Hola compas,
El texto que sigue aparece como una de las últimas intervenciones mayores de Bettelheim. La escribió en 1993; es un prefacio a la primera parte del Tomo 3 de la Historia de la lucha de clases en la URSS que Ramnath Narayanswamy tradujo al inglés y publicó en Bangalore, India, en el mismo año.
Este prefacio se escribió y publicó años después del derrumbe del bloque soviético y de la URSS, después de que la Revolución Cultural China hubiese pasado, de que Deng Xiaoping hubiese cambiado el rumbo de la nación china y de que el neoliberalismo se hubiese impuesto en el mundo. Lo escribió un año antes del inicio de la rebelión zapatista.
Vale la pena revisar este texto pues es de algún modo la actualización última, hasta donde sé, del pensamiento de Bettelheim.
Preface to the English Edition of the Third Volume (First Part) of Class Struggles in the USSR.
The appearance in English of the third volume of Class Struggles in the USSR comes ten years after its publication in French, ten years of economics, political and social upheavals of exceptional importance. These upheavals have directly touched those countries who claimed allegiance to socialism and have produced enduring effects on the international scene, one of which lies in viewing the current transformation as a testimony of the "failure of socialism".
On the alleged "failure of socialism"
The present work stands opposed to this thesis since it reveals that the USSR and the other countries who had declared that they had "built socialism" had not actually accomplished any of the radical social transformations which could have permitted them to break away from this specific form of state capitalism which I have described as "party capitalism." In fact, it is the latter which has failed.
This failure was brought about in the USSR through the aggravation of a general crisis born from the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production and particular forms reclothed by these contradictions under conditions of party capitalism. All the so-called socialist countries have entered into a similar process. These have developed according to specific modalities determined by their own history.
These countries had a number of similar characteristics: they were all for example, subject to the leadership of a single party which upheld its legitimacy from Marx's works. Among other objectives, this book seeks to throw light on the usurped character of this legitimacy. Against this background, it seems to me useful to present some other remarks.
On Marx's work
The analyses presented here bear upon the scientific content of the work inaugurated by Marx. This work is very much alive, open to newer fields of enquiry and therefore capable of being enrichened through rectifications and criticisms inspired by experience and social practices. Indeed, it is precisely this capacity which has allowed it to remain current and relevant.
These two qualities have been confirmed by the movement of contemporary history: by the unfolding of the crisis of international capitalism which entails a deepening of social and economic polarisation, increase in unemployment and underemployment, rise in criminality, corruption and the use of drugs, escalation of armed conflicts, etc., on the one hand, while on the other hand, these qualities are confirmed by the ability of Marx's works to take into account the contradictions of several allegedly socialist models and their consequences.
The scientific character of most of Marx's work concerns, above everything else, his analysis of the capitalist mode of production, its structures and contradictions and illuminating the laws governing its movement. Marx showed how the working of these laws led to a growing domination of the market order, the extension of the domination of capital and its globalisation, accumulation of riches at one end of the "society" (now extending to the entire planet), and poverty at the other end. Social struggles led victoriously by the exploited are the only means by which the working of these laws can be breached and the social relations upon which they are founded be smashed.
That Marx's scientific work was able to anticipate the subsequent transformations of capitalism and its major consequences must not lead in a paradoxical manner to the illusion that -contrary to other sciences, Marx's scientific work will be infallible and capable of, formulating “eternal truths” touching upon a future that is situated beyond the scope of all social practice.
Marx had on many occasions guarded against those who believed they could predict the future. He had recalled that "men make their own history" and that the outcome of these struggles is not "guaranteed'' so long as these have not been overcome. Also, even if his writings are far from being exempt of prophetic declarations, (the range and scope of which are well worth exploring), he had himself, rightly criticised those who sought according to his expression –“to boil the pots of the future" and predesign the concrete forms of the transition to a "classless society" (see, Critique of the Gotha Programme). He knew that history had more imagination than us and that its "irony" could be bitter. Today, while the movement for the abolition of the existing order is going through an exceptional crisis, it is important as never before for those who claim to be fideI to Marx's work to show proof of their initiative and not condemn it to paralysis. For this purpose, they must in order to enrich it, treat this work -as is the case with all sciences- in a manner that does not hesitate to question its conclusions and its fundamentals when this is necessary since the only way of keeping a science alive is to take into account that which real history and practice never fail to teach us.
It is all the more necessary to bear these considerations in mind since ignoring them or occulting them has sereved to maintain the established "order" and has allowed adherents of the latter to speak of the "failure of Marxism". In this context, it is necessary to present a few other reflections by way of supporting what has been outlined above.
On the alleged "failure of marxism"
The possible points of departure of the reflections that follow are several. I have chosen to begin by questioning Bukharin's affirmation according to which Marx's work constituted a ''block of steel". It seems to me that this point of departure is justified since this affirmation had implicitly sustained "Soviet Marxism" (to which it served as a "title of legitimacy") and can (p. xi) foster several other forms of dogmatism. Now, a serious examination of Marx's work reveals that this is indeed questionable.
Comparing Marx's work to a “block of steel” is to already betray it through a denial of its historical insertion, its continuous development and its essential characteristics. Accepting this comparison provides the possibility of arbitrarily choosing any “quotation” taken from a complex work to unduly "justify" so-called "Marxist" analyses and conclusions but which are actually deprived of any sound basis.
Marx was highly conscious of the risk of distortion especially since this often occurred under his own eyes. He had denounced what he called “self-styled Marxism” declaring to Laffargue: "What is clear is that I myself am not a Marxist" (letter from Engels to Bernstein dated November 3, 1882).
Since these words were delivered, history has largely confirmed its bearer. It has shown that it is indispensable to recognise that Marx's work is rich, multiple and tirelessly creative; that -like all living reality- it includes contradictory aspects, and to arbitrarily abstract one of these at the expense of ignoring the context is tantamount to not respecting the integral nature of Marx's work.
It may also be recalled that concrete historical development and social struggles gave birth to not one but several Marxisms. Those who declared themselves the most "orthodox" were the most dogmatic; the worst deviations from the struggle for social emancipation were committed in their name. These Marxisms provided the weapons to fight the exploited and oppressed by calling upon them to respect an order which was none other than the established order even though it had been "smeared in red" as Lenin said of the Soviet state apparatus in 1921.
We cannot therefore speak of a failure of Marxism since the latter does not exist; what exists are several Marxisms which derive their origins from social struggles and from different aspects of Marx's work. Such a proposition might appear discouraging. In my view however it is not since it calls for the development of the only' kind of Marxism that is defensible: critical Marxism.
For a critical Marxism
"Critical Marxism" is the rational kernal of Marx's work and (p. xii) also of the works of those who remain "fidel" to him. This does not however consist in simply repeating what he said but in retaining that which is in fact essential to forge ahead.
Remaining fidel to Marx's work in this sense has several important implications; above all, it involves not looking for answers in his work which either do not exist or which are not at any rate to be found there. Marx was -as anybody else- (to borrow an expression from Hegel), a "child of his time". Respecting this requirement is the only way of rendering Marx's work forever current and powerful by enrichening it through lessons -made possible by and which cannot be bypassed- from practice and history.
This then implies a need to continuously extend the movement of Marx's work, this movement that enabled him to develop a radical critique of the existing order, the crimes of which he not only denounced, but also showed that they could only get worse; something which the experience of the past century tragically illustrates.
It also implies the task of continuing the criticism of ideological forms under which this "order" comes to be viewed as "eternal" and the "best possible."
Further, it implies being alert to the new (i.e., innovation and change) in order to extract lessons and rectify what the old might have wrongly suggested. The emergence of newer social transformations is a result of developments in scientific thought, in class struggles and popular initiatives to which Marx attached considerable importance when he declared: “The emancipation of the working class cannot but be the act of the workers themselves" (this already condemned any kind of diktat derived from a text or imposed by a party which wished to view itself as the "guide of the revolution").
Finally, it implies an effort to keep "alive" the capacity of Marx's thought to criticise itself and to treat criticism as something that is welcome (see, Preface to the First Edition of Capital, 1867).
A critical Marxism of this kind stands opposed to all proclaimed "orthodoxies" which can only be conservative and consequently serve the existing order. Rejecting all assimilation into a "system", it firmly rejects the concept of monolithism by remaining open to the practice of free debate that is indispensible to the conquest of democracy. (p. xiii)
The failure of pseudo-socialisms and dogmatic Marxisms that were linked to them heralds the beginning of a period during which the revolutionary character of critical Marxism can clearly develop and manifest itself. Among the scientific tasks that need to be urgently addressed include a balance sheet of pseudo socialisms and their ideologies, an exercise in critical reflection having a bearing upon the different Marxisms in a manner that retains their positive lessons and rejects the rest, analysis of the forms of domination of capitalist apparatuses and the modalities of their transformation into private capitalists and the new forms assumed by the class struggle while the domination of capital considered globally, is tending towards greater concentration to an extent that has no precedent hitherto.
The present work which attempts to show what "socialism" and Soviet "Marxism" had been can perhaps be considered as the beginning of a necessary renewal of critical and revolutionary Marxism.
Charles Bettelheim Paris, June 1993
Translated by Ramnath Narayanswamy, Bangalore, July 1993