The Preface to the German Edition of the Communist Manifesto of 1872 states that "The practical application of these principles (the principles of the Communist Manifesto) will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II." - This line, I believe, is loosely representative of the forms of socialism that seem to be gaining ground today.
Especially relevant in this context, is the exercise of the principles of socialism by Evo Morales, the current President of Bolivia. Though Movimiento al Socialismo, his political party, is clearly a socialist enterprise looking to nationalize industry and promote an equitable distribution of national resources, it has nonetheless been brought into power through a constitutional and 'democratic' process. [It is however, not to be forgotten that he had previously been 'removed from Congress'. This fact in mentioned to establish that the 'democratic process' is not all unicorns and rainbows].
This contemporary example would probably not stand the test of Trotsky's 1920 thoughts on revolution and democracy who says, "This fetishism of the parliamentary majority represents a brutal repudiation, not only of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but of Marxism and of the revolution altogether. If, in principle, we are to subordinate Socialist policy to the parliamentary mystery of majority and minority, it follows that, in countries where formal democracy prevails, there is no place at all for the revolutionary struggle." These thoughts of Communist fervor seem apt within the then prevailing hybrid of the global environment, where a post WW I, 1920's America had made comfortable bedfellows of capitalism and democracy.
However, Morales, the first indigenous leader of Bolivia since the Spanish took over (who at least up till now) has shown a genuine dedication to the cause of nationalization and equitable distribution of resources and is a self proclaimed socialist, seems to be balancing the fashionability of 'democracy' well with the ideology of socialism. For as Sydney earlier stated, the question of choice, is indeed within the accepted or existing paradigms in society at a particular point in time. It is also not to be forgotten that the Manifesto itself is to be applied within contemporary conditions. (It is a relief to think that issues of sustainability were not abandoned by the wayside in the frenzy of ideology)
As has become evident contemporary conditions dictate that we operate within the hybrid structure of history, ideology and social acceptance. These aspects of the hybrid wax and wane in reaction to the prevalent political and economic atmosphere. It is only a reflection of the evolution of any philosophy that it adapts to contemporary conditions.
Does socialism within a democratic structure make it more palatable to the international community? Of course it does. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I say that in a global environment where a sheep has to be dressed in wolf's clothing to be taken seriously by the other wolves, bring on the ideology Prius'.
p.s: Toyota is not the official sponsor of this blog ;)
Especially relevant in this context, is the exercise of the principles of socialism by Evo Morales, the current President of Bolivia. Though Movimiento al Socialismo, his political party, is clearly a socialist enterprise looking to nationalize industry and promote an equitable distribution of national resources, it has nonetheless been brought into power through a constitutional and 'democratic' process. [It is however, not to be forgotten that he had previously been 'removed from Congress'. This fact in mentioned to establish that the 'democratic process' is not all unicorns and rainbows].
This contemporary example would probably not stand the test of Trotsky's 1920 thoughts on revolution and democracy who says, "This fetishism of the parliamentary majority represents a brutal repudiation, not only of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but of Marxism and of the revolution altogether. If, in principle, we are to subordinate Socialist policy to the parliamentary mystery of majority and minority, it follows that, in countries where formal democracy prevails, there is no place at all for the revolutionary struggle." These thoughts of Communist fervor seem apt within the then prevailing hybrid of the global environment, where a post WW I, 1920's America had made comfortable bedfellows of capitalism and democracy.
However, Morales, the first indigenous leader of Bolivia since the Spanish took over (who at least up till now) has shown a genuine dedication to the cause of nationalization and equitable distribution of resources and is a self proclaimed socialist, seems to be balancing the fashionability of 'democracy' well with the ideology of socialism. For as Sydney earlier stated, the question of choice, is indeed within the accepted or existing paradigms in society at a particular point in time. It is also not to be forgotten that the Manifesto itself is to be applied within contemporary conditions. (It is a relief to think that issues of sustainability were not abandoned by the wayside in the frenzy of ideology)
As has become evident contemporary conditions dictate that we operate within the hybrid structure of history, ideology and social acceptance. These aspects of the hybrid wax and wane in reaction to the prevalent political and economic atmosphere. It is only a reflection of the evolution of any philosophy that it adapts to contemporary conditions.
Does socialism within a democratic structure make it more palatable to the international community? Of course it does. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I say that in a global environment where a sheep has to be dressed in wolf's clothing to be taken seriously by the other wolves, bring on the ideology Prius'.
p.s: Toyota is not the official sponsor of this blog ;)
Comments