"The Quest to Conquer the state amidst catastrophe and crisis"
by Kat Ulrike
At first, this note bid greetings in commemoration of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
This revolution, led by Vladimir Lenin, was considered a major turning point in world history. For this broke through the yoke of tsarist repression, established the first state of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the world and opened a new era of struggle by the working class. This kind did shocked the world as the proletariat didn't simply change the leadership nor the form of government but rather dismantle the old order in favour of a new society- driven by the cause of the emancipation of humanity.
And it is still remains significant in today's modern world. In its 104th year, the working folk continues to engage in the struggle despite the fall of the Soviet Union decades ago, as well as the changing direction of China into a capitalist state pretending to be "socialist". Facing the challenge brought by capitalist neoliberalism as well as the crisis brought by the COVID19 pandemic, these hindrances doesn't stop the working folk from asserting its just calls and its advancement.
For sure the prevailing order will continue to parrot the rhetoric that socialism failed, that there is no alternative to capitalism, that neoliberalism brought development, and others reality showeth its contrary. The more they deny the struggle the more it continues as poverty, disenfranchisement, injustice remains. China's capitalist venture showed a monstrous betrayal of the revolution started by Mao Zedong as well as that of the October Revolution. They claimed China as moving towards socialism, and yet poverty especially in the countryside remains the country's major issue to be addressed, but instead like the Soviet people in the past, came under the rule of a new privileged bourgeois stratum as what really happened.
And to think that this October Revolution has awakened the working class and opened up wide possibilities for the emancipation against imperialism, this brought fear to the existing orders that even today's 21st century continues to resonate. After all, Lenin's action justifiably carried out with greater determination and much more rapidly, boldly and successfully, and, from the point of view of its effect on the masses, much more widely and deeply, than the French Revolution or the Paris Commune of the past. This was no ordinary change of government structure nor change of leaders, but that of dismantlement of the social order the laboring masses saw as oppressive and unjust.
***
For the developing and the underdeveloped countries, the October Revolution became an inspiration to rise up against imperialism both the lord and its vassals. Regardless of the imperialists' attempts to cower them with fear or coercing them with false hopes, the October Revolution and its succeeding revolutions like the Chinese and the Indochinese revolutions has shaken imperialism with struggles for national independence and social liberation, as the laboring masses takes the lead of its quest for freedom- that even the imperialist themselves notice the growing power of the working class taking the lead in its struggle and thus trying to control with that of carrot and stick moves. But will the colonies and semicolonies content with decades, if not centuries-old oppression that hinders development? No! Whereas they desire liberation from colonialism, so is also the desire to liberate from domestic exploitation under imperialism- and countries like China during Mao, Vietnam under Ho, showed that their revolution, like that of 1917 wasn't like the liberation movements of the slaves nor the uprisings of the serfs. This was no driven by mere idealism but that of the realities of poverty, injustice, and vassalage of their countries to imperialism. After all, what Stalin said: The proletariat cannot emancipate itself unless it emancipates the oppressed peoples.
For as in the past, the imperialists still looked upon the underdeveloped and developing countries as the basis of their prosperity. Be it because of its natural resources or its labour power, the imperialists, both west and from the east itself have never ceased to think of the third world whether to extract its wealth, needing obedient young lads, or to dump them with its surpluses. People accept this kind of truth although dangled by first-world consumerism, would also tend to deny this. How come? They would insist that it is imperialism that brought development, modernity, everything what a "developed" country can offer- especially in downplaying a growing social movement that's opposed imperialist domination and local subservience to the latter's wishes. They would claim every produce is a product of imperialism, even brands they enjoy is also a product of imperialism, even the skyscraper, the modernity people enjoy in general is a product of imperialism. Yes indeed- with labels like "Made in the USA" or Made in China", but the question is, did these people who downplay patriotic alternatives also offer a sound, "based" alternative to dependency? Most likely can't as they're contented, if not happy to see a "borderless" world ruled under "free market" rules. The words Fukuyama described as "end of history" turns out to be another phase for both patriots and globalists alike: the former with its struggle for survival and revival, the latter with its ever-prevailing dominance despite decline- with words like "freedom", "liberty", "democracy", all reduced to just totem poles trying to appease an ever-growing social hatred like what happened in 1917.
As of today, this part of history has continued to be a major factor in shaping the aspirations of the labouring folk- that even those from the right did recognise how the power of the laborer can create changes in the society, only to find them as a rival. In a writeup entitled "Lenin's Italian understanding" published in 1931 at the "La Conquista del Estado", Mussolini's Fascism tried to be like Lenin, as it said:
"The Duce is a peasant and a worker, whose deep obsession is not Bonaparte (bourgeois myth), but Lenin (worker myth)..."Fascism" is the only policy that has openly tried to follow more closely the Bolshevik method, the dictatorial leadership of the Russian proletariat."
And yet that once member of the Socialist Party rather chose to collaborate with the old order he detested, only to regret during his desperate days at Salo. Again, he tried to be like Lenin, or even Stalin, even applied a former communist to make Fascism "progressive" in everyone's eyes. But, did he succeed? Not even, but rather only to end hanging upsidedown by the folk who had enough of his frustration- if not seeing how that fascism was all about, that of oligarch and state power intertwined pointing against the labouring folk in the name of bastardised 'nationalism'. Sometimes it was quite wondering why on earth Mussolini, while trying to be like Lenin chose to compromise his supposed "radical" beliefs by collaborating with the system he detests? Was it in the name of national interest even at the expense of the struggling proletariat and the peasantry? It made Mussolini more of an orderist as Dollfuss, Szalasi, Franco, Hitler, or any leader who trying to be as progressive, if not revolutionary as their rivals- that made radicals within the ranks like Rossoni seriously express concern if not criticism after principles gone compromised.
***
Sorry to cite "La Conquista del Estado", but noticing its earlier articles as trying to be revolutionary, would think that the situation was ripe for the oppressed folks to stand up and fight just like in 1917. Of course, there were those who truly recognise the struggle and therefore wanting to transform it into a revolutionary moment; while on the other other hand, there are those who rather diffuse it from the start all in the name of peace and order. In today's setting the order tried its best to diffuse the growing sentiment by trying to compromise that of the people's want with that of their interests, treating "reforms" and "programs" of various sorts primarily to continue being obedient and "satisfied young lads" if not threatening them with the big stick.
At first would say that "nothing's wrong" with reforms or the programs involving it, but for the order these meant to shut people up from complaining further. Agrarian Reform in the Philippines for instance, it wasn't meant to resolve the peasant question and promote justice for these hardworking farmers and their communities, let alone trying to avert a growing dissent in the countryside. Housing, which is meant a human right, is itself treated as a propaganda feat especially for politicians hungry for "legacy" despite being substandardly built. Politicians even promised wages be increased to the workers, or controlling prices of commodities, and yet mum as they faced a group composed of big businesses in it, even promising less taxes to these fatcats while burdening the folk with rising costs of commodities and services! Is this the reform being brought about by the order? This note certainly doubt their thought especially when first and foremost sworn to upheld the system people detests.
Perhaps as time goes by the folk will never stop in its desire to "conquer the state". The difficulties are indeed immense, but everyone is accustomed to grapple with immense difficulties. That even this pandemic caused by COVID19, imperialists trying to maintain their foothold as they're the ones having the capacity to produce medicines, especially that of vaccines the world greatly needs. They use "Vaccine Diplomacy" to strengthen regional ties and enhance their own power and global status, and countries like the United States and China are using Vaccines and "altruism" as cynical ploys for diplomatic advantage. Meanwhile, vassal countries are using the pandemic to impose draconian laws, of treating the situation as that of their repressive orderism with checkpoints and curfews than that of ensuring people's health and well-being by providing immediate, necessary support for the health care system. The folk, just like in the pre-pandemic periods faced retrenchment if not unemployment, low wages and paycuts, rising costs of commodities and services, and even insufficient support by the government! This catastrophe brought by COVID19 as well as other existing matters under neoliberal capitalism would say that this create situations that provokes popular discontent as in the past, and the order itself already felt the tremors that neither carrot nor stick will resolve the problem. Will the folk just get content on this catastrophe brought by the pandemic? Not even, as they had enough of tyrants imposing lockdowns nor curfews; nor despots imposing paycuts, retrenchments, and rising costs of commodities and services; but again, everytime is accustomed to grapple with immense difficulties with the tendency of having the will to resist the order's wishes.
Again, the order still felt the tremor left by 1917 and other revolutions of the past. And in this catastrophe it is expected to see them "trying their best" to control the situation, especially when the people really had enough of the bullshit and willing to "conquer the state" to dismantle it. As what Lenin said in 1921: No matter at what cost, no matter how severe the hardships of the transition period may be—despite disaster, famine and ruin—we shall not flinch; we shall triumphantly carry our cause to its goal.