The unexpected fall of the political regimes in the eastern Europe countries, mainly in those where the so called “democratic centralism” – Marxist socialism forceps, comparable to Uncle Sam’s “big stick” policy (obviously a intellectualized version well in the taste of Stalinists) – was more prominent, surprises the capitalist world, mainly the extreme right wing in Western First World.
It starts, with this process, the motivation loss and lack of motivation to the ideological combat against Marxist regimes, since these socialist models in their several versions fell thunderously to the ground without any direct external interference. Just imploded!
Western extreme right wing has always fed from and got stronger through the time, based on a possible future conflict with communist countries driven by centralist Marxism, which hasn’t occurred.
Since then, the criticism to centralist Marxism has increased among Marxists themselves, as well as by liberals and western intellectuals, even those on the left wing.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A SINGLE POLITICAL REGIME FOR ALL THE PEOPLE?
One may argue against the validity of a regime model that is unique for all peoples.
Is it possible to have just one standard political regime for all peoples worldwide independently of their cultural roots?
How to demonstrate in the practical sense Marx’s dialectic materialism, to debunk false popular beliefs without the traumatic process of revolutionary imposition?
The old dialectics, skillfully manipulated by Socrates, falls to the ground due to proposition limitations of questions in order to obtain a truth, since the counterparts were induced to repeat the proposition.
Marx and Hegel oppose each other when Hegel proposes that there has been a spirit that thought out the Universe and in this thought Hegel merges spirit and conscience and affirms that: “Spirit transformations determine the transformations of matter”. One obviously concludes that such transformations happened by interference of men or nature.
Hegel’s view of “spirit” is connected to the abstract aspect of mind phenomena.
Marx, in his turn, affirms in one of his laws of dialectics that: “In dialectic movement each thing brings in itself its own contradiction, and lead to transform in its opposite, the living being walks toward its own death.”
In the analysis of Marx’s Law, by its logic the being after its death must return to life, since the living being walks toward its death. Thus, paradoxically, would Marx be suggesting the existence of another life after death, or a new return to life?
Considering this reasoning, may one conclude that Hegel was right to propose the existence of the spirit, furthermore with Marx approval? In the dialectic movement there are two forms of opposite directions, one builds the being and the other destroys it.
Marx partially opposed Hegel when accepted the Idea of transformation of things and casts doubts on the concepts of the time by asserting that: “Philosophers have only interpreted the world in diverse ways so far, it matters now to transform it”.
HUMAN SOCIETY EVOLUTION IS INEXORABLE.
It is worth to recall the aspect that the world had already be under transformation before Marks, that is to say, society evolution had not begun with Marx.
It appears then the big contradiction of Marxist dialectics. How to transform society? By bloody revolutions or through the revolution of ideas though building awareness within oppressors and oppressed?
Italian leftist intellectuals have long considered Marxism as finished. It is the critical view of Marxist dialectics itself that calls for transformation in society, or in summary, one sees Marxist against Marxist as a distinctive mark of the current left wing.
Marx in the essence of its dialectics opposes himself by accepting evolution by overcoming of values that become conservative over time.
Thus, Marxism has over decades also given in to the wear of time, proving its own thesis and having its usefulness overdue, for it has also become a conservative thesis by not renewing itself.
Could one, perhaps, say that Marxist dialectics has finished of itself?
Marx makes a criticism to the philosophers that preceded him calling them idealists.
Today one sees that such criticism falls over Marx himself, for his image with the passing time has also become of an idealist, in face of Marxism failures and contradictions.
Marx has not taken into account man’s fragility, with his anguishes, needs, frustrations and desire to consume more and more, independently of the possibility of fulfilling such desires.
He failed also in imagining that men must aim only the material and forget about the spiritual issues, of mystic and unexplained phenomena.
When Marx proposes only the material as solution, he ignores the unexplainable and frustrates those who “want” to believe in the mystic and also search for the truth, to which the Marxist dialectics does not present an answer.
The most negative and striking expressions of Marxist experiments in socialist countries have been undoubtfully the absence of technological processes aiming the large scale production of mass consumer goods and the excessive ideological “jibber-jabber” .
CULTURE IN POLITICAL DOCTRINES
I’ve been saying that “the culture of a people is stronger than any ideological proposition”, and in cases like Peru and Poland such phrase has been confirmed.
What were the mistakes made by Marxists?
In Poland, actually, there is a class conflict between the polish proletariat and Government officials, controlled by Polish Communist Party, technocrats and intellectuals. Hasn’t Marxism aimed for a society without social classes?
In the basis of such contradictions, we find in Poland two basic themes of the social fight: the strong bonds between the polish people with Catholicism and the lack of capacity of Polish communist Government officials in giving an answer to the economic matters and large scale production of consumer goods, as well as individual and religious freedom.
Peru’s case is also typical.
I had the opportunity to watch personally the events of failure of “unionist Peruvian socialism”.
The dream of some leftists in the third world has come true in Peru, in relation to the power takeover when Army General Velasco Alvarado lead a left revolutionary process and established a unionist socialist regime in Peru.
Results: For eight years of “socialism” the people suffered from “leftist ideologism”. They wanted better life conditions, something the socialist proposition was not able to deliver, even with land distribution reform and collectivization of farmlands in Peru and implantation of agriculture production unions (cooperative farms).
After eight years of failures, Osny Moralles Bermudes, another Peruvian General, answering the pressure from the population majority, has applied a counter strike on Peruvian socialism, promoting and sponsoring the re-democratization of Peru.
A new Constitution has been approved and, at the following presidential election, more than twenty political parties were registered and the result emerging from the polls was the expected victory of a center-right parties coalition.
The left defeated in the elections remained disorganized and the Maoist group Sendero Luminoso took the ways of the guerrilla deep in Peruvian Andes, and the results of this gesture surely had no political significance.
The negative experience of such top-down socialization failed for not taking into account the composition of the Peruvian social fabric, where one can find a strong contingent of Inca people living according to their own millenary culture and refusing to fully accept the European culture imposed by the Spanish conquerors, even after 400 years of domination. After all, the mestizos tied by Incan bonds amount together the majority of Peruvian people. And that has not been taken into account by the Marxists of that time, that is the Peruvian people culture.
I visited a cooperative/union north of Peru Capital (Cooperativa Maria Laura), where I could observe and conclude that the Peruvian peasants were in apathy, paralyzed and distant from the propositions implanted in Peru, far from Marx’s dialectic materialism.
Such behavior of Incan Indians and Peruvian mestizos led me to conclude that the “cultural issue prevails on any doctrine or ideological proposition”. Inca culture of Peruvian people was stronger than the proposed dialectic socialism of Marx.
In contemporary Russia there are clear examples of prevailing cultural aspects over Marx’s doctrine matters , when Armenians and other peoples from that region demand more freedom based on their cultural and national roots. This shows yet another contradiction of Marxism implanted in the days of Stalin, whom ignored his own “totallization” Marxist process, stressing the absence of vision of the whole of cultural origins of the peoples in the countries where communism was imposed by force of arms in the aftermaths of World War II.
Marx, when focusing on “alienation”, – as activity of labor which deforms and depresses the man in classical capitalist modes, which in its turn imposes surplus value and takes part of the workers efforts – gives way to the class struggles between employers and employees and subjectively proposes the extinction of social classes.
“ROBOTIZATION” OF MAN.
Well, if accepted such ideas of Marx and extinct the social classes by radicalization of the proposal, we fall into the “robotization” of man, such as happened in China during Mao, where things came to the extreme of dressing the people in uniforms with the famous Mao tunic.
From one extreme to another, man does not alienates himself in work for the capitalist system, but perhaps in Marx’s socialist proposal, under the totalitarian central State, which determines even what to wear and what color to use. This is also oppression, added to the silent struggle between the ruling class, military and Marxist intellectuals against the proletarian class.
THE MARXIST INTELLECTUAL.
The role of the intellectual in the dialectic process is to direct his life by the scientific information absorbed in the intellectual universe, living a theoretical and unrealistic world in face that the masses are not intellectuals and don’t belong to his world.
The intellectual uses the masses as a laboratory to test the dialectical advancements and in this relation he tries to adhere eventually to the masses with values of his own and prejudices of the society, thus establishing the conflict and contradictions with the masses.
Man, being a rational entity, is inconstant and thinks of abstracts, dreaming of explaining the cosmos, its origins and its end. Thereof Man’s vocation to refuse any straitjacket, materialist or not.
Add to that all doubts about Marxism the assertion made by some communist lines that Marxism is not like anything that has been done in Stalin’s Russia, nor in Gorbatchev’s Perestroika Russia, thus cumulating contradiction on contradiction.
SCIENCE IN CAOS.
Marx and his followers searched in the natural sciences comparisons in order to try to prove the inexorability of dialectic materialism, thus trying to give a connotation of exactitude to a inexact social science, the Marxism.
During the ‘70s at University of California, young scientists, researchers of Physics Department, propose to study a new curricular subject that they called “chaos”, which purpose was to find some order in systems that appear to have none.
In ten years of research the scientist succeed to find scientific order from observing a random dripping faucet, even an order of a computer model for a mix of inks in microscopic level (invisible to the naked eye), which have been poured and mixed in a simple and manual disorderly way.
Experiments with numbers fed randomly into a computer resulted into a new scientific order.
From such experiments resulted a new physic science called Chaos, and a new way to look at the reality of the anti-scientific universe, proving that in the apparently chaotic and confuse world actually only exists scientific order, with its own laws previously unknown. Thus the natural science of Chaos arises and is currently accepted in the Academy.
The Science of Law orders the Judge to give a sentence according to the “ways and costumes” of the society in absence of a written law and in the logic of the Science of Law, the judge does nothing more than use what could be construed as a fact of “social chaos”, under a scientific point of view.
Making use of Marx’s teachings, of searching the natural sciences for justifications of the dialectic materialism to be implanted in society in name of the people, the Marxist socialism, one would be actually facing the current social order, which is in apparent “social chaos”, from the point of view of a Manichean Marxist intellectual.
After the postulation of the Science of Chaos, one could speculate:
“The world confuse and chaotic to Marxists, in reality is not so confused or chaotic, and on the opposite, is made of phenomena with its own laws under social chaos science”.
Wouldn’t a confuse and unjust social order be proof of normality of a cultural-scientific stage of social chaos of a people or social group?
The tonic of Marxist dialectics theorists has been the contradiction among themselves, which results in eternal conflict, whereof one deduces that thus occurs the Marx vs. Marx conflict.
Disagreement and chaos of some communist governments along the history wouldn’t be effects arising from the Chaos Science Laws?
Gorbachev, during his carrier did nothing but listen to the people and look for which were their desires, frustrations and anguishes.
Such Gorbachev’s practices identify exactly with Marketing sciences, used in capitalist countries to assure a product success in the consumer market, through constant research within the consumer masses.
With that, Gorbachev isolates the conservative bureaucrat, so that the people influences in the results of the State direction, reestablishing the truth and breaking the centralist Marxist ruling class “false conceptions”. This time false conceptions not of the people, but from the Marxist ruling classes and intellectuals, thus subverting the objectives of Marx’s dialectic materialism, of “debunking false conceptions of the people”, to debunk false conceptions of Marxist intellectuals instead, whom in their turn acted against the people. Perhaps proving Marx idea that “everything walks to transform into its contrary”: Yesterday’s ruler and punisher into today’s ruled and punished!
The people no longer feeds on ideological jibber-jabber of the idealists’ romantic dreams of a communist society, promoted by Marxist intellectuals and neither accepts the proposal of right wing savage decadent capitalism of the third world.
Social economic research carried on in 1989 in São Paulo gave the profile of the Brazilian citizen of 2000. The result recorded the desire to bury the bad and negative past, and the desire for renewal, the desire for consuming, in the search of the new, thus looking for a way out through a new path.
One realizes that the desire to bury the past had as primary cause the psycho-social frustration with political events that fired up the Country and became known as “Diretas Já”, “Cruzado Plan” and “New Republic”.
This poll clearly explains the failure of some Presidential candidates in 1989, such as Roberto Freire, Ulisses Guimarães, Mario Covas and Aureliano Chaves, all connected to the past, and even Lula, from a more recent past. Explains yet the victory of Collor, whom presented himself as the “new face”, the innovator.
Accepting the possibility of looking for scientific basis in the science of Chaos, for a possible new theses for studying the “social chaos”, perhaps in the future one may assert that : “there is no counter-science, that is, all is science, chaos is science!”
In the field of natural sciences considering the science of Chaos, such statement may already be asserted. When we think in such new possibilities we may project the revolution that such proposal can provoke, for instance, in the science of psychology and other social sciences in the future, including in politics.
From all that has been exposed one may conclude that the people wants solutions for their needs of housing, feeding, health, education, transport and leisure. They want honest government officials that are serious in dealing with the public affairs. They want freedom to come and go, freedom of cult and belief in the spiritual world, and cultural freedom.
Finally, people want solutions for their problems, come from where they may, independently of the current government model, but surely with freedom, without imposition by force and oppression that impedes the manifestation of the individual within the principles of universal rights of thought and speech.
* * *
Author: Lineu Tomass. Writer, lawyer, journalist and radio broadcaster.
NOTE OF THE AUTHOR: This article of political sociology has been written and published in Brazil, in Diário do Paraná (Curitiba) newspaper, in 1979, when the so called “real socialism” was still in force in the former (communist) Soviet Union. It has been edited and re-published in Jornal do Estado (Curitiba), in 28/08/1991. Currently there is already a course on Science of Chaos in the field of natural sciences, at Universidade Federal do Paraná.
In this article, in a certain way, we have prophesized (at the time) the fall of the Marxist communist empire of Soviet Union, ruled by Moscow, which crumbled on its own weight some years later.
Thanks to my friend and journalist Luiz Geraldo Mazza, who gave me the incentive to write this article.
Note of the Translator: All images have been retrieved from open sources with Google. The author does not have or claim any copyrights regarding the images.
Translation: Adriano Schaitza
LINEU TOMASS - SOBRE O BLOG
Coluna virtual do Advogado e Jornalista curitibano Lineu Edison Tomass. Informações e reflexões sobre a política regional e nacional. Ponto de encontro dos irreverentes Cavaleiros da Boca Maldita. Portal de acesso alternativo para a comunidade curitib