A LITTLE over a month ago, former President Donald Ramotar was a guest on our podcast. He gave the strongly held belief that he was opposed to the removal of Marxism-Leninism as the guiding philosophy from the constitution of the PPP. He credited the ideology for bringing direction and focus to the PPP during the 70s. He opined that the insertion of Marxism brought a dimension to PPP leadership that was, prior to its implementation, absent from the fight against the Burnhamite excesses. Even though the embrace of this ideology was largely responsible for keeping the PPP out of government, courtesy of an alleged collusion between the CIA and other Western forces, the philosophy fortified group ethos and provided strength, direction, and resolve. Ramotar believes that a major part of the success of the PPP at the 1992 elections was the culmination of years of working-class embrace, expression and activism grounded in Marxism.
President Ramotar further suggested that Marxism as an ideology breathes democratic values, brokers inclusion, incites unity and creates social and economic relations that empower the working class. He spoke so glowingly of Marxism as if it were a political panacea for all that ails Guyana. I dare say, he has an overly utopianist view of Marxism.
In my opinion, while Marxism espouses several concepts that create working-class solidarity and provides some good critiques for many of the chronic ills of capitalism. Marxism laments the exploitative nature of the capitalist system in relation to the working class and argues that once the working class is organised around common class interests it will lead to working-class revolution. After the successful working-class revolution, Marxism portended the establishment of a classless society ruled by working-class democracy.
Except that, everywhere Marxism was implemented as a dominant ideological system, without any exception I can think of, it led to the creation of a working-class elite or a ruling elite who attained power through successful revolution on behalf of the working class. This ruling elite simply replaced the capitalist rulers; instituted one-party rule; crushed challengers to that one-party system and established communism as an ideological triumvirate; that is to say, it is the governing ethos of the political system, economic structure and social order. Revolutions in the name of Marxism run the gamut from mild, persuasive and seemingly conscionable to ruthless and brutal.
By its very nature, it creates at least two conditions that can only produce tyrannical rulership by those who lead the revolution and take power:
First, arriving at power via a revolution, often having to fight off not only the capitalist’s superstructure, but also variants in the working-class who wanted space at the leadership table either because the revolutionary leader is not sufficiently dogmatic, or is too extreme in the application of Marxist philosophy.
Success, more often than not, requires acts of treachery. Essentially, the revolutionary elite cannot allow another revolution to overtake its own revolution, nor can it allow the “ruthless capitalists” to occupy sufficient political space to one day mount its own revolution. This engendered distrust and suspicion of any growing ambitions among those with revolutionary spirit, often requiring the creation of tight leadership fortresses. To operationalise the protective structure of the ruling elite, necessarily requiring systemic exile of the politically ambitious and an embrace of sycophants. Fertile ground for unelected dynasties and political nepo-babies is curated.
The second condition that leads to the failure of Marxism, is that in its practical implementation, it depended too heavily on the inherent goodness of man and takes little account of the corruptible elements of the use of power. As an economic, social and pollical system and as a philosophy, it rests too heavily on the vicissitudes of the personality of the leader. So, a good democratic leader who is in tune with the working class and eschews the corruptible pathways of power and is able to exercise the excesses of capitalism can create a happy and just society. History has very few examples of this, and even when it occurred, it was only for short bursts; the purveyors did not last long. The more common occurrence is that society ends up with corrupted, rotten, ruling elites, to the extent where the very working class, in whose name they wrought a successful revolution, yearns for the “freedom” of capitalist hegemonic exploitation.
Marxism as an ideology is built on historical materialism. Intrinsic to that philosophy is the concept that ‘time will tell.’ History is replete with attempts at implementing Marxism, and in most cases, it produced tyrannical one-party states with severe abuse and curtailment of the rights and freedoms of the very working class it was designed to protect. In my view, Marxist ideology is only useful insofar as it acts as a tempering, moderating or balancing force on the exploitative nature of capitalism; it is not a viable alternative.
In the grand scheme of things, Marxism as an ideology has not aged well. This does not mean it is useless and without meritorious tenets. Therefore, from an ideological perspective, the removal of the references to Marxist ideology as the guiding principles of any political organisation, is appropriate for these times. In the specific case of the PPP, it is clear that Marxist philosophy helped with building revolutionary resolve in party adherents. I agree with Ramotar that that was needed in that time period; it served the party well. But I also believe it lived out its course.
Given the state of modern society, an ideology built on the original tenets of Marxism and its Leninist variation are bound to run into epochal conflicts. A more appropriate place to look may be ideologies that are in essence denominated from Marxism, but have gone through several rounds of reorientation in such a way as to augment the positive traits of capitalism.
I embrace a concept, which is becoming increasingly influential in academia, called “decent capitalism.” Like Marxism, it is a concept that interweaves politics, economy, and society. It espouses a package of reforms that allows the majority to be the master of capitalism. Capitalism is moderated by political activists, trade unionists and policy makers in such a way that it keeps its core strengths while reducing its inherent brutally exploitative and destructive natures.