Above: What follows is some personal commentary provoked by a post at the Herald-Sun from Andrew Bolt - effectively arguing there is no place for Marxism in academia and education more generally... From that exchange there also emerged arguments about social democracy and the Great War, the fall of Communism and more...
Tristan Ewins
Setting the score straight on Marxist
history….
For Andrew: You're entitled to your opinion as a Conservative to oppose
Marxism, or Leftism in general - but get your facts straight. In the 19th
Century Social Democratic - that is Marxist - parties were at the very
forefront of the struggle for free, universal and equal suffrage in Europe.
What is more, when the Marxist Left split during the 1914-1919 period Social
Democratic Marxists opposed the Great War bloodbath; but also opposed the new
'Communism' as espoused by the Bolsheviks in Russia. Specifically, they
resolutely opposed over-centralisation, one party dictatorship, militarisation
of labour, the suppression of civil liberties, and the dissolution of the
Russian constituent assembly. That said, the Bolsheviks do deserve recognition
that they governed under extreme circumstances of war, social break-down and
starvation. But the Marxist Social Democrats understood the damage that would
be done to the Social Democratic cause by desperate and authoritarian
strategies that broke the traditional nexus between socialism, democracy and
freedom. For the sake of truth we need to recognise that things are not so
'black and white' as Andrew Bolt would have us believe.
AND IN RESPONSE to criticisms from right-wingers at the
Herald-Sun website: Make sure you know what you're talking about when you
equate Marxism with 'totalitarianism' or argue that 'socialism has been tried
and it failed'. Look at Marxists such as Julius Martov and Karl Kautsky, and
further to the Left consider the position of Rosa Luxemburg. Look to the Austro-Marxists and their fight
for democracy both before and after WWI. Do your research and see how these
Marxists responded to Bolshevism - and later on Stalinism. You can't claim any
authority unless you do your research and know about the specific circumstances
I'm talking about.
Why Marxism is still worth teaching…
Marxism is still worth teaching for a number reasons. Firstly there is
the historical relevance - including the role of Leninist parties, and the
possibility that social and economic breakdown could see a return of Leninist organisation
and ideology. But there is also the importance of observing the truth about the
plurality of Marxist tendencies and movements - many of which were (and in some
cases still are) deeply democratic. Crucially, though, there are Marxist
insights that remain pertinent. Insights into alienation and the division of
labour; insights into the nature of exploitation and the tendency in capitalism
towards monopoly; and consequently the importance of movements for economic
democracy, full personal development and cultural participation; and movements
for negotiated mutual disarmament and peace. There are still many reasons to
teach Marxism today; though in the context of a pluralist curriculum which pays
equal attention to liberalism and other critical traditions.
In response to a fellow Leftist: Was Social Democracy completely and
thoroughly compromised by the First World War?
…You're right that to begin with most of the Social Democratic
parties did not stand up against the war; For some it was originally a matter
of ignorance - ignorance of the sources of the war, and a willingness to fight
a 'defensive' conflict.... But when the Social Democrats attempted to vote for
resolutions supporting only a defensive war - and with no annexations or
reparations etc - in Germany at least the Imperial State came down on them like
a ton of bricks. Notably some such as
Kautsky were also probably afraid of the Party disintegrating - and early on
weren't willing to risk this in order to offer token resistance... (though
later on KK came out for peace at Zimmerwald..... He was expelled form the SPD
-with others)
By 1915 there was a movement comprised of Social Democrats and others -
including Lenin - who were fighting to end the war... The Centrists for a
separate peace with no annexations etc - and Lenin - to turn the Great War into
a Europe-wide revolutionary civil war... Ultimately, when the Social Democratic
Marxist 'Centrists' came out openly against the war in Germany they were
expelled both from the parliamentary party - and from the broader SPD (Social
Democrats - and now under a hard right-wing leadership) That's how the USPD
(Independent Social Democratic Party) came about.....
So again pls note that the movement against the war in 1915 was small -
but relatively broad based if that makes sense....
Also in the Australian instance - yes the ALP backed the war from the
outset; But there was a redeeming aspect at least - The anti-conscription
struggle which saw the ALP split and cast Billy Hughes out of the Party. (hence
the origins of the Nationalist - and later 'United Australia Party') Also
interestingly - later on NSW Labor Premier Jack Lang in NSW was to try and
suspend the repayment of war loans to Britain... (one reason for the
destruction of his government)
Anyway - my point is that during the war there was a Marxist social
democratic left opposition to the war, as well as a Marxist social democratic
Centre that came out against the war... But the Social Democratic Right (Ebert,
Nokse, Scheidemann) who backed the war to the hilt and had the support of the German
state - were dominant precisely because of that....
It's also crucial to note that the Marxist critique of purely trade
union consciousness 'hit home'.... The German trade unions had been co-opted by
German Imperialism - partly because of nationalism - and also because of the
promise of 'legitimacy' and support for welfare and industrial reform....
Precisely because of this the cause was hopeless in 1914 no matter what....
Pro-war hysteria was also notably strong in France - where Jean Jaures
was assassinated for opposing the war.... Jaures was on the relative 'right' in
the sense of supporting broad coalitions, participation in unity governments
etc... But he paid with his life for the sake of peace.... Again: the trade
unions didn't back peace in France either.... And without trade union support
there COULD BE NO "GENERAL STRIKE'.... The only resistance possible for
most of the war was token resistance... Only later on - with social, military
and economic disintegration - did revolution become a real prospect....
Point of all this being it wasn't only Lenin who fought to stop the
Imperialist blood-bath.... There's a very interesting history for anyone
willing to do a bit of research....
I also wrote this – in response to triumphalist
claims about the fall of Communism in 1989-1991 – And what might have been a
better chain of events
Arguing about the collapse of the USSR and why it wasn't necessarily the
best thing... ...Though importantly Perestroika and Glasnost under Gorbachev
held the prospect of 'reforming Communism' - with a larger role for markets,
civil liberties, pluralism, détente and ultimately disarmament and peace...
AFTER the collapse of Gorbachev's efforts things arguably got WORSE - not
better... A handful of 'Oligarchs' took over the economy - the means of
production which had been built up by Russian and other workers over a period
of over 70 years.... Dissidents are still mysteriously murdered; others are
jailed or driven into exile; the destruction of socialist ideology in Russia
has seen return of Chauvinism and reactionary politics... The world would have
been much better off with a 'gradual interpenetration' of East and West (ending
with an extended European Union merging with the Eastern and Southern areas of
the USSR - with Glasnost and Perestroika ensuring peace and liberty - but also
equality.... Look to the war in Syria - with the West backing extreme Islamic
militias - and Russia supporting the authoritarian and repressive Syrian Govt -
and hence also Iran... A return to old style 'Great Power Politics' - 'The
Global Chessboard' - God only knows where THAT will end...
And
finally a response to a post at the Herald-Sun site that suggested democracy is
a ‘corrupting influence’ (my words) because of ‘special interests’…
What alternative is there to democracy? What alternative to people
being free to make their own mistakes - and hence learn from them?
The point is also that in a real democracy the people never 'cede
power to government'. A robust democracy involves a strong and participatory
public sphere; a mobilised civil society. Everything from political parties and
trade unions to social movements. And yet the Herald-Sun regularly
editorialises in favour of a 'heavy hand' against social movements. A nation
which cannot tolerate at least low intensity civil disobedience is on the way
to forsaking liberal democracy.
You can also look at 'special interests' in different ways. People
readily dismiss unions as 'special interests'. But look to the double standard
where industrial liberties are ceded - but 'freedom' is reduced to 'free
markets'... (what can be more fundamental than the right not to work if that is
what one chooses ?)
Liberal rights are critical... I support Andrew Bolt's liberal
rights funnily enough. But those liberal rights are hollowed out when in
practice they come to apply overwhelmingly to the rights of 'the
establishment.' And where educators who want to impart a critical disposition
above all - are portrayed as 'trouble-makers' - or dismissed as Marxists. And
because of pre-existing prejudices the voices of the establishment feel they
don't have to include those voices except at the outer periphery.
Marxist perspectives should be included in civil society and in
curricula - alongside liberal, conservative and Green perspectives. Even
fascism should be wrestled with - if for no other reason that people understand
what it is and how it came about in the past. Pluralism is the creed of any
healthy democracy. Teaching people not only to understand their interests - but
to wrestle with their beliefs and values - is also necessary for a healthy democracy.
But it is this - the potentially empowering consequences of such a policy -
that the big 'C' Conservatives and authoritarian Right fear.....
nb: they also resent the ABC - because even the accommodation of
moderate left perspectives potentially leads to a greater plurality of
competing viewpoints - which is something the authoritarian Right fears....
