Marxism brooks no revisionist tampering
The author visited Europe and came to the White Swan Hotel in Brussels, where Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto, to reflect on and comment on the future development of Marxism and the history and current situation of the international communist movement.
Now, let's follow the author's narrative order and see how he expressed it, and how Marx, Engels and the Manifesto elaborated. The author hopes that through comparison, we can understand his point of view, where exactly does he hope to "reinvigorate" Marxism?
First, he contrasts early opportunism with Marxism, arguing that Marx did not absorb the "rational kernel" of Weitling, Proudhon and others.
The article begins with the second chapter, "The Ancien Régime is a poisonous snake that wraps around people", revealing Marx's rebellious character and deep hatred of capitalism, and his call for "violent revolution" through contemplation to find answers to social problems.
The manifesto clearly states: "Communists do not bother to conceal their views and intentions. Their goal can only be achieved by violently overthrowing the entire existing social system. ”
This is a true portrayal of Marx's uncompromising rebelliousness. In "The Return of the Soul", the author cites Marx and the "Manifesto" to pave the way for the negation of Marxism and the "Manifesto".
Chapter 3, "I Am as Great as God," introduces the theoretical differences between Weitling, Proudhon, and others with Marx, who were once "comrades-in-arms in the same trenches" but whose opposition to violent revolution led to their rupture.
The article accuses Marxism of having a strong "smell of gunpowder", and opposes the Marxist theory of class struggle, violent revolution, and the proletariat from the standpoint of Weitling, Proudhon, and the so-called "real socialism".
The author argues that Marx should draw on their "rational kernel" and draws conclusions about Marx's polemics with early opportunism and the practice of the communist movement for more than a century and a half thereafter.
The article also fabricated and distorted the original intent of the Manifesto, accusing Marx of not "perfecting" himself according to Bernstein.
The fourth chapter of "Knowing What Happened Today and Not Yesterday" attempts to prove that Marx's prediction that "revolution will first take place in highly industrialized countries" is "outdated".
However, the two great teachers made it clear in the Manifesto and the Preface to the German edition of 1872 that as a result of the development of big industry and the development of working-class party organizations over the past 25 years, and especially with practical experience such as the Paris Commune, "this programme is now in some places obsolete." ”
The two teachers are saying that the working class cannot simply grasp the ready-made state apparatus and use it to achieve its own ends, but must smash and smash the bourgeois state apparatus and seize the proletariat.
As for the victories of the October Revolution and the Chinese Revolution, only the individual conclusion that the socialist revolution will take place first in the developed capitalist countries has changed.
The author of "Resurrection" tried to prove that Marxism was "outdated" by fabricating the lie that Engels had "corrected" Marx. However, what Engels said in "The Condition of the Working Class in England" that "communism is not a purely partisan doctrine of the working class" is expounding the great mind that the ultimate goal of the proletariat is to emancipate all mankind, which is completely in the same vein as the thesis of the "Manifesto" that "the whole society will be forever free from exploitation, oppression, and class struggle" and that the proletariat will "be liberated from the class (bourgeoisie) that exploits it and oppresses it."
In the class struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie, the use of the banner of "liberating the whole of society, including the capitalist class" is tantamount to obliterating the current class struggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie and disarming the working class ideologically.
Therefore, it is wrong for the author of "Resurrection" to bring out Bernstein, the originator of revisionism, to nihilistic Marxism, and to summon the soul of revisionism.
Bernstein's revisionist views are integrated into Marx's thoughts, arguing that Marx's "prescription for rescuing capitalism" is to solve the shortcomings of capitalism by redistributing and caring for the disadvantaged to achieve social justice.
In reality, however, Marx made it clear in the Communist Manifesto that real change in society can only be achieved through the overthrow of the capitalist system through the class struggle and violent revolution of the proletariat.
Therefore, the so-called "remedy for capitalism" is only a revisionist viewpoint, not Marx's original intention.
"Resurrection" reveals the importance of "humanism", which has been neglected in Marxism, in the phenomenon of "some great thinkers in the West" re-"approaching Marx".
The author emphasizes the deep roots of the Marxist theory of man and questions the misreading of Marxism by its successors. At the same time, the author calls on us to recognize that the Marxist theory of the all-round development of man is its important basic principle, and that there is no such thing as "diverse" Marxism.
In the end, the author emphasizes the perpetuity of Marxist principles and points out that the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were only a postponement of the struggle.
Okay, what's the general content of the original article?