Marxism and Revisionism

There is a famous saying that if geometrical axioms influenced the efforts of human interests would he be eliminated. Theories about natural history as opposed to the old theological prejudice encouraged, and still pushing the most radical opposition. Therefore, it's no wonder that the Marxian doctrine, which directly serve the organization of enlightenment and advanced classes in modern society,
indicating the tasks faced by this class and demonstrate that certain changes (thanks to economic growth) of the current system by a new order - no wonder that this doctrine must be hostile in every step forward in the journey of his life.

Not to mention, this applies to bourgeois science and philosophy, was officially taught by professors to confuse generations that grew from the haves and the class to "train" them against the enemies within and abroad. This science will never hear about Marxism, stating that it has been challenged and destroyed. Marx attacked with enthusiasm by young scholars who build a career by opposing socialism, and by the people who serve the foolish old traditions of all kinds of "system" is outdated. Progress of Marxism, the fact that his ideas spread and taken hold among working-class strength, increased frequency and intensity with certainty from the attacks of the bourgeoisie is to Marxism, which became increasingly stronger, harder and more dangerous every time "destroyed" by the science - formal science.

But even among the doctrines associated with the working class struggle, and now it is widespread in the proletariat, Marxism without a certain way has consolidated its position once again. In the first half century of its existence (the 1840s), Marxism was involved in the battle against theories that are fundamentally hostile to it. In early '40 the Marx and Engels face to face with the radical Young Hegelians who filled his perspective filsafatis idealism. At the end of '40, the struggle began in the economic doctrines, against Proudhonism. '50s Years, seen the completeness of this struggle in the criticism of parties and doctrines which manifested themselves in difficult circumstances in 1848. In the '60s, the struggle shifted from the general theories to issues directly related to the labor movement: the rejection of the International Bakuninisme. In the early '70s, the stage in Germany was occupied temporarily by Proudhonis Muhlberger, and in the late '70s by the positivist Dühring. But the influence of the proletariat was no longer important. Marxism always obtain victory unnecessary question to all other ideologies in the labor movement.

Of the 90's, this victory has been entirely resolved. Even in Latin countries, where the traditions of the old Proudhonism entrenched than in most other places, labor parties develop programs and their tactics on Marxist foundations. Resurrection of international organizations of the labor movement - in the form of periodic international congresses - from the beginning, and almost entirely without a struggle, adopted the Marxist stand point in terms of essentials. But after Marxism has rejected all doctrines more or less hostile integral, flow - the flow of diekpresikan in these doctrines began looking for other channels. The forms and causes of the struggle changed, but the struggle goes on. And mid-second century of the existence of Marxism began (in the 90's) with the resistance against the enemies of Marxism within Marxism itself.

Bernstein, who once lived in his time as an orthodox Marxist, became a figure on the trend that emerged in public and very conscious, he corrected Marx, revise Marx, revisionism. Even in Russia, where - people who have the economic backwardness and the majority of the population consists of farmers burdened by the remnants of slavery - a non-Marxist socialism has naturally been so long, has clearly passed into revisionism before you know it. Both the question of agriculture (municipalisasi programs all land) and in general questions about the program and tactics, my friends-Narodnik Social highly and very often bergonta change "correction" to the legacy of Marx for the dead and dark on the old system them, which in its own way has been integrated and fundamentally hostile to Marxism.

Pre-Marxist socialism has fallen. He still continued resistance, no longer on the basis of independent again, but on the basis of Marxism, such as revisionism. Let us, examine the contents of ideological revisionism.

In the circle of revisionism that followed the philosophy of education resurrection "scientific" bourgeois thinkers "back to Kant" - and revisionism dragged along the neo-Kantian. Thinkers were returned repeated truisme pastors who have raised hundreds of times against the philosophy of materialism - and the revisionists, smiling casually, grumbling (word-for-word from Handbuch current thinking) that materialism has "rejected" a long time. Thinkers were treating Hegel as a "dead dog", while their own laud idealism, an idealism which is only a hundred times more terrible and worse than the idealism of Hegel, shrugged arrogantly in dialectics - and the revisionists have failed and sunk into the mud kevulgaran philosophy of science, which replaces dialectics "has the value of art" (and the revolutionary nature) with the "evolution" is a simple (and cool-calm). Thinkers were spent to adjust the official salary between idealism and their critical systems to the dominant medieval philosophy (eg on theology) - and the revisionists themselves closer, trying to build a religion of "personal interests", rather than in relation to the modern state, but in relationship with the party in the advanced classes.

What it really means "corrections" to Marx in an unnecessary terms stated: it has become evidence. We can easily apply records of the Marxists in the movement of international Social-Democratic Party to criticize the powerful revisionist truisme from the point of standing on the consistency of dialectical materialism, ie, Plekhanov. It should be emphasized all the more emphatic since the errors are measures that no fundamental contemporary made to smuggle waste shrouded old and reactionary philosophy as a criticism of Plekhanov's tactical opportunism. [1]

Looking at the political economy, it must be noted first that in the layer "corrections" revisionists are more comprehensive and seeing his surroundings;-power effort is made to influence the public with the "new data on economic development". It is said that concentration and rejection of small-scale production by large-scale production did not occur in agriculture, while they do it very slowly in the field of trade and industry. It is said that the crises are now very rare and weak, and that the cartels and trusts allow capital can destroy them completely. It is said that "destruction theory" which was voiced facing capitalism, referring to the flow of class antagonism that becomes soft and less acute. Finally, it is said also that it was not a mistake to correct the value of Marx's theory, in agreement with Bohm-Bawerk.

Resistance with the revisionists on these questions bear fruit rise of theoretical thinking on international socialism as well as the revision controversy Engels Dühring 20 years earlier. The arguments of the revisionists were analyzed with the help of facts which proved that the revisionists were systematically paint modern small-scale production with a picture-red roses. Technical and commercial superiority of large-scale production of small-scale production not only happens in the industry, but also in agriculture. This fact can not be disputed. But commodity production is less developed in agriculture, and economics and the modern statistician, according to the rules, not skilled in drawing the special branch (sometimes happens on operations) in the agricultural sector shows that agriculture is progressively drawn into the process of economic exchange world. Small-scale production to maintain himself on the remnants of natural economy by eating more serious, with chronic hunger, with increasingly long working hours, with a reduction in the quality and number of livestock, in other words, with a number of methods of handicraft production which defended itself against manufacturing capitalists. Every advance in science and technology and eventually severely weaken the foundations of small-scale production in capitalist society, and this is the task of socialist political economy to investigate this process in all its forms, is often complicated and full of intrigue, and to demonstrate to small-scale producers can continue to survive in Under capitalism, there is no hope for peasant farming under capitalism, and the importance of farmers to adopt the point standing of the proletariat. On this question, the revisionists have sinned, in point of scientific fields, with the generalizations made-up based on the facts selected unilaterally and without reference to the whole system of capitalism. From a political standpoint, they sinned by the fact that they will eventually, if they want it or not, invited or forced farmers to adopt the behavior of small landowners (such as for example, the behavior of the bourgeoisie) rather than forcing them to adopt the point of view proletarian revolutionary.

Revisionism position worsened as the crisis in terms of theory or the theory of destruction. Only in a very short time get someone, and they are only the most narrow-minded, think for refashioning the foundation of Marx's theory under the influence of industrial boom and prosperity in recent years. Reality will then be more obvious to the revisionists that the crisis is not something that existed in the past: prosperity followed by a crisis. The forms, flow, a description of specific crisis has changed, but the crisis remains final component of the capitalist system. While the production together, cartels and trusts at the same time, and with a clearly visible way, aggravate the anarchy of production, insecurity of existence of the proletariat and the cruelty of capital, thereby increasing class antagonisms to an extraordinary level. That capitalism would eventually fall - whether the individual political and economic crises and the total destruction of the entire capitalist system - has been made clear in particular, and on a large-scale trust, precisely by the new giant trusts. Recent financial crisis in America and the frightening increase in unemployment ayng across Europe, did not say anything about an approaching industrial crisis from a number of symptoms that can be appointed - all this makes "theories" the latest from the revisionists have been forgotten by all people, including, apparently so, by many of their own circles. But the lessons of the instability of the intellectual mengenaik had removed it so that the working class should not be forgotten.

As in the theory of value, needs to be said that apart from the darkness guidance and grumbling, a la Bohm-Bawerk, the revisionists did not contribute to the absolute, and therefore leaves no trace on the development of scientific thought.

In the political layer, revisionism really tried to revise the foundations of Marxism, which is commonly called, the doctrine of class struggle. Freedom in politics, democracy and elections removed from the bottom of the class struggle - as we were told - and to borrow an old proposition of the Communist Manifesto that's not true that the workers do not need the state. They say, since "the will of the majority" fails in a democracy, people should no longer regard the state as an organ master class, was also rejected an alliance with the bourgeoisie progressive, reformist socialists against the reactionaries.

Inevitable that the arguments of the revisionists is loaded by the view that a fair balance system, the so-called, liberal bourgeois view of the old and famous. The liberals always say that bourgeois parliamentarism has damaged the class and class divisions, since the right to vote and the right to participate in the government of a country is distributed to all citizens without distinction. The whole history of Europe in the second half of the 19th century, and the whole history of the Russian revolution in the early 18th century, clearly shows such a view was absurd. Economic differences are not moderated but enhanced and intensified under the freedom of capitalism "democratic". Parliamentarism is not removed, but remained as an inherent character even in the republic's most democratic bourgeois as an organ of class oppression. By helping to enlighten and organize the broad masses to more intangible than those who previously took an active part in political events, parliamentarism is not made for the elimination of crises and political revolutions, but for the maximum intensification of civil war during the revolution. The events in Paris in the spring of 1871 and the events in Russia in the winter of 1905 shows clearly how this intensification finally appeared. French bourgeoisie without babibu make a treaty with the enemy of the whole nation, with foreign soldiers who had destroyed his country, to destroy the proletarian movement. Who would not be able to understand the dialectic of the bourgeois parliamentarism and democracy in the end - which led to a firm decision from the arguments of mass violence than ever before - will never be able to understand the basis of parliamentarism is to agitate and the propaganda that is consistent in principle, actually prepare the mass of the working class to participate in the victory "arguments" are. Aliasi alliance experience, approvals, and block the liberal social reformers in the West and by liberal reformers (cadets) in the Russian revolution, has convincingly shown that this agreement only blunt the mass consciousness, that they could increase but only weaken the actual significance of their struggle, by linking between bully-bully with elements of the least able to fight and the most problematic and unreliable. Millerandisme in France - the biggest experiences in applying the real revisionist political tactics in the national scale, wide - has become a practical assessment of the revisionism that will never be forgotten by the proletariat in the whole world.

A natural complement to the economic and political tendencies of revisionism is his attitude toward the ultimate goal of socialist movements. "The main Gerakanlah, the ultimate goal is nothing", this phrase describes the substance of Bernstein's revisionism well, even better than statements long. To distinguish his actions from a case by case, to adapt to daily events and to clutter and political change in a small way, to forget the main interests of the proletariat and the basic figures of the entire capitalist system, of all capitalist evolution, to sacrifice The main interests for the advantage of this momentum real or assumed - like policy revisionism. And he was followed by patents from a very natural policy is that we can assume a variety of forms of the infinite, and each question more or less "new", every event is more or less expected, and surprisingly, he even changed the basic line of development is only to an insignificant level and only for very short periods, in the end is always a reason to bring one of the many varieties of revisionism.

Revisionism is determined by the root class in modern society. Revisionism is an international phenomenon. One of the most ignorant socialists would not be any doubt about the relationship between the Orthodox and Bernsteinian in Germany, Guesdis and Jauresis (and now specifically Broussis) in France, the Social Democratic Federation and the Independent Labor Party in Great Britain, Brouckere and Vandervelde in Belgium, Integralis and the Reformer in Italy, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in Russia, where it is essentially similar, irrespective of the diverse variety of national conditions and historical factors in these countries today. In fact, the "divisions" within the international socialist movement today continues along the same line in all countries in the world, which show a tremendous improvement compared to the situation 30 or 40 years ago, when heterogeneous trends in the various warring states in the an international socialist movement. And that "revisionism of the left" who formed the Latin countries as "revolutionary syndicalism", also adapted in Marxism, "correct": Labriola in Italy and in France Lagardelle often quoting Marx misunderstood character with the right understanding .

We can not stop here to analyze the ideological content of this revisionism, which so far from what has been expanded to the same limits as the revisionism of opportunists: he was not yet an international character, has not been tested on a large practical war in a single socialist party in any country. Therefore, we restrict ourselves from the 'revisionism from the right "as described above.

So where ketidakterhindarannya in capitalist society? Why is it more fertile than the difference between the national particularities and levels of development of capitalism? Because in every capitalist country, parallel with the proletariat, always there is a broad layer of the petty bourgeoisie. Capitalism has been and always arises from a small production. A number of "middle tier" of new arising repeatedly from capitalism (corporate supporter of big factories, workers at home, small workshops scattered widely across the country to meet the needs of large industries, such as bicycle and automobile industries, etc..). Small producers can not avoid it out into the proletariat. No wonder that the petty-bourgeois outlook always arise in the labor parties open. It is not surprising that this always happens and will always happen, until fate changes that will arise in the proletarian revolution. Is a serious mistake if there is thought that proletarianization "fully" absolute majority necessary to cause such a revolution. Now we often experience in the sphere of ideology alone, the theoretical disputes about the repair of Marx, which now only occurs on individual issues in the labor movement, as a tactical differences with the revisionists and divisions at this level - will be experienced by the working class in a levels much higher when the proletarian revolution will sharpen all the disputed issues, will focus all the difference in points is important in determining the mass actions, and makes the important things in the heat of the conflict to distinguish enemy from friend, and to remove ally - ally poor to be able to give a decisive blow to the opponent.

Yes, this ideological struggle by revolutionary Marxism against revisionism at the end of the 19th century, but it is a beginning of a great revolutionary battles of the proletariat, who advanced to the absolute victory of the cause in addition to all keloyoan and weaknesses of the petty bourgeoisie.

From the Collected Works, Volume 15, 1908
Was first published in a symposium on Karl Marx - 1818-1883, 1908