "Modern Revisionism" referring to them collectively.
Because the Chinese and Albanian Communists parties have been the main critics of Modern Revisionism, we shall frequently have occasion to quote them. But we contend that their charges are easily proved or disproved by testing the actual positions of the current Modern Revisionist leadership against the basic tenets of real Marxism-Leninism set forth above.
The writer is unaware of any summary in a single work of all such testings, regardless by whom done in part. This work is, therefore, an attempt to delineate a complete portrait of what we believe History will prove to have been the most important negative political development of our era.