Introduction

Trond Gilberg

One of the dominant issues of politics worldwide during the last century has been the question of how political organizations that call themselves "Marxist" conduct relations with other structures in the domestic political system and how they relate to the self-appointed "centers" of the "world communist movement," whether such a center is located in Moscow, Beijing, Belgrade, or Havana. Karl Marx is partly responsible for this confusion, because there were a number of personifications of this remarkable thinker: first, Marx the humanist, concerned with human alienation and its remedy, human freedom; then, Marx the revolutionary, who wrote endlessly about the injustices of capitalist society as he saw it and the ways in which this form of socioeconomic and political system could be destroyed and a better world built upon its ruins; finally, the older "mature" Marx (and his successor Friedrich Engels) who examined societies from the vantage point of their capacity for peaceful change—reform rather than revolution. An individual can claim any or all of these three heritages of Marx, and the many variations create the extraordinarily rich tapestry of concepts known as "Marxist." This variety (and the ensuing confusion) has been responsible for some of the fiercest infighting among disciples of the original mentor, as we shall see below.

The conceptual diversity created by Marx and Engels was further complicated by the rise of many individuals who claimed to be disciples of the masters but in fact proceeded to change some basic tenets of "Marxism" or to add to them in such a way that the new conceptual package bore only some resemblance to the original. Throughout Europe there emerged syndicalists, anarchists, and anarcho-syndicalists. There were revisionists and Bakuninists, and many who simply entertained vague notions about the injustices of the societies in which they lived and the need to do something about it. Some of these individuals called themselves "socialists," and we should remember that "socialists" of all shades until very recently paid homage to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels even as they rather consistently produced programs and policies that deviated significantly, in spirit and execution, from any or all of the "Marxes" known in their time. It was a sine qua non for anyone on the left to call himself or herself a "Marxist" and to adopt the trappings of this complex creed, be they slogans, symbols, or expected acts.

The most important of these "latecomers" were the individuals who struggled for leadership of the Russian Social Democratic party in the late 1800s, not because they were more profound thinkers than others but because some of them went on to capture power in a very large country, thus assuring for themselves the right to add their notions of "Marxism" to the hopper. Furthermore, the fact that these individuals ended up in power, while others who also considered themselves Marxists did not, established as a political fact the notion that the Russians would end up as leaders of the international movement that based itself upon Marxist thought, thus indelibly influencing the very notion of Marxism and, in fact, producing a separate brand, "Marxism-Leninism." This brand, in turn, changed over time, both in theory and in practice, thus further confounding the efforts of those who would like to try to bring some analytical sense to this welter of concepts.

The fact of acquired political power helped establish a particular version of one aspect of Marxism as the dominant creed, both theoretically and in practical policy, after the Russian Revolution. The same fact of acquired power also produced the greatest challenge to Russian (or Soviet) supremacy in interpretations of Marx, because it was Maoism in power that gave rise to the ideological debates between Moscow and Beijing and the Maoist challenge, which in turn had significant organizational ramifications on the left of the political spectrum throughout the world. Some of the bitterest political struggles fought anywhere during the last century have been the ideological battles between "Russian" and "Chinese" Marxists. This is not really surprising; after all, civil wars tend to be more brutal and fundamental than regular warfare. (This statement, of course, implies that all Marxists have something in common, no matter how furious their protestations to the contrary; more about this later.)

In between the establishment of Russian ideological supremacy and the rise of the Chinese challenge there developed a great many varieties of Marxism, produced by regional, cultural, and individual differences and proclivities. Each movement had its own thinkers, poets, songwriters, speech writers, orators, and bureaucrats. Some of these thinkers were more sophisticated than Lenin, more "Marxist" (whether "early," "middle," or "mature") than Zinoviev, more exciting writers than Stalin (which actually did not require a great deal of writing capability). Nevertheless, they were "Marxists," too. But the Soviets ran a country, and they became more important for that reason. Thus we must all pay attention to the "Marxist-Leninists" every day, and particularly those who run the Soviet Union itself. No other fact of political life has had a more profound effect upon "Marxism" than the exercise of power by alleged "Marxists."

Marx and Engels were Europeans (and West Europeans at that). Lenin, Trotsky, and even Stalin had (or acquired) a European orientation. It therefore stands to reason that the early ideological debates of Marxist doctrine focused on themes that were familiar to Europeans, at least in part. The Russians were, of course, "hybrid" Europeans, and many of their ideas carry important overtones of a historical and cultural background that is quite different from that of Central or Western Europe or Scandinavia. But there were others, elsewhere, who also considered themselves Marxists, often because they had lived in Europe and had become acquainted with the tenets and the debates of European leftists; others had simply read the works of the great mentors and felt a kindred spirit. This was true of individuals in parts of Asia and Latin America. These individuals either subordinated themselves to the European-based doctrine and tried to apply it to their own conditions, or they interpreted it creatively in their own setting, even producing themes and ideologies that competed with important aspects of Karl Marx's work. No matter; even in the latter case these individuals considered themselves Marxist, and were proud of it. Such was the amazing pull of this...