The Reactionary Nature of the “Civil Society Theory” Advocated by Gramscianism

Paper by Choe Pyong Jae

The great leader Comrade Kim Jong Il pointed out as follows:

In the sector of science and theory we should strengthen the struggle against reactionary bourgeois ideas and all kinds of opportunist ideological trends and staunchly defend the purity of the Juche idea.

Among the opportunistic and reactionary ideological trends spread by imperialists and their ideological representatives to conceal the serious contradictions and antagonistic relations in capitalist society and paralyze the revolutionary consciousness of the masses, there is also the right-opportunist ideological trend known as Gramscianism.

Gramscianism is a right-opportunist ideological trend that emerged from the reformist and eclectic “theories” put forward by Italy’s Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), which were further distorted by Western European adherents of Gramsci’s theories in the late 1970s to early 1980s, named Gramscianism and widely disseminated in capitalist countries.

The “Civil Society Theory”, which forms part of Gramscianism’s basic content, was initially advocated by Italy’s Gramsci and has since been utilized by Western European right-opportunists to deny the revolutionary struggle of the masses against capitalist society, making it a reactionary opportunistic theory.

To summarize its argument in a nutshell, it is based on a completely abstract division of capitalist society into the “political society” (“capitalist state”) and “civil society”, asserting that the capitalist system should not be overthrown through revolutionary violence but should be “democratically transformed” by “dissolving the capitalist state into civil society”.

The “civil society” they speak of refers to a “non-state sphere” composed of “diverse institutions and groups that are legally guaranteed and democratically organized”. In other words, it is a concept that signifies the “totality of ideological and social apparatuses”, including labor unions, associations, churches, schools, media, information dissemination agencies and cultural institutions in capitalist society, amounting to nothing more than an utterly unscientific concept.

Based on this unscientific concept, the “Civil Society Theory” has served the bourgeoisie as a reactionary theory that denies the revolutionary struggle of the masses to overthrow capitalist society and build a new society from the outset.

The reactionary nature of the “Civil Society Theory” lies first and foremost in the fact that it distorts the class character of capitalist society, thereby obscuring the purpose of revolutionary struggle and the relations of revolutionary forces.

How the class character of a given society is defined determines the nature, causes, driving forces and targets of the revolution to be carried out in that society, along with all fundamental issues arising in the development of revolutionary theory.

The class character of such a society is defined by which class holds state sovereignty and ownership of the means of production.

A society where state sovereignty and the means of production are held by a reactionary ruling class, an exploiting class, becomes an exploiting class society. Conversely, a society where the broad working masses become the masters of state sovereignty and the means of production becomes an advanced socialist society. Thus, all forms of human society are divided in terms of class character into exploiting class societies and socialist societies.

Nevertheless, proponents of the “Civil Society Theory” define capitalist society as some sort of “civil society”.

The advocates of the “Civil Society Theory” argue that contemporary capitalist society is a “civil society” and, in terms of its composition, it is a three-tier or multi-tier model where the “new middle class exists as an independent class, not a residual group of the two classes”. Therefore, they claim that “socio-political transformation in capitalist society must be a democratic transformation to enable citizens to exercise hegemony”. They further assert that the “Civil Society Theory” does not advocate the separation of the state and “civil society” itself but rather promotes “interdependent dual democratization” between the two while maintaining their separation.

This is nothing but an opportunistic claim aimed at obscuring the purpose of revolutionary struggle in capitalist society, based on the absurd sophistry that, as the capitalist state practices democracy for “citizens”, the “citizens” should “understand” the capitalist state and treat it with democratic leniency.

Proponents of the “Civil Society Theory” also put forward the middle strata of capitalist society, including intellectuals, as the “basic force” of “democratic transformation”.

They argue that the reason middle strata in capitalist society become the “basic force” of “democratic transformation” is precisely because they are a “social class with strong critical capabilities”.

However, putting forward the middle strata of society as the “basic force of social transformation movements” cannot be justified under any pretext. Historically, bourgeois philosophy and sociology, as well as right-opportunist ideological trends, without exception, have promoted intellectuals and the middle strata of society as the “basic force of social transformation movements”. This is because they are all theories defending capitalism that deny the fundamental transformation of capitalist society. The “Civil Society Theory” is no exception here.

The fact that proponents of the “Civil Society Theory” put forward the middle strata of society as the “basic force of social transformation movements” ultimately demonstrates that this theory is a reactionary theory and a defense of capitalism, denying the position and role of the broad working masses, including workers and peasants, in socio-historical movements and obscuring the relations of revolutionary forces.

The reactionary nature of the “Civil Society Theory” further lies in the fact that it is a theory that denies the revolutionary struggle methods of the masses to overthrow capitalist society through revolutionary violence by advocating “parliamentary struggle” (“the electoral road to socialism”).

The question of how to conduct the revolutionary struggle to liberate the working masses from national and class subjugation and oppression emerges as one of the most important issues in revolutionary struggle.

Revolutionary violent struggle is the only method of struggle to eliminate national and class subjugation and exploitation in exploiting class societies and realize the independence of the masses. This is because no exploiting class voluntarily bestows freedom and liberation upon the masses or willingly abandons the exploitative system that relies on reactionary violence to secure their own pleasure and wealth.

That the exploitative system, which tramples on the independence of the masses based on reactionary violence, can only be overthrown through revolutionary violent struggle is a truth verified by the long history of the masses’ revolutionary struggle to realize independence.

It is precisely for this reason that revolutionary theories of the working class consistently uphold the revolutionary principle of “responding to counterrevolutionary violence with revolutionary violence”.

However, the advocates of the “Civil Society Theory” slander the revolutionary theories of the working class as “radical revolution theories” and preach the absurd sophistry that a society where “human liberation” is realized can be built through “movements” suitable for “civil society”, namely “parliamentary struggle” (“the electoral road to socialism”).

This clearly shows that the “Civil Society Theory” is fundamentally opposed to the revolutionary theory of the working class and is a reactionary theory.

The reactionary nature of the “Civil Society Theory” further lies in the fact that it is a theory that glorifies and defends the capitalist system by actively praising the bourgeois political idea of “liberal democracy”.

Today, the “Civil Society Theory” appears in various forms in capitalist countries, but its common feature is that it uncritically adopts “liberal democracy”, one of the political ideas of modern capitalism, and actively embellishes the capitalist system.

“Liberal democracy” is an extreme bourgeois political idea that modern imperialists actively praise as a “democracy” that “guarantees” “respect for personality”, “freedom” and “equality” in capitalist society, promoting it as their reactionary ruling ideology.

However, the advocates of the “Civil Society Theory” boast that “respect for personality” can only be realized under the politics of “liberal democracy”, claiming that “the idea that all people should be respected as equal human beings and personalities is the foremost clause of liberal democratic thought”.

This is nothing but a reactionary claim that turns a blind eye to the anti-popular character of the capitalist system, where the big monopoly bourgeoisie acts as the master, and openly preaches surrender to imperialism.

In reality, for people’s personalities to be respected, a social system that defends and realizes their independence must be established.

However, capitalist society is a reactionary social system that only defends the interests of an extremely small reactionary ruling class, the exploiting class. It does not defend and realize independence, which is the inherent demand of people as social beings, but ruthlessly tramples upon it.

The “freedom” and “equality” touted by the advocates of “liberal democracy”, including proponents of the “Civil Society Theory”, are nothing but deceptive slogans to shield the capitalist system.

Originally, the slogans of “freedom” and “equality” were raised by the emerging bourgeoisie in the late feudal society for their class demands and interests, based on the “principle” that “men are born free and equal in rights”.

However, after the bourgeois class established political dominance, the slogans of “freedom” and “equality” in capitalist society came to be used as deceptive slogans to cover up the exploitation and oppression of the broad working masses by the bourgeois class, and their content has been increasingly distorted into a more reactionary form based on the bourgeois view of man and society.

In reality, in today’s capitalist society, the slogans of “freedom” and “equality” are actively used to make the masses victims of bourgeois law and rationalize the exploitation of the bourgeoisie, who seek maximum profit.

Advocates of “liberal democracy”, based on the bourgeois view of humans, boast that people are biological beings whose nature is “transcendental freedom”. The “transcendental freedom” they speak of is none other than the existentialist “freedom” of the bourgeoisie, characterized by unlimited self-indulgence, debauchery and greed.

Of course, people desire freedom. However, this is not the existentialist “freedom” of the bourgeoisie touted by the advocates of “liberal democracy”, including proponents of the “Civil Society Theory”, but a state where the independence of people as social beings is realized.

To claim that existentialist “freedom”, which encourages unlimited self-indulgence, debauchery and greed, is the essence of social man is a shameless distortion of man’s nature and a sophistical defense of capitalism that prettifies capitalist society, where the law of the jungle is the inherent social law, as a society where “freedom” and “equality” are guaranteed.

We must continue to vigorously wage the struggle against all reactionary and opportunistic ideological trends spread by imperialists and their ideological representatives, thoroughly defending and upholding the originality and purity of the Juche idea and the Songun idea.

― Journal of Kim Il Sung University (Philosophy and Economics), vol. 60, no. 3, 2014, pp. 70-72.