Posts Tagged ‘Trotsky

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
13
Jan
12

Arguments for Communism

A while ago, I wrote a post listing brief counterarguments to the claims usually used to “disprove” Communism. To this day, it’s been one of the most read pieces I’ve written, so I thought it might be time to expand it a bit. Written below are the most common arguments people use against Communism, and my responses to them.

 

Communism Has Been “Tried and Failed”:

The problem with this commonly used argument is that more or less everything has been tried and failed. Take democracy for example. Can I argue that democracy is a futile endeavor because it failed not once but multiple times it was tried?

"I propose we write really depressing plays!"

If I recall, democracy didn’t work for the Athenians.

"I propose we totally rip off of the Greeks!"

And the republic didn’t exactly wind up being a lasting facet of Roman society.

Even in America, democratic government needed to be reworked- but despite the many failed attempts at democracy, the idea that anyone today would want anything other than a democracy is laughable. Let’s keep this in perspective before claiming that Communism was tried once and should now be abandoned for all time.

 

Communism is “Great on Paper”:

I’m particularly irked by this argument because most everything is “great on paper”! Now there’s no real response to the whole “Communism is great on paper but doesn’t work in application” because of how broad it is. Really, it’s more of a prefix to an argument (such as the ones below), and any response is going to have to be more specific. Still, if you really do need an immediate response, simply point out that egalitarian, classless societies that shared work and held common property have existed since the beginning of time.

Remember us?

Communism Conflicts with Human Nature:

I’ve found this line of reasoning especially prevalent among religious groups, and while you could debate whether or not humans are basically good or bad till the end of time, there is an argument you can use in defense of Communism even if humans are inherently evil (which, for the record, I myself believe).

 

Now the argument tends to go “If humans were also basically good, Communism would work. But humans are basically bad- that’s why Capitalism works. Capitalism takes humanity’s evil nature into account.”

 

See, this argument is just ridiculous- first, if humans were basically good, we wouldn’t even be having to bring up Communism to begin with. Second, Capitalism doesn’t so much “take humanity’s evil nature into account” at it does reward it. Greed, deception, selfishness, reckless individualism, decadence, and the like- these are all things that Capitalism not only makes excuses for, but encourages! If we’re going to base our economics on the concept that greed is acceptable, should we then base our legal system on the concept that perjury, harassment, and murder are acceptable?

There's actually a big market for furniture made from human skin...

Just because humans are naturally bad doesn’t mean we should base our entire society around the hopes that they’ll act badly.

 

Communism Is Against Religion:

Let’s face facts- Marx was an atheist, as were many prominent Communists. However, to assume that Communism and religion are opposed would be wrong- indeed, if you take a look at what Marx wrote about religion, you’ll find his issues weren’t so much with faith, as the use of religion by the powerful for control, and the use of religion by the powerless as an excuse for not taking action. In reality, even Communists who would describe themselves as “anti-theist” almost universally hold to the belief that what you believe (or don’t believe) is your own business. On the other end of the spectrum, you will in fact find Christian Communism, liberation theology, and social justice movements arguing that it is not Communism but Capitalism that is antithetical to the basic principals of religion.

Totally what Jesus had in mind...

Communism is Against Democracy:

My response to this accusation is two pronged- first, we need to point out that not all Communist leaders seized power, most prominent among Marxists democratically elected to power was Chilean president Salvador Allende, who lost his life in a CIA-backed military coup. Second, while there were dictators who claimed to be Communist, these men were Marxists in about the same way that the propagators of the Spanish Inquisition were Christian. Take a look at the writings of Marx or Engels or Luxembourg and you’ll see the demands for power to be put in the hands of the people, not the party chairman or head of the military. Communism believes in democracy- it is with Capitalism that democracy doesn’t mesh so well. Democracy is meant to be a system in which all have equal power. However, in a system where money is power, any inequality in wealth is going to mean an inequality in influence over government. The wealthy man can hire lobbyists, give campaign contributions, fund advertising, hire people to smear his opponents, and so on (and let’s not forget the straight-up bribe). Is that equality? Let’s take a look at what democracy looks like in the US.

Not exactly faith-inspiring is it?

Planned Economies Aren’t Efficient:

It’s not a common argument, but every once in a while you’ll run into someone with a penchant for economics who’ll take this line of argument. They state “Hey, there’s no way a planned economy will work unless you’re always over producing ______ or trying to catch up to the demand for ______. It’s inefficient.”

 

Now you can probably argue exactly how a planned economy could work- and that’s a debate for another time. The easiest response to this argument is to point out that Capitalism isn’t exactly efficient either. When someone can take natural resources, use them to create a product, and finding that the market for novelty sumo tables doesn’t actually exist, be stuck with a warehouse full of the stuff, you can’t exactly assert Capitalism doesn’t have just as much potential to be wasteful.

All this and more garbage available from SkyMall!

Society Won’t Function Without the Free Market:

Another argument sometimes used by the economically minded is that the only way for society to function is through the natural process of supply and demand. Now my response to this is to use my own conditions- unless you attend a college set in an extremely rural area, I’m geussing you won’t be able to use the exact same points, but hopefully you’ll be able to use the basic logic behind them.

 

Now as I said, I attend a college surrounded by miles of forest and not much else. There is a massive demand for theaters, restaurants, shops, grocery markets, and other diversions, yet nothing happens. See, what the acolytes of the infallible system of supply and demand don’t realize is that supply and demand is like fate- it only works in retrospect. Yes, demand is met (or else, it moves elsewhere), but how long and how much do you have to demand for a product or service before it shows up? There’s no standard, no pattern, no system. Things were either meant to be or not meant to be- all in all, the whole “supply and demand will answer everything” stance taken by some really can’t be held.

Communism is Against My “Right” to Private Property:

You ever see ads for buying a star, or property on the moon? You laugh at it- maybe you’ll think it’s a nice sentiment- but at the end of the day you don’t take it seriously. After all, the moon and stars can’t be bought because they’re not anyone’s to sell. It all makes about as much sense as buying a cubic foot of air from a man named Steve. Steve can’t actually give you a cubic foot of air, can’t prevent you from moving through said cubic foot of air, and has no way of owning a cubic foot of air to begin with.

Yet we view land (and private property, made from resources from land) as a sacred right. Why? Land is just land- land didn’t belong to anyone until some neanderthal took up a club and declared that all dirt between points A, B, C, and D were his and his alone. Yet today if I were to attempt to do the same thing and claim that all within an invisible border belongs to me and no one else, I would be called a thief. That’s the origin of this so-called “right”, someone in the distant past just took it, and because of this, you can “buy” a plot of land, never use it for anything, and yet have every right to keep anyone from living there. That’s just not rational- the world belongs to everyone, and you can only “own” property in as much as you can be the one currently using it.

Communism Is Against Prosperity:

Come one- you don’t have to be a Communist to recognize that we can’t live in decadence and luxury. Communism isn’t against prosperity, but it is against mindless excess. Private jets, whaleskin leather seats for you SUV (look it up), imported caviar with every meal- there’s no way that we can live like this- the planet is having a hard enough time keeping up with current rates of consumption as it is. Further, let’s not imagine for a moment that fast cars and big houses are what make a life worth living. Freedom, dignity, peace, equality- I’d take that over a gold plated BMW any day.

If You’re a Communist, Why Aren’t You Poor?

The inbred cousin of the question of “Why can’t I be stinking rich?” is the question “Why aren’t you desperately poor?”.  Now I’ve touched on this question before, but it comes up a bit and I’ll try to address it here as well. We might not believe in decadence, but we don’t want people to be poor either- that’s not what Communism is about. Equality in wealth will mean the end of millionaires and billionaires, but for countless people across the planet, the standard of living will dramatically increase. We aren’t poor because we’re not supposed to be poor- no one is!

We’re not big fans of either extreme…

Big Government Doesn’t Work:

We couldn’t agree more. Communists don’t believe in big government, we believe in collectives,  communes, and communities working on a local level to address problems and issues unique to them. If they choose to band together for whatever reason, they may of course do so, but at the end of the day, we do not believe in the state. Even Lenin, a Communist who was about as “big government” as Marxists get, called for the abolition of the state. Communism is about power to the people, not the politician.

Communism  Has Killed Millions:

Here’s the big one.

Now if you’ll take a look at the texts of Communism, nowhere will you find anyone say “By the way, you should totally purge entire sections of your population”, yet nevertheless, it cannot be denied that millions are dead at the hands of “Communists”.

That’s “Communists” in quotation marks- you see, mass murder reflects on the ideals of Communism in about the same way that (as I’ve said above) the Spanish Inquisition reflects the ideals of Christianity. Let’s face it, people will use any justification for their actions. The men who killed in the name of Communism only used Communism as a facade for their own agendas. After all…

The Tuskegee Spyhilis experiments did nothing to treat African American farmers the researchers knew were infected, and did so  in the name of science, but exactly how is (secretly) giving someone a disease reflective of the goals of science?

And the reign of terror- was this the product of enlightenment and reason?

And is this democracy?

People kill people- that’s the sad truth. Communism has nothing to do with it.

19
Dec
10

Films For Communists

In a world where the bearded-Russian “Communist” stereotype is the antagonist in every film made before 1990, I thought it might be time to list a few films where Marxists are (for once) portrayed in good light. Below is a list of mainstream films that deserve to be seen by any Communist:

 

Shadowlands (1993): Despite having only a fleeting reference to Communism near the beginning of the film, it’s refreshing to see a Marxist portrayed with being in the process of torturing some American soldiers or preparing to launch nuclear warheads.

The Edukators/ Die Fetten Jahre Sind Vorbei: While I don’t recall Communism ever being directly addressed in this German film, the movie deals with the various issues and struggles of fighting Capitalism in this era. The film opens with the main characters handing out tracts on sweatshop labor, and follows them as they escalate their responses to social injustice (breaking up the “action” sequences with lively discussions on activism and sequences depicting some of the ills they’re trying to fight against). Again, while Marxism is never directly discussed, it is evident that this is a far-left film.

Pan’s Labyrinth (2006): While I don’t believe there are any explicit uses of the terms “Communist” or “Marxist”, the film takes place during the last years of the Spanish Civil War, in a remote part of the country where a Fascist captain is attempting to destroy the “Red” resistance hiding in the nearby mountains. The film is a fairy-tale and never becomes especially political, however the Communist rebels are shown in a very sympathetic light.

Battle in Seattle (2007): Though the film doesn’t deal with Marxism, it does (excellently) show different perspectives on social activism, from a black bloc Anarchist (embracing violence as a means of protest) to a group of non-violent protesters, to a riot policeman, to a simple bystander, to a news crew, to the mayor of Seattle. If nothing else, it’s a discussion starter not merely for Communists, but for anyone.

Defiance (2008): Set during the holocaust, this film follows the story of the Bielski brothers and their followers, a group of Belorussian Jews who formed a resistance to the Nazi occupation of their country. Throughout the film, the Bielski partisans interact with the Soviet resistance, and while the Soviets are portrayed as being generally arrogant and unhelpful, the film does show them (1) fighting the Nazis (a part of Communist history too often forgotten) and (2) makes reference the official Communist policy of ending antisemitism. In addition to this, it is suggested that one of the members of the Bielski group is an active Socialist, and the partisans adopt a communal form of a living.

Quantum of Solace (2008): Now you’d probably think the last place you’d find Communist-sympathies would be in a James Bond film- after all, the man spent a good 80% of his career foiling Soviet plots (the other 20% being unbelievably picky about his drinks- seriously, how will he even know if it’s been shaken or stirred?). Despite this, Quantum of Solace actually is about as left-wing as Bond’s ever been, as the film deals with politics used by the West to dominate third-world countries. In Haiti, there’s a brief discussion between the two villains about how raising the minimum wage angered foreign corporations, and the Quantum’s plot (the “quantum” being the cabal of tuxedoed bad-guys) is to control the majority of drinking water in Bolivia (a clear reference to the attempt to privatize drinking water in Bolivia back in 1999).

The Baader-Meinhof Complex (2008): I’m a bit at a loss to describe this two-and-a-half hour film detailing the roots, rise, and fall of the RAF (Red Army Faction). While certainly sympathetic to the causes of the characters in the films, the story does not shy away from showing the faults of the RAF- honesty that I believe only serves to strengthen the film’s credibility, even with the left-wing slant. While the previous film’s I’ve mentioned have tended to shy away from explicitly dealing with Marxism, this is made up for (and then some) by The Baader-Meinhof Complex, which constantly brings up the issues of politics, economics, revolution, and culture. While it’s an exhausting film to watch (again, nearly three-hours packed with conflict, history, and so on.), it’s well worth seeing.

Che (2008): In all honesty I was slightly disappointed by Che. For being nearly five-hours long (divided into two episodes), the film really didn’t say much about the justification for the actions of perhaps the most iconic Communist of all time. While the film did artfully chronicle Che’s role in the Cuban Revolution, and his expedition to Bolivia, the film leaves out Che’s actions in Cuba after the revolution (baring a sequence of Che’s trip to the United Nations) and his time in Africa. While the film definitely is sympathetic to Guevara, the film really only deals with Guevara- and not the ideals he fought for. It almost feels like I watched the beginning and the end of a documentary on the man. Even so, it’s still a decent film.

The Trotsky (2009): While the film technically doesn’t deal with Communism, considering the main character believes himself to be the reincarnation of Leon Trotsky, themes of revolution, unionization, and rebellion are hard to get away from. Again, while the film centers on the issue of youth rebellion (apathy vs boredom), the movie is inundated in Marxist slogans, philosophy, and art. Leon Bronstein (the protagonist), constantly quotes Trotsky and other prominent Marxists. Throughout the film, pictures of Che Guevara, Einstein (yes, he was a Socialist), Lenin, and other revolutionaries can be seen on posters and paintings and t-shirts. Now while I am tempted to go on, I’ll save this film for a more in-depth review later- suffice it say for now that The Trotsky is a great movie for Marxists.

 

Please note that this list is by no means complete- any suggestions are welcomed and I hope to have full reviews of these films out soon.

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).

04
Aug
09

You Say You Want a Revolution…

The word “revolution” can bring a number of images to mind- everything from riot police, gas masks, Molotov cocktails, and screaming protestors to “revolutionary” advances in technology, medicine, and political theory. The word “revolution” is also one of the most commonly used terms in Communist literature- so what exactly does revolution mean in this context?

According to Marx, the “revolution” is one of the final stages of historical materialism. Historical materialism (described more fully in a previous post), is essentially the theory that human history has been primarily affected by resource distribution, politico-economics, and class struggle. Marx predicted that as time progressed, revolutions would take place that would wipe-out Capitalism and end historical materialism (in that history would no longer be controlled by politico-economic factors). The “revolution” is, Marx states, the penultimate step in the establishment of a Communist society.

So what could be drastic enough to lead to a complete overhaul of society as we know it? The answer is simple: society.

Some groups might attempt various band-aid techniques to treat the issues of class warfare, the ever-widening social divide, and poverty related crime. In reality, however, the techniques these groups use are incompatible with the fundamentals of Capitalism. How can poverty be combated with minimum wage legislation when Capitalism denies government interference? How can people be protected from exploitation when Capitalism uses the working man as a mere means of production, paying him the lowest possible wage to generate the highest possible profit? We can treat Capitalism’s ills, but we can’t cure them without killing Capitalism. Imagine a pot of boiling water with the lid clamped down on top of it, trapping the steam inside. We can treat the steam build-up by making pin-holes in the sides of the pot, but these merely delay the inevitable explosion.

That’s the basic principle behind the Communist revolutionary concept. Capitalism’s ills, while capable of being delayed, are ultimately unstoppable. The rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer until, like a rubber-band stretched beyond its elasticity, something snaps. The poor, no matter how impoverished, starving, and powerless, outnumber the wealthy a thousand to one. Even if the wealthy class controls the army, the government, and the economy, there is nothing that can stop the angry, starving masses from rising up (as Marx said, “they have nothing to lose but their chains!”). Even if the wealthy somehow managed to put down the uprising, they would have had to kill off a massive percentage of the working class, crippling the economy which would result in the collapse of society. Either way, the proletariat win. In short, Capitalism, no matter what you do to it, will collapse in on itself.

So what happens during the revolution? Property, which the public has been robbed of for years, will be redistributed equally among the people. With this redistribution of property, there will no longer be any wealthy or poor , and with the end of the wealth/poverty system, the class system can no longer exist. Instead, there will come to exist a new form of proletariat, where the working class exists (for no country can exist without a working class) but exploitation is no longer an issue (since profit is no longer the end goal, there is no reason to take advantage of one’s fellow man). With the end of a society where the majority of power rests with the wealthy, true democracy can finally exist: in short, Communism is established.

So what is this Communist revolution? The Communist revolution is a massive, unstoppable uprising of the working man who- having nothing to lose- overthrow the established class system, the established Capitalist economic system, and the very concept of private property.

Now one must keep in mind that this outline is merely the basic frame for the Communist revolution. Like almost every concept of Communism, there are variations in the beliefs of how the revolution will (or at least, should) happen. Take the theory of “democratic revolution”, for example.

The basic concept of Democratic Revolution, is that the revolution will not be (physically) violent but merely “violent” in that it will bring about an abrupt and gargantuan change in society. Democratic revolutionists believe that the poor will, once pushed to the very limit, will elect representation and political leaders that will act according to the will of the (extremely poor, exploited, and enraged) public. With the government controlled by the disenfranchised proletariat majority, the wealthy and bourgeoisie minorities will have no choice other than to comply with the changes in the economic/social/political system or leave the country. While this concept is popular, it is often criticized for not taking into account that a Fascist or non-democratic political system will have been implemented, or that the wealthy will have control of the police and/or armed forces.

The concept of the Permanent Revolution (sometimes called the Trotskyist Revolution) takes a less optimistic “come-hell-or-high-water” philosophy that holds that the proletariat will rise up against the infrastructure (many Trotskyists believe that for the proletariat to be forced into revolting, democracy will have probably been replaced by Fascism or some form of pseudo-democracy). While the Permanent Revolution does not technically call for violence, it is widely accepted that violence will probably occur.

Indeed, while the concept of Democratic Revolution hold a strict “no-violence” philosophy, and Trotskyism holds a “whatever needed” philosophy, the only Communist revolutionary theory to explicitly call for violence is the concept of the Maoist Revolution. Holding the belief that the wealthy will never give up their power and control willingly, Maoism calls for violent attacks upon the Capitalist infrastructure. The actions of the Colombian Maoist Revolutionary group FARC (or the Peruvian “Shining Path”) serve as a prime example. FARC conducts various attacks on the Peruvian political infrastructure, carrying out attacks on government buildings, Peruvian police and military, and the Peruvian railway system. While sometimes commended for being the most expedient theory, Maoist Revolutionary theory is often criticized for the collateral damage it causes as well as the controversy it creates concerning what is and is not an acceptable target.

Lastly, there is the concept of Circular Revolution. Circular Revolution is a concept based on an ancient Chinese political philosophy which states that when a government has become corrupt, it is both the right and the obligation to revolt and instate a new government. Sometimes called the “post-revolution revolution”, advocates of the Circular Revolution believe that after the Communist government has been established, corrupt will eventually infiltrate the system, requiring a new (though still-Communist) revolution.

Despite these differences, Communists are united on the belief that no matter what the revolution looks like, no matter what theory is utilized, the revolution will happen. You might want a revolution, you might not- either way, the revolution is brewing. The only question we are left with is how long it is before the dam bursts, and which side you’ll be on when it happens.

29
Jul
09

It’s Not Easy Being Red

It’s not easy being Red.

Sure we claim the moral high ground, believe in the inevitable nature of the Communist revolution, and get the exclusive privilege of railing against the established order. But all of that doesn’t change the fact that being a Communist is hard. I’d liken it to being an Old Testament prophet, preaching to the masses about the inevitable judgment of God, the need to end the oppression of the idols and turn to righteousness. But the prophets were rejected, labeled as possessed, delusional, and insane. Nothing but crazed voices in the desert. Being a prophet was to be rejected, maligned, and even hunted like animals.

Being a Communist isn’t much different. We have a message or revolution, justice, and freedom we try to give the masses. We try to help the people, but instead of being hailed as liberators we’re stoned as heretics and blasphemers. Nine times out of ten when I tell someone that I’m a Communist I’m met with such hostility, shock, and disgust that you’d think I’d have claimed to support the punching of infants. Perhaps it’s understandable on some level. Many before us claiming to be Communists were nothing but charlatans and frauds, using Marxism for their own ends. Much of the Communist message seems dark, almost apocalyptic. The plutocrats and Fascists have filled society with propaganda, depicting Communism as enslaving and authoritarian. Perhaps people can’t be blamed for being scared. Perhaps they can- after all, fear isn’t a poison that can be injected- people become afraid by letting themselves be scared. Ernesto “Che” Guevara, as a child, once drove off a group of street-urchins harassing a homeless, disabled man. Instead of being thanked by the man, Che was spat on.

It’s not easy having to deal with that every day. When the public fears you, when the masses hate you, when society has no respect for you and the whole world thinks you’re insane- it all tends to wear on one. Like the old prophets, it’s easy to want to give up- to flip off the public and wander up into the hills, patiently waiting for the human race to hunt itself to extinction. They don’t want help, they don’t get help. Let the Capitalists enslave the world, let the profiteer suck the earth’s resources dry. When it’s all over and the only thing left are the dogs wandering the dusty, empty streets we can wander back down an say “We told you so…”.

But as much as we’d like that, as easy as it would be, we must always remember we aren’t doing it for them. Whatever prompted us to become Communist, we remain Communists- in spite of all the stigmatism, crucifixion, and incredulity- for a single reason. We do not do all that we do out of a love of humanity, we do all that we do because it is right.

Yes, comrades, it’s not easy being red. I don’t like feeling like a leper or a lunatic anymore than the next man. I don’t enjoy the prejudice, the taunts, and the condescending smiles. Nevertheless, I remain a Communist and will always remain a Communist. The old prophets were mocked- they went on roaring from the deserts. I’m sure Jesus had his bad days, it never stopped him. Trotsky and Che, even up to the days they were murdered, fought always for a better, more just world. I have non of their eloquence, Comrades, so the best I can do is to echo their words below.

“As long as I breathe I hope. As long as I breathe I shall fight for the future, that radiant future, in which man, strong and beautiful, will become master of the drifting stream of his history and will direct it towards the boundless horizons of beauty, joy and happiness!”

– Leon Trotsky, 1901

It’s not easy being red…

…but it is right.