-
The Second Communist
Manifesto (A.B. Razlatzki)
-
 Introduction
for Western and World Readers
-
Introduction
(1999)
-
Foreword
-
-
Part
I: Bourgeois and Proletarian
-
-
Part
II: Proletariat - Boss
-
-
Part
III: The Crisis of the Workers Movement
-
-
Part
IV: Proletarian Dictatorship & Proletarian Democracy
-
-
Part
V: Classes and the Struggle for Socialism
USA,
Socialism, Us...
State
Imperialism Should be Distinguished from Economic Imperialism
Notes in the Margins of History
Turbulence
in Social Development and the Stratification of the Superstructure
|
The Second Communist Manifesto
Foreword
The spectre of communism is again haunting Europe, and beyond! Yet it remains
a spectre. More than century of history has propelled it across countries
and continents but has not compelled it to materialize.
Humanity has matured, it has stopped believing in witches and sprites,
devils and ghosts. If, long ago, the spectre provoked fear and trembling
in the bourgeoisie, now they occasionally like to scare the philistines
with communism. Moreover, the spectres are multiplying. Now, with the help
of countless philosophical tailors, even the most respectable bourgeois
can dress up in translucent white garments and start hanging out with such
foppish phantoms, one among many.[1]
And nobody can tell, any more, which is the genuine article.
To the proletariat of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century,
the word "communism" sounded like the word "hope." The year 1917 rang out
like the peal of a bell that could be heard around the world. And in many
countries, the bonfires of proletarian struggle burned, threatening to
break out into the blaze of world revolution.
What has changed since then?
And the proletariat, where it did seize power with its own hands, where
it established its hegemony, is it happy? And if so, then why is this happiness
not very attractive to the rest.
In the USSR, a country founded under the gaze of the whole workers movement,
the dictatorship of the proletariat has been abolished. Does this signify
the recognition by the proletariat of its own bankruptcy, its withdrawal
from the ground it had conquered, its willingness to surrender? And to
whom?
Why do the economists of the Western world again and again return to
the theory of convergence; the increasing similarity, the intrinsic drawing
together of the socialist and capitalist countries?
Why do the socialist countries not hurry to support these theoretical
constructs? What is the essence of the iron curtain which continues to
divide these worlds.
In the mid twentieth century, contrary to all predictions, it is the
most backward, underdeveloped countries that are the most revolutionary.
Why?
Because the proletariat of the advanced capitalist countries has not
only been inclined to take up a belief in class harmony, but has almost
voluntarily carried the whole burden of the economic crises of the second
half of the twentieth century; whether it be the global financial crisis
or the local oil crisis.
The communist parties of such countries as France, Italy and others,
in order to preserve their numbers, were obliged to repudiate a number
of their aims. What do the "new models" of socialism mean to them?
What is China searching for, steering its zigzagging course between
the socialist and the most reactionary regimes of our time?
Why have the questions of international class solidarity been moved
to an inside page and then quietly buried? Why has the working class been
gripped, as if by an epidemic, by an incapacity to pull itself out of the
swamp of internal and altogether trivial affairs?
Why has the philosophy of the twentieth century not given a direction
capable of captivating the advanced thinkers and the youth? Why do all
the newest theories destroy themselves, not lasting more than a few years;
while only the philosophies of global, universal negation escape self destruction?
The world looks in the mirror, wanting to see itself. But the reflection
is vague and unsteady. Isn't that the spectre of communism? Isn't it there?
Much can be seen in the mirror. If only you don't look in the dark or
in the smokey glimmer of an oil lamp. If only you illuminate with the light
of Marxism. If you look through the eyes of the proletariat. And if in
the frame there really is a mirror, and not a map of the last century.
It is time to look!
References
-
This metaphor is intended to call attention not only
to the multiplicity of models of "communism," the USSR, PRC, Albania, GDR,
Poland etc. but also to such openly bourgeois "socialisms" as the "Swedish
Model," Switzerland etc. which were passed off as alternative forms of
genuine socialism. Some confusion may result from the fact that in the
west the prototypical capitalist is a fat character in a black frock coat
and top hat; in Russia, in the summertime, the bourgeoisie of old liked
to loll about in pale coloured clothing just like the characters in a play
by Chekov. Of course, "the philosophical tailors" are the numberless, second-rate,
idealist philosophers whose stock in trade is painting up the grim reality
to suit their bourgeois masters.
-
The Varangians were Normans from the region of Upsala who subjugated the
Slavs beginning around the year 859. Led by Rurik they established themselves
near Novgorod. Their domination lasted only two years, after which the
locals, who had age old free and democratic traditions, rose in rebellion.
|
