A Concise Overview of the History and Ideologies of Communism (Part 5)
Formation of the Early Foundations and Principles of Communism
Maoism
Like Lenin, Mao Zedong was drawn to Marxism in his younger years due to deep dissatisfaction with the situation in his country. His particular interest lay in Stalin’s theory of “Lenin’s Imperialism and the Concept of Socialism in One Country.” China had overthrown the monarchy in the 1911 Revolution but had since entered a period of military and nationalist rule that, in Mao’s view, did not advance the theory of communism or provide a theoretical justification for the establishment and administration of a communist party in the country. According to contemporary Chinese ideologists, “Mao’s main contribution was to a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society composed of peasants and petty bourgeoisie.”
Although Stalin distorted classical Marxism in various ways, he accepted that the Marxist model was based on the urban proletariat, not the rural peasantry. Indeed, although it is often quoted out of context that Marx and Engels, in the Communist Manifesto, referred to the folly of rural life, Mao came to power in a largely agricultural country and needed to justify his claim that his actions were in line with Marxism. In fact, he could better legitimize his actions and ideas by invoking Marxism-Leninism, especially the concept of socialism in a Stalinist context, rather than by relying on classical Marxism.
Eurocommunism, articulated by Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, emerged in the context of what would today be termed “developing countries.” However, given Marx’s focus on advanced industrial nations, it should not be overlooked that Western countries such as France and Italy had strong communist parties for much of the 20th century. Thus, it was not surprising that some communists in Western Europe adopted a very different approach to communism. A faction of communists, especially in France from the 1940s until at least the late 1960s, remained loyal to Moscow, while others questioned the suitability of the Soviet model for their countries and circumstances. The Italians were more progressive in this regard. Earlier, in the 1950s, Palmiro Togliatti, the leader of the Italian Communists, argued that the communists’ praise of a single-country system was misguided and that each nation should develop a plan for achieving communism based on its specific circumstances. He advocated polycentrism rather than a world communist movement centered solely on Moscow.
Initially, this view had limited support from other Western communist parties; however, the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact in August 1968 provoked widespread criticism of the Soviet Union. This criticism arose not only among Italians but also among other Western communists, many of whom left their parties in disgust. Conversely, others opted to remain in their parties, criticizing Soviet communism and creating their own softer, more democratic version of communism.
Another factor contributing to the emergence of what was termed Eurocommunism in the mid-1970s was the collapse of the right-wing Franco dictatorship and the resurgence of the Spanish Communist Party. While many other communist parties in Western Europe had assimilated into this new, more tolerant, and less dogmatic version of communism, the parties in France, Italy, and Spain—particularly the latter two—were more pioneering in this regard. Although this movement eventually faded, and most Italian communists abandoned the term “communism” altogether, changing their name to the Democratic Party of the Left in 1991, it posed a serious theoretical and intellectual challenge to the communists in power in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Asia during the 1970s and 1980s.
Conclusion
The theory of communism is often vague, incomplete, and at times openly contradictory. This is largely because different theorists wrote at different times about varied conditions and personal circumstances. Marx, who was not a political leader, did not have to justify his actions, unlike Lenin, Stalin, or Mao.
Another reason for the shortcomings and contradictions in the theory of communism is that theorists sometimes interpreted the past, analyzed the present, discussed the near to medium-term future, or speculated about the long-term goals of a communist society. Additionally, like most theorists, the views of these three men changed throughout their lives. They alternated between normative writing, describing what should be, and descriptive writing, outlining what is.
Despite these differences, fundamental discrepancies among communist theorists can be examined through the lens of voluntarism versus determinism. Marx himself tended toward a more deterministic interpretation of history, believing that history must take its own course through various stages of dialectical actions and reactions. While he believed that communists could and should help accelerate the pace of historical change, he wrote in Theses on Feuerbach, “The philosophers have interpreted the world… the point is to change it.” Yet, he remained overly alert to the consequences of accelerating historical change. In fact, Marx became increasingly deterministic in his later years. His extensive analysis of the political economy of capitalism in Capital (Volume 1 published in 1867, with later volumes edited by Engels and published posthumously in 1885 and 1894) presents a more abstract, impersonal, and globalized view of capitalism, in which the structural and inherent contradictions of the system lead to the crisis and collapse of capitalism, rather than an explicit struggle between capitalists and workers.
In contrast, leaders such as Lenin and Mao distinctly embodied voluntarism, believing that human will could accelerate or even circumvent historical processes. Whether this voluntarism stemmed from their decisive personalities, their need to utilize revolutionary theory to justify their actions in overthrowing oppressive regimes, or—more likely—a combination of these factors, they adapted Marxism to serve their ends, distorting the original ideas in the process, particularly Marx’s later writings. Consequently, they faced criticism from more deterministic Marxists; for instance, the Austro-German Karl Kautsky often criticized Lenin’s voluntarism. Given Marx’s own writings on the socialist revolution and the nature of what would follow, which were frequently vague or incomplete, these leaders proposed a much more diverse interpretation of Marxism. Nevertheless, tensions and contradictions exist within Lenin’s work as well; his views in State and Revolution on what would follow a socialist revolution sometimes contradict what he enacted in Russia afterward, which he regarded as socialist.
Ultimately, the best way to comprehend “what communism is and what it is not” is to study its practical application.
By admin2
