How do we define elements of “bourgeois society” from the kind of society which the Marxist-Leninists envision? What is this far more “encompassing transformation of society as a whole.”?

In a post-capitalist society, the fundamental basis of all social relations (economic, cultural and political) undergo a revolutionary transformation as the capitalist base is destroyed and the subsequent emergence of a socialist society. Marxism teaches us that the infrastructure (political systems, culture, social relations, etc.) are dependent upon the economic base. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism is concerned not merely with substituting ownership of the means of production, but an all encompassing transformation of every aspect of society.

This encompassing transformation of society as a whole is the result of a new economic base, achieved when modes of production are organized in a socialist fashion. But the result of this isn’t passive determinism, it also requires a new state apparatus, under the control of the working class, to help direct society towards the resolution of all contradictions as a means to establishing a communist society.

Social-democrats, Third Positionists, Nationalists et al. all oppose liberal capitalism on some grounds or another, but they fail to take notice of the way in which all existing societies have been defined by class-struggle, and that class struggle is a natural development of antagonisms between exploited and exploiting classes; and thus, don’t see the need for a truly revolutionary overthrow of not only the ruling elites, but their very institutions and systems. Simply nationalizing the means of productions to varying degrees isn’t necessarily socialism. The change necessitated to overhaul society from the grips of capitalism must come on all fronts – economic, political and social.

Destroying the bourgeois institutions, instituting a new proletariat culture and directing the masses towards progressive change are all necessary components of establishing the victory of socialism. Failing to do so leaves in place those very same contradictions that plague capitalism in the first place. Take for example the Bolsheviks, after overthrowing the Provisional Government and emerging victorious after the Civil War, they instituted sweeping changes that brought society in line with the economic changes that had revolutionized the former Russian Empire. Bourgeois institutions were smashed, and in their place stood new, proletariat institutions dictating how individuals and the collective mass would relate to one another, to the state, to production and so forth. Even during the New Economic Policy (NEP), a minor step backwards to help re-build Soviet infrastructure with a temporary influx of private capital, the changes were still going on at the political and cultural level.

Fascists, Conservatives and Nationalists seem to be lumped together as Third Positionists, while Trotsky-ism, is lumped together with Anarchism, I notice in some conversations. Do you believe there are any reasons to regard Trotskyism, and Anarchism, as likewise, “Third Positionism” since they are idealistic deviations from Marxism-Leninism, as it was practiced last century?

This oversimplifies things. Fascists are very distinct from conservatives, and their lumping together is largely the result of the former term becoming a political epithet. Nationalism and fascism can overlap, but are often times opposed to mainstream conservatives, particularly in many Western countries, who are really just neo-liberals with a “law & order” attitude towards society.

Trotskyism is distinct from Anarchism, but the connection is made on grounds of their unintentional practical outcomes, not any correlation or connectedness in theory. Both represent trends of idealism and deviation. Anarchism which links itself to Proudhon and many of the 19^th century Anarchist theoreticians reject the dialectical method on grounds of metaphysics. Trotskyism, while claiming to uphold the dialectical method, reject it in their practical conclusions.

Anarchism and Third Positionism have always been distinct from Marxism-Leninism on numerous grounds and can’t properly be called “deviationist” in the strict sense since they never attempted to uphold Marxism-Leninism. Trotskyism, however, is an idealist ultra-left deviation from Marxism-Leninism and must be treated accordingly. Trotskyism, for a period of time, showed itself as a political alternative, but quickly degenerated into an opportunistic conspiracy after their allusions to power in the Soviet Union were all but smashed. Nowadays, Trotskyism is an academic pursuit primarily found in Western universities. It has no real connections with the international proletariat, has never once formed the foundation for a serious revolutionary movement and has little relevance in contemporary political discussions.

Tags: anarchism, communism, idealism, Marxism-Leninism, socialism, third-positionism

This entry was posted on Tuesday, February 17th, 2009 at 7:09 pm and is filed under Marxist-Leninism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.