The critical difference between socialism and communism (both taken here in the political sense) is a fact in historical evidence. While “communism” is closely associated, with some justification, with radicalism and an aggressive Soviet post-WWI (sic!) intrusion into the affairs of Europe, European socialism had meantime developed into a fairly benign political movement, not only compatible with Western democracy, but also coming to its rescue during the challenging times of the Great Depression of the twentieth century, and giving it a good sense of direction thereafter.
Here is how Encyclopaedia Britannica describes this actual shift in practical socialism:
“By the early years of the twentieth century, socialism had become a powerful parliamentary force in most European countries. Except in Russia, where autocracy still held sway, the Socialists were reformers who sought a transformation of the existing system, rather than its violent overthrow.”
When the Great War, later known as World War I, began in Europe in 1914, most of the socialist leaders of the Second International showed their true allegiances, rallying to support their national governments, right or wrong. Lenin immediately denounced them as traitors to the internationalist cause, but it was not in any way the critical point of the split between the socialists and the communists. As evidenced by the numerous writings of Lenin himself, his fight against the European socialists had started well before the war. It was a struggle for direct political control of the leftist movements, and not about their ideology.
Even during the duration of the First International, from 1864 to 1876, Marx and Engels had been its largely symbolic leaders. The Second International, resuscitated in 1889, was by then a completely decentralized international parliamentary gathering, rather than some kind of cohesive organization, governed from the top.
This was the socialism of the future, not a socialism according to Lenin, for whom “socialism” could mean only two things: his personal political power and Russia’s upper hand in the world. (Quite commendable for a politician, I might add!)
What Lenin has succeeded in, however,-- and perhaps, the only thing, but what a coup!-- was to muddy up the waters enough to give the “greedy capitalist” plenty of unwarranted ammunition for self-defense, and to socialism, a bad name for generations to come.
Here is how Encyclopaedia Britannica describes this actual shift in practical socialism:
“By the early years of the twentieth century, socialism had become a powerful parliamentary force in most European countries. Except in Russia, where autocracy still held sway, the Socialists were reformers who sought a transformation of the existing system, rather than its violent overthrow.”
When the Great War, later known as World War I, began in Europe in 1914, most of the socialist leaders of the Second International showed their true allegiances, rallying to support their national governments, right or wrong. Lenin immediately denounced them as traitors to the internationalist cause, but it was not in any way the critical point of the split between the socialists and the communists. As evidenced by the numerous writings of Lenin himself, his fight against the European socialists had started well before the war. It was a struggle for direct political control of the leftist movements, and not about their ideology.
Even during the duration of the First International, from 1864 to 1876, Marx and Engels had been its largely symbolic leaders. The Second International, resuscitated in 1889, was by then a completely decentralized international parliamentary gathering, rather than some kind of cohesive organization, governed from the top.
This was the socialism of the future, not a socialism according to Lenin, for whom “socialism” could mean only two things: his personal political power and Russia’s upper hand in the world. (Quite commendable for a politician, I might add!)
What Lenin has succeeded in, however,-- and perhaps, the only thing, but what a coup!-- was to muddy up the waters enough to give the “greedy capitalist” plenty of unwarranted ammunition for self-defense, and to socialism, a bad name for generations to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment