Coalition Strategies of Marxist Parties

Coalition Strategies of Marxist Parties

Coalition Strategies of Marxist Parties

Coalition Strategies of Marxist Parties

eBook

$29.99  $39.95 Save 25% Current price is $29.99, Original price is $39.95. You Save 25%.

Available on Compatible NOOK Devices and the free NOOK Apps.
WANT A NOOK?  Explore Now

Related collections and offers


Overview

During the early part of this decade, many individuals, both policy makers and scholars, wondered about the "new look" of some communist parties as they billed themselves as potential participants in the pluralistic game of politics in many parts of the world. This image was certainly different from the old notion of dedicated revolutionaries who scornfully rejected the existing order and plotted its overflow. How genuine was the new look? Were the communists sincere when they discussed interaction with other elements of political order in which they operated? What were their tactical policies in pursuit of these strategic goals? Some of us began to examine these questions more systematically. We ran a panel at an academic conference, enjoyed the feedback from our colleagues, and began the process of writing this book. Now, several years later, it is a finished product, after many full-scale revisions and updates. The topic is still very relevant, and that shows the enduring importance of the questions asked a number of years ago. Scholars will need to return to this question in the future; perhaps the best strategy is a continuous examination of this crucial subject.

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9780822379034
Publisher: Duke University Press
Publication date: 08/01/2012
Series: Duke Press policy studies
Sold by: Barnes & Noble
Format: eBook
Pages: 376
File size: 534 KB

Read an Excerpt

Coalition Strategies of Marxist Parties


By Trond Gilberg

Duke University Press

Copyright © 1989 Duke University Press
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8223-0849-2



CHAPTER 1

Introduction


Trond Gilberg

One of the dominant issues of politics worldwide during the last century has been the question of how political organizations that call themselves "Marxist" conduct relations with other structures in the domestic political system and how they relate to the self-appointed "centers" of the "world communist movement," whether such a center is located in Moscow, Beijing, Belgrade, or Havana. Karl Marx is partly responsible for this confusion, because there were a number of personifications of this remarkable thinker: first, Marx the humanist, concerned with human alienation and its remedy, human freedom; then, Marx the revolutionary, who wrote endlessly about the injustices of capitalist society as he saw it and the ways in which this form of socioeconomic and political system could be destroyed and a better world built upon its ruins; finally, the older "mature" Marx (and his successor Friedrich Engels) who examined societies from the vantage point of their capacity for peaceful change—reform rather than revolution. An individual can claim any or all of these three heritages of Marx, and the many variations create the extraordinarily rich tapestry of concepts known as "Marxist." This variety (and the ensuing confusion) has been responsible for some of the fiercest infighting among disciples of the original mentor, as we shall see below.

The conceptual diversity created by Marx and Engels was further complicated by the rise of many individuals who claimed to be disciples of the masters but in fact proceeded to change some basic tenets of "Marxism" or to add to them in such a way that the new conceptual package bore only some resemblance to the original. Throughout Europe there emerged syndicalists, anarchists, and anarcho-syndicalists. There were revisionists and Bakuninists, and many who simply entertained vague notions about the injustices of the societies in which they lived and the need to do something about it. Some of these individuals called themselves "socialists," and we should remember that "socialists" of all shades until very recently paid homage to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels even as they rather consistently produced programs and policies that deviated significantly, in spirit and execution, from any or all of the "Marxes" known in their time. It was a sine qua non for anyone on the left to call himself or herself a "Marxist" and to adopt the trappings of this complex creed, be they slogans, symbols, or expected acts.

The most important of these "latecomers" were the individuals who struggled for leadership of the Russian Social Democratic party in the late 1800s, not because they were more profound thinkers than others but because some of them went on to capture power in a very large country, thus assuring for themselves the right to add their notions of "Marxism" to the hopper. Furthermore, the fact that these individuals ended up in power, while others who also considered themselves Marxists did not, established as a political fact the notion that the Russians would end up as leaders of the international movement that based itself upon Marxist thought, thus indelibly influencing the very notion of Marxism and, in fact, producing a separate brand, "Marxism-Leninism." This brand, in turn, changed over time, both in theory and in practice, thus further confounding the efforts of those who would like to try to bring some analytical sense to this welter of concepts.

The fact of acquired political power helped establish a particular version of one aspect of Marxism as the dominant creed, both theoretically and in practical policy, after the Russian Revolution. The same fact of acquired power also produced the greatest challenge to Russian (or Soviet) supremacy in interpretations of Marx, because it was Maoism in power that gave rise to the ideological debates between Moscow and Beijing and the Maoist challenge, which in turn had significant organizational ramifications on the left of the political spectrum throughout the world. Some of the bitterest political struggles fought anywhere during the last century have been the ideological battles between "Russian" and "Chinese" Marxists. This is not really surprising; after all, civil wars tend to be more brutal and fundamental than regular warfare. (This statement, of course, implies that all Marxists have something in common, no matter how furious their protestations to the contrary; more about this later.)

In between the establishment of Russian ideological supremacy and the rise of the Chinese challenge there developed a great many varieties of Marxism, produced by regional, cultural, and individual differences and proclivities. Each movement had its own thinkers, poets, songwriters, speech writers, orators, and bureaucrats. Some of these thinkers were more sophisticated than Lenin, more "Marxist" (whether "early," "middle," or "mature") than Zinoviev, more exciting writers than Stalin (which actually did not require a great deal of writing capability). Nevertheless, they were "Marxists," too. But the Soviets ran a country, and they became more important for that reason. Thus we must all pay attention to the "Marxist-Leninists" every day, and particularly those who run the Soviet Union itself. No other fact of political life has had a more profound effect upon "Marxism" than the exercise of power by alleged "Marxists."

Marx and Engels were Europeans (and West Europeans at that). Lenin, Trotsky, and even Stalin had (or acquired) a European orientation. It therefore stands to reason that the early ideological debates of Marxist doctrine focused on themes that were familiar to Europeans, at least in part. The Russians were, of course, "hybrid" Europeans, and many of their ideas carry important overtones of a historical and cultural background that is quite different from that of Central or Western Europe or Scandinavia. But there were others, elsewhere, who also considered themselves Marxists, often because they had lived in Europe and had become acquainted with the tenets and the debates of European leftists; others had simply read the works of the great mentors and felt a kindred spirit. This was true of individuals in parts of Asia and Latin America. These individuals either subordinated themselves to the European-based doctrine and tried to apply it to their own conditions, or they interpreted it creatively in their own setting, even producing themes and ideologies that competed with important aspects of Karl Marx's work. No matter; even in the latter case these individuals considered themselves Marxist, and were proud of it. Such was the amazing pull of this multifaceted doctrine everywhere.

Africa was rather different. Most of the continent was divided among colonial powers, and the inspiration for "Marxists" therefore came mostly from Europeans who happened to be in Africa. As time passed, indigenous thinkers also developed a connection between the European Marx and their own ideas about politics, economics, and society. Particularly in Africa, but also in those parts of Asia which were under colonial rule, the basic ideas of "Marxism" were fundamentally tied in with the crucial question of how one relates to these Europeans, whether as thinkers, colonial administrators, revolutionaries, or economic exploiters. Hence the inextricable link between the alleged internationalist doctrine of Marxism, on the one hand, and national independence, on the other hand. This is a connection that Marx may not have wanted (although that, too, is an assumption that may be repudiated by some of his writing); but no matter, in the 1980s the conflict between nationalism and internationalism is the most important question for all "Marxists," and thus for all of us, directly or indirectly.

At this point one must ask about commonalities in this rich and confusing doctrine that is called Marxism by scholars who study it, individuals and groups who allegedly practice it, and masses of people who fear it. What, if anything, do all "Marxists" have in common? I would venture to suggest that they do have a number of characteristics in common, and that these characteristics are so important that we can justifiably speak of Marxists as definable political entities and thence proceed to examine them.

First of all, Marxists of all kinds share a sense of outrage at the existing political and socioeconomic order, be it "feudal" or "capitalist." It is seen as exploitative, unjust, favoring the few at the expense of the many, inefficient and wasteful, and only marginally contributing to the fulfillment of the human potential. There is a great deal of the early Marx in this view of the presocialist society, and this may indeed account for the power of persuasion that Marxism has for so many people, for it pinpoints fundamental human needs and their shortcomings while stating most forcefully that it stands for justice, fairness, and humanity. It is not difficult to understand that such a doctrine can appeal to an unemployed steel worker whose children cannot go on to higher education, the desk clerk laboring under a tyrannical master for measly wages, the coolie in the rice fields who must always worry about his next meal, the marginal farmer eking out a living on substandard soil, or the day laborer at the mercy of the union boss in the hiring hall. The Marxist emphasis on justice and the good society also appeals to the intellectual and the dreamer, the theorist and the utopian. Marxism is, in a fundamental sense, a powerful doctrine of protest in an imperfect world. In a way, it is so broadly based in the matters it protests and the solutions it offers that we are all in some measure, however small, Marxists.

Second, "Marxists" believe, at least doctrinally and officially, that human beings are perfectible, that they are "good" at the core. The injustices against which all "Marxists" inveigh are caused by mistakes in the way that humans have organized themselves into societies, and not by basic flaws in the nature of man and woman. There are, no doubt, many careerists and fellow travelers who disregard this philosophical notion for narrow personal purposes, and Marxism in practice also tends to dent this belief most severely, because there is often a great deal of distance between the theory of the good society and the practice of Marxist regimes. This discrepancy does not invalidate the drawing power of the dream of human perfectibility, however; it simply leads Marxists toward searches for new ways to make manifest the doctrine of human goodness. Thus, for every individual who succumbs to cynicism because practical Marxism is a betrayal of Marx the theorist and believer, there is another who is attracted to precisely those aspects of the dream that can be called idealistic.

Third, "Marxists" claim that they know how to create the conditions necessary for the fulfillment of human potential, thus creating the good society. Specifically, Marxism claims that exploitation, alienation, and the injustice that humans perpetrate upon each other can be removed by rearranging the political and economic relationships in society and establishing a new societal order. Specifics may differ on how this is accomplished, but the notion of fundamental political and socioeconomic change as a prerequisite for the new society is common to all "Marxists." For example, the exploiters who must be dethroned, the "expropriators" who must be "expropriated"—be they the bankers, the industrialists, the military-industrial complex, the comprador bourgeoisie, the feudal landlords, the absentee landowners, or the lackeys of foreign imperialism—must be thrown aside in favor of something new, this "something" being rule based, first, upon a revolutionary class, and, subsequently, upon the "whole people." This "revolutionary class" may be the urban proletariat, the poor peasantry, or the rural day laborers; there may be combinations of these elements, and the combination may vary over time. The common theme is the notion that it is the exploited who will become the rulers, and these new rulers will exercise more justice, understanding, and humanity than their predecessors, precisely because the new leaders have experienced exploitation and thus know what it is and how to avoid it. Again, there are undoubtedly untold numbers of careerists and cynics who extol these ideas for their own personal, parochial purposes. But the doctrine is still attractive on this point and ensures that Marxism has an appeal beyond that of mere careerism.

Fourth, Marxism continues to claim historical necessity, determinism, the inevitability that the promised land will be reached some day. This notion has become rather shopworn over time, and it is possible that few of those who now rule in the name of Karl Marx actually believe this. But the early attraction of the doctrine surely had something to do with this claim to certainty, and out of this early attractiveness came the mass movement, which produced organization, hierarchy, power—the main sources of attraction today. The notion that Marxism in theory and practice will, in fact, be around for a very long time also has a great deal to do with more practical notions of planning, redistribution of wealth, and the accumulation of wealth, socialist style.

Fifth, "Marxists" of all hues believe or practice the notion that the new and superior political and socioeconomic order is based on public and communal needs, organization, and practice, thus eschewing personal, parochial, and egotistical views and practices. There are many specific organizational forms of Marxism in the world today, along with thousands of books and articles that proclaim to be correct doctrine, but they all emphasize the idea that the common good is superior to the private good, and that Marxism is the way to ensure this ideal.

All of this is important and would have at least temporary attraction for a large number of people who could be expected to organize themselves politically in pursuit of such ideas and ideals. Ultimately, of course, Marxism, like any doctrine, will survive only if it offers a prospect of eventually capturing power and implementing the doctrine through the exercise of such power. The greatest attraction of Marxism, then, is that it works when it comes down to this fundamental political question, because, over time, Marxists have captured power, they have held it, and they have implemented it. They have been so successful in this endeavor, in fact, that today a very substantial part of the world's territory and population is ruled by Marxists. Political success over time is the most important element that Marxists have in common. And this success inspires those who have yet to succeed. The dream lives on because it is attractive; the reality of power beckons because it is there, in the form of regimes and states that claim to be Marxist, exercising power over society according to the formula of Marx as they see it.


(Continues...)

Excerpted from Coalition Strategies of Marxist Parties by Trond Gilberg. Copyright © 1989 Duke University Press. Excerpted by permission of Duke University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Table of Contents

Contents

Editor's Preface,
Acknowledgments,
1: Introduction,
2: Coalition Strategies and Tactics in Marxist Thought,
Part 1: Regional Studies: Europe,
3: Marxists and Coalitions in Western Europe,
4: Communists in the Postwar All-Party Coalitions of Eastern Europe,
Part 2: Regional Studies: Developing Countries,
5: Marxists and Coalitions in Latin America,
6: Vietnamese Communism and the Strategy of the United Front,
7: The Coalition Strategies and Tactics of Indian Communism,
8: Coalition Strategies and Tactics of Marxist Parties in Africa,
9: The Coalition Strategies and Tactics of the Indonesian Communist Party: A Prelude to Destruction,
Conclusion,
Notes,
Index,
Contributors,

From the B&N Reads Blog

Customer Reviews