30 years after the resignation of Mikhail Gorbachev, December 25, 1991, and the dissolution of the USSR, it is worth asking: what is left today of 20th century communism?
It may interest you: Biden warns about ‘alarming challenges’ for democracy in the world
Thierry Wolton, author of the monumental trilogy A World History of Communism (Grasset, 2015-2017) and recipient of the prestigious Juan Michalski Literature Awards in 2017 and Aujourd’hui in 2018, affirms that there has been no real mourning. The victims have been ignored and in the West there has been a scene of indifference in the face of one of humanity’s worst tragedies. In his latest book, Thinking Communism (Editorial Grasset 2021), Wolton describes the foundations of an ideology that seduced thousands of spirits from the old aspiration of society to achieve equality.
Although historical figures such as Rousseau and Marx provided the intellectual instruments, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, through the revolutionary party, imposed a dictatorship by force.
How could a communist country be defined today?
Today there are only six countries in the world that claim to be communist: North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, China, Eritrea and Cuba. These countries vindicate the political-ideological corpus that was born at the beginning of the 20th century with Vladimir Lenin when putting the ideas of Karl Marx into practice. That is why there is talk of Marxism-Leninism. Marxism-Leninism rests on essential ideas. A single party that directs the entire society: the economy, politics and culture. It is based on a precise idea: equality. Its operation is developed with a general secretary, accompanied by a political bureau and a central committee, which is the one that approves the decisions of the general secretary.
How could such a painful experience attract so much and have such fervor?
The explanation is multiple. The first is due to speech. It was a universal speech that spoke to all men. All will be the same and a system will be built in which they will live happily. This message allows us to understand why it generated so much adhesion. But it also explains why this past is so painful. There was so much hope in the system that when it fell and the human, economic and political drama was seen, it was very difficult to accept it. That is why today the memory of communism is so difficult to put into practice. There are almost unconscious resistances. It’s like saying that the promised paradise turned into hell.
Also: The future of freedom and democracy in the world
Why did communism seduce not only the people but the intellectuals?
To
For two reasons. First, Lenin introduces into Marxism the fact that a party of professional revolutionaries is built to make the revolution on behalf of the people, to build socialism and finally communism. The intellectuals felt responsible for this particular mission and readily adhered to it.
Second, it is important to understand the analysis of the intellectuals. There was an awareness on their part about the difficulties of the capitalist model. Let us remember that the conditions of its implementation during the industrial revolution at the beginning of the 19th century were very harsh: rural exodus, life expectancy at 25 years and 18 hours of work per day, among others. At that time there is a disenchantment of the enlightened class in the face of the ideas that came with the industrial revolution and capitalism.
But it will be counterproductive because they are going to participate in an adventure that will be the antithesis of what they wanted it to be. Their objective was to reflect and this they could not do, they were asked to follow orders and only obey the party.
Was there self-criticism from the intellectuals?
One that I consider very valuable is Edgar Morin, when in his book Self-criticism describes in depth what it felt like to get out of communism. But there are also many who did not, like Régis Debray. Debray went from Castroism to being a good Christian and a great nationalist. He has never criticized himself, has never said that he is ashamed of having fully adhered to the Castro regime that killed so many people. Likewise, no party member or leader has done so. I have never heard a member of the communist party say: I recognize that it was an ideology that led to the catastrophe.
What harmonies could you see between the communist discourse and the Christian message?
To
Communism managed to capture the spirits from a discourse that is very close to the Catholic and Christian discourse. When Christ says: the last will be the first in paradise, it is close to the version of what the communists will say later: the proletariat, that is, the poorest, will take power and rule. Lenin said: “The cook will lead the State.” In the promised paradise, in heaven, the last will be first. In the communist paradise, the last will be at the head of power.
Today, Latin America experiences an enormous polarization between left and right. Is communism possible in the 21st century?
Communism as it existed in the 20th century will never return. First, the concrete substrate of ideology disappeared. This substrate rested in the industrial revolution as we knew it in the 19th and 20th centuries. We totally changed the economy. The second thing is that practically no one will dare to claim to be a Marxist-Leninist regime taking into account the catastrophic balance of ideology.
The clear question is: who would like to live in North Korea today?
But, beware, communism was so important in the mentality in the twentieth century that it has not disappeared as with a magic wand. The communists succeeded in introducing a binary thought into sociopolitical behavior that deteriorates the political debate. I am an anti-communist from a moral position because I consider that it was a terrible system for the human being. Today when I say that I am an anti-communist, people say that, therefore, I am a fascist.
Read on: ‘Peaceful revolutions are preferable to those that take Bastilles’
This clearly leads us to the debate that exists today in the region …
For example, Bolsonaro is considered a fascist. I do not defend Bolsonaro, but this dichotomy exists on both sides. Bolsonaro is no more fascist than communist Lula. And that shows that the debate is difficult to carry out. Fascism is something very particular. You can’t talk about fascism just like that.
What, then, is fascism?
To understand fascism you have to go back to the origins. The one who invented fascism was Mussolini, who came from the extreme Italian left. He is the first to speak of a totalitarian state. A State that claims to bring order and above all to create a model citizen. That is why there is talk of totalitarian regimes with communism, fascist Italy and under Hitler. Bolsonaro’s movement is not a party that has liquidated all the opposition. Words have intrinsic value. They cannot be used in any way because they lose meaning. Totalitarianism is a precise political system.
So, would you say that there have been no fascisms in Latin America?
There are no fascism. We could talk about Pinochet or the Argentine military who established a government of the extreme right with a political police and a very strong repression. Bolsonaro is not the case. There are no concentration camps in Brazil, there are not dozens of opponents in prison. The Argentine military were not fascists, but they did carry out these actions.
Returning to the issue of the left in the region, how do you see the election of Chilean president-elect Gabriel Boric?
Today what remains of communism is a binary discussion. If you are not on my side, you are bad. And this is as true on the right as it is on the left. In the case of Chile, both Kast and Boric were each in the same position: one on the right and one on the left. In France there was talk of the Chilean candidate who is on the extreme right, while the candidate on the left is not described as being on the extreme left. This is excessively destructive to the political debate and harmful to democracy. Exclusion is excessively negative. Democracy is the debate par excellence. Let’s stop excluding one and the other.
And how do you see Cuba today?
In Cuba, the party still runs everything. There is no longer the tutelary image of Castro or Raúl. Those in power do not have the legitimacy that Castro had with the revolution and in the face of history. It is a situation à la Brejnev, of decadence of the system. As they fail to reproduce a new elite, they grow old and will end up as the gerontocracy of the Kremlin. There will surely be a transition, as in Russia, which was very short, between 1985 and 1991. In 1985 it was the arrival of Gorbachev and in 1991 it was the disappearance of the USSR. Six years is a very short time. Nothing allows us to affirm that communism in six years will still continue in Cuba. But this is not the case in China.
What happens then in China?
In China, the party is very powerful and Xi Jinping is a true Marxist-Leninist. This does not mean that the model is eternal, no system is eternal if one looks at history. The case of the Chinese is different because they studied the phenomenon of decline of the Soviet Union with a magnifying glass. And they understood what they should not do: lock themselves up and let a gerontocracy rule. When Gorbachev came to power, he tried to improve the system by introducing a little democracy. And that was chaos. The Chinese realized that you can not put a drop of democracy.
Let’s go back to Latin America… what do you think of Ortega?
Ortega is a former Marxist-Leninist who grew up in Cuba. Today it no longer has anything to do with it. He was a guerrilla, who was instrumentalized, armed, instructed by Castro and Moscow. Today it has behaviors that can be the same, with dictatorial elements, because communism is dictatorial. Ortega is a dictator who seeks benefits for himself and his wife. In Nicaragua there is a press that exists. Even if it is attacked with a bayonet. Not everyone is in prison or killed. It is improper to say that there is communism there.
And in the case of Venezuela?
Nicaragua and Venezuela are dictatorships, but not communist-style dictatorships. In Venezuela there is still the press, there are political parties; even if they don’t have the floor, they exist. In a communist country this does not exist. Maduro is something else, he is a demagogic, left-wing populist government. It is grade 0 of politics.
* Ph. D. in Political Science
MARÍA FERNANDA GONZÁLEZ E.
– FOR THE WEATHER – PARIS
.
#Nicaragua #Venezuela #dictatorships #communist #style