The Trump project offers an interpretation of the history of the United States that ignores a number of political and economic factors that are necessary for understanding the ascent of the United States.  And it proposes a defense of “American values” and U.S. economic interests, ignoring the moral evaluations and demands of the majority of humanity, and ignoring the serious global problems that require the cooperation of all nations (see “The State of the Union under Trump” 2/13/2018).

     We tend today to be influenced by post-modern tendencies and to view truth as relative.  We tend to think that understandings, in both the realms of fact and value, are shaped by culture, social position, and personal experiences.  Among the bewildering variety of truth claims that exist in the world today, which have the most validity?  Out tendency is to believe that it depends on your point of view.  In accordance with this belief, we often assume that all truth claims have equal epistemological standing, and that all grand narratives unavoidably distort.  With such relativist assumptions, we have no epistemological basis for challenging the historical distortions and the moral decadence of the Trump project.  

     Not that the Trump project is a radical departure from recent and historic trends in U.S. history.  Since its establishment as an independent nation, the United States has taken a road of aggressive, ethnocentric nationalism, justifying it through ideological distortions.  It conquered the indigenous nations and peoples as well as Mexico, ignoring their rights and claims.  It built its economic wealth through commerce related to slavery, in both the U.S. South and the Caribbean islands.  It turned to imperialist policies in the twentieth century, using a variety of interventionist means to gain access to the natural resources, human labor, and markets of various regions of the world, especially Latin America, thus fueling its economic growth.  These various stages of conquest and exploitation were justified with blatant and subtle forms of racism.  Following the Second World War, the United States turned to the permanent militarization of its economy and society, accompanied by the ideological distortions of the Cold War.  And in subsequent stages, it expanded the militarization with the conservatism of Reagan, the neo-conservatism of Bush II, and the neofascism of Trump, at first justifying it with the Cold War ideology and later with the so-called War on Terrorism.

       The Left did not have an effective response to the aggressive, ethnocentric nationalism of the United States, even before relativist tendencies dulled the Left’s epistemological reflections.  With the deepening of the crisis that humanity confronts during the last forty years, the emergence of post-modern and relativist epistemological assumptions forms part of the problem.  Post-modern assumptions provide justification for personal indulgence and retreat from social responsibility, and they promote a sense of hopelessness with respect to the possibilities for the development of a more just and truly democratic world.  They undermine possibilities for the formulation of a scientifically informed grand narrative that effectively calls the people to the construction of a more responsible, just, and truly democratic nation.

      Trump does us the favor of making clearer the urgency of the situation, and thus calling us to self-critical reflection.  Can we of the Left not now see that we need to reconstruct our discourse and our strategies?

     Our reconstruction must begin at the foundations, addressing the philosophical question of how we know.  What is the basis for distinguishing what is true from what is false in both the realms of fact and value?

      As we have seen, Marxism-Leninism has taken the lead with respect to the development of scientific knowledge (see “The significance of Marx” 2/16/2018).  This legacy of the Left, unfolding on a global scale, is an important dimension of the necessary reconstruction of the Left in the United States.  With pedagogically effective methods, we must teach our people that, although the universities claim to be centers of knowledge, they have in fact developed forms of philosophical, historical, and social scientific knowledge that are fragmented and Eurocentric.  The universities, with the encouragement of their rich benefactors, have evolved in this manner in reaction to the wisdom that was emerging from the movements of the people.  The universities have effectively disseminated among our people the false epistemological claim that Marxists and Leninists are ideologues, when it fact it is the universities that have cast aside the quest for truth in the defense of particular interests, which is precisely what ideology is.

      Marxism-Leninism, as it has evolved in the Third World, provides an alternative narrative that pertains to the realms of fact and value and that provides a foundation for a universal human knowledge.  It has empirically demonstrated that the modern world-system is constructed on a foundation of colonial and neocolonial domination, and as a result, the logic of the system requires the negation of the true sovereignty of nations and the social and economic rights of the people.  Marxism-Leninism has shown, in theory and practice, that an alternative, more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system is possible and necessary (see various posts in the category Marxism-Leninism and its evolution).

      The evolution of Marxism-Leninism to this understanding has dovetailed with tendencies in Christian epistemology and theology.  Many years ago, I encountered black nationalist thought, and I could not overlook the fundamental differences in assumptions and understanding between white social scientists and black scholars.  This led me to an investigation of the problem of the social foundation of knowledge, and to the question of whether objectivity in the social sciences is possible.  In the pursuit of this question, I arrived to Fordham University, where two Jesuit priests, sociology professor Joseph Fitzpatrick and philosophy professor Gerald McCool, introduced me to the cognitional theory of Bernard Lonergan.  The eminent Jesuit scholar was investigating whether or not there was any basis for affirming the validity of Thomist philosophical and theological claims in the modern era, and this led him to an investigation of the various forms of human knowledge.  He arrived to the understanding that an objective knowledge is possible, not a knowledge that has certainty, but a form of knowledge in which claims of truth have a high probability of being correct, if the person seeking to understand were to explore all relevant questions through personal encounter with persons of different social positions and cultural horizons.  Knowledge formed in this way, although not characterized by certainty, has far greater validity than claims formulated in a form that ignores historical understandings and disregards understandings that were emerging in other cultures and societies.  True knowledge, for Lonergan, is a continually evolving understanding that transcends cultural differences, and it pertains to the realms of fact and value, that is, it includes understanding of both the true and the right (see “What is personal encounter?” 7/25/2013 and “What is cross-horizon encounter?” 7/26/2013 in the category Knowledge).

      Lonergan’s investigation of human understanding did not include study of the work of Marx.  But as Father Fitzpatrick sent me on my way, he counseled that my next step should be a study of Marx, with attention on epistemological issues.  In my subsequent study, I found that Marx had followed an epistemological method that illustrated the validity of Lonergan’s cognitional theory.  Marx systematically studied forms of knowledge that were beyond his native horizon of German philosophy, in that he obsessively studied British political economy and French socialism after his arrival in Paris in October 1843 (see “Marx illustrates cross-horizon encounter” 1/7/14 in the category Marx).  Marx gave cross-horizon encounter a class dimension: he encountered the working class, or more precisely, the social movement in Paris organized by artisans, workers, and intellectuals in defense of the working class.  Marx here discovered the key to the evolution of understanding in an integrated philosophical-historical-social science: encounter with the social movements of the dominated, taking seriously their insights and their vantage point, thereby discovering questions relevant to the issues at hand.  This epistemological foundation established by Marx’s pioneering work was ignored by the universities, who organized study in a form that constrained the evolution of knowledge of social dynamics.  Such structural limitations on understanding were consistent with the interests of the dominant class, inasmuch as understanding of the dynamics of domination and exploitation constitute the foundation for the emancipation of the people.  As has been noted, the evolution of understanding from the foundation established by Marx proceeded from the practice of revolutions in Russia, China, and the Third World, at the margins of the Western universities.

      Therefore, in our day, the alternative epistemology and political philosophy that is the foundation of the Left’s response to imperialism, neoliberalism, and neofascism must be discovered and developed through encounter with the Third World revolutions, whose key insights have been most fully and clearly articulated by their most outstanding and committed leaders.  But the Left in the North, by and large, has not done so.  How many Leftist intellectuals and activists of the North have studied the speeches and writings of Lenin, Mao, Ho, Fidel, Chávez, Correa, and Evo?  How many have sought to understand the dynamics that were shaping the achievements and setbacks of the revolutionary processes of Latin America, Asia, and Africa?

      The reconstruction of the discourse and strategies of the Left, necessary for effectively responding to emerging neofascism, must be based on a foundation of learning from the popular revolutions that have been forged by the neocolonized peoples of the earth.  The leaders and intellectuals of the movements of the neocolonized peoples constitute the vanguard of the struggle for human emancipation, as were the intellectuals and workers of the Western European working class movement in the time of Marx.

     In my dialogue with Ken Megill (see “What is a revolutionary?” 2/8/2018), Ken writes:

     Ken is right.  Marx was aware of the importance of the colonies in promoting the capitalist development of Europe.  He and Engels wrote extensively on Ireland and India.  He envisioned a global struggle that would culminate in emancipation in a variety of forms, including the abolition of slavery.

      Marx achieved a synthesis of German philosophy, British political economy, and French socialism, which constituted the most advanced currents of Western knowledge at the time.  And he forged the synthesis from the vantage point of the worker, thus providing an analysis from below of human history and modern capitalism.  In doing so, he pushed scientific knowledge of social dynamics to a more advanced stage.  This more advanced knowledge recognized that modern capitalism represented only one stage in human history, and as it evolved, it would generate the technological and social conditions that would make possible as transition to a society that would affirm and protect the human dignity of all.  The transition to a new epoch was to be led by the industrial working class of the advanced nations, inasmuch as they possessed the interest and the capacity to do so.

       The scientific breakthrough of Marx constituted a threat to the capitalist class, which had an interest in preserving a system that gives priority to the maximization of profits to the capitalist.  High members of the capitalist class therefore supported an organization of knowledge in higher education that was favorable to their interests and that marginalized the work of Marx.  Whereas Marx’s breakthrough implied an integrated philosophical-historical-social social science connected to the social movements from below, the universities established academic disciplines that fragmented knowledge and that were disconnected from the social movements.

      With the blocking of the development of knowledge of social dynamics in the universities, the further development of scientific knowledge of social dynamics was left to the charismatic leaders of revolutionary movements, who were leaders in practice but who also made important contributions to theory.  When Lenin observed in Russia the revolutionary action of the peasantry, he reformulated Marx with the concept of a revolution forged by workers and peasants, led by a vanguard of workers.  When Lenin observed that the European proletarian revolutions of the period 1919 to 1922 were not going to triumph, he projected that the vanguard of the global revolution would pass to the oppressed nations of the world.  In China, Mao formulated a concept of a revolutionary peasantry in opposition to the Chinese landholding class, a relatively weak Chinese bourgeoisie, and foreign capitalist penetration of China.  In Indochina, Ho Chi Minh synthesized the Vietnamese tradition of Confucian nationalism with Marxism Leninism, leading a revolution of peasants for both national and social liberation.  Similarly, Fidel in Cuba forged a synthesis of Marxism-Leninism with the revolutionary nationalism of José Martí, conceiving a revolution by the people against the national bourgeoisie and international capital, seeking national sovereignty as well as social transformation.  In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, responding to the neoliberal attack on Latin America, synthesized Mao and Fidel to proclaim a new form of socialism adapted to the conditions of the twenty-first century.

       However, Western Marxists were paying insufficient attention to the evolution of Marx’s theory in the context of the revolutionary practice of the Third World.  This oversight was a consequence of the evolving economic and social conditions of the capitalist world-economy.  Western colonial and neocolonial domination enabled significant concessions to the middle class and working class movements in the West, facilitating the predominance of reformist tendencies in the working class movements, undermining the revolutionary potentiality that expressed itself in Western Europe from the 1830s to 1922.  Thus, Western Marxists became disconnected from revolutionary practice, which constrained the development of their understanding.  To be sure, they have been able to understand partially the structures of neocolonial domination, thus they tend to have an anti-imperialist perspective.  However, they have limited understanding of the processes of revolutionary change from below that have emerged in China and the Third World, and thus they have an undeveloped concept of the meaning of socialism in practice. 

     So our limited understanding today is not a consequence of the work of Marx, who established the foundation of modern scientific knowledge of social dynamics.  Our limitations are a result of the universities, which have marginalized Marx, and the supposed followers of Marx, who have not been connected to the most advanced revolutionary movements that emerged after Marx.

      The Left of the United States today must arrive to understand the evolution of historical social scientific knowledge in the praxis of Third World revolutions in order to have the capacity to formulate a foundational response to the Trump project, as we will discuss in the next post.

     See various posts on the evolution of Marxism-Leninism:
“The social and historical context of Marx” 1/15/14; 
“Reflections on the Russian Revolution” 1/29/2014; 
“Ho reformulates Lenin” 5/7/2014; 
“Ho synthesizes socialism and nationalism” 5/8/2014; 
“Ho’s practical theoretical synthesis” 5/9/2014; 
“A change of epoch?” 3/18/2014; 
“Is Marx today fulfilled?” 3/20/2014; 
“The alternative world-system from below” 4/15/2014; 
“Mella fuses Martí and Marxism-Leninism” 7/9/2014; 
“Fidel adapts Marxism-Leninism to Cuba” 9/9/2014; 
“What is revolutionary socialism?” 5/4/2016; and
“The legacy of Lenin” 12/22/2016.

     For reflections on Mao, see various posts in the category China.

     For a description of the characteristics of socialism that takes into account its evolution in practice in Russia, China, and the Third World, see Chapter 9, “Socialism for the Twenty-First Century,” in The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution: The Light in the Darkness.

     Donald Trump arrived to the presidency in a historic moment defined by the relative economic decline of the United States, the erosion of the legitimacy of the U.S. political process in the eyes of the people, and the sustained structural crisis of the world-system.  The Trump administration has responded with a political project that has coherence and that has a certain appeal in the context of the political culture of the United States, inasmuch as it connects to the concerns, anxieties, longings, and patriotism of the people.  

      Several components of the project were articulated by Trump in his State of the Union address before the U.S. Congress on January 30, 2018.  They include, first, creating jobs and expanding employment through (1) reduction of taxes for corporations, small businesses, and middle and working class families, thus stimulating consumption and investment; (2) reducing regulations on industries, so that corporations will have more incentive to expand production and to enlarge and build new plants in the United States; and (3) rebuilding the transportation infrastructure, a labor-intensive project. Secondly, the renegotiation of trade agreements so that they are more beneficial to U.S. economic interests.  Thirdly, expanding military spending, on the assumption that this will increase the U.S. capacity to defend its interests in the world.  The military increase is accompanied by rhetoric that repeatedly lavishes praise on military and police personnel.  Fourthly, defending “American values” and the U.S. concept of democracy, portraying nations that defend their sovereignty against U.S. interests as tyrannical, thus providing a pretext for sanctions.  Fifthly, enforcing immigration laws and curtailing illegal immigration, and developing a new system of merit-based immigration that favors individuals with more education and training.  The project is presented to the people as a revitalization of the American spirit and a renewal of the American Dream, making America great again.  He proclaimed:

     The Trump project, however, has been polarizing.  To some extent, this is an inevitable consequence of the fact that U.S. society itself is polarized.  Moreover, it is a consequence of Trump’s scapegoating tactics, which, it should be noted, were not employed in the State of the Union address.  But above all, the polarizing effect of the project reflects the fact that the Trump formulation lacks sufficient maturity to overcome the ideological and political divisions of the nation and to forge a popular consensus.  

      In the first place, Trump’s economic nationalism and “America First” philosophy ignore the fundamental structural problems of the world-system, and the imperative need for all nations, especially the more powerful, to participate in the forging of fundamental structural reforms of the world-system.  The colonized and neocolonized peoples of the world have consistently maintained since the 1950s that to be sustainable, the world-system has to be just, respecting the true sovereignty of all the nations of the world, regardless of their size or power.  And they have maintained that to be sustainable, the world-system must be fully democratic, respecting not only political and civil rights but also social and economic rights.  Taking into account these historic claims of political leaders that represent the majority of humanity, the most advanced historical social science of our time recognizes that the neocolonial world-system, constructed on a colonial foundation, systemically denies the sovereign rights of nations and the basic human needs of millions of persons.  Such knowledge implies that enlightened and politically effective leadership in the world today involves not the aggressive application of military force in defense of nationalist economic interests, but forging cooperation among nations, working together on the basis of scientific knowledge in the construction of an alternative more sustainable world-system that respects the rights of all nations and persons.  

      In addition, Trump’s view of the central role of the American spirit of determination overlooks the actual economic and social dynamics that fed the U.S. ascent from the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries.  As the most advanced historical social science of our time recognizes, the spectacular U.S. ascent was fueled by economic and political factors that provided an economic and social context for the American spirit of determination to express itself.  First, the conquest of the indigenous nations and Mexico and the expansion of U.S. territory to the Pacific Ocean.  Secondly, the U.S. insertion into the world-economy under favorable terms, in which middle class New England and mid-Atlantic farmers sold food and animal products to slave plantations in the Caribbean and in the Southern slave states, enabling the accumulation of capital, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  Thirdly, the investment of the accumulating capital in the development of the highly profitable textile industry during the nineteenth century, with the U.S. South functioning as supplier of raw materials and as purchaser of manufactured goods.  Fourthly, the concentration of capital during the nineteenth century, a process forged by the “Robber Barons,” who used ethically and legally questionable methods to advance the national economy to a stage of monopoly capital.  Fifthly, the turn to imperialist policies at the beginning the twentieth century, establishing access to the raw materials, labor, and markets of Latin America and the Caribbean.  Sixth, war profits from commerce related to the First World War.  Seventh, investment in highly profitable industries, like auto and steel.  Eighth, the conversion of peacetime industries into military industries during the Second World War, establishing the foundation for a military-industrial complex.  Ninth, the permanent militarization of the economy and the society after World War II, justified initially by the Cold War ideology; and following the collapse of the Soviet Union and Eastern European socialism, by the War on Terrorism.  

       Moreover, the Trump project makes the classic mistake of falling great powers, which simplistically believed that they could restore their former glory through military power.  Trump’s militarization of the economy and society is not new, for it has been an ongoing trend since the Second World War, except for the period 1973 to 1979, in the aftermath of the tragic and politically disastrous U.S. colonialist war in Vietnam.  But a stronger military does not always make for a stronger nation.  As advanced historical social science understands, excessive military spending has been an important factor in the relative economic decline of the United States since the 1960s.  In the first place, it reduced the possibilities for investment in new products, new industries, and new forms of production that would maintain U.S. competitiveness in the world-economy.  Secondly, the military expenditures have been and continue to be financed through government deficit spending that is excessive in relation to the productive capacity of the nation.  Foreign entities, including the government of China, are among those who purchase U.S. government bonds, raising doubts about the sovereignty and independence of the United States in the long term.  To make the nation stronger, it would be better to pursue a policy of expanding investment in productivity and competitiveness, and seeking to restrain consumption, including certain types of military expenditures.  And it would be better for the nation to diversify its investments and to reduce the dependence of the economy on the arms industry, taking into account that the governments and peoples of the world are increasingly recognizing the need to find peaceful solutions to conflicts.  As things now stand, the United States is emerging as the single nation in the world with a vested economic interest in promoting conflicts in the various areas of the world.

      Because of such limitations, the Trump project is not able to overcome the national polarization and forge a popular consensus in support of its project.  There is a significant sector of the people with a degree of political consciousness and a partial understanding, a legacy of the student anti-war movement of the period 1967 to 1972 and a consequence of the influence on popular consciousness of the African-American, women’s, and ecology movements.  This sector of the people senses that there are challenging global problems that the nation has a responsibility to address; that a focus on the American spirit of determination is a simplistic reading of American history; and that serious national and global problems cannot be resolved by increasing military expenditures.  

     So there has emerged a significant anti-Trump sector among the people.  However, like the Trump project, the anti-Trump forces do not have sufficient maturity to overcome the polarizations of the society and to lead the people in an alternative direction on the basis of a popular consensus.  The liberals of the establishment focus on questions such as whether or not Trump is mentally unstable, or if there was some obstruction of justice related to allegations with respect to the 2016 presidential elections.  On the other hand, “direct action” and protest-oriented liberals are more inclined to address issues, but they do so in a fragmented way, focusing on issues such as the rights of immigrants, police violence, environmental degradation, etc., without formulating a comprehensive frame of reference.  There has not been articulated an alternative, comprehensive, and politically intelligent national project that is rooted in advanced historical social scientific knowledge.  Such an alternative political project would seek to educate the people concerning the reasons for the spectacular ascent and subsequent relative decline of the United States.  It would promote popular consciousness of Third World movements, which are seeking to construct a more just, democratic, and sustainable world-system.  It would advocate a foreign policy that leaves imperialism behind and that is based on cooperation with the nations and peoples of the earth, seeking to develop mutually beneficial trade and cultural interchanges.  It would explain the necessary role of the government in defending the social and economic rights of the people.  And the alternative political formation would seek to take political power, and to subsequently use the powers of the state to defend the people, the nation, humanity, and nature.  

      The Trump project, although not based in scientific knowledge, possesses necessary characteristics, including a coherent vision and an emotional connection to the people.  Inasmuch as an alternative comprehensive visionary project connected to the people has not been formulated, the Trump project stands unopposed.  In this context, the Left has the responsibility to examine critically its discourse and its strategies and to formulate an alternative project for the nation.    

     In response to my blog post “On ‘ultra-Leftist’ political errors” 2/4/2018, Ken Megill and I have exchanged ideas.  My response to part of his commentary forms today’s post.

     Ken Megill was born in Kansas in 1939 and earned a PhD from Yale in 1966.  His involvement in Leftist organizations and political currents, in both the United States and Europe, dates to the 1960s.  He presently lives in Washington, D.C.  He writes:

      Ken is right: my journey for many years involved observation and reflection rather than practice.  This was driven by a couple of factors.  One was that I had been formed in the context of the U.S. liberal-conservative post-World War II consensus, and when I encountered the student and black power movements in the late 1960s, I was discovering questions that I had not previously asked.  I had a lot to learn, and I sensed this.  Secondly, I found the possibilities for practice to be theoretically and politically very limited, so I was not inclined to full participation.  My orientation was to participate in protests, but mainly as a participant-observer, learning and reflecting.  

     It was in Cuba that I became more connected to practice, and I came to define myself as a revolutionary.  As a result of the triumph of the Revolution, the entire Cuban society is a manifestation of revolutionary practice, so anyone with revolutionary ideas is immersed in revolutionary practice.  Those Cubans who were aware of the intellectual work that I was doing (reading, teaching, and writing oriented to the people of the United States) referred to me as a revolutionary before I myself did.  Subsequently, I recognized the revolutionary character of my work.  I observed that revolutionaries in Cuba carry out a variety of tasks necessary for revolutionary transformation, and one of them is intellectual work, which involves deepening one’s own understanding and seeking to raise the political, historical, and social consciousness of the people.  For a number of years now, I have been working with Cuban academics and intellectuals as we seek to fulfill our revolutionary duties through our intellectual work.

      So my revolutionary self-consciousness, in which I see myself as a revolutionary, has emerged in the context of revolutionary Cuba.  But my work remains oriented to the people of the United States (and other English-speaking peoples of the North).  Although I have published in Cuban journals and I engage in dialogue with Cuban intellectuals and the Cuban people, thereby contributing to the formation of Cubans, my principal work is the intellectual and political formation of the people of the USA and the North.  For this reason, I write principally in English, and my most recent contributions have been my new book on Cuba and the world-system and my blog posts.  

      However, intellectual work, although a necessary part of revolutionary processes, cannot alone accomplish revolutionary transformation.  It must be integrated with political practice.

      Is revolutionary practice possible in the United States?  Given the present mobilization of forces of the Right and the confusions and divisions of the Left, it appears to be impossible.  But when one looks at the political and ideological conditions in nations shortly before popular revolutions emerged, one sees that similar conditions tended to exist, giving the appearance of impossibility.  The cases of Russia in the early 20th century, China and Indochina in the 1930s, Cuba in the early 1890s and again in the 1950s, and Latin America in the 1990s, to mention a few.  The Cuban revolutionary José Martí wrote that our task is to make the impossible possible.  So I have arrived to believe that we do not have permission to conclude that a popular revolution in the United States is not possible.  Our duty is to possess that revolutionary faith that nurtures a committed analysis, which can identify the ideological and political steps necessary for forging the needed changes in the current constellation of political and ideological forces.

     What must be done to forge a popular revolutionary process in the United States?  If we observe the steps taken by triumphant revolutionary processes in other lands, we see that they formed alternative political structures (political parties or social movement organizations) that were dedicated to the taking of power as delegates of the people.  To this end, they called on the people for support, through the dissemination of manifestos and platforms.  The manifestos were characterized by scientific analysis of the structures of domination and exploitation, explaining them in a way that the people could understand; and they were characterized by projections of transformation through the taking of power by the people.  The platforms were full of political intelligence, making specific proposals that were connected to the concerns and sentiments of the people, never alienating them with self-righteousness.  These experiences in other lands point the way for us: an alternative political party that transforms what a political party does, in that it educates the people as it calls them to the taking of political power, constantly demonstrating mastery of the art of politics.

      So this is the basic idea concerning what needs to be done.  But I do not (yet) understand how to implement it.  I would guess that it is a question of putting together a group of people with sufficient consensual theoretical understanding and practical organizational experience, which would collectively understand how to proceed forward.

     We have seen that Mao made “ultra-Leftist” political errors, and that China has been able to overcome its ultra-Leftist tendencies to develop a pragmatic approach to socialism (see “Mao’s ‘ultra-Leftist’ political errors,” 2/1/2018 in the category China).  However, ultra-Leftist tendencies remain alive in the world, and they are particularly damaging to the credibility of the Left in the nations of the North.  Leftists ought to observe carefully the pragmatic approaches taken in the long-standing socialist projects in China, Vietnam, and Cuba; and through critical reflection, arrive to avoid ultra-Leftist tendencies in making proposals for an alternative road in the nations of the North.  

      Reflecting on the Chinese manifestation of ultra-Leftism in the epoch of Mao, let us ask, what are ultra-Leftist tendencies in the progressive and socialist movements in the nations of the North today?  In general, ultra-Leftist tendencies are rooted in a failure to take into account the need for advancing economic productivity.  In the vast regions of the planet that form the Third World, where more than two-thirds of humanity lives, economic development is necessary in order to provide for the social and economic needs of the people.  Most of the intellectuals of the North live in a context of advanced economic development, established on a foundation of the colonial and neocolonial domination and superexploitation of the Third World.  They tend not to appreciate sufficiently the urgent need to produce and to improve production, a situation invariably confronted by Third World revolutionary leaders that have been carried by popular social movements to political power.  Northern intellectuals of the Left often propose ideas worthy of careful consideration and planning, especially in the long term, but first the people must be fed.  

      The ultra-Leftist underestimation of the importance of production not only influences attitudes toward Third World revolutions; it also has negative political consequences in the political dynamics of the nations of the North.  Many of the ecological and anti-militarist proposals of the U.S. Left, for example, do not adequately address the nation’s economic situation, characterized by dependency on environmentally destructive patterns of production and consumption and on the military-industrial complex, a dependency that complicates an alternative direction with respect to the environment and militarization.  Of course, the Left must call the people to the protection of the environment and the reversal of the expansion of military industries.  However, the Left must make its proposals in a form that (1) appreciates the preoccupations of the people with respect to employment; and (2) shows that it possesses the comprehensive knowledge necessary for leading the nation in a direction that promotes peace and protects the environment, and yet responds to the material needs of the people.  

     In addition, ultra-Leftism tends to possess a rigid concept of property ownership, objecting to space in the economy for private property.  Some insist on cooperatives, objecting to private property as a form of worker exploitation, and at the same time rejecting state ownership as a top-down form of management that does not differ from capitalism.  Others insist on state ownership of all means of production, viewing cooperatives as a form of private ownership, and defining private ownership as inappropriate for socialist economies.  Ultra-Leftism ignores the challenges that socialist nations face with respect to the production and distribution of goods and services, and it thus cannot see that, in determined circumstances, private ownership can be a useful mechanism for distributing particular goods and services to the people or for contributing to the expansion of national production.  In different moments and circumstances, Russia, China, Vietnam, and Cuba all found it necessary to allow space in various ways for private capital.  They did so, however, in a form in which state ownership of the economy was extensive, and state management of the economy was fundamental, with control and regulation of private enterprises, and with extensive state interrelationships with cooperatives.  Moreover, they defined space for private capital in a context in which the various institutions of the society were guided by socialist values.  Similarly, in the new popular socialist revolutions that have emerged in recent years in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua, the revolutionary leaders have proclaimed a new form of socialism, with the economy under the direction of the state and with state ownership of the principal and most important industries, but with a mixed economy, including private property.

     Moreover, ultra-Leftism tends to an exaggeration of the concept of equality.  Modern bourgeois and socialist revolutions have affirmed the fundamental principal of equality, proclaiming the equality of all persons, regardless of race or ethnicity, class, or gender.  However, socialist nations in practice have found it necessary to tolerate some differences in income, because production tends to suffer when highly productive work is not rewarded.  Socialist nations have arrived to the view that some differences in income, not great, should exist, in order to reward those who make greater sacrifices and are more committed with respect to work, thus ensuring the continuity of highly valued and necessary labor.  Ultra-Leftism has a tendency to protest income inequalities in all forms, even when they are necessary and sensible.  Although the nations constructing socialism permit modest levels of income inequality, they are more advanced than capitalist societies with respect to the principal of equality, for they affirm in practice that social and economic rights to education, health care, nutrition, and housing are not conditioned on capacity to pay.  

     Ultra-Leftism tends to advocate the abolition of disciplined work.  It views management demands for productive work as an oppression of workers, and it objects to the adoption of normal management practices in socialist nations as anti-socialist.  It does not see that, in the context of overcoming the legacy of underdevelopment, revolutionary leaders must exhort the people to disciplined work.  Socialist nations protect the rights of workers not by being relaxed with respect to work expectations and demands, but by establishing and supporting worker’s mass organizations, in which all workers are members, and that elect their own leaders.  The workers’ organizations raise all issues of concern to the workers, including salary, working conditions, and living conditions.  In Cuba, for example, the company managers and the union leadership work together in balancing the nation’s need to elevate production with the worker’s right to humane work and living conditions.  Although Marx envisioned the reduction of labor time to marginal time, humanity is not close to such a communist paradise, especially in the Third World.  Socialism does not yet mean the abolition of work.  In the construction of socialism, we are all called to disciplined work, each in the areas and specializations where our talents and capacities lie, which also implies the necessary continuation of a functional division of labor.

     Ultra-Leftism romanticizes the small and the local as a more humanist form of production and politics, leading to a disdain for centralized state planning.  Certainly, in some cases, small is beautiful.  However, in the constant pressure to expand production, the national commitment to the small and the local must include evaluation of productivity.  To the extent that they respond to the productive needs of the nation, or in other ways respond to local needs or to the needs of the workers, small and local industry should be supported by the state.  In such cases, the state would include them as part of its centralized plan, and it would include subsidies when feasible and intelligent.  Local and smaller scale production has its place, and in rural areas, it can contribute to agricultural production and reduce rural unemployment, thus reducing the unsustainable rural-urban migration.  However, recognizing the place of the small and the local does not imply a rejection of centralized state planning or large-scale industry.  Ultra-Leftism has a general disdain for the large and for centralized planning, on the basis of an idealist vision that is removed from the practical challenges that revolutions confront.

      Ultra-Leftism in the North tends to ignore the need for the taking of political power.  It views political power as corrupting, and this belief to some extent nourishes its quickness in criticizing socialist revolutions that have taken power.  However, it is idealist to think that a better world can be made without delegates of various sectors of the people taking political power and directing the state toward the fulfillment of the needs of the people.  Popular socialist revolutions in China and the Third World have demonstrated that the taking of power by the people is possible through the creative political application of fundamental principles and concepts.  To confine political action to protest, without an intention or plan for the taking of power as delegates of the people, is to ensure that political power will be in the hands transnational corporations and their political allies, which will continue to defend their particular interests, at the expense of the needs of the nation, the people, humanity, and nature.

     Ultra-Leftist tendencies damage the Left in the North in two ways.  First, ultra-Leftist attitudes lead to judgmental evaluations of socialist projects in China and the Third World on the basis of impossible standards, giving the impression that socialist revolutionary leaders betray the revolution when they come to power.  They thus imply that socialism is an impossible dream.  Secondly, inasmuch as ultra-Leftism involves the advocacy of idealist proposals, it is in conflict with the common sense intelligence of the people, and thus it undermines the credibility of the Left among the people, who must be mobilized to support the alternative project proposed by the Left.

     The insights necessary for overcoming ultra-Leftism emerge in the context of social and political movements.  Following the October Revolution of 1917 (since the early eighteenth century in the case of Latin America), advanced movements emerged in what would become the Third World, fueled by colonial and neocolonial structures of superexploitation.  These dynamics have given rise to advances in understanding, most clearly expressed by exceptional and committed Third World revolutionary leaders and by Third World intellectuals tied to the movements.  In contrast, the nations of the North materially benefitted from colonial/neocolonial structures of exploitation, so that they possessed, until the 1970s, sufficient resources for reformist concessions to popular movements.  In these political dynamics, ideological development in the North has been hampered by the political need to ignore the colonial/neocolonial foundation of the world-system and to justify imperialist policies necessary for the preservation of the economic advantages for the neocolonizing nations.  Therefore, Leftist intellectuals in the North have developed their understandings in an ideological context that is less mature than the Third World, and they live and work in a situation that is isolated from the neocolonial context.  Accordingly, they do not have the necessary social and political base to make judgements concerning the difficult political decisions that Third World revolutions must make; they tend to make judgements on the basis of idealist conceptions, disconnected from the struggles of the most advanced popular movements.

     The solution to this problem is for Northern intellectuals to encounter the Third World revolutions, taking seriously their insights and reformulating their own understandings, empowering them to lead their peoples in an alternative road toward a must just world-system.  This is a political possibility in the current context of sustained global structural crisis.  Third World leaders and intellectuals consistently demonstrate their openness to dialogue with leaders and intellectuals of the North.  At the same time, the unsustainability of the neocolonial world-system and the moral and intellectual unpreparedness of the political leaders of the core nations is increasingly evident to the peoples of the North.  Indeed, as the structural crisis of the world-system deepens, liberalism gives rise to its invisible partner, neofascism, exposing the brutality of the neocolonial world-system.  These dynamics create opportunity for the emergence of an alternative Left in the North, with an advanced understanding and a politically intelligent discourse inspired by the examples and teachings of Third World revolutions, capable of playing a dynamic political role in the nations of the North, challenging and offering an alternative to both liberalism and neofascism.

​

     In 1981, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) declared that Mao Zedong made “ultra-Leftist” political errors in the period 1957 to 1976.  This view of Mao, which includes affirmation of his important contributions in leading the Chinese Revolution to triumph and in directing the CCP and the Chinese government from 1949 to 1957, essentially remains the view of the Party today.  See, for example, the interpretations of the Mao era written by Tian Yingkui, Head of the Department of Economic Sciences of the Central School of the Communist Party of China (Tian, 2008:13-14). 

     What were the ultra-Leftist political errors of Mao?  Of primary importance was the erroneous political strategy adopted by Mao in the various moments in which he found himself in the minority in the CCP Central Committee.  As we have seen, Mao in 1955 disagreed with the Central Committee majority in regard to the issue of the pace of the collectivization of agriculture.  In 1957, Mao advocated the development of medium-sized, light, and rural industry connected to agriculture, in opposition to the Central Committee majority, which favored the Soviet model of emphasis on investment in heavy industry.  In 1962 and again in 1965, Mao pronounced against the pragmatic policies of the Liu government, maintaining that they represented a capitalist road that was undermining the socialist society.  In the situations of 1955 and 1962, Mao was able to overrule the Central Committee by appealing to provincial and district Party leaders.  On both occasions, the Central Committee conceded to the views of the Party leaders and approved Mao’s proposals.  In 1957, Mao appealed to non-Party intellectuals, who responded with Rightist critiques, provoking the Central Committee to launch an anti-Rightist campaign against intellectuals.  Mao, however, redirected the anti-Rightist campaign against the Party itself, leading to a purge of Rightist Party leaders and enabling Maoists to take control of the Party and implement Mao’s vision.  In 1965, Mao appealed to the people, especially students, leading to a purge of Party leaders and members who were allegedly taking the capitalist road, which resulted in a restoration of Mao’s political power and the implementation of some of his egalitarian proposals.  (See “The Chinese transition to socialism,” 1/11/2018; “The emergence of Maoism,” 1/18/2018; and “The Cultural Revolution in China,” 1/25/2018).

     Mao’s political strategy violated the evolving norms of socialist political practices.  In the construction of socialism, when there are strategic disagreements among revolutionary leaders, correct strategies will show themselves as the revolution evolves.  Therefore, when revolutionary leaders cannot attain a consensus, the best approach is to develop alternative pilot projects, analyzing the economic results and social consequences of each, establishing the possibility for a scientific foundation for decision-making and for political consensus.  In making political appeals outside the political leadership, and especially in appealing to non-Party intellectuals and students, neither of which was well qualified to judge, Mao provoked political conflicts that were a danger to the revolution itself and that led to the unjustifiable public humiliation of targeted persons.  In contrast to Mao’s conflictive approach, the necessary road is the seeking of internal consensus within the revolutionary leadership, which constantly strives to teach and unify the people.

       Secondly, Mao imposed a pace and level of agricultural collectivization for which there was not an adequate economic base.  Lacking an adequate level of industrial support for its cooperative social formation, Chinese agricultural growth in production was low, lagging behind what was necessary and behind industrial growth.  Moreover, the total elimination of private agricultural production had the consequence that those peasants most suited by temperament and capacities to individual production were constrained from contributing more to national agricultural production.  Seeing these limitations, the Party in the 1980s, without describing the collectivization of the 1950s as a political error, called for the partial reversal of collectivization and for the establishment of new possibilities for individual private farms (see Meisner, 1999:460-69).   

     Thirdly, Mao’s vision of rural industrial development, with its emphasis on locally oriented industry and on smallness, has many attractive features.  However, this is a complex issue.  It is not clear if such locally based industry has the productive and technical capacity to drive the modern economic development of a nation as large as China.  The best approach is the simultaneous development of both local light industry and large heavy industry, at a pace that does not overreach capital and labor resources, with scientific analysis of the economic and social consequences of both.  

     Fourthly, Mao encouraged idealistic conceptions, such as a rejection of centralized planning, the abolition of the division of labor, the total elimination of inequality, and a romantic notion of the revolutionary virtues of the poorest peasants.  The experience of the Chinese Revolution from 1949 to the present shows that centralized planning by the state, without rigidity and with appropriate space for local autonomy; functional divisions in work; some level of inequality in income, based on merit; and ideological and pedagogical leadership by political leaders are important components in the long-term development of the nation and socialism. 

       Mao adopted ultra-Leftist positions on issues that are complex, and which of necessity must be politically decided in the challenging context of constructing a socialist society, in which providing for the material needs of the people is a pressing concern.  Technicians alone should not decide such complex technical questions, but neither should they be decided through a conflictive ideological battle that undermines possibilities for constructive consensus.
     
       Ultra-Leftist political errors in China had dramatic negative effects on economic development.  Production fell and rose in a rhythm that paralleled the rise and fall of ultra-Leftist policies.  From 1950-52, following the Agrarian Reform Law of 1950, which took land from landholders and distributed it to individual peasants, agricultural production increased 15% per year.  In contrast, from 1952 to 1976, when cooperatives were developed and there were limited possibilities for individual peasant production and sale, agricultural production increased only 2.3% per year, significantly below the projections of the development plans.  From 1978 to 1984, agricultural production increased 9% per year, in the context of new policies that removed restrictions on rural markets, set high prices for agricultural goods, promoted rural industries related to agricultural, and favored a return to family farming.  As we have seen, as a consequence of the economic and organizational chaos of the Great Leap Forward as well as natural disasters, food shortages emerged in the period 1958 to 1961, and there may have been fifteen to twenty million famine-related deaths (Meisner, 1999:98, 228, 237, 416, 460-69; Díaz, 2010:24).

     Similarly, Chinese industry grew at a rate of 16% to 18% between 1952 and 1957, a period characterized by the nationalization of foreign and domestic industry. From 1959 to 1962, with the Great Leap Forward, industrial production declined 40%.  With Liu’s pragmatic economic policies of 1962 to 1965, industrial production was stabilized in 1962, and it grew at an average annual rate of 11% from 1963 to 1965.  The introduction of differential wage rates in the factories was a factor in facilitating recovery in industrial production, a policy that implied tolerance of a level of inequality among workers, on the basis of merit (Meisner, 1999:113, 253, 264, 266).  

     The Cuban scholar Julio A. Díaz, who has published in Cuba several books on China and on socialist economies, describes the rise and fall of China’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and national income in a form paralleling the zigzag between ultra-Leftist and pragmatic policies.  From 1952 to 1957, during the initial transition to socialism, the GDP grew 20% during the five-year period, and national income grew at annual rate of 9%.  From 1958 to 1962, during the Great Leap, annual growth of national income was 3%, and agricultural production fell 4%.  From 1962-65, with the pragmatic economic policies of Liu, national income grew 15% during the three-year period.  With the conflicts of the Cultural Revolution, production fell 14% in 1967 and 5% in 1968.  Subsequently, with the turn to order and stability, in which Mao and Zhou cooperated, the GDP grew at 6% per year from 1968 to 1972 (Díaz, 2010:21-27).

      To be sure, growth in national production and income is only one factor.  Other dimensions must be taken into account in evaluating the quality of a society and the commitment of its political leaders.  Such dimensions include the level of equality; access to education, health care, culture, and sport; the development of scientific knowledge tied to the needs of the people and to sustainable development; the protection of the sovereignty of the nation; a foreign policy consistent with universal human values, among others.  However, productive growth is an important indicator, especially in a society with a low level of economic development and high levels of poverty.  Revolutionary leaders in China and the Third World must give a high priority to economic growth and development, in order to respond to the material needs of the people.

      Starting in 1978, China was able to overcome its ultra-Leftism and develop a more pragmatic approach to the construction of a socialist society.  We should understand that this was not a turn to capitalism, but a turn to a pragmatic approach, necessary in practical terms for the attainment of revolutionary goals.  Two other important socialist projects, Vietnam and Cuba, also have been characterized by flexible and pragmatic leadership, which has avoided ultra-Leftist errors, for the most part.  They have not been characterized by ideological rigidity, which insists on applying an idea regardless of material and social conditions; instead, they have opted for a flexible approach in the quest for the practical attainment of socialist and revolutionary goals.  As the capitalist world-economy increasingly falls into structural crisis, demonstrating its unsustainability, the pragmatic socialist nations of China, Vietnam, and Cuba increasingly are making evident that pragmatic socialism, adapted to particular conditions in each nation, is the necessary road for humanity.

​

​References
 
Díaz Vázquez, Julio Aracelio.  2010.  China: ¿Otro Socialismo? (LX aniversario).  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales. 
 
Meisner, Maurice.  1999.  Mao’s China and After: A History of the People’s Republic, Third Edition.  New York: The Free Press.
 
Tian Yingkui.  2008.  Camino Chino: Concepción científica del desarrollo.  Beijing: Ediciones en Lenguas Extranjeras.