The Myth of Progress – and Reality (Part 2)

According to the evolutionary thesis of progress, capitalism not only represented progress compared to feudalism but also marked the revolutionary victory of the bourgeoisie over the landowning aristocracy. We argue that the image of a capitalist system triumphant due to the overthrow of the aristocracy by the progressive bourgeoisie is false. In reality, it was the aristocracy that created the capitalist system, which then transformed into the bourgeoisie. In this way, the aristocracy was able to maintain and extend its exploitative power over direct producers.

The proletarian revolution has thus far been imagined as analogous to the bourgeois revolution. However, if we accept that there was no bourgeois revolution, does that mean there was no proletarian revolution either? Absolutely not, neither logically nor empirically.

Controlled transformations (revolutions) are not necessarily progressive. Therefore, we must distinguish between transformations that do not affect the exploitation of the working class from those that abolish it. The question is not whether there will be a transition from historical capitalism to something else, but whether the change will indeed bring progress. The choice facing the world's bourgeoisie is not whether to maintain historical capitalism or choose its own destruction. Their choice lies in taking a conservative stance, arguing that the ongoing social disintegration will lead to the formation of a world system with uncertain outlines, but likely to be more egalitarian. Their other option is to boldly attempt to seize control of the transformation process and, by adopting socialist options, try to develop an alternative to the capitalist system that would maintain the exploitation of the world's working class in the interest of the minority that retains its position.

Socialist states were also products of historical capitalism, and their internal processes produced them. All their contradictions and flaws can be traced back to this. The continuation of intense exploitation, racism, and sexism, along with the denial of political freedoms, suggests that these states occupy a peripheral or semi-peripheral position in the capitalist world economy and do not embody the characteristics of a new social system. Communism exists in Utopia, that is, nowhere. This is yet another version of all religious eschatologies; it is not a historical principle, but mythology. However, socialism is a historically achievable system that could be realized on Earth. The socialism that would be an intermediate phase towards Utopia holds no real interest. Only historical socialism, a socialism that incorporates the minimal characteristics of a historical system and would maximize the equality and fairness of the system, offering greater control over humanity's destiny (this would be democracy). (1987)

Immanuel Wallerstein " A haladás mítosza- és a valóság" Mozgó világ 1990/9