Dr Tristan Ewins
Just the other day I was a participant in a debate on George Orwell. One person
argued that Orwell was opposed to Left Authoritarianism, and as a consequence
would be opposed to ‘Antifa.’ (For those
who don’t know, ‘Antifa’ is a broad anti-fascist popular front, often led by
anarchists) Another person responded by
saying Orwell was really a social democrat, and spent his life fighting
fascism. Orwell is used to discredit the
Antifa cause – in a process that is, well, ‘Orwellian’.
Both people were right in their own way ; but despite the problems with
Leninism it is best not to get it entirely mixed up with Stalinism. (though
they are historically linked) Orwell himself was a socialist, and fought in
Spain against Franco. (with the POUM –
which translates as ‘Workers Party of Marxist Unification’) The
legacy of George Orwell is too important to reduce it to a critique of
‘socialist totalitarianism’. Yes, there
is an anti-Stalinist aspect to ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’. But Orwell’s opposition to ‘totalitarianism’
is deeper than this ; and capitalism is increasingly portrayed as an
‘absolute’: ‘total capitalism’.
Tactically and in principle it’s also dangerous to avoid the use of the
word ‘socialism’ by arguing for ‘social democracy’ instead. By using both terms together we get a better
sense that ‘socialism’ and ‘social democracy’ once meant the same thing. (and
perhaps could again) ‘Social Democracy’
is more complex than just ‘the post-war mixed economy, Keynesianism and welfare
state’. And the original social
democratic (socialist) tradition deserves to be rescued, despite Rosa
Luxemburg’s insistence it had become a “rotting corpse” on account of its
response to World War One.
In truth, most of global social democracy did capitulate on the issue of the War
; and this was the flashpoint which saw the rise of Leninism and its opposition
to the rest of the Left. (importantly,
Luxemburg herself was what we may call a ‘libertarian socialist’ and was
critical of Leninism’s practice of ‘democratic centralism’ following the
revolution as well) Here we have to
distinguish, also, between ‘democratic centralism’ as a mode of organisation prior
to 1917 on the one hand, and what it mutated into later under Lenin ; and worse
so under Stalin. But figures like Julius
Martov and Karl Kaustsky resonated with their criticisms of Bolshevism, also,
and in so doing left a legacy for radical social democracy. (socialism) And the Austro-Marxists and their so-called
‘Two and a Half international’ also stand as a reminder that there were
alternatives between Leninism and Right Social Democracy. For many years ‘Red Vienna’ was considered a
model of radical (socialist) social democracy. It also involved a ‘workers
army’ (Schutzbund) which was meant to be a ‘final defence’ for ‘the democratic
path’. Ironically, it succumbed to an indigenous ‘clerical
fascism’ itself because it could not decide how to fight ; or when; or where. But Austria’s levels of high quality public
housing are an enduring legacy as well.
When people criticise Leninism they often neglect that Leninism originally
still allowed for mass participation in the Vanguard Party. (ie: a party of
professional revolutionaries whose job it is to lead the revolutionary working
class ; often under conditions of capitalist state repression) There is also a tension, here, between the original
‘Vanguard’ role of these parties, and later gestures towards mass
participation. This goes to the question
of whether a ‘one party state’ can be truly democratic. The answer depends on
freedom of participation and organisation, and the absence of internal Terror. Stalin went one step further than Lenin and
imposed Terror WITHIN the Party and the whole of society. Up until after the
Revolution Leninism allowed for factions as well.
Terror is undesirable anyway, and tends to expand as centralism
increases beyond a certain point. Thus
far, Rosa Luxemburg is correct in her critique of Leninism. The problem is that
war and foreign intervention left limited choices ; and this helped lead to
tragedy.
So it depends what you mean by Leninism. There's democratic centralism
and the Vanguard Party. Following the Menshevist/Bolshevist split of 1903 (see:
'What is to be Done?' - it is the definitive text on Bolshevist organisation ;
written in 1901, published in 1902) And
then there's certain policies which followed: Terror (first outside of, then
inside of the Party as well – increasingly pervasive and indiscriminate),
labour militarisation, banning of factions and of other socialist parties, and
so on. The point is that Stalinism took all this to a different level ; and democratic centralism was originally
predicated on freedom WITHIN the party (but discipline in between Conferences ;
partly as a defence against state repression).
That said, there was a logic to Leninism, which in the context of Entente and
other foreign intervention, civil war, the threat of starvation and of people
freezing to death – helped lead eventually to Stalinism. More and more extreme measures were taken
(largely defensively) ; and led to permanent repression.
In contrast, though, I don't believe in Leninist centralism. One reason is that
in certain contexts it means the suppression of debate between Conferences. I
also believe it's inevitable factions will organise ; and forcibly suppressing
factions just favours the ruling stratum. Finally, I share Rosa Luxemburg’s
love of freedom, and recognise that while Leninism and then Stalinism resulted
in certain ‘victories’, over the long term these resulted in an object lesson
which was used to discredit the Left, and justify policies like McCarthyism. (anti-socialist
hysteria and repression)
The problem is: What was the 'way out' in Russia at the time? A purely liberal
response may have ended in White victory, a continuation of the slaughter of
World War One, and Tsarist Restoration. Also remember that the Bolsheviks were
the only Party willing to pull out of World War One pretty much
unconditionally. Maybe the solution was
‘dual power’ – with co-existence of Soviets, the Constituent Assembly and the
Red Army.
Leninism - warts and all - has problems ; but remember the context of
World War One, threatened starvation and social collapse as well. And the
liberal parties wanted to continue that war.
Even the Left Social Revolutionaries took this approach - resulting in
an assassination attempt on Lenin.
Remember that the French Revolution was bloody as well ; but the tactics
of the Jacobins didn't forever discredit democracy or liberalism. By contrast
we are constantly told that Leninism and Stalinism have forever discredited
socialism.
Better to avoid the dilemmas the Bolsheviks faced in the first place -
because it was bound to end tragically. But appreciate the moral complexity. The
Russian Revolution came on the tail end of a War that killed over 20 million
people. Some of the same people who are critical on Leninism will try and
justify the First World War. And ignore the long list of Western Cold War
atrocities. (for example, the brutal mass murder of half a million communists
and labour movement activists in 1960s Indonesia)
Importantly: liberal democracy ultimately triumphed. But only because it was
able to ‘tame’ and internalise the broad left within a practical capitalist
consensus. And eventually a virtual
neo-liberal consensus. Still: “liberal
democracy” is worth defending as opposed to the alternative of Stalinism or a
Corporatist State. (ie: fascism) Now
that it lacks opponents on the Left, we see liberal democracy attracting
critics on the Right. (so much for ‘The End of History – a term
coined by the liberal Hegelian, Francis Fukuyama after the collapse of the
Soviet Union) Here it is well to defend Liberal Democracy . At least it retains
freedoms which make liberation imaginable ; and even its limited freedoms are
preferable to the Rightist alternative)
Libertarianism of both the Right and the Left when authentically
expressed are not as bad as fascism. A
true libertarian would defend the rights of unions and their workers to
withdraw labour. And would treat free speech as a universal. A fascist would work through a corporatist
nationalist state that suppressed opposition violently, and promoted a
literally illiberal Ideology. By
‘corporatism’ we mean the forcible union of capital and labour under
authoritarian state nationalism. (though certain variations on ‘corporatism’ –
eg: Sweden – saw rather an institutionalisation of class struggle and the
mobilisation of ‘Power Resources’) A
true Left libertarian would be sympathetic to the cause of ‘Antifa.’ A right-libertarian would accept their right
to participate and exist. Personally, I consider myself a socialist liberal.
That said, all organisations can be penetrated by agent provocateurs. And ‘ultra-leftism’ is often mistaken.
Remember, also, Marx said of the bourgeoisie that it would 'snort' at
its republic "Better end with Terror than Terror without End". (written
in 1852, largely in response to the context of the 1848 Revolutions) Trump understands this and seeks a predicate
for repression based on 'law and order'. Agent provocateurs understand this
also and act accordingly. (‘End with
Terror’ itself can also lead to ‘Terror without End’ under Fascism ; and Hitler
came close to winning the Second World War at several points)
The Left needs to respond strategically.
We should not disavow militancy generally ; and practically disarm
ourselves. But neither should we support
every act of militancy when this will result in our isolation. There is a dilemma. Rosa Luxemburg talked of “spontaneity of the
masses” : a ‘dialectic’ between revolutionary working class self-initiative and
the leadership of a revolutionary party.
In a way she is right. On the
other hand, unrestrained rebellion can work as a pretext for State Terror.
Think of the rise of Mussolini and fascism in the 1920s in Italy following a
period of revolutionary upsurge.
Also, under Stalinism Western Communist Parties were often restrained to
further Soviet Foreign policy. Dulling
the class struggle. But sometimes there
is wisdom in restraint.
There is also wisdom in taking the initiative at the right time ; including
militant strategies. The Left needs to
be nuanced enough to know the difference.
This
article was originally published at ‘The Australian Independent Media Network’
