The introduction of the social question as the essential theme in culture is relatively recent in the history of our civilization. It was precisely Marx and Engels who, with great coherence and rigor, placed this question at the forefront of western thinking.
Until then, philosophy had existed in order to interpret the world, but from Marx and Engels the argument emerged for the need to change it. There is no philosophical and practical conclusion of greater importance for humanity in its millennial history. On studying the documents we present here, the reader will therefore understand that we have published them with the essential aim of encouraging a search for ideas that will be useful in finding the paths to revolutionary transformation.
In order to achieve this, we must begin with the authors’ own logic; otherwise we will not be able to discover what their contribution was and where the essential limits to all human achievements are. This is about appreciating an undeniable cultural value. We come across major difficulties. Both the practical application of Marx and Engels’ thinking over recent decades, and enemy propaganda about their ideas — the vision of a closed doctrine with roots in rigid philosophical determinism — was imposed on the consciousness of millions of people. Those who, from the conservative or reactionary ranks, refuted Marx and Engels’ thinking, accusing them of just these same tendencies, or those who also, consciously or unconsciously, attempted to do so from beneath revolutionary banners, were guilty of the same mistake. The only difference is that the former have been more consistent in their interests than the latter.
The philosophical essence of the renowned writers of these texts is, precisely, the exact opposite of dogmatic rigidity. It is really paradoxical that philosophical thinking will only free itself from the vicious circle it is trapped in when Marx and Engels are studied and interpreted in a manner radically different from that prevalent in the 20th century, after Lenin’s death. In other words, when their thinking is approached as “a research method” and as a “guide to action” that does not aspire to reveal “eternal truths” but to orienting and encouraging the social liberation of humanity on the basis of the interests of the poor and exploited of the world. Those who followed this route in 20th century history generated real social revolutions, as in the case of Lenin, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. Those who interpreted Marx and Engels’ works as irrefutable dogma did not attain these heights; on the contrary, they made them into lifeless texts remote from reality.
An important lesson that can be learnt from this is that the value of a culture may be gauged by its power of assimilation and capacity to excel in the face of new realities. The ideas of intellectuals in all the sciences, including those of a socio-historical nature, are of no value on their own. Their value lies in their potential to discover, on the basis of new findings, new truths. The highest levels of thinking and significant new ideas are cornerstones of the building humanity is constructing in the history of culture, whose foundations are constantly moving and experiencing change. They are not the building, but the key to opening its doors and orienting us toward its interior. Their importance lies in resisting the test of time and retaining a value beyond the immediate, because they manage to synthesize the elements necessary to satisfy needs in social and historical evolution. They are changing the way in which they appear. Those who have contributed to science and culture have done so because they have been able to weave what is new into the tapestry of history.
All cultures that engage in an exploration of the ideal of justice among human beings, if this is done so in depth and with rigor, will penetrate human consciousness and find one of the keys to universal history.
To promote the redemptory ideas contained within these texts it is necessary to study what has turned out to be different from the suppositions on which the ideas of Marxism, outlined in these pages, were founded. Their evaluations were essentially grounded in European reality. Nothing other than this could have been demanded from them. The best of European revolutionary thinking in the 19th century did not arise from a Eurocentric vision.
The expansion of the United States and its ascent to become a powerful capitalist country following the War of Secession [Civil War] on the one hand, in addition to the mass migration from the Old World to North America in the final decades of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century on the other, were historic milestones allowing us to grasp the scope and form that these phenomena would subsequently assume.
If we study a letter from Marx to [Abraham] Lincoln, his hope that the outbreak of war between the North and South would become a step toward a future proletarian revolution in that country is apparent. This did not happen. The European pressure cooker did not explode, among other reasons because the potential labor force in Europe found new markets in North American territories at the end of the 19th century and during the course of the 20th century.
Friedrich Engels said that Hegel’s most important discoveries were due to the degree of his knowledge of his era and that his limitations were also appropriate to his times. It has to be pointed out that the vast knowledge in 19th century Europe, which we admire as one of the highest pinnacles of western culture, was ignorant of and did not ever value the United States, much less the growing revolutionary potential of Latin America.
The following thoughts by Engels are very illustrative of this: “The social and economic phases that these countries [referring to the Third World] will also have to go through before attaining social organization cannot be, I believe, anything other than the object of quite idle speculations. One thing is certain, the victorious proletariat cannot impose happiness on a foreign people without compromising its own victory.” This lesson has been proven dramatically in the reality of the very heart of the old continent.
Marx and Engels did not take into account the imperialist phases studied by Lenin, nor were they sufficiently well acquainted with the socioeconomic realities facing Third World countries. Neither was the founder of the October Revolution able to study our continent, although his analysis of imperialism focused on the main problem of the 20th century, and was based on information he had acquired on the liberation process that was developing during that period among the people of Asia.
The rescue of the best traditions within universal culture is an undeniable means of defending the interests of the poor. It is should be compulsory to carry out concrete economic studies that help us demonstrate reliably that culture has been the most dynamic factor in the economic history of the world, and particularly the world within which we are living.
In order to explore the question in some depth I suggest following the thread linking these documents historically on the basis of José Martí’s most central ideas. When we read Martí, we begin to notice a more detailed analysis of the reasons why socialism failed. He was fulfilling the role of prophet when he warned of the following:
There is something I must praise highly, and it is the affection you show in your dealings with people; and your masculine respect for Cubans, whoever they might be, who are out there sincerely seeking a world that is a little better and an essential balance in the administration of this world’s affairs. Such an aspiration must be judged as noble, regardless of whatever extremes human passion might take it to. The socialist project, like many others, involves two dangers: readings that are confused and incomplete, distancing the project from reality; and the concealed pride and anger of the ambitious, who make pretences in order to get ahead in the world, to have shoulders to hoist themselves on, frenetic defenders of the helpless. Some go like pests, the queen’s hangers on, as was Marat when with green ink he dedicated his book to her, bloody flattery, Marat’s egg of justice. Others go like lunatics or chamberlains, like those Chateaubriand spoke of in his Memoirs. But the risk is not as great among our people as it is in those societies which are more wrathful, where there is less natural light. Our job is to explain simply and in detail, as you know how to: it is not to compromise sublime justice by using flawed methods or making excessive demands. And always with justice, you and I, because mistakes that are made do not authorize those with good souls to desert in its defense. Very well then, there it is, May 1. I anxiously await your account.6
Martí