The Political Order’s Crisis: The Early 20th Century
(Part 2)
Marxism in the early 20th century
By Riccardo Piroddi
Abstract: All’inizio del Novecento, il marxismo subì una svolta importante, abbandonando progressivamente l’idea della rivoluzione come necessità storica e collettiva, per aprirsi alla possibilità di un’azione rivoluzionaria guidata da un singolo soggetto politico: il partito. Rosa Luxemburg si oppose a questa deriva centralizzatrice, sostenendo l’azione spontanea delle masse e criticando il rischio autoritario insito nel modello leninista. Al contrario, Georges Sorel rifiutava sia il riformismo parlamentare sia il partito, affidando al sindacato e allo sciopero generale la forza morale e rivoluzionaria per abbattere lo Stato. Lenin, infine, costruì una dottrina marxista ortodossa, fondata su un partito d’avanguardia capace di guidare le masse, ma che sfociò in una dittatura centralizzata, tradendo le promesse di democrazia proletaria.
Rosa Luxemburg
At the dawn of the 20th century, Marxism experienced a significant transformation, gradually distancing itself from the notion of revolution as an inevitable historical and dialectical necessity, which in Marxist terms had been understood as “praxis that overturns.” This shift occurred as Marxist theory increasingly accepted the idea that revolution could be initiated by the arbitrary actions of a single political entity, often embodied in the leadership of a party that claimed to represent the proletariat. This concentration of power within a political subject diverged from the original vision of collective class struggle.
These evolving ideas found particular resonance in the revolutionary thought of Rosa Luxemburg (1870-1919). In her work Social Reform or Revolution?, Luxemburg advocated a “reformist” strategy that involved alliances with democratic elements of the bourgeoisie. Her argument focused on the primacy of immediate proletarian action in confronting the inherent contradictions of capitalism, and she championed the general strike as a key instrument to propel the working class towards power.
A crucial element of Luxemburg’s thought was her critique of imperialism. Unlike some Marxist theorists who saw imperialism as a natural extension of capitalist expansion, Luxemburg viewed it as the initial signal of capitalism’s terminal crisis. She argued that imperialism was a central factor that necessitated revolutionary action by the proletariat.
Luxemburg also placed significant emphasis on the spontaneity of the masses in political struggle, fearing the potential for an “authoritarian involution” in the political vision of leaders like Lenin. She warned that Lenin’s approach, which centralized authority within the party, could suppress the natural, spontaneous political emancipation of the masses. In her view, only the proletariat as a collective force could be the true agent of socialism, free from the authoritarian constraints of a vanguard party.
Her concerns were tragically validated by historical events. Luxemburg was assassinated in 1919 after strongly criticizing the Bolshevik regime, which she described as a “dictatorship over the proletariat” rather than a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” She remained deeply opposed to the idea of a centralized authority monopolizing revolutionary action, believing it would undermine the genuine socialist aspirations of the working class.
George Eugène Sorel
Georges Eugène Sorel (1847-1922), a French political theorist, developed his doctrine in opposition to both the positivist culture of his time and the integration of socialist doctrine into mainstream Western politics, particularly its absorption into parliamentary systems. Sorel rejected the idea that political parties should represent the working class, asserting instead that the trade union, due to its direct, daily involvement with workers and their struggles, was the true vehicle for proletarian action. He believed the union alone could effectively defend workers’ rights and resist any revisionist tendencies that diluted socialism.
Sorel’s doctrine condemned reformism, particularly the compromises made with so-called “democratic” parties, arguing that such alliances eroded the ideological purity of socialism. He also criticized elitism, contending that strikes—unions’ primary tool of resistance—merely shifted power from one political group to another rather than bringing about genuine change. According to Sorel, the inherent contradictions of capitalism could not be resolved through reforms or incremental progress, but could only be shattered through direct, forceful action by the proletariat, specifically through the trade union movement.
At the heart of Sorel’s thought was the concept of the general strike as a revolutionary and moral force. Unlike traditional strikes, which sought concessions within the existing system, the general strike was an all-encompassing, immediate act of resistance aimed at dismantling the power of the State. Sorel framed this as a morality of violence, where the general strike would catalyse the creation of a society liberated from institutional constraints and codified power structures that stifled social development.
For Sorel, the general strike was not driven by abstract political ideas but by the “concrete” needs of “concrete” individuals. As such, it was not a party, beholden to the daily compromises of parliamentary politics, that could initiate the strike, but the trade union, which was grounded in the real experiences and necessities of the working class. This trade union activism, in Sorel’s view, would lead to a direct confrontation with the State, even to the point of causing its collapse, thus paving the way for an idealized society of producers capable of self-administration, free from the constraints of centralized political authority.
Vladimir Lenin
The Russian Revolution of 1917 marked the establishment of Marxism in a country still governed by feudal structures, lacking democratic parliamentary systems or any meaningful political discourse. The architect of this transformation was Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), whose doctrine evolved into an orthodox form of Marxism, seeking to dismantle existing institutions and the State. Lenin’s vision called for the active participation of the masses in shaping society, largely through the mechanisms of the soviets and the direct involvement of workers in national politics.
In Lenin’s framework, the Communist Party served as the crucial political mediator between the State and the people. This role was necessary because only intellectuals, according to Lenin, possessed the insight to grasp the historical necessity of communism. These intellectuals formed the vanguard, a centralized force responsible for shaping and directing the “spontaneity” of the working class. Lenin viewed the proletariat as a disorganized and amorphous group, lacking the capability to conduct effective political action independently. The vanguard party’s task was to organize and channel the energies of the workers, providing them with strategic direction through disciplined political organization. For Lenin, the party was the driving force behind the revolution.
Lenin’s vision of a post-revolutionary Soviet Union included an intermediate phase that would eventually transition to a dictatorship of the proletariat. This phase temporarily suspended the ideals of equality and democracy advocated by Marx. Lenin believed this was a necessary step in the revolutionary process, as the existing bourgeois democratic institutions, rooted in imperialism and monopoly, were seen as irredeemable. He argued that the imperialist doctrine of the liberal State, which signified the monopolistic radicalization of bourgeois values, foretold the collapse of democratic institutions.
In the unrealized “socialist project” envisioned by Lenin, Soviet democracy was supposed to evolve into a revolutionary, proletarian democracy, characterized by the direct participation of the masses in political life and geared towards the eventual “withering away” of the State. However, these ideals were ultimately compromised. Over time, Lenin came to acknowledge the failure of internal democracy within the Communist Party itself. Rather than fostering the inclusive democracy initially envisioned, the party evolved into a dictatorship dominated by its elites—the Nomenklatura—who embodied the totalitarian aspects of communism. This shift marked the transition from revolutionary aspirations to the consolidation of power by a select few, undermining the participatory ideals of Soviet democracy.
