Editor's Note: This article appears in the January 2008 issue of Political Affairs. Please send your comments to editor@politicalaffairs.net.

In Marx and Engels’ view, socialism could only succeed in developed capitalist countries in their highest stage of work productivity and advanced scientific and technological innovation. As socialism establishes itself deep in the heart of the capitalist system in more developed countries, the new political, economic and social order would guide other countries in diverse levels of development. Besides that, Marx argues that socialism should last a long period in order to then succeed as communism. Only when an extraordinary level of productive forces and automation was achieved and the market was overcome could there be the transition from socialism to communism. Men and women would be less involved in material production and the spiritual and civilized level of society would reach a historic scale never before experienced.

From the 20th century’s revolutionary practice which reveals the limitation of the historical and theoretical view of the Soviet Union’s socialist experience, we can say the conclusion of the 18th Congress of the CPSU held in 1939, about the description of the country’s socialist stage was distant from reality. “We have ended one more historic stage of the communist revolution in the USSR,” the main political report read. “We ended, … an era of constructive work, to initiate a new era – the gradual transition of socialism to communism.… The third Five Year Plan will be one of the most important stages in the solution of this major problem: the transition to complete communism.”

At that stage, from a modern point of view, it was not possible to consider the existence in the USSR of advanced socialism. What existed then was a transitional stage to socialism with all its economic and social aspects surrounded by the world of advanced capitalism in Europe and the United States. Because the proletarian revolution was still dominated by the echoes of the bourgeois revolution, the workers’ fight at the first rehearsal of proletarian revolution in the Paris Commune in 1871 was not part of the order of the day. Marx and Engels never got to the point where they elaborated a systematic theory of proletarian revolution, nor did they consider the possibility of a socialist transition in countries in the phase of late capitalism.

It was Lenin’s task, at the beginning of the 20th century to elaborate a new theory of proletarian revolution. This was done during a phase of great internationalization of capital, the predominance of finance capital (a fusion of banking capital and industrial capital), the emergence of imperialism and imperialist wars, and the growth of the working class, its improved organization and the elevation of its social and political awareness.

Facing this new reality, the revolution wouldn’t necessarily unfold where capitalism was more developed. The internationalization of finance capital and the organization of the global market made capitalism be seen as a global system where national economies become links of a chain. The correlation of forces in favor of revolution was not restricted to each country, but were related to the capitalist system worldwide, which, on the whole, was more mature for a transition to socialism. Therefore, the revolution could occur at the most fragile link of the capitalist chain, that is, where the contradictions were accumulated, where the dominating bourgeois class was weak, and even where a small working class could join up with numerous allies from rural and urban areas. The law of unequal development of capitalism could lead the revolution to victory, as well as allow the beginning of the construction of socialism in one or a group of countries.

Basic lessons of the 20th century

The crisis of one of the most important socialist experiences in the 20th century and the survival of capitalism caused communists and revolutionary forces to have to face enormous challenges of resistance, critical analyses, self-criticism and renewal. This is the exact case of the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB). Since its 8th Congress in 1991, the new view that emerged adopted Lenin’s thinking on how to understand the current era: “concrete analyses of a concrete situation”; or as Deng Xiaoping’s would insist, “emancipating the mind and seeking truth from facts.”

Important steps were taken to adjust old dogmatic and reductionist conceptions. Two basic lessons were learned. 1) There is no universal path or a single model on how socialism should be constructed in each country; there may be many and diverse socialist experiences with their own characteristics. 2) The transition from capitalism to socialism is a period in history determined by objectivity, its laws and stages are characterized by the struggle between the old and new society according to the different levels of development in each country. In more underdeveloped countries, it could take a long historical period if we consider the conditions in which capitalism dominates the world.

The effort to overcome the dogmatic view led to the understanding that the construction of socialism was not only a matter of desire or revolutionary impulse. It’s not reality that has to be shaped by the ideal, but the opposite. A full knowledge of the laws of development of society and a link with advanced social and political movements of course is fundamental. Previously, our program had been tied to abstract notions and schematic rules summarized according to three views:

1. The inevitability of two stages of revolution in non-independent countries such as Brazil; 2. The existence of a single model of socialism; 3. A direct path to the construction of socialism after winning political power.

For this reason, we searched in our own trajectories an identity with the October Revolution in Russia and with the Chinese Revolution, becoming more and more distant from the reality in Brazil, a country that has a different historical formation and different political, economic, social and cultural paths.

Within the PCdoB, overcoming dogmatic and schematic orientations opened a path to a strategic and programmatic view directed towards the study of the particularities of Brazil’s reality, the level of political struggle and the identification of a path to the transition from capitalism to socialism. In the communist movement during the post World War II period, there was a standardized orientation in which the socialist model to be followed was that of the Soviet Union. The most important experience for countries in a late stage of capitalism was not considered, especially with respect to the fight for the transition to socialism from 1919 to 1923 in Russia, in which Lenin started a systematic analysis of the preliminary phase of the construction of a new society. It also led to the study of the trajectories of the “popular democracies” – the “democracy of a new type.”

Lenin’s views in developing the New Economic Policy (NEP), his most important essay, goes beyond an imposed objective requirement of a revolution in an underdeveloped country and defines strategies and general rules of transition. His main idea was that socialist political power governs the transition. This can last a long period of time, particularly in a country in late stage capitalism. It combines private and public, planning and market, and especially state capitalism run by a new power whose main purpose is to reach the development of the productive forces and material production in favor of the prevalence of socialist components.

In summary, the transition from capitalism to socialism obeys objective laws that if not understood and respected can induce the revolution to fail. It is a historical process of transition within a mixed economy, with its political power directed to the path of the construction of a new society – a socialist society. This period which guides communist parties not in power in capitalist countries was forgotten by the communist movement under the shield of the Soviet Union.

After an enormous effort to overcome the schematic view including research and studies under the direction of João Amazonas, since the beginning of the 1990’s the Communist Party of Brazil at its 8th National Conference held in 1995 defined a new strategy, in the party’s new political program: “The present program does not mention the general construction of socialism, but the problems related to the first phase of transition from capitalism to socialism.” And further: “The preliminary phase of transition from capitalism to socialism will gradually carry through the essential transformations. In this first stage, total confiscation, expropriation, will not occur. Radical measures, linked to the initial demands of the construction of socialism will be partial.”

From the experience of building socialism in the 20th century, it is important to consider the particularity of the objective course of the construction of “socialism in only one country” in a stage of late capitalism surrounded by wars, nuclear threats, military siege and the arms race. The proletarian revolution did not extend itself beyond Russia; it was defeated in the western countries in the 1920’s. It is obvious that this situation imposed an abrupt and forced circumstance in the revolutionary process in Russia and later in the USSR. It also imposed a standardized Russian model for countries under popular democracy after the World War II, ignoring aspects of transition to socialism that considered the particularities of each country. Despite the adverse original context, it is impossible to conclude that everything that happened would inevitably lead to the escalation of crisis and later to the ruin of the Soviet Union.

In reality, the economic model that prevailed in the Soviet Union proved to be inadequate during the most important phase of development to reach a more advanced stage in the economic and social system of socialism – the phase of intense development. More specifically, it could not compete with capitalism and its technical and scientific revolution. In comparison to capitalism, socialism could not surpass the average labor productivity but rather went into a relative state of stagnation. This situation made questions related to the structure of economy evident, especially in its relation between planning and market, and between the types of property and the conducting of the productive processes.

The resulting economic model had an interrelation with a strict political and institutional model that restrained the development and flourishing of socialist democracy, the establishment of an advanced socialist republic, and the rule of law with socialist features.

The fusion of the Communist Party with the state apparatus and bureaucratization separated the people from state power and hindered the construction of innovative political and legal institutions that represented peoples’ sovereignty. It also displayed the frailness of the political and institutional superstructure that prevailed. It became an impotent political apparatus with no consistency and incapable of fighting the growing crisis and rapidly met its ruin.

From a historical point of view, it may be premature to make a more profound analysis of the experiences of building socialism in the 20th century. It is important to point out that in comparison to former centuries it was during the 20th century that millions of men and women were liberated from oppression and from imperialist and colonial dominance. It was also in the 20th century that many countries became independent, that the social and political rights of workers were achieved, and that many people defeated capitalist terrorist dictatorships, like fascism and Nazism. Communists and the labor movement in their struggle for the construction of a new socialist society were the leading forces that achieved these historic victories. In the dispute between capitalism versus socialism, capitalism was left to respond to social aspirations of the people and adopted reformist measures to reduce the capitalist exploitation.

Present Conditions for Revolutionary and Transformative Struggle

Established in the last century, socialism from a historical point of view had an ephemeral life – it lasted only 72 years. João Amazonas, an experienced and distinguished leader of the Communist Party of Brazil, lived through a long period of the communist movement of the 20th century. His views, in 1992, about the downfall of the socialism were as follows: We live a moment of doubt about our progressive convictions of radical transformation of society. Skepticism, dismay and hesitations about the righteousness of the theories of Marx, Engels and Lenin grow. Old policies and the deceptive utopia of capitalist reform are back on stage as the solution for irreparable misalignments originated from the decay of this system.

From these doubts came the challenge of bringing forward the socialist project. Inevitably new and promising forces reappear – a product of objective reality and not from mere desire for revolution. This challenge is defined as the new struggle for socialism – a distinct journey from the one undertaken in the last century.

We can – objectively and subjectively – argue that a new struggle for socialism is underway. In a more specific way, today we can find the means that can develop into periods of accumulation of forces to initiate the revolutionary process again in new conditions.

This period of a new struggle for socialism began after the fall of the governments in Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991. The new struggle for socialism has its causes in the irreconcilable contradictions and the paradox of the capitalist system, the ever more profound social crisis, and the impossibility of a profound democratization of society and a sustainable ecological development within the capitalist system. Imperialism is still the main cause of war. The new struggle for socialism emerges in an extremely defensive moment at the end of the revolutionary cycle. Many lessons were learned from this period which allowed us to engage in a new revolutionary enterprise – a process of increasing accumulation and construction of new, advanced political powers and the progressive organization of vast and diversified social movements.

The end of the USSR modified the strategic balance of forces in the world, allowing the appearance of only one superpower – the US – located at the top of the global geopolitical pyramid.

The future of revolution does not depend exclusively on the correlation of forces in each country. A reduction of power of the hegemonic superpower, on the other hand allows that peoples and nations can become free. At the beginning of the 21st century, as a consequence of the progress of this system of global forces, the tendency for worldwide competition for leadership is intensified. Not only do inter-imperialist contradictions (the US, European Union and Japan) undertake new competitiveness. It’s also necessary to recognize a new tendency: the increasing economic and political importance of countries such as China, India, Russia, Brazil and South Africa, countries that can change the strategic balance of forces on the planet. The US tries to face these tendencies by relying more and more on military power, and its leadership is being more and more sustained by warfare. As a result, the anti-imperialist forces are becoming more and more intense and widespread. These forces are aimed at President Bush’s policies of war and his expansionist leadership in the world.

It is in this dispute for world leadership, the enhancement of anti-imperialism, the search for a more equal new global order, for peace, sovereignty, democratization and development that a new revolutionary stage with modern characteristics will emerge.

Revolutionary Theory

To succeed, the new struggle for socialism depends on the development, updating and renovation of revolutionary theory. Revolutionary theory is not the same for different historical periods; it emerges from the singularities of each moment and since it is the systematization of political and revolutionary practices, it orients the revolutionary movement during that certain period. In general terms, the revolutionary theory in Marx’s time is not the same as it was in Lenin’s time, and it acquired a new configuration in China, Vietnam and Cuba.

Revolutionary theory for the present moment is defined by today’s advanced political thought starting with the concrete situation of the world’s capitalist system, and stage of the democratic, progressive and revolutionary movement. Comprehending reality makes us free from deep-rooted voluntarism that was once preached and oriented the revolutionary movement to believe that in the 20th century there would be a general and definite crisis of capitalism and the victory of socialism. To reach the apogee of new revolution, which means, the political, economic and social overcoming of the capitalist system, a period of strategic accumulation is necessary.

New paths to political, economic and social construction in countries that kept the socialist perspective, People’s Republic of China, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Cuba and the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, is elaborating the theory of proletarian revolution. Also the present struggle of workers and their allies to win political power and overcome capitalism is contributing to this elaboration.

Having their origins in the revolutionary process, the countries that maintained the effort to achieve socialism, today preserve the democratic and popular character of their political institutions by adopting a mixed economy in a predominately capitalist world.

Therefore, these countries develop policies and procedures to liberate the development of the productive forces to resist neoliberal capitalist modernization. Countries like China and Vietnam, adopt capitalist methods and procedures of state capitalism. In these countries, the process of building socialism demands a long period of transition and history to achieve a developed form of socialism as described in Marxism. These are very uncommon and original experiences. It is not possible to predict in what direction the pursuit of socialist objectives will unfold.

This was how these countries faced the socialist crisis of the 20th century, and being new experiences (that consider the particularities of each country) they can be organized and corrected but not subjected to uniformity.

In Latin America, above all South America, the revolutionary and progressive forces are going through a significant experience with the rise of a democratic and patriotic anti-imperialist struggle. This struggle is a result of the profound crisis aroused by conservative policies in the 1990’s on the continent. Although each country went through different experiences they all have a point of convergence. They are all a result of the combination of social struggles with different levels of radicalism: the establishment of fronts conducted by patriotic and democratic leaders who galvanized large social and political support in defense of national sovereignty, democracy and social progress, winning political power through democratic elections. The growing social and political fight led to electoral victories.

One of the most advanced South American experiences is that of Venezuela. Led by President Hugo Chávez, head of the Bolivarian movement, this country combined several political and social factors and concentrated many contradictions that led to the break out of a democratic patriotic revolution. The constituent assembly convened in midst of this revolutionary process promulgated a new constitution that changed the former political and institutional superstructure and democratized the country. Recently, the new constitution was reformed making a step forward to initiate a new stage defined as “transition to socialism” or as Chávez calls it “socialism of the 21st century.”

This march of profound political change was able to democratize the armed forces, mobilize and organize people according to their fundamental social aspirations, organize the economy under the protection of a new democratic and patriotic power that strengthens the state. A group of original factors contributed to the success of this revolutionary experience: a basic political coalition was formed, becoming the pillar of the new regime. Also an alliance between the people and the armed forces was formed. Since Venezuela has one of the world’s largest oil reserves, it was able to politically consolidate its sovereignty on the basis of this valuable natural resource. Venezuela found in this resource the means to finance the revolutionary process, liberating itself from the inevitable economic isolation in a neoliberal and globalized world. The development of this experience in Venezuela and other democratic and patriotic experiences in countries such as Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, among others, can be an important component in defining modern revolutionary theory.

President Lula’s second term in Brazil, an important emerging country in the middle of the contradictions of a neoliberal globalized world, finds itself in the transition of a national development plan concerned with the distribution of income in a highly unequal society. Brazil is making an enormous effort to unify countries in the South American continent.

President Lula initiated a new political cycle in Brazil by building a center-left government with the participation of democratic, progressive and left-wing forces among which the Communist Party of Brazil is included.

The Communist Party of Brazil, has the strategic conception of accumulating revolutionary forces and tries to intervene following three inseparable guidelines:

1. participation in parliament at all levels and in federal, state and municipal governments with democratic and progressive political forces; 2. a systematic and increasing connection with organized social movements in urban and rural areas and with the poorest layers of the population; 3. active and permanent participation in debates about the democratization of media vehicles and the enhancement of its own media.

This political intervention is unique. Following these three guidelines, PCdoB seeks to achieve effective progressive reforms that will achieve political liberty and bring us closer to obtaining political power with wide support and a commitment to the transition to socialism. Participation in Parliament and in the democratic governments allows the enhancement of the political influence of the Party. A more profound and extentive connection with social movements increases the Party’s prestige and contributes to transforming popular movements into a generating force for more profound reforms. The participation in the battle of ideas increases the Party’s authority in the theoretical and ideological struggle since it is a necessary source to ensure and elevate the conviction for an alternative to post-neoliberalism today.