Who is Afraid of Utopia?

Who is Afraid of Utopia?

Nildo Viana

Socialism has often been labeled a utopia and that word is understood as synonymous with impossible dream. Now, with the crisis countries' so-called "socialist, has become" intellectual fashion "say that socialism and Marxism died and it is proven its utopian character. This is the dominant ideology but we should never forget that "the dominant ideas are the ideas of the ruling class" and that we must refute them.

Let us begin by the meaning given to the word utopia. To understand how "impossible dream", it becomes a weapon to discredit opponents of the current social system. In the French Revolution of 1789, the royalists have accused Republicans of "utopians", as this would be impossible dream. But in the meantime, the republic was established, this dream came true. Those who advocate the maintenance of the social system accuse the subversive and revolutionary ideas of being utopian. Auguste Comte criticizes the utopia in opposition to her reality. He considered it a 'metaphysical and irrational dream ", contrary to scientific knowledge. Such knowledge, however, is positivism, which takes reality as if she did not have contradictions and did not become, or are stuck in the cage of the "eternal present," ahistorical. Conservative thought that attacks the utopia can not see a foot in front of the nose, which is, for this thought, a "tangible reality"; is a prisoner thought into the gift and that can not exceed the limits of the here and now; is a thought without perspective and therefore no action and hence the pre-human attitude that outputs the existing without trying to overtake him.

But through a critical analysis we can say that the bulk of utopias can be found in the work of the structure The Utopia of Thomas More. In the first part of this book, he criticizes the society of his time and the second describes the island of Utopia, which has a "perfect" social organization. It is seen in the first part, for example, a criticism of enclosures (enclosures) in England and in the second part describes a society without private property and without social division of labor. Even if there were the first part of the work, as in many other utopias, would be implicit criticism of such a society that lived with private property, the social division of labor, etc. In the case of Morus, criticism is explicit, as noted in comparison he made between work in Utopia and of English society, as in Utopia does not work as a "workhorse" from "dawn to night ", which would be worse than the" torture and slavery ", although this is in" another part "a" sad fate of the workers. " Utopia means, then, a critique of existing society and a proposal for a new society. Every criticism of the existing brings itself, implicitly, a proposal for a new society and every proposal for a new society brings out in a critique of existing society.

Western Marxist Ernst Bloch classifies utopias into two main types: the abstract and the concrete. From this we can say that Morus, Campanella, among others, produced abstract utopias, because, despite having a review and an "alternative" to the existing society, they had very limited criticism and projects that often catered to the whims of some individuals or small social groups rather than the interests of the community. Their alternative society proposals It clashed with their actual possibility of implementation at the time they were written. But the major flaw of abstract utopias and characterizing them, according to Bloch, is that they do not present as is the case of this company for future society.

Another type of abstract utopia is produced by the utopian socialists. They did a more thorough critique of capitalism and, despite the shortcomings, this was his most revolutionary aspect. They also proposed to build new companies but the advance from earlier utopias is that the critique of capitalism has become better grounded and also began to deal with the transition from one society to another. However, the utopian socialists understand that the transition to "socialism" would take place with the support of the State or the "educated classes" or even by "education", the "awareness" and "reason". Here is revealed the main limitation of utopian socialism.

The other type of utopia, concrete, is based, as Bloch said, the perception of really possible, as opposed to the abstract utopias. In this sense, Marxism is a concrete utopia. When operating the critique of bourgeois society, Marx and Engels analyzed the historical possibilities of establishment of socialism and how it would happen. The concrete utopia is revolutionary theory that is not only possible and necessary as its implementation is the likely outcome of the historical process.

The crisis of state capitalism in the USSR and Eastern Europe makes the radicalized and intellectualized fraction of our helper classes of the bourgeoisie resume pre-Marxist ideas and goes on to consider Marxism as something "outdated". Without the crutch that was the USSR and Eastern Europe, the auxiliary classes of the bourgeoisie do not take that "support" to continue their "heroic struggle" for "socialism." This is where Marxists and ex-Marxists begin to qualify Marx as an idealist. As said Claude Lefort, among others, the idea of ​​a classless society is only an ideal created by Marx. The ideal floor for many, is synonymous with utopia. Both concepts in this case are understood as a proposal that does not take into account the possibilities of its realization. In a dialectical analysis we can say that the reality of modern societies is dominated by exploitation, oppression and alienation. This reality contradicts human aspirations become undesirable and view it this way produces the will to create a humane society. The "ideal" does not arise arbitrarily, but the real need. However, because the real is in motion and the ideal that emerges from it is also on the move, seeking to overcome them and the real, we can say that is the real with the possible paths that can go that creates the ideal and this or stands for and reinforces one of these paths or arises from these paths and becomes pure "abstraction." Therefore, this "ideal" is not a simple creation "arbitrary and illusory", but the real denial.

From this we can say that Marx was not the idealistic philosophical sense of the word but was idealistic from the common notion that attaches to this word the position of a person who has a dream. However, Marx was not an idealist as Morus and Campanella. In this case it comes to the same distinction between abstract and concrete utopia utopia presented above. Marx was not an abstract ideal but a concrete ideal and not make such a distinction is the same as working with the conservative propaganda, many "Marxists" are doing after the state of crisis of capitalism ("socialism").

Let's see if the Marxist utopia is concrete or not. There is the "Marxism" two positions on the establishment of socialism: the economist and idealistic (in the philosophical sense of the word). The economistic position generates two other locations: the reformist and catastrophic. The reformist position conceives the economic development of capitalism leads to its own resilience and so it is possible to pass to socialism gradually gaining ground in Parliament and in the state and go from this building socialism. This is the proposal of evolutionary socialism of Kautsky and his followers. The catastrophic position conceive that there will be a "final crisis of capitalism" and therefore should prepare a class party that will take power with the rise of the famous "final crisis". This is the proposal of Amadeo Bordiga.

The idealistic position also generates two other locations: the avant-garde revolutionary spirit and the avant-garde reformism. Fans of avant-garde revolutionary spirit conceive that the "objective conditions" of the socialist revolution are ripe, and what is lacking are the "subjective conditions" that will be created by the "Party of Vanguard" due to the working class inability spontaneously acquire your conscience class. It is the party, through its intellectuals, working out socialist consciousness and introduce the proletariat and therefore has the "historical right" to direct it towards the conquest of state power. In this case is not a class, but the party is the revolutionary subject. This is the proposal of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Others, the avant-garde reformist, say the bourgeois ideology dominates the whole society, including the "lower classes", then it is up to the intellectuals of the party draw up a new "world view", "new values", etc., and thereby unify such classes and promote a cultural change and so gain hegemony, required the implementation of socialism. This and the proposal of some "interpreters" of Gramsci.

But these positions are compatible with Marx? According to Marx, communism is not an ideal (abstract) but a real movement which abolishes the present state of things. Actual assumptions are universal development of productive forces and the emergence of a mass of humanity devoid of property at odds with a world of existing wealth and culture produced by the very development of the productive forces. In other words, the assumptions are: the formation of capitalism and the proletariat and, through capitalist development, the creation of a world market. Capitalism creates to develop and strengthen its own negation: the proletariat. Thereafter socialism becomes a historical trend.

From this, we can say that capitalism is abolished by capitalist development and thus creates communism. However, the creation of communism is the work of the working class. The first statement without the second takes into account only a metaphysical development of the productive forces to the detriment of the class struggle and social classes that would be, in this analysis, passive. Communism does not arise "economically" within capitalism, ie capitalism, of course, does not create collective ownership inside. Capitalism does not create communism directly but creates the proletariat which is the constitution of communism agent. Capitalism destroys itself but that does not mean that the result of its destruction is socialism. Bukharin had already noticed that might arise a post-capitalist society and non-socialist and this would be the result of development of productive forces and Marx said that there could be a positive abolition of private property (bourgeois), which means that there could be, too, a negative abolition. Marx's method is, as noted Bloch, a "science of the trend" and not a pure and simple economic determinism. Socialism is a need of humanity and a historical trend. Therefore, it is not "inevitable", ie is not the only historical possibility, although it is the most likely.

The Bordigist theory states that it is the party that holds the revolution is not true. As I said Otto Rühle, "the revolution is not party affair". The proletarian revolution can only be made by the class and the parties can even make "revolutions" or counter-revolutions, but can not make the communist revolution. Also, it does not justify the mechanistic theory of waiting the "final crisis of capitalism", because, as already noted Marx, revolutions can be anticipated.

Engels, in criticizing the utopian socialists, said that his main problem was not based on labor movement. These, according to Marx and Engels, came at a time when the proletariat was in training and therefore "the historical activity replace your own imagination, the historical emancipatory conditions, fantastic conditions, and the spontaneous and gradual organization of the proletariat in class social organization prefabricated for them. In his view, the story of the future is summarized in advertising and in the achievement of their social organization plans ".

This position would be taken up by Lenin in Tsarist Russia with its proletariat in formation. Bolshevism is an ideological expression of the backwardness of tsarist Russia. Social organization prefabricated by Lenin, the vanguard party, has its justification in the "vanguard ideology," according to which class consciousness does not arise spontaneously in the proletariat but only through bourgeois intellectuals gathered in the party. This thesis was supported philosophically by Georg Lukacs who said the passage of the proletariat "class in itself" to "class for itself" is mediated by the party, which is where intellectuals are. These, to discover the proletarian class interests, attributes his conscience that should have their interests, that is, the proletarian class consciousness is a consciousness attributed to him by the intellectuals. But leaving aside the "metaphysical phraseology" of Lukács and Lenin, let us see what Marx says, "economic conditions initially transformed the mass of the country workers. The domination of capital has created for this mass a common situation, common interests. This mass therefore is already in view of the capital, a class, but still it is not for herself. In the fight that pointed out some phases, this mass comes together, constitutes class for itself. The particular interests become class interests. " Therefore, the proletariat acquire class consciousness (passes or class in itself to class for itself) through the class struggle, ie without party mediation or intellectuals. You can only choose: Marx or Lenin?

Today it has become common to many "Marxists" and former "Marxists" focuses on awareness and changing values. Some far right, who claim to represent a "new left", launch their appeals "cultural" for the conquest of hegemony from all social classes, since they overcame the "proletarian myth." This is a beautiful return to pre-Marxist socialism based on an abstract humanism that neither the so-called "young Marx" agreed. But if such arguments were normal at the time of the utopian socialists, given the degree of development of the proletariat, are today more than outdated and are an expression of the crisis of conscience auxiliary classes of the bourgeoisie and do not serve the struggle for socialism. Either way, favoring awareness and changing values ​​in a position to the right or to the left, is a epistemologically idealistic stance that generates an elitist political practice, since they are the intellectuals of the "new" left that will educate the "world ignorant "and do it, as Marx said, open your mouth and swallow the" roast duck absolute knowledge ".

All these positions have in common, apart from positivism, the denial of the revolutionary role of the proletariat. This is "passive" and only comes into play when it is called by Kautsky to vote on them, when the Bolshevik vanguard drives you and gives the socialist consciousness or are made aware by "would-be reformers of the world" (Marx). If Marx were alive and their "followers" were just these certainly would resume Heine metaphor: "My evil was sown dragons and have reaped only fleas."

The creation of communism is the work of the working class, then it is the historical experience of the labor movement we can find out how this will happen. The socialist theory justifies its name is based on the real movement of workers. Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, proposed the nationalization of the means of production under control of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, but after working experience in the Paris Commune, they turned back and said they did not just win the state power and use it according to their interests, it is necessary to destroy it and replace it with the "self-management of producers." After Marx, was Rosa Luxemburg who was based in the real labor movement to develop its revolutionary theory. Rosa Luxemburg when observing the explosion of mass strikes in several countries and especially in Czarist Russia, set them as the most powerful political weapon of the proletariat. The considered "anarchist theory" was taken up by Rosa Luxemburg as a universal force of workers' struggle. The strikes began to be advocated by Bernstein, but only to serve the parliamentary struggle of the German Social Democracy and Kautsky and Trotsky soon abandoned this position, the first to take on their reformism and the second to join the Bolshevism. After Rosa Luxemburg, fell to the ground councilists communist revolutionary theory in the labor movement. The Russian Revolution, the German Revolution, among other attempts at proletarian revolution in the early 20th century, were the scene of mass strikes that led to the workers' councils and were theorists such as Karl Korsch, Anton Pannekoek, Hermann Gorter, Helmutt Wagner, Paul Mattick, Otto Rühle, among others, who have taken this experience of workers - workers' councils - as a form of revolutionary organization of the proletariat. Pannekoek said at the time of Marx and Engels there was the possibility to predict clearly how the proletariat would take power and the old state power, the revolutionary process, would be destroyed and replaced by workers' councils. Without forgetting the most recent contributions and new issues arising from the historical development, we can say that these are the theoretical principal of the proletarian revolution and also that they are opposed to both social democracy and Bolshevism, which, as it was for the Marxist historian Arthur Rosenberg, have nothing to do with the labor movement.

But today tell us that all this is utopia. Who say that are those who have "committed to the existing society." It is these who are afraid of utopia and we know very well that no one fears "unrealistic dreams". Nothing is more ridiculous to say that the historical changes in Eastern Europe show that there will be no historical changes. The ideologues of the ruling class are so competent in reversing the reality using the very historical movement to say that it does not exist. However, the most curious of all is that those who until recently called themselves "defenders of workers" now take a conservative speech on behalf of "political realism". Communism went to these, capitalism denying to just a "patch" of this.

The formula "democratic socialism" is a beautiful example of this. Socialism, by nature, is democratic and genuine democracy can only exist in socialism, that is, such an expression is a contradiction. They tell us that democratic socialism will state planning living with the laws of the market and also with small and medium property. What is this socialism? Let's look first to what sectors of society such social project benefits: state planning serves the interests of the bureaucracy and the small and medium property serves the interests of small and medium bourgeoisie. Now let's see what happens with its historic extension: any economist knows that small and medium property living with the "market forces" soon become large properties, meaning there is a return to previous situation. For workers such proposal waves only with the "redistribution of income", ie, the decrease in the rate of exploitation and not its abolition. This proposal aims to build actually a reformed capitalism and not the communist mode of production.

Communism is not income redistribution, but a mode of production in which workers collectively drive the means of production implanting communist relations of production, for the redistribution of income can be redone again and against the workers if they do not detain the property and direction of the means of production. It is the mode of production which determines the distribution and this is why, among other reasons, that communism is based on production. The concept of "democratic socialism" only attacks the surface issues of capitalism and not the essential. Remains commodity production, the law of value, private property, social classes, wage labor, the more value, the state, etc., and consequently the exploitation, oppression and alienation. The "democratic socialism" of socialism in name only. Under the guise of political realism, cling to positivism and reformism. But in contrast there is the utopia with its critical-revolutionary character denying political realism and its inherent conservatism.

Communism is the socialization of the means of production based on social ownership. Paul Mattick was right when he said that "nothing proves more forcefully the revolutionary character of Marx's theories than the difficulty of ensuring its continued non-revolutionary periods." The overcoming of capitalism movement of communism becomes just a name that justifies even the permanence of bourgeois society, now reformed. Though they say that Marxism died, the trend is the rise of the revolutionary movement and consequently of Marxism. The working class will go your way and let others babble.

Article originally published in: Journal Brazil. Revolutionary. Year 2, n. 7, December 1990.