I realized recently that it was hard to
accurately name a certain type of 'communist' (an unusual situation in itself) that
I regarded as having a retrograde effect in today's political arena,
specifically in Europe. But now I think I've nailed it: Stalinist-humanists. These
communists (or 'communists', it depends) come from the history of the notion of
'actually existing communism' and its post war social imperialist past,
particularly the Soviet Union.
The idea that 'communism existed' was an
error or at least a deviation from Leninist theory, given that what actually
existed was socialism and continued class struggle (excepting with the previous
main class relations inverted). - Post WWII Stalinism tended to assert that the
class struggle was concluded for it. This state position was combined with the cult of
personality and a socialist-but-imperialist foreign policy. - Both of these
positions also deviated from Leninism. It is possible to trace the roots of
this deviation but I shall not here, suffice to say WWII had a big effect (which
is of course an understatement).
There are certain parties in Europe that
owe their existence to a past allegiance to the Soviet Union, as is natural,
and these often had or have a peculiarly fusty, conservative flavor which
seems, today, extremely anti-radical, promoting a sort of humanist gradualism
and compromise with, even fondness for, almost any fixed authority, even while
being able to propagate classic Marxist critical analysis. One traditional reaction
to this co-option with the state is to counteract this, 'within the fold' so to
speak, through Trotskyist anarchism directed from outside the traditional corridors of
bourgeois power, i.e. with an extreme 'militancy'.
The current European 'communist' movement
is split by this division between Stalinism and Trotskyism, as played out in
the political arena. It is, I suggest, a false dialectic that actually
represents a threat to Marxist theory and practice in the day-to-day struggles we
currently see in the severe global capitalist crisis. It is fairly apparent the
bourgeois media enjoys this agonistic situation.
- Not that I wish to create
some kind of 'grand unity' here, and I recognize that often the arguments
between factions are productive, and this isn't ever a pure thing, but what I
suggest this represents, basically, is the repression of the Bolshevik position
within current revolutionary communist politics and the splitting of an old Menshevik
type position into two essentially humanist tendencies: Stalinist humanism and
Trotskyist humanism.
Bolshevik versus Menshevik was an old
struggle in revolutionary Russia that most comrades will know about. I am
unable here to go into the details of the historical differences between them,
but the Menshevik position tended to represent bourgeois reformist 'Marxism' in
a more social democratic flavor, seeking to stick with the then existing
bourgeois state structures. The Bolshevik position was that of the early
revolutionary Soviet Union, one of its famous slogans was "All Power to
the Soviets" (worker councils).
In the S.U. the New Economic Policy and the
war tended to reduce the impact of Bolshevism, even though Lenin was a revered
Bolshevik figure. The embalming of Lenin's body after he died represents, I
think, a stage in the eventual victory of this humanism, and reveals a resort
to political social democracy within (a denegated) socialism in the Soviet
Union's state apparatus - to cut a long story short of course.
We all recognize, even when we are
sympathetic to the Soviet war-time experience, that the Soviet Union began at
some stage in its later social evolution to resemble the more rightist type of
authoritarian state, particularly in its superstructure and culture. It is a
matter of irony that this statism derives from the return of humanism and
social democracy, exactly what the external bourgeoisie decried as missing in
such an 'authoritarian' or 'totalitarian country', but this is, I submit, the
case. What else could it be? After all the normal bourgeois answer boils down
to the idea that there is something innately wrong with all socialists.
Stalinist humanism is a bourgeois
ideological variant of Marxism. As such it is a reversion to the Menshevik
position, which is as I have described dualistic. It does not just contain
Stalinism: the dualism derives from the way the Menshevik humanist position
acts on the current political stage. Its gradualism and Statist reformism
corresponds to the fondness for stability and authority that we see today among
the 'communist' parties that cooperate within the European bourgeois parliamentary
systems, while the sometimes sudden and forced realization that this is
obviously not producing the desired social results ('actually existing
communism') leads to, as it were, an extreme reaction that goes the opposite
way: to a rejection of all gradualism, reform, and authority, even in socialism.
We should be quite familiar with humanist
dualism as a bourgeois philosophy, it is a source of a lot of cultural angst, anguish
and stress, the constant swinging from love and peace to extreme violence and
hatred, because of its belief in and sometimes abandonment of (in disgust) the
'human spirit' and God; it goes back to Descartes at least and is tied into
religion. Indeed it is to a large extent a religious attitude and aesthetic
more than a strict ideological system and corresponds to the feelings of alienation
that are not eliminated by the socialist state merely asserting that those
problems have evaporated.
The Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser
addressed in his work the subject of Marxist humanism and critiqued the phenomenon of cult
of personality and Stalinism, but not from the standard rightist position, in
fact he demonstrated that the rightist critique was actually the same position
(theoretically) as Stalinism. It is also possible, though, as I think the above
shows, to extend this critique into the modern political arena, for example the
career of Giorgio Napolitano the Italian politician who has been the 11th President
of the Italian Republic since 2006 and who has just been re-elected (April 2013)
due to a political deadlock. He was a long-time member of the Italian Communist
Party but later the Democrats of the Left, and served as President of the
Chamber of Deputies from 1992 to 1994 and as Minister of the Interior from 1996
to 1998. The current radical intervention into parliamentary politics of Beppe
Grillo's party has upset the old established left and right political cartel
and false dialectic, but it has also discredited, thankfully, much of the
Stalinist humanist conservative communists. At least at the moment M5S is more
communist than the communists.
No comments:
Post a Comment