The Lure of “Progress”

In many instances throughout history, the dominant classes and their intellectual and political representatives have managed to hook the popular sector into wanting to realize the goals of the elite. They have achieved this by attracting the popular sector with offers of equal opportunities, political freedom and economic progress. In this way, they have spoken of opening channels and alliances for progress (like President John F. Kennedy’s suggestion to consolidate the U.S. hegemony over our America and avoid a new revolutionary experience similar to Cuba’s in some other countries), the neoliberal model of the International Monetary Fund and the Free Trade Agreements with industrialized countries.

However, this same history has been in charge of conclusively revealing the lies behind the democratic sincerity of the dominant class — even of those who, proclaiming to be socialists (as is the case in Spain), play into their hands. This last point had already been predicted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in “The Communist Manifesto” when they wrote, “The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting there from. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.” It is from this point that we understand the lure of “progress” as a constant each time that the dominant class extends its power over society, exploiting the basic necessities created by a significant portion of the population who cannot find a better way to satisfy their own needs that to support the dominant class, the result of an alienation induced by that same society during decades.

Indeed, revolutionary groups often fall into a similar trap. Such groups try to capture popular sympathy but without any consideration for the necessity of a continuous commitment to providing the populace with the ideological and political tools that will help them overcome this cycle of dependency that only deepens their malaise and impotence, making them easy prey to all types of demagoguery. Thus, it is fundamental that those who hoist revolutionary flags keep in mind that the primary objective of the socialist revolution is the radical transformation of the prevailing order; otherwise they would be placing themselves on common ground with the liberal-bourgeois reformists, without producing any socialist change. Consequently, the dominant classes’ promise of progress must be fought with the support of the history of those events that could have been resolved in favor of the popular interests but were, instead, foiled, opposed and distorted by those who occupied the positions of power in their name. Needless to say, it is necessary to clarify to the masses what the real interests of said social class might be when inviting them to “share” this “progress” It would be enough to summarize the history of Chile, Argentina and Mexico, just to cite a few nations of our America where the economy was “modernized” per the neoliberal thesis en vogue during the last two decades of the twentieth century.

It is hard to believe that the capitalist logic could resolve the grave structural problems that affect our people. Only those who legitimize individualism (the boss keeps most of the product of his or her workers’ labor), the market economy (maximizing profits and cost-effectiveness by minimizing earnings through the indiscriminate exploitation of the salaried work force), individual responsibility and a total corporate freedom that is unchecked by the state will agree that said “progress” is possible. Sadly, that tale has garnered higher levels of unemployment, poverty, misery and social exclusion, and these misfortunes cannot be reduced or eliminated with simple good intentions. However, it cannot be denied that the “unregulated market,” as David Korten refers to it, “tends to function as a profoundly antidemocratic institution. As democracy vests rights in living persons, the market only recognizes money.”* This so-called “progress” must be exposed and the integral development of people should be promoted, while at the same time the conditions for the construction of revolutionary socialism are being created.

*Editor’s note: This quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.