Interesting lines from 'the Socialist Phenomenon' (1975):
The word "socialism" often implies two quite different phenomena:
-
- A doctrine and an appeal based on it, a program for changing life, and
-
- A social structure that exists in time and space.
The most obvious examples include Marxism as contained in the "classic" writings of Marx and others and the social structure that exists in the U.S.S.R. and the People's Republic of China. Among the fundamental principles of the state doctrine in these countries is the assertion that the connection between the two phenomena is very simple. On the one hand, it is asserted, there is a scientific theory which proves that after achieving a definite level in the development of productive forces, mankind will pass over to a new historic formation; this theory points the way to the most rational paths for such a transition. And on the other hand, we are assured, there is the embodiment of this scientific prognosis, its confirmation. As an example of quite a different point of view we cite H. G. Wells, who visited Russia in 1920 and, though infected by the worship of socialism, fashionable then as now, nevertheless almost instinctively refused to accept Marxism, in this sense reflecting the antipathy toward all scholastic theories typical of an Englishman. In his book Russia in the Shadows, Wells writes: "Marxist Communism has always been a theory of revolution, a theory not merely lacking in creative and constructive ideas but hostile to creative and constructive ideas." (1: p. 60) He describes the communism that governed Russia as "... in so many matters like a conjurer who has left his pigeon and his rabbit behind him and can produce nothing whatever from the hat." (1: p. 64)
From this point of view, Marxism does not set itself any goal other than that of preparing for the seizure of power. The state system established as a result is therefore defined and shaped by the necessity of holding power. Since these tasks are entirely different, the official theory and the actual implementation have nothing in common.
In a sense, he is suggesting that whatever theories may exist in Marxism that may even include truth values are absolutely irrelevant because the real purpose of it is the seizure of power, and the socialism that goes forward after this is completely different than that which is theorized.
A massive theory / praxis divide, if you will.
I am just starting the book so I am not completley positive as to where any of this is going to go but def. worth sharing, IMO, and worth your feedback.