On Flexible Anti-Socialism
By: Martin Barakov
Tags: Socialism, Politics, History, Government, Capitalism

On Flexible Anti-Socialism

Before the October Revolution in the Russian Empire, many bourgeois scholars stated that socialism would be impossible to implement, going as far as exclaiming that it would be undesirable for the economic system to exist in any capacity regardless. This would lead to liberals embarking on the belief that capital and labour both need each other, when this is most definitely not the case.

Right before one of the last May Day celebrations in the USSR. (Photo by Steve Harvey on Unsplash)

However, following the success of the revolution and the subsequent establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the bourgeoisie throughout the world feared an educated and united proletarian mass pitted against them. As such, the introduction of various anti-communist propaganda took hold throughout countless societies around the world, but especially within the United States.

Moving from its perceived ‘impossible’ nature, the calls changed towards pinning the ideas of ‘imperial conquest’ onto the USSR and its initiatives around the world. Of course, the rise of national liberation movements and the assistance granted by the USSR to these nations was largely what was seen as an act of ‘imperialism’, at least according to the Western world. As Richard Kosolapov puts it in Socialism: Question of Theory:

“No longer do they say outright that it is impossible and undesirable to build socialism. Instead, they call for its ‘democratization’, ‘liberalization’, ‘humanization’, meaning a free hand for forces hostile to socialism, and turning the Communist Party, the only party though which true people’s power can be exercised consistently, into just one of many rival organizations, societies, unions, and so on.”

What Kosolapov is stating in the excerpt above is that the bourgeoisie consistently figures out ways to combat socialism, especially when the development of a class conscious proletarian mass is occurring. As mentioned earlier, the success of the October Revolution signaled a worry within the industrialists and the Western bourgeoisie. The mass industrialization of the USSR and its transition from a back-watered feudal state into the second largest economy in the world signaled a threat to newly established American hegemony.

In the 1990s, the bourgeoisie took a more passive role in undermining the development of the socialist-oriented masses, largely placing emphasis on how the United States and free-market capitalism “won” the Cold War and, more specifically, how liberalism is the superior path moving forward. Political scientist Francis Fukayama infamously came to this deeply problematic and incorrect conclusion in his 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man.

In the present day, the rise of China has signaled discussion of the “new” or “Second” Cold War occurring between West and East. This was most recently witnessed with the Trump administration’s vicious hostility exhibited towards China and their immense levels of growth. U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo has stated the following message numerous times:

Of course, this is done to portray the CCP as something ‘bad’ in the eyes of the United States government, as well as prey on the already existing hatred for all things deemed “Marxist” or “Leninist”. It is devoid of any analysis, understanding, or legitimate thought process, especially when taking into account the lack of engagement with China and their political and economic structure.

Not to mention, this already preys on all activists, as it only takes them to be labeled “Marxist-Leninist” to be considered enemies in the eyes of the bourgeois state. As previously mentioned in an article of mine, your own political differences with regards to Marxism-Leninism matter very little when it comes down to the projection of hostility towards the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, the capitalist class will utilize all available paths to halt the progression of the inevitable class war between themselves and the masses, the working class. This is done to a more ‘radical’ degree when there is already a threat to the bourgeois superstructure around the world, whether that be a workers’ revolution in one of the great powers, the rapid development of the USSR, the current growth of China, and so on. The bourgeoisie care little about the fine mechanics of socialist construction, whether or not a country is deemed socialist by the masses, and other similar ideas. If an alternative to free-market capitalism and multi-party elections exists somewhere throughout the world, then it will be viewed as a threat to the Western status-quo that has been in place for over 50 years now.

“Is there any way other than revolution with proletarian hegemony to achieve true, not formal, democracy? History has given the answer: no, there is not.”

This quote by Kosolapov illustrates the importance that the imperialists place on the construction of a socialist movement, let alone a socialist society.

They understand that capital and their role in society drives the bourgeois political system and structure. They understand that a suppressed proletariat is one that can easily be warped and manipulated. They understand that the demonization of what is deemed to be socialist will assist their continued exploitation of the international working class.

In essence, the bourgeoisie need not attack socialism based on its merits, but rather simply conjure up a frightening picture, a mere illustration of what socialism is. This is solely to further eliminate and stifle the growth of class consciousness, as well as strike angst in the minds of the proletariat. It is with this understanding of the bourgeois class and their commitment to maintaining present class relations and control over the means of production that the sheer power they possess can be visualized.

Socialism is adaptable, but the bourgeoisie are able to consistently adapt at a quicker and more advanced rate. Understandably, this is due to their control over the state apparatus, influence over both the base and the superstructure, and the sheer amount of capital that is freely available to them. The most intensified form of class struggle will persist within bourgeois society, and largely because of the flexibility of the capitalists to alter their anti-socialist positions.