By ADEMAR BOGO*

When critics only see the present time, due to the poor results of electoral tactics, they fail to realize that the before and after are always times that are immensely greater than the momentary astonishment.

1.

There are several political positions in circulation; all of them seek to account for the situation created by the correlation of forces favorable to the ruling class in the post-election period. Theses such as “right-wing masses” or “right-wing poor” have invaded the debates, when, in fact, they are merely expressions that reveal inaction and mix certain prejudices with the political inability to perceive the bottlenecks that are situated in slightly deeper causes.

To begin with, let us look back a little at what Marx and Engels advocated in their message to the leadership of the Communist League in 1850: “While the petty-bourgeois democrats want to complete the revolution as quickly as possible, after having obtained at most the above-mentioned demands, our interests and our tasks consist in making the revolution permanent until the domination of the more or less possessing classes is abolished, until the proletariat conquers state power, until the association of the proletarians develops, not only in one country but in all the predominant countries of the world, to such a degree that competition between the proletarians of these countries ceases, and until at least the decisive productive forces are concentrated in the hands of the proletariat.”[I]

When critics only see the present, due to the poor results of electoral tactics, they fail to realize that the before and after are always times that are immensely greater than the momentary astonishment. On the other hand, for those who formed their conceptions based on a supposed historical determinism, when faced with adverse situations, such as the current ones, and do not see the expected results, they start to blame the disinherited for not believing in paradise.

In the message above, defending the continuity of the liberal revolution, to the point of reversing the command of political power and the productive forces passing under the control of the workers, there is no forecast of a time for completion, therefore, that process may have become, in this long period, a permanent liberal revolution.

2.

What explanation can we give for the current political situation? The most correct explanation would be to consider that the liberal revolution to which Marx and Engels referred in 1850 has not yet been fully completed, for two reasons: the first concerns the existence of the ruling class, which has in its favor the constant advance of the productive forces, science and technology; and, if today we consider neoliberalism to exist, it means confirming, with even greater vigor, the validity and renewal of those liberal principles.

The second reason derives from the first, since the liberal revolution has continued to this day, and has gone much further than the petty bourgeoisie wanted, since technological dynamics have placed productive forces on other levels of exploitation, and liberal production relations also influence ways of thinking and doing politics.

The path opened up for the proletariat and the popular masses, within this permanent liberal revolution, was to periodically change tactics; broadly speaking, they were configured as: (a) Proletarian and popular revolutions and insurrections. Those that were victorious implemented socialism for a few decades in some countries; (b) Strategy of armed resistance. Faced with the hardening of the regimes, various forms of guerrilla organizations and revolutionary armies were structured, but, dissociated from the insurrections, they were unsuccessful and disappeared.

(c) The search for a peaceful electoral route. In order to gain ground within the ongoing liberal revolution until reaching power, the institutional route has proven to be the most appropriate, especially in the last forty years. All of this shows why this latest phenomenon of the decline of left-wing forces is worldwide and not simply a mistake by one party or another. The acceleration of the technological revolution has caused this phenomenon of exhaustion of attempts to overcome capitalism. In order to continue, a new form of offensive must be opened.

If in some way the three periods above represent, even partially, what happened, we must agree that, since 1848, generations have succeeded one another and have always faced the same forces commanded by capital that knew how to lead the permanent liberal revolution. The victories that brought power into the hands of socialist forces occurred partially in times of extreme crises, which even led to world wars.

Apart from this, capital, whether productive, financial or speculative, with its tendential laws of: production, exploitation, accumulation, circulation, expansion and speculation, in a more accelerated or slightly slower way, has continued, up to our days, to respond to the needs of its own reproduction, giving itself the “luxury” of, in certain situations, carrying out experiments in population extermination, as was the case, to name a few, with Nazism, Fascism and, currently, Zionism.

This does not shake the dominance of the decisive productive forces, nor does it fatally affect, despite the crises, the accumulation process. Even in decline in some sectors, capitalism continues to reassert itself and provide answers to the problems it itself creates.

3.

If we look more closely, we will also see that, although the forces of domination are based on the economy, the symbolic enemies for the masses have always been identified with politics and entrenched in the structure of the State. In this sense, if, at certain times, enormous efforts were made to defend themselves from the forces of repression, at other times, even when repression was present, the tactics of demands were more valuable, in the sense of putting pressure on the capitalists and the rulers, simply to guarantee some rights in an orderly manner and not to take their power.

In this sense, left-wing political parties and popular and trade union organizations, allies of these parties, have fought against the ruling class in recent decades, even when the rulers themselves became the workers' representatives. Therefore, the universal complacency that led to and prevents the reaction against the liberal revolution is at least threefold: (i) the historical Christian and constitutional moral education, focused on respect for the sacred and untouchable right to private property; (ii) the orderly, pacifist, and protest-based struggles waged against capital, without the slightest intention of taking it over and controlling it; (iii) the vision of the political enemy, symbolized by bad rulers who could be replaced by good ones, creating expectations that they would do everything for us and, with each term in office, would renew their purposes forever.

These three factors have always involved the poor masses and made them follow the calls, not because they were aware of it, but because of the centuries-old abandonment projected by the white elites or because of material needs. Identified with the aggressive language, coming from courageous leaders capable of expressing words that hit against real hunger, the lack of housing, the terrible educational conditions, the disasters in health care, the high cost of living, corruption, etc., they have always fought bravely as allied forces.

When left-wing representatives took over the government and took the place of their political enemies, they began to speak soft words and offer supposedly insufficient solutions, like those offered by their right-wing predecessors, against whom the masses protested. The changes in the position of political forces in government positions elevated the left to the status quo. In these liberal processes, understanding against whom the masses direct their protests, we can conclude that, even when co-opted, they tend to be in opposition and fight against politicians seen as bad, meek and hypocritical.

If we want to debate how to move from the defensive to the offensive, we need to understand that we are living, despite several crises, an accelerated destructive rise of the permanent liberal capitalist revolution. To confront it, we need to think about the revolution within this revolution, which will probably occur with a return to the strategy of insurrections, more closely rooted in civil disobedience.

To do this, it is necessary to attack the three domestications: (a) of ideas that impose moral behavior of respect for property (b) of peaceful demands, inverting them for the appropriation of capital and the means of production and, (c) of electoral political illusionism, demonstrating that democracy cannot be representative, but participatory and distributive of wealth.

The masses are neither right nor left, but if mobilized, they can become counterrevolutionary or revolutionary. It all depends on who is with them.

*Ademar Bogo is a teacher from the Department of Philosophy and Human Sciences of the State University of Santa Cruz (Uesc).

Note

[I] MARX/ENGELS. Message of the Central Committee to the March League of 1850. In. FERNANDES, Florestan (org). History. São Paulo: Attica, 1984, p. 224.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE