The Iran protests that are sweeping the covers of bourgeois newspapers and prompting US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley to put Iran “on notice” for violating “human rights” must be understood in their proper context in terms of the struggles of different classes in Iran and not in terms of a struggle for “democracy” and “human rights”.
For the bourgeois media for the last few decades, socialism meant state control: anything that a state did was socialism. Whether it was providing socialized health care or bailing out banks did not matter. As long as the State did it, it was socialist. The bourgeois media and economists, of course, don’t take into account the character of the State. Who controls the State? Who does it serve? These questions are either not asked or not answered properly. For the most part, this definition scarcely mattered: socialism was simply not that popular for a long time now and was not discussed in media in a significant way after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
When Marxism first came into existence, most of its opponents were people of different philosophical leanings. Most of the attacks on Marxism, therefore, were directly hostile to it and tried to repudiate Marxism completely. But over time as Marxism started to take hold among the masses and started to spread as the revolutionary theory of the working class, the attacks on Marxism changed. The criticisms of Marxism now were not coming from outside the Marxist camp, but from inside the socialist camp.
“Why did Russia, of all countries, become the home of Leninism, the birthpalce of the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution?
“The United States is pursuing a different aim from that which we are pursuing in the USSR. The aim which the Americans are pursuing arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity, without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain, a party whose “socialism” consists of such dialectical positions as “opposing every single government” and “every single war,” published an article by Richard Montague in its newspaper Socialist Standard contrasting the chasms between Marx and Lenin. The article itself is quite old, published in 2001, but it was brought to our attention recently in an attempt to “explode tankies.” We thought it would be a great idea to refute the horrid liberalism that drips throughout the article while also clarifying some of the common misconceptions about the differences between Marx and Lenin that are used either to paint Vladimir as the man who vulgarized Marxism for eternity or to turn Marx into a common liberal.
As strange as the question in the title sounds given the obvious answer, it is the opinion of some “leftists”, especially anarchists and some left-communists, that “dialectical materialism” is a made up “political ideology,” dreamt up by Stalin to justify the supposed atrocities of the Soviet Union. Even someone as well-read as Noam Chomsky is shaky on this, to say the least.