Posts Tagged ‘Stalin

26
May
12

A Communist’s Criticisms of Communism (Part III): Loyalty

I discussed in my last post the issue of turning the contemporary Communist movement into little more than an intellectual exercise. In this post, I want to address the issue of “loyalty”- that is, the obsession we seem to have with adhering to certain lines of thought, political parties, and even individuals who have been dead for centuries and countries that no longer exist.

Let me jump right into things.

“If Marx Said It, It Must Be True…”

A recurring phenomena you run into in your discussion/debates/rabid scream-fights with Communists is that, almost inevitably, someone will cite Karl Marx and sit back, assuming the argument has been settled. Marx you see (and to a lesser extent, Engels, Lenin, and other prominent Marxist thinkers) is often treated as being infallible. His writings are, to put it bluntly, viewed as “canon”- Das Kapital and the Manifesto are the unimpeachable criterion for all Communist thought and action.

Needless to say, this is a problem.

I don’t mean to attack Marx’s writings- for the most part, I think Marx was right. But when Marx’s words are put on a level usually reserved for religious texts and certain seasons of Dr. Who, issues begin to pop up- the most obvious of which is that it simply isn’t true.

Shocking, I know…

I am going to cite an example, but first, just think about it generally. Isn’t it possible- nay, likely– that a nearly two-hundred year old Prussian thinker didn’t quite come up with every answer to every political, social, and economic problem we’ll ever have? Isn’t it reasonable to suspect that in his extensive writing, he didn’t have total accuracy? Could it be that Marx, as a human being, made errors just like the rest of us?

Of course. I’d even go so far as to speculate that you’d find few people more opposed to this idea that Marx is omniscient than Marx himself.

Who has a magnificent beard and thinks you should be reasonably skeptical?
This guy!

Now I promised an example of Marx being wrong, and here it is. In 1872, Karl Marx delivered a speech in Amsterdam, in which he claimed

“You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries — such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland — where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.”

Now if you’re familiar at all with the contemporary Communist movement, you’ll recognize that one of the few (nearly) universal views held is a contempt for the belief that Communism can be achieved without violence. Typically the response to such a claim is (at best) “That’s completely utopian and unrealistic” or (at worst) “Die revisionist scum! Die!”. Yet it is a view that Marx held.

So how do we resolve this? Either we assume that the past century or so has been all wrong and that Marx was indeed correct in his view, or that (drum roll) Marx was wrong on this one.

IT CAN’T BE TRUE!

The simple fact of the matter is, this misplaced “loyalty” to Marx and “Orthodox Marxism” (i.e., you interpret Marx’s works) is just, plain wrong, and all that’s to say nothing of the way this “…Because Marx/Engels/Lenin/etc. said so!” mentality damages our innovation and dialogue (but more on that later). We need to stop invoking Marx and putting him on a pedestal.

…though maybe it’s a bit late for that…

Which brings us to our next point.

“Uncle Joe”:

On one Communist discussion board, I encountered a rather gung-ho Stalinist who had a habit of spamming the forum with pictures of Stalin, accompanied by rather creepy odes and love-notes to (not aboutto) “Uncle Joe”. Now what I suppose really irked me about this wasn’t that this person was praising a despotic, paranoid murderer who used Communism as a facade for his own ends, or that this person was writing this posts to Stalin, while simultaneously mocking religion (though Iwas bugged by both of these things). It was that this person was turning a political leader into an icon- all in all it was, well, “cult-y”. That kind of twisted obsession usually is only found in the followers of guys who claim to have a spaceship.

Also known as “trekkies”…

Well, that’s an isolated incident“, you might say, “Just thecrazed ramblings of someone who isn’t a real Communist anyways.”

And that may be true, but there’s plenty of this in mainstream Communism as well- the face is just a bit different.

No matter where you stand on the Communist or even Leftist spectrum, chances are, you admire Che. He’s seen by many as the ideal Communist- the perfect combination of a thinker, a fighter, a public servant, a leader, and a writer; utterly devoted to the cause of liberty and equality. Pretty much every Communist has a poster or picture of Che (myself included)- and in and of itself, this isn’t a bad thing. It becomes a problem, however, when this admiration crosses that blurry line over into the realm of devotion.

When we turn our heroes into icons, we distort our perspective not only of them, but of everything. Let me offer this example.

Imagine you admire Che, and even go so far as to practically adore the man. Turning Che from a man into a superhero, you find yourself defending each and every single thing he said or did- including the stuff he got wrong. Che for all his noble characteristics, cheated on his wife. If you’re such a fan of Che that you find yourself having to defend something wrong simply because to not do so would mean “abandoning” your hero, things have gotten way out of hand.

“Paranoid? No- our glorious leader simply is experimenting with photoshop. He’s totally not a crazed madman…”

Not only is this kind of blind faith dangerous (see above for an obvious example), but it winds up dragging our conversations down. I can’t tell you how many times seen two Communists debating each other, and resorting to taking pot-shots at each others’ ideological leaders, rather than actually addressing the issues. If you’re caught up in defending every aspect of Trotsky, you’ll never convince anyone of your point. We need to stop trying to defend every detail of Trotsky, Lenin, or Huey P. Newton’s life and recognize that they weren’t angels- they were people. We need to forget about proving them to saints, and start trying to just prove them right.

And speaking of being right…

“Fight the Good Old Fight!”:

I’ve touched on this subject before, but it’s worth revisiting. It’s the subject of the Communist obsession with taking sides on fifty-year old arguments which were petty and stupid even then. To this day, you’ll find division within Communism on the subject of who was right- James P. Cannon or Marx Schatman.

Allow me to submit this excerpt from Shachtman’s Wikipedia page, discussing his split with Cannon during the early 1930s:

Frictions between Shachtman and Cannon, especially over Shachtman’s work when representing the League in Europe, broke out into a factional struggle in 1932. Trotsky and other leaders of the International Left Opposition complained to the CLA that Shachtman had intervened against them within the ILO’s fragile European affiliates…

…During this time, Cannon experienced a spell of depression, during which the CLA’s organizing secretary was Abern while Shachtman worked on The Militant. Writing in 1936, Shachtman would criticize Abern’s habit of nourishing secret cliques of friends and supporters by supplying them with insider information about debates in the League’s leadership… It was only a sharp intervention by the ILO in 1933 that ended the fight. Although the line-up of opponents largely anticipated Shachtman’s 1940 split from the mainstream Trotskyists, the years from 1933 to 1938 restored the co-operation between Cannon and Shachtman.

This tussle between Shachtman and Cannon had a huge impact on the development of Communism in the US, the split between these two men serving as a major source of contention, leading to debate even to this day.

Allow me to submit what I believe to be the correct response to all this:

I don’t think there’s a single time I’ve read a book, or listened to a lecture, on Communist history that hasn’t resulted in this basic reaction. These fights are simply dumb. People can bicker all they want, but I have difficulty researching a single split in the Communist movement and finding a shred of evidence that fragmenting into petty little sects was the right or reasonable solution.

Believe it or not, I think the Republicans actually have a pretty decent model.

Bear with me here…

Think about it. This party is home to both people who are essentially fiscally-conservative Democrats and theocratic psychos who insist that the government occasionally handing out slips of paper to gay couples will ignite the apocalypse. Libertarians rub shoulders with supporters of the Patriot Act and NDAA provisions. Isolationists wear the same elephant-pin sported by neo-cons who hailed Bush’s self-proclaimed “crusade”.

These are all people whose have major differences on a number of subjects, and yet all come together under a single banner. Of course there’s friction, but when two republicans disagree on a subject, chances that’s all they’ll do. The fragmentation of Trotskyism- even the Communist movement as a whole- has nothing on the disagreements Republicans have with each other, and yet, Republicans remain Republicans.

I’m not saying that disagreements are wrong, or that there’s no such thing as a right or wrong course. What I am saying is that splitting over, say, whether or not Cuba is Communist is more than a little dumb.

See, the root problem of all of this is that it’s not about your loyalty to Marx, or your loyalty to your heroes, or your loyalty to your party…

Ego:

…It’s about your loyalty to you.

Ego- that’s where it all comes from.

Look, we all want to be the next great Communist leader or thinker or icon. We all, on some level, hope that things will play out so that we wind up being the Lenin, Che, or Marx of our time. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with that until it starts affecting our actions.

Let’s face it- would half of divisions in the contemporary Communist movement exist if we were all a bit more capable of swallowing our pride? Would we have half the scuffles we do if we weren’t so obsessed with our hero whose image goes untarnished, or our interpretation of Marx that goes unchallenged, or our party that gets all the glory.

The Collected Works of Bob Avakian,
Written and Compiled by Bob Avakian,
With Special Thanks to Bob Avakian, Head of Bob Avakian Studies at Bob Avakian University

It seems that we’re incapable of saying “I’m sorry” or “I was wrong” or even coming to terms with the possibility that we might make mistakes in the future. Pride is corroding the modern Communist movement, and it’s time to remember that this isn’t about us.

It’s about them.

Advertisements
11
Feb
12

A Communist’s Criticisms of Communism (Part II): Academia

Vladimir Lenin, in his What Is To Be Done? states that “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement”.

I’m not going to argue with that. Despite the piteous cry many self-proclaimed “anarchists” might make, the simple fact of the matter is that the world will not suddenly transform if enough “there’s no government like no government!” slogans get spray-painted on walls. If you’re going to change the hearts and minds of the people, and fight for the freedoms and rights of the poor and oppressed, there ought to be some basic strategy involved. I’d liken it to driving to another city. You can’t just hop in the car and hit the gas- you’re going to need to get some directions on how to get from here to there.

But this is not about “anarchists”. No, this is a post directed at the many Communists who, in trying to figure out how best to get from Point A to Point B, seem to have forgotten that we need to actually start moving.

This is one of the greatest problems with Communism today- this line of thought that holds theorizing about Communism on par with actually trying to advance Communism. Now I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- there’s nothing wrong with theorizing; but there’s such a thing as taking it to far.


And things have been taken way too far.

See, ask a Communist what he believes with regards to the revolution, class warfare, economic development, or the like, and he’ll talk for hours. Ask a Communist what he does, and chances are he’ll blank on an answer. I’m not trying to say that I’m better- I’m not. And I’m not saying that action is as easy as flicking a switch, activism is tough even when the cause is generally accepted, and there are plenty of Communists out there who face personal danger as a result of taking action. Nevertheless, there is a clear problem with “intellectualizing” Communism, and it is a problem that we need to address.

Intellectual Elitism:

I’d like to start off with a quick few points about the Communist “Intellectuals”, who, even if they’re not responsible for this trend, certainly do perpetuate it.

There seems to be an assumption among these Communists that because of their great knowledge of Communist theory and history, when the revolution comes they’ll be leading it, or somehow catapulted into power when Capitalism is defeated. After all, they’ve been Communists longer, understand dialectics, and have read extensively on labor theory in 1840s Prussia- why shouldn’t they be in charge? The masses will obviously recognize their superior and extensive understand of socio-politico-economic theory and patiently await the command of these intellectuals.

Yeah, right.

Now I don’t know where this attitude originated from- I don’t even think that most people who have it are aware of it. Nevertheless, there’s a palpable sense of elitism among Communists who, for whatever reason, don’t see the poor and the oppressed as equals but as (at best) brute force to be harnessed or (at worst) ignorant masses to be ruled.

Perhaps it stems from a reaction against the “Kill them gawdless commis!” response that you can sometimes find among the very people who would benefit most from Communism.

“They took our jobs!”

Or maybe it arises out of some misplaced sense of revenge. I got kicked around by life, so now it’s my- I mean, our– turn on the throne.

Sound familiar?

Again, I don’t know what the cause of this anti-Communist perspective is- and make no mistake, this attitude is the very antithesis of fundamentals of Communism. How do we combat it? In all honesty, I’m not sure. Maybe we just need to remind ourselves of the words of Che Guevara- “I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves.”

And while we’re bringing up, could someone explain to me exactly how having an intimate understanding of petty Communist feuds and some old Russian’s idea of how literature should be interpreted makes one an ideal candidate for leadership? Since when did knowledge of the theory of surplus value become criteria for fighting on behalf of the enslaved and exploited?

So he’s a good orator, but does he agree with Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”?

Communists need to wake up to the fact that, while there’s nothing wrong with knowing the ins and outs of our own theories, knowledge alone does not make you an effective leader, and it certainly does not somehow entitle you.

The One True Way:

Too many Marxists seem to be of the opinion that their theory is the only correct one. Now I’m not going to say that there aren’t some tendencies which are better than others, or that every style of Communism advocated is equally effective. What I am going to say, however, is that chances are your tendency isn’t absolutely and without a doubt the best technique that ever has or ever will exist.

Yeah, I’m talking to you!

You see it in the academic world, and you see it in Communism- people are convinced that theirs is the one, true way and that all other theories are hopelessly flawed. And maybe they are. Maybe. But am I the only one here who thinks that the struggle to perfect revolutionary theory has gone too far? Am I the only one who thinks that the details of how the masses liberate themselves and attain a free, equal, and just society isn’t exactly as important as, oh I don’t know, actually liberating themselves and attaining a free, equal, and just society?

“Look, if we can’t have the popular front, we’re just not going to rise up…”

It just doesn’t make sense. If you want to advocate your own perspective on how the revolution should be undertaken, good. If you want to put a lot of effort into figuring out what’s needed in the undertaking of the revolution, great. But at the end of the day, work still needs to be done to get things moving. The kid slaving away for ten cents an hour probably isn’t too picky about how efficiently the revolution is done. Take Che Guevara, for example. Guevara was a Maoist, and yet most every Communist from every tendency hails Che as a hero. Is this because they agree with Che’s theories? No, it’s because Che accomplished things.

Misplaced Priorities:

One last time I’ll say it; there’s nothing wrong with studying Marxism. However, we have to understand that as of this moment, our priorities are terribly misplaced. Now I’ve mentioned in a previous post a podcast I listen to- the various lectures of the annual Socialism Conference, held in Chicago and in Oakland. Don’t get me wrong- I enjoy these lectures, but as much as I appreciate them, I’m always left wishing that just for once, they’d cover something actually relevant to me.

A step-by-step discussion of Rosa Luxemburg’s childhood isn’t the most helpful information out there…

Too often the most “relevant” information offered to young Communists such as myself is either discussion of past events (which we can only do so much with) or the rehashing of the basic “Capitalism is evil! The state is oppressive!” slogans we’ve been fed ad nasuem. Am I the only one here who wants to hear how to effectively protest from a veteran protestor? Am I the only one who wants to know about community organization from an old Black Panther? Does anyone else want to know when a cop is just trying to take advantage of your ignorance, and when they actually have a real threat? Farming? Direct action? Use of local politics and reforms? Can we at least be talking about these things? I am not, I repeat, am not ok with letting Communism turn into nothing more than a mental exercise, and a pointless one at that.

Yes, Lenin said “Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement”, but I want to add this caveat.

Revolutionary theory is only as good as the revolution is produces.

23
Nov
09

A Brief History of Communism

It is commonly assumed by the public that Communism (also called “Marxism”) was created by the German philosopher Karl Marx. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a young Marx joined the already existing Communist movement and, after publishing several works on the subject of Communism and Capitalism (a term he coined), he became such a central figure that the term “Marxist” became synonymous with the term “Communist”. In much the same way Adam Smith did not create Capitalism but rather created the authoritative work on Capitalism (The Wealth of Nations) and yet is still considered the “founder” of Capitalism.

So who did create Communism?

Like most things in life, there is no short and simple answer. Communism, or at least the primitive ancestor of Communism has existed for thousands of years. At the dawn of man, humans lived in tribes, working together for survival. What one man killed was food for everyone, the spear or hammer made by one person could be used by another. The concept of private-property did not evolve until much later in human history- the reason being that selfishness and individualism simply could not mesh with the harsh realities of the time. One human could not survive on his own, the tribe as a whole could not waste time and energy on creating twenty individual hammers for the twenty men of the tribe when one could be shared just as easily. At the same time, the shared property (combined with the need for everyone to pull their own weight) eliminated any chance of a class system evolving. Without any difference in wealth or workload, society was more or less egalitarian.

So what happened?

As humans became more settled and as the barter system emerged (to be discussed in a later post), shared-property died slowly out and the class system arose. While today the vast majority of hunter-gatherer, pastoral, horticulturalist, and nomadic people groups still live in classless, shared-property systems, the majority of the world’s population began moving away from this system after the establishment of permanent agricultural communities. By the fall of the Roman Empire, most of the world’s people groups practiced Capitalism in some form. It was not until 1516 when Thomas Moore, one of Henry VIII’s closest advisers, published his work Utopia that the concepts of shared-property and classlessness were reintroduced into society (albeit merely as subjects of intellectual discussion). Only in the early 1800s were the concepts developed into actual political/economic theories. Henri de Saint-Simon, a member of the French aristocracy, created several works on the subject and while never implementing them in any major way, laid the foundations for what would become known as the Communist movement. It was not until 1848 when two young Prussian authors named Marx and Engels published their collaborated work The Communist Manifesto that Communism (or “Socialism”- at the time the two words were more or less interchangeable) became a concrete theory. Between the two men’s works, the entire Communist philosophy was created, though it was not implemented until 1871, when Parisian Socialists revolted against the imperial French government and established a short-lived attempt at a Communist government until the Commune (revolutionary government) was wiped out by the French military. While Communist philosophy spread across much of the Western world, there were no major attempts at Communism (baring the establishment of Amish, and later, Hutterite, communities- which are closer to the primitive classless/shared-property practices of various tribal societies). There was a brief attempt at Fabianism (a British Socialist movement), however it quickly devolved into a philosophy, rather than a physical attempt at the implementation of Communism. It was in Russia in 1917 that the first major attempt at a Communist revolution (since the 1871 revolution) took place. The Bolsheviks (the Russian Communist party and revolutionary movement), led by Vladimir Lenin, overthrew the Russian monarchy and the feudal system. After Lenin’s death in 1923, a split ensued that left the USSR divided between the followers of Leon Trotsky (creator and commander of the Red Army and Lenin’s second-in-command) and the followers of Joseph Stalin (the General Secretary of the Communist party). Stalin, despite the efforts of Trotsky and his followers, assumed control and eventually exiled Trotsky in 1929. Under the despotism of Stalin, the USSR, while maintaining the facade of Communism, devolved into a semi-Socialist dictatorship (Trotsky referred to it as a “deformed workers’ state). While Trotskyism grew in popularity in the West, the general Communist movement was marred by the atrocities committed by Stalin and the imperialists policies pursued in Eastern Europe after his death. In China, Mao Zedong led what is generally considered to have been a Communist revolution, but the later policies of Mao have caused many other Communists to doubt whether China could be counted as true Communist country since the mid 1950s. While the revolution itself is considered to be beneficial, the vast majority of modern Communists hold that contemporary China is no more a true Marxist country than Stalin’s USSR (this opinion is viciously opposed by Maoist factions of the Communist movement). While Communism was quickly becoming popular in the third-world (due largely to Western neo-colonialism) the next major advancement of Communism occurred in Cuba after Fidel Castro and Che Guevara defeated the dictator Batista. Once again Communists are split on the subject of whether Cuba may be considered a true Marxist government- much like China, there is popular that the revolution was a positive event but the movement is split on whether Cuba did or did not devolve into another deformed workers’ state. Indeed, the same could be said for almost every country where a Communist revolution has taken place (though almost all Communists are united in believed that North Korea is not a true Communist country). While the collapse of the USSR in 1990 has led many to believe that Communism has been defeated, the Communist movement is technically as active as it ever was.

In short, the history of Communism is far from simple. Much of its history can be interpreted depending on your sympathies and opinions.

Then again, the same could be said for any aspect of history.

 

Author’s Note: Since Communism isn’t merely an economic or political or social theory but rather a combination of all three, you can see how describing the theory itself- let alone its history- is a massive undertaking that could easily fill a book. Considering my space and the attention span of the reader is sorely limited, I have been forced so skim over the major events of Communist history. Don’t be ticked off at me if I missed some (though if I have something that might be wrong, please correct me).

24
Jul
09

The Many Faces of Communism

Like Capitalism, Communism is not a single political, socio-economic system but a term used to denote any number of systems based around the abolition of private property and the establishment of a democratic, classless system. Listed below are some of the more major forms of Communism.

Classical Communism/Marxism

A common misconception about Communism is that it was created by Karl Marx. In reality, however, the concept of Communism existed before Marx’s time and it was a young Karl Marx who became Communist, rather than Karl Marx founding Communism. Nevertheless, Marx did for Communism what Adam Smith did for Capitalism. Marx, by writing the first authoritive Communist works (particularly The Communist Manifesto) will be forever credited with establishing the basic principles of Communism (also called Marxism). The fundamentals of Communism, as discussed in previous posts, is that the working class, after ages of exploitation by the upper classes, will revolt and establish a new world order in which all property is shared, the concepts of royalty and nobility are abolished and democracy is instated, and the entire class system is destroyed in place of a single, working class. While this might appear more or less straightforward, the exact details of the Communist society were never stated by Marx, and as a result, many have built off of Classical Communism and combined it with other political and economic theories.

Christian Communism

Perhaps the earliest known Communist society was the primitive Christian Church. According to early records and the Christian bible, the Christian community (though technically the word “Christian” had not yet been created) shared all property and had a government specially created to facilitate the distribution of property. As Christianity grew and became more institutionalized, Christian Communism died out and was not revived until the early 1600s, when religious separatists began colonizing America (the most famous of these groups to instate Christian Communism was the Plymouth colony). Again, as Christianity became more established in the New World and as more and more settlers arrived, Christian Communism withered away again (though some groups, such as the Amish and Hutterites, have kept it alive in certain parts of America). Aside from a brief period in the 1700s when many Catholic Missions cooperated with the local Native American population as isolated Communist societies, the actual practice of Communism has died out among most Christian sects- partly because of the spread of Capitalism and partly because of the religious persecution instated by the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea (motivated by Marx’s rather disparaging attitude towards religion). Nevertheless, many Christians have combined Christianity and Marxism, stating Marx’s anti-religious comments were the result of corruption within the church at the time. Indeed, in many parts of the world Christianity and Marxism have been combined as the basis for anti-Capitalist revolution (take the Palestinian PFLP, or the Catholic “Liberation Theology” for example).

Leninism (Bolshevism)

Leninism is the political/socio-economic plan that was in the process of being instated in post-revolutionary Russia. Pioneered by the revolutionary leader Vladimir Lenin, Leninism (sometimes called “Bolshevism” after Lenin’s party) was more or less the same as Classical Marxism with a few added modifications. Firstly, Leninism holds that in order to effectively redistribute property and manage the national workforce, a strong centralized (federal) government was required. Secondly, Leninism focused on industrialism, factory workers, and production- attempting to make industry the backbone of the Communist society (though it should be noted that some hold that the Leninist focus on factory work was a result of Russia’s involvement in WWI, not ideology).

Maoism

While most Communists hold that Mao Zedong was nothing more than a dictator and a narcissistic megalomaniac who used Communism as a Trojan horse to seize control of China, there are a number of those who believe that before Mao came to power he was a genuine believer in Communism. Using Mao’s early actions and teachings, “Maoism” has been developed as a Communist philosophy acting almost as a counter-balance to Leninism. Unlike Leninism, Maoism demands a strong provincial (state, local) government rather than a massive central power. Also, Maoism puts emphasis on peasants, farmers, and agriculture as the foundation of a Communist society (as opposed to the Leninist focus on industry).

Trotskyism

Created by Leon Trotsky after his exile from Russia by Joseph Stalin, Trotskyism is what one might call “the left wing of Communism”. Trotskyism focuses on the revolutionary aspect of Communism. While most other schools of Communism believe that the revolution must occur before the establishment of the Communist society, Trotskyism holds that a Communist society and the revolution will be happen almost simultaneously. Trotskyism is also perhaps the most anarchic form of Communism, focusing heavily on localized government and state/provincial rights (extremely similar to the Jeffersonian of the early US). Another major aspect of Trotskyite Communism is the belief in circular-revolution, the concept (originating in ancient China as the “Mandate of Heaven”) essentially states that all governments- including Communist governments- will become inevitably corrupt over time, therefore it is not the right but the obligation of the public to revolt and instate a new government each time this happens (a principal also found in The Declaration of Independence).

Luxemburgism

Established by Rosa Luxemburg, this form of Communism is perhaps the middle-ground between Leninism and Maoism. Lexemburgism focuses on the importance of ensuring Democracy, and calls for a balance between local and centralized power. Luxemburgism also calls for populism and general abolition of political parties (extremely similar to the philosophy of George Washington and- with the exception of the call for the balance between federalism and provincialism- Andrew Jackson).

Green/Eco/Environmental Communism

Perhaps the youngest form of Communism, Environmental Communism holds that Capitalism is destroying the planet’s ecosystem and devouring its resources and that Communism is the only viable solution. Eco Communism (as it is sometimes also called) focuses on low-consumption levels through shared property, controlled levels of production, and a lack of corporations blamed for damaging the plant. While most Communist contemporary Communist systems espouse some form of ecological protection, Eco Communism differs in that the protection of the environment is the primary goal, rather than establishing a Communist society based on agriculture or religious principles.

Revisionary Communism

The term “Revisionary Communism” does not refer to a specific philosophy or class of Communism but rather an aspect. While Revisionary Communism can be applied to almost any non-Classical Marxist ideology, it is most often used to describe various fringe groups who believe in amending some or all of Marx’s teachings, particularly on the subject of the Proletariat revolution or class system. While technically Communist, these groups are often motivated by the belief that Marx’s revolutionary ideology is too harsh or unnecessary for a Communist society to be implemented.

Pseudo Communism

Technically, this category refers not to Communists but to various groups, individuals, or philosophies claiming to be Communist but in reality functioning as something else. The best example of this would be the post-Leninist Soviet Union, which claimed to be Marxist but in actuality was simply a Socialist dictatorship. “Pseudo Communism” is, of course, a derogatory name most often given to Stalinist and Contemporary-Maoist groups. It is also used by some to mock Revisionary Communism.

25
Jun
09

The Evolution Will Not be Televised

According to the WordPress blog, The Bible and Society, Communism is inherently linked both to Darwinism and to Atheism (odd, considering that whether or not the theory of evolution is true, it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a higher power). And while the blog does indeed point out certain facts about Marx, Engels, and Lenin’s rather anti-religious stances (a topic to be covered later), it is there that accuracy ends.

One of the best ways to determine whether or not a publication on Communism is dependable is to see what is said about pseudo-Communists such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tsung. If the article treats them as what they were- socialist tyrants masquerading under the name of Communism- then the article is probably well researched and scholarly. On the other hand, if Stalin and Mao are labeled simply as Communists with no reference to the disparity between their regimes and true Marxism (as is so in this post), then at least one of three scenarios must be assumed: (1) the article is propaganda designed to appeal to the emotions instead of the mind, (2) the article is poorly researched or based on misinformation, or (3) the author- for whatever reason- is biased. Since the days of the Cold War and McCarthyism are long since over, it’s safe to assume that this isn’t propaganda. Since the article lists a number of sources, it is clear that research is not the issue (though were painfully few sources actually by Marx). Therefore, we must conclude that the author has a bias, though exactly why isn’t determinable.

With that in mind, let’s analyze the post.

“The Darwinian Foundation of Communism” (http://lovingword.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/the-darwinian-foundation-of-communism/) by Jerry Bergman begins with the words “Darwinism as a worldview was a critical factor, not only in influencing the development of Nazism, but also in the rise of communism and the communist holocaust…”. As has been previously discussed, the actions of the USSR, Maoist China, North Korea, and Cuba are the actions of semi-Socialist dictatorships- not Communist republics. Because of this, the “holocausts” created by these countries are not as a result of Communism in any way, shape, or form. One can no more blame the devastation created by Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” on Karl Marx than one can blame the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition on Jesus of Nazareth or the Reign of Terror on the ideals of Democracy. A simple, hard fact of life is that wherever we have values, there will be those willing to commit atrocities under the guise of those values. It’s the same with Marxism and for this reason, we must ignore the sections pertaining to Stalin, Mao, and other so-called “Communists” and focus solely on the question of whether true Communism is related to Atheism and Darwinism.

Let’s deal with Atheism firstly.

Now the author cites a number of references speaking on the subject, however, the fact that we have a number of comments referring to Marxism as atheistic does not make them so. After all, one could compile a series of publications claiming the sun to revolve around the earth and it wouldn’t change the fact that Copernicus was right, not Ptolemy. For the truth, we have to look directly at the writings of Marx, Engels, and other founding fathers of Communism.

Now please do not misunderstand- Karl Marx was an Atheist. In his view, God did not exist except as a creation of man for the purposes of placating the exploited proletariat, or working class. However, the fact that Marx was an Atheist does not make Marxism atheistic. After all, one could never argue “Mr. Grey is a Buddhist, Mr. Grey owns a company, therefore that company is Buddhist” or “Titian was a talented painter, Titian was Italian, therefore all Italians are talented painters”. It would be a logic nightmare. Now one could argue “Marx was an Atheist, all Marxists are exactly the same as Karl Marx, therefore all Marxists are Atheists.” Now this would be correct in that it doesn’t create a logical fallacy, however it isn’t actually true that all Marxists are brooding, bearded German philosophers. Now Marx, Engels, and Lenin were very anti-religious in their writing- even to the point where Marx referred to religion as the “opiate of the people”. Now this would appear to clinch Jerry Bergman’s argument, were it not for a literary criticism technique known as “Situational vs Mandatory”. According to this rule, whenever interpreting a text, one must ask the question “does this statement/rule/command/etc. apply only to the time or situation in which it was written, or is it to be considered mandatory for all time”. As ironic as it might seem, this technique is most often used in the study of religious texts, primarialy the Torah, Bible, and Koran. The question must be asked “When Marx called religion the ‘Opiate of the people’, does this imply that all religion for all time is detramental to society, or was this a mere condemnation of the state of religion at the time?”.

To answer that, we have to look that religion Marx’s time. The revivals of the past having subsided, the Christian church (Christianity being the only religion Marx would’ve been directly exposed to) would’ve been more cultural than actually religious, essentially and institution used for prestige and, in some cases, power over the masses. For example, in New York state during this time there was an industrialist who had issues with his workers addiction to alcohol. Their excessive drinking would cause them to show up late to work (if it all, on some days) and generally lowered the level of production. To solve this problem, the industrialist had his workers “converted” to Christianity (Christians generally being biased against alcohol at the time). As a result, the workers stopped drinking and became more productive. Now at first, this might seem like a great thing- after all, the industrialist helped his employees kick and addiction. And while that is true, the fact remains that the employer did not do so out of humanitarianism or moral obligation- he wanted to profit more off of his workers, using religion as a means to an end. This event was by no means isolated- during Marx’s lifetime, religion truly was an opiate to subject the masses to the will of the rulers. Considering this, it’s easy to understand why Marx- and to a lesser extent, Engels and Lenin- would condemn religion in their works. Whether or not religion still is the opiate of the people is a subject hotly debated among Communists, however it is universally agreed that Communism is not necessarily Atheistic (and the argument works backwards as well- to varying degrees, almost every religion mandates some form of Communalism, particularly in Christianity).

Reading Marx and Engels and the like, it is easy to become confused and believe (wrongly) that Communism is inherently linked to Atheism. It’s also easy to overlook this.

Not so with Darwinism.

Exactly how the author arrived at the conclusion of “Marxism and Darwinism are inherently linked” is- quite frankly- hard to grasp. Throughout the article, Bergman makes assertions that “…Darwin and Marx were truly comrades…” and that “Marx believed his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s…”.

To make these statements shows a genuine (and appalling) ignorance of Marxism. Bergman claims that “the communist core idea [is] that violent revolution, in which the strong overthrow the weak, was a natural, inevitable part of the unfolding of history from Darwinist concepts and conclusions.” The strong overthrow the weak? This is the exact opposite of Marx’s argument in The Communist Manifesto. Marx describes the proletariat as exploited victims- the bottom of the social food chain. If anything, Marx’s ideology is linked to the Christian doctrine of the “last becoming the first”. Marx does have some similarities in that he divides up history in periods (as Darwin does), however one would be hard pressed to find a worldview where history is viewed otherwise. Christianity divides time up into periods repeatedly (see the prophet Daniel’s vision of the kingdoms)- yet no one accuses Christianity and Darwinism of being linked. Granted, Marx and Darwin share a belief that the world is shaped through struggle, but again, so do most worldviews- including Christianity (the “war in heaven” and the “…struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world…”). Was the author of this passage a Darwinist? Hardly. Once again, we have a logical fallacy in the article’s argument. One could never argue that “Miss Jones admires Martin Luther King Jr., Miss Jones wrote a book, the book is based on the teachings of Martin Luther King Jr.”- the book might be about Martin Luther King Jr. or it might having nothing to do with him. There might be similarities between Miss Jone’s book and the teachings of MLK, but they might be a result of a shared source (Ghandi’s teachings on non-violent protest, for example). In short, just because there are similarities between Marx and Darwin, or just because Marx admired Darwin does not make Marx’s philosophy in any way based on Darwinism. If anything, Capitalism– not Communism- is based on the ideal of the “survival of the fittest”, rather than Marx’s ideals of cooperation and revolution of the exploited.

All in all, one can forgive misinterpretations of Marx- he’s not always the most coherent author and after all, to err is human. To repeatedly make connections where there none, to associate false-Communists with Marxist philosophy, to twist Marxism and to make it appear to be based on unrelated philosophy, and, above all, hypocritically condemn Marxism for aspects that even Christianity has- this is unacceptable, particularly from a person of Bergman’s education and standing. Bergman might disagree with Marxism- he’d be within his rights to hate it. To lie about Marxism or indeed, any worldview, is unacceptable no matter what the circumstance.