From Marx to Gramsci

Summary, part 3

How has Marxism played out in the past and evolved?

Now that we understand what Marxism is, we can look at how Marxism has played out in history. The first political party that, while not explicitly Marxist, did fit the bill for a Marxist political party was the German Socialist-Democratic party founded in 1863.

After the spread of Marx and Engels’s writings, other parties worldwide popped up, including the International Workingmen's Association (also known as the First International) and the Second International in the late 1800s. In the first part of the book, Le Blanc does not unpack these parties because all of these parties’ efforts were dampened with World War I, which saw the deaths of many working class members across Europe.

Because of World War I, no revolutions materialized for some time following the war. The one exception to this is the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia, led by Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, which established the Russian Soviet Republic.

In the first part of the book, Le Blanc does not spend much time explaining what the Russian Soviet Republic looked like under Lenin’s rule. Instead, he points out that Joseph Stalin (Lenin’s successor) used Marxism’s dogmas after Lenin’s death to justify Stalin’s own dictatorial rule once he took over. Trotsky attempted to challenge Stalin’s rule, but faced pressure from fascism, Stalinism, and democratic imperialist countries. 

After World War I, many social-democratic and labor parties became more common across Europe. Still, they were often diluted to gradualism as opposed to revolution. At the time, European intellectuals, such as Gramsci, rejected gradualism from political parties and formed a school of thought called the Frankfurt School. 

Party efforts faced similar consequences in World War II as in WWI because many members of the working class died, but with three added components.

First, the tragedies of the Holocaust created a new set of revolutionaries. Still, they were revolutionaries with little experience who uncritically flocked to organizations that were either reformist (e.g., Social Democrats or Labor) or fascist (e.g., Stalinists).

Second, former colonies began developing nationalist and modernizing elites that used the rhetoric and frameworks of Marxist theory to guide their countries, such as the Cuban revolution led by Fidel Castro.

Third, in China, Maoism developed but was more of a manifestation of national communism as opposed to an international socialist revolution. 

Why are there dictators?

Several examples of socialism in practice, particularly Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China, are dictatorships. The fact that these two largest Marxist ‘practices’ were dictatorships is a common critique of Marxism, which Le Blanc and Marxist scholars attempt to explain. 

Le Blanc articulates that Stalin’s dictatorship came about for several reasons. 

1. Stalin’s government was not a real socialist government. A genuine socialist government, for example, would allow for and encourage democratic practices such as free speech, but Stalin’s government actively oversaw mass repression, ethnic cleansing, executions of critics, and more. Additionally, Stalin’s government looked forward to the day when the country could cooperate with other capitalist countries.

   Since Marxists prioritize an international socialist revolution, this cooperation with capitalist countries is antithetical to Marxism’s core values. Because of these things, Le Blanc and critics of Stalin argue that Stalin’s government was never truly socialist to begin with. 

2. Stalin’s government was disconnected from the rest of the proletariat. Trotsky argued that Stalin's dictatorship was created by powerful bureaucrats who saw themselves as above the average person. This privileged bureaucratic working class formed and was more focused on sustaining themselves as opposed to actual socialist goals.

3. The demoralizing repression of the socialist movement (which came from both the failures of socialist revolutions in other countries and Stalin’s oppression) made spiritual transformation (i.e., achieving human needs such as art, culture, etc.) impossible.

When considering Mao’s China, Le Blanc points to what Marxists call the Asiatic Mode of Production, which is understanding that class and capitalism unfold differently in Asian countries. In a country like China, the authoritarian domination of government is accepted by the public because the government provides useful and/or necessary public goods, such as irrigation.

Here, socialism doesn’t have a genuine working class rule, and therefore cannot give rise to socialism.