Advancing Marxiism

Notes on Overcoming Capitalism

Marxist revolutionary theory had a lasting impact on social theory. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ theory of class and social development forever changed the landscape of the theory of social change. Marxist theory contended that lasting social change would come about through a violent uprising of the proletariat, or working class. Not only did Marx support such a revolution, he believed that this revolutionary change was an inevitable step in the development of human society. Marx developed this theory, known as the materialistic concept of history, as a purely scientific means of explaining social phenomena.

As time passed since the initial conception of Marxist thought, it was subject to revision by those who followed its precepts. One such revisionist was Eduard Bernstein. Bernstein’s revisions formed the basis of a school of thought known as Social Democracy. At the core of his revisions lies a rejection of the necessity of violent revolution leading to a “dictatorship of the proletariat” in order to achieve socialism. Bernstein believed that the growth of democratic institutions within capitalist society opened the way for peaceful social change. All Marxist thinkers did not except his revisions.

One opponent of Bernstein’s revisions was V.I. Lenin. Lenin believed that Bernstein’s revision of Marxist theory was treason. Lenin countered Bernstein by contending that Bernstein and those that agreed with him were mere “opportunists” who intended to manipulate the democratic process in order to better their own positions in society at the expense of the proletariat. Lenin held firm in his belief that a revolutionary path was needed to attain socialism.

The Necessity of a Violent Revolution

Marx believed that a socialist society would come about through a catastrophic event in which the capitalist order of society would be forever changed. Lenin. Agreed. Bernstein, on the other hand, saw a significant shift in the possibilities of change in a capitalist society by means of democratic institutions. The disagreement between Bernstein and Lenin on this topic was based on each man’s view of the development of capitalist society and the nature of democratic institutions.

(a) capitalist society

Marxism sets forth the principle that as capitalism encourages the accumulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” will stretch until a breaking point is realized. At this point, the overwhelming majority of non-wealthy workers will realize the inequality of capitalism and take this wealth back from the capitalist class be means of a violent struggle. This vision of society sees capitalism as an antagonistic ideology that will inevitably lead to its own destruction.

Bernstein did not wholly dispute this interpretation, but he realized that capitalism was developing ways to overcome this apparent flaw. New economic institutions such as join-stock companies were able “to be a very significant counterweight to the centralization of wealth through the centralization of business enterprises” [Bernstein p. 58]. New means of distributing the ownership of capital, while at the same time allowing it to be centralized, meant that capitalism could delay the “inevitable” collapse predicted by Marxist thought.

Lenin, on the other hand, saw the capitalist state as “the product and the manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms” [Lenin p. 273]. According to Lenin’s interpretation of Marx, “the state could neither arise nor continue to exist if it were possible to conciliate classes” [Lenin p. 273]. This meant that any compromise with the state was a betrayal of Marxism. Lenin held firm to his belief that “the substitution of the proletarian state for the bourgeois state is impossible without a violent revolution” [Lenin p.285].

(b) the nature of democracy

Bernstein disagreed. He believed that, with the advent of democratic institutions, the state could now by changed from within. Bernstein viewed democracy as “the abolition of class government, although it is not yet the actual abolition of class” [Bernstein p. 143]. As such, democracy “is the indispensable precondition for the realization of socialism” [Bernstein p. 157]. “The more the political institutions of modern nations are democratized, the more the necessity and opportunity for great political catastrophes will be reduced” [Bernstein p. 3]. This is desirable because, in Bernstein’s view, “a steady advance offers a more secure guarantee of lasting success than the chances offered by a catastrophe” [Bernstein p. 4]. Democracy offers the chance to “use ballot papers, demonstrations, and similar means of exerting pressure to accomplish reforms which a hundred years [before] would have required bloody revolutions” [Bernstein p. 7].

Lenin counters this argument by contending that by working within an existing democratic parliamentary system rather than working for the fulfillment of the necessary social revolution, social democratic thinkers such as Bernstein are supporting the capitalist class by becoming a proponent for its continued existence. “Democracy means equality” [Lenin p. 346]. As such, a capitalist society can never truly fulfill the promise of democracy. Using the words of Friedrich Engles, Lenin explains that “in a democratic republic…’wealth wields its power indirectly, but all the more effectively’ first, by means of the ‘direct corruption of the officials’ (America); second, by means of ‘the alliance between the government and the Stock Exchange (France and America)” [Lenin p. 278]. “Under capitalism democracy is restricted, cramped, curtailed, mutilated by all the conditions of wage-slavery, the poverty and misery of the masses” [Lenin p. 360]. Capitalist democracy, in Lenin’s view, is simply a means by which “to decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to misrepresent the people in parliament” [Lenin p. 304]. Because of these inherent weaknesses, “fully consistent democracy is impossible under capitalism” [Lenin p. 330]. Thus Lenin once more holds firm to his belief that “the substitution of the proletarian state for the bourgeois state is impossible without a violent revolution” [Lenin p. 285].

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Classical Marxist contends that the only way to rid society of class antagonisms is to bring about the “dictatorship of the proletariat”. This would be the form of government initiated by the violent revolution advocated by Lenin. This “dictatorship” means the expropriation of the means of production by the working class in order to develop a social order that benefits the whole people rather than only benefiting the capitalist class. Bernstein believed that this form of government was completely infeasible, while Lenin maintained that it was the only way to achieve socialism.

Bernstein contends that, according to Marx and Engels, “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposed” [Bernstein p. 152]. Instead, it is the task of social democracy to “organize the working class politically, train it for democracy, and fight for any and all reforms in the state which are designed to raise the working class and make the state more democratic” [Bernstein p.4]. Bernstein sees democracy as an alternative to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Moreover, he sees the proletarian dictatorship as dangerous. “At any given time the working class should rule to the extents permitted by its intellectual maturity and the current stage of its economic development” [Bernstein p.4]. To give the proletariat class immediate power without allowing it to develop the skills needed to wield that power would be extremely unwise. By slowly developing the skills of the masses in this area through participation in the democratic process, the rate of change toward socialism can occur in tandem with the ability of the people to effectively participate in the political arena. According to this way of reckoning, a majority of the people would have to be prepared for any change in the social structure before it could take place in the society as a whole.

Conversely, Lenin believes that the only way in which the proletariat can learn the skills necessary for the creation of true socialism is by taking control of the means of production and forging a new society out of the ashes of the old order. Lenin states that “in order to achieve its emancipation the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, conquer political power and establish its own revolutionary dictatorship” [Lenin p. 336]. He contends that Marx and Engels’ admonitions against the proletariat laying hold of the ready-made state machinery and wielding it for its own purposes is not the warning against violent revolution that Bernstein believes it to be. Instead, Lenin responds that Marx and Engels are not warning “the working class against excessive revolutionary zeal when seizing power”, but rather that “Marx wanted to say that the working class must smash, break, blow up the whole state machine” [Lenin p. 352]. Lenin’s argument hinges on his belief that once the workers gain control of the political apparatus, they will destroy the capitalist bureaucracy by the “immediate introduction of control and superintendence by all, so that all shall become ‘bureaucrats’ for a time and so that, therefore, no one can become a ‘bureaucrat’’ [Lenin p.355]. In other words, creating a society of part-time bureaucrats will destroy bureaucracy. In this way, Lenin hopes to bring equality to society.

This is where Lenin’s vision becomes shortsighted. He maintains an extremely simplistic view of the bureaucratic functions of a modern nation. Lenin seems to believe that all work can be reduced to simple, unskilled functions, which could then be fully interchangeable. Of course, it is important to note that even Lenin saw the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional phase from capitalism to communism. Still, it is difficult to imagine this increasingly hypothetical society as being able to maintain itself long enough to reach communism.

Bernstein realized that true socialism could never occur unless the people themselves were ready for it, while Lenin believes that the people were ready now. Perhaps Lenin was correct when he wrote “that the destruction of the military and bureaucratic state machine is ‘essential for every real people’s revolution’ [Lenin p.298], but he seems sometimes to have forgotten that it must be the people who are charged with this task, and not the social theorist.

Conclusion

Bernstein and Lenin differed greatly as to their views concerning the means and necessity of social change. Bernstein believed that “democracy is the school of compromise” [Bernstein p. 144], and because of this was able to revise his beliefs according to the needs of the moment. To Lenin, this made Bernstein an “opportunist”. Lenin’s ideology was not open to change. To Lenin’s view, Bernstein’s flexibility made him weak and unreliable. Conversely, I believe that Bernstein would view Lenin’s inflexibility a weakness. It is interesting then to consider that both of these men had a large and lasting impact on their countries of origin. Neither was completely successful. Lenin’s revolution has collapsed upon itself. Bernstein’s social democrats have never been able to escape the capitalist structure in which they must work. Perhaps Lenin was right when he postulated that “without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement” [Lenin p. 69].

Bibliography

Bernstein, Eduard. The Preconditions of Socialism. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 1993.

Lenin, V.I.. Essential Works of Lenin: "What Is to be Done?" and Other Writings. Dover Publications, Inc,: New York. 1987.