Essay:Does "actually existing socialism" exist in the modern age?

From Leftypedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Introduction

Among the lexicon found in the modern left, particularly the online left, is that of “actually existing socialism”, commonly abbreviated to “AES”. The concept of “actually existing socialism”, by its most common meaning, refers to modern countries which are deemed by its proponents to be Socialist states, who they commonly believe to possess a ruling Communist party and government who remain stalwart to the goals of developing Communism and combating bourgeois influence.

The countries which are most frequently designated “actually existing socialism” in the modern epoch include the People’s Republic of China, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the Republic of Cuba. Other countries, such as Venezuela, are occasionally included in this grouping as well.

To the upholder of the concept of “actually existing socialism”, these five countries must be upheld unconditionally, with little criticism, and with total mental vacuity. Within the understanding of this concept, countries such as the modern People’s Republic of China represent the apex of socialism in the modern world, are total dictatorships of the proletariat, and are anti-imperialist powers whose governments are actively working for the overthrow of the the American and European imperialists and liberation of the proletariat globally.

However, like so many other concepts found within revisionist and opportunist trends, “actually existing socialism” represents an incorrect position.

Why the concept of "actually existing socialism" is false and revisionary

The most clear mistake of this concept of “AES” is that of what it believes is modern socialism. The very fact that “actually existing socialism” upholders view Laos, Vietnam, and particularly modern China as being socialist states indicates the reasoning behind their conclusions - what constitutes “actually existing socialism”, according to its proponents, is not actually based on objective economic relations that exist in these countries, but merely based on symbolism and rhetoric which their ruling parties maintain.

In other words, if the Communist Party of China were to rename itself to the “social-democratic party of China”, cease claiming to adhere to Marxism-Leninism, and other rhetorical and aesthetical changes, while still maintaining the exact same economic system, these revisionists would no longer consider China to be an example of “actually existing socialism”.

Inversely, if a country such as the Russian Federation, which is in all respects a capitalist state, where to officially readopt the Soviet flag, change its name to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, while still maintaining the same economic system, “actually existing socialism” upholders would suddenly consider Vladimir Putin to be the next Stalin and suddenly consider Russia to be “AES”.

Thus, from merely viewing one aspect of the revisionists’ concept of “actually existing socialism”, we can conclude that it is built off a fundamentally anti-Marxist conception, that analyzing really existing economic relations in a society is trivial, if not meaningless to actually determining if a country is socialist or not.

The history of the concept of "actually existing socialism"

To further attain sapience of the revisionism and opportunism of this “actually existing socialism” concept, it is critical to note that the concept of “actually existing socialism”, alternatively known as “real socialism”, itself was conceived in the revisionist, Brezhnevite Soviet Union and the countries of the Warsaw Pact.

With revisionism often being of a dogmatic form, the Soviet revisionists purposefully developed the concept of “actually existing socialism” as a means to legitimize their deviations from Marxism and social-imperialist efforts. Within the context of both the Albanian-Soviet and Sino-Soviet splits, the anti-revisionists of countries such as Albania were able to realize, and combat ideologically, the revisionism in the Soviet Union, its failures to conform with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and most critically its restoration of capitalism.

In reaction to this, the ideologists of the Soviet revisionist government and communist attempted to refocus the concerns of the communist movement from ideological content to vacuous adherence to the line of the Soviet Union and its allies merely for the sake of the Soviet Union claiming to represent a socialist state. From this, the Soviet revisionists used this concocted “real socialism” idea to denounce those who repudiated the capitalist restoration in the Soviet Union and its other reactionary policies.

Conclusion

From viewing the history of “actually existing socialism” as an ideological concept, it is clear to all that followers of “AES”, particularly those in the modern day, do not care for actual dedication to Marxism and the goals of revolution, but rather symbolism and demagogy. Furthermore, to those who focus most of their efforts on defending “actually existing socialism”, they have really adopted a position which is retrogressive to the communist movement generally.

The goals of revolutionary communism are not, nor have they ever been, to dogmatically and uncritically uphold a small selection of countries, regardless of if they are socialist or not, but to bring about revolution, and from it socialism, to one’s own country. While in certain instances, a socialist country, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin, may be viewed as being the “flagship” of the socialist revolution, this, that is, the theory of Socialism in One Country, which we adhere to, is still distinct from the modern understanding of “actually existing socialism”.

Regarding the character of the five countries designated as “actually existing socialism”, they have all deviated greatly from Marxism. Countries, such as the modern People’s Republic of China, have even adopted a social-imperialist character. All of the economies of the countries of “existing socialism” are directed upon a profit motive, are run in the interests of the petite-bourgeoisie if not bourgeoisie-proper, and have “communist” parties who are motivated more by bourgeois nationalism and class collaborationism over the goals of revolution and socialism. Thus, just as it was during the Cold War a century ago, defending “actually existing socialism” means to implicitly defend social-imperialism, capitalism, and anti-Marxist trends as well as revisionism.

The concept of “actually existing socialism” has, for the totality of its existence, been used to further ideological stagnation in the Marxist movement, to affirm revisionism and deviationism, and to defend social-imperialism. The mentality which is brought about by following “actually existing socialism” is fundamentally an ill-productive one that will slow down the development of revolution. That is, this mentality greatly favors ideological stagnation and dogmatism over innovation and revolutionism.

For revolutionary communists everywhere, the chief aim of our movement should be the building of socialism via a revolution at home, in our own countries. Let us not stagnate our ideological development via worshiping this small assortment of supposedly socialist countries.