Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Socialist Realism

Art, it is said, is not a mirror, but a hammer: it does not reflect, it shapes. -- Leon Trotsky, Literature and Revolution

Socialist Realism

During the 1934 First Congress of Soviet Writers, Socialist Realism became the official policy of the organization.  Loosely defined, it was a style of continuing Russian realism imbued with optimism for the revolution and a focus on the nobility of the workers.

Socialist Realism soon became the policy for all Soviet art.  As the means of producing and publishing art had been taken into state control, this style soon became essential for success in Soviet Russia.  The style extended from painting to fiction to cinema and everything in between.

This policy ended Revolutionary Russia as a center for artistic experiment and has been criticized by many as a repressive policy, but these criticisms have also overshadowed serious appreciation for the beauty of some of these works.

Isaac Brodsky. Lenin in Smolny (1930)

Spectrum of the Left

I've been working on a project recently (more details will come when/if it really develops into something), and one of the little obsessions I got caught in was making a goofy little chart to keep the main leftist tendencies clear and to help newcomers quickly find where they might want to first explore.  All the little decisions really sucked me in, so I thought I should share.  Let me know what you think!

Click here to view the chart.

Friday, November 7, 2014

The Art of the Slogan: Socialism or Barbarism

Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to Socialism or regression into Barbarism. -- Rosa Luxemburg, The Junius Pamphlet (The Crisis of German Social Democracy)
Socialism or Barbarism, There Is No Third Way!

This slogan, as many great radical left slogans, comes from the turmoil of the early 20th Century (1915 is the first time we see a form of it in print which is quoted at the top of this post).  With the rise of large proletarian populations in capitalist nations across Europe came the rise of revolutionary parties and the art of leftist sloganeering with them.

This slogan has proven legs, and at it has, at its heart, a very important meaning.
Ecosocialism or barbarism:  There is no third way! -- Slogan of Climate & Capitalism
 Why It Is Easy to Misunderstand

So isn't this just propaganda equating capitalists with barbarians and calling socialism the only viable alternative?

Not quite, although many radical leftists probably could sign on to such perspectives, but it means something much more interesting

Capitalism was still relatively young at this time, and already it had several recessions.  Even capitalists had a hard time seeing how capitalism could last forever, and Karl Marx had laid down what still holds as the greatest criticism of a social system by defining contradictions within the capitalist idea which would inevitably lead to its end.

10,000 strong Communist rally in Union Square, New York, 08/01/1935

While social democratic reforms helped save capitalism for a time, it is still clear that no economic situation will last forever.  The question, then, is what comes next?

The radical left made it very clear:  capitalism will collapse for good one day, but what could replace it if not socialism?  Barbarism.  Primitive accumulation (think slavery, seizure, etc.) by the strong, fascism, relapse into feudalism (more of an issue in the world of 1915 when many countries were still feudal), etc.

Sunday, October 12, 2014

What Is Anarcho-Syndicalism?

They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn that
The union makes us strong -- Solidarity Forever, lyrics by Ralph Chaplin
The Union Makes Us Strong

Anarcho-syndicalism calls for an anarchist revolution built around left-wing labor unions that will organize the economy through democracy after the overthrow of capitalism.  "Syndicalism" by itself is a group of economic theories that advocate labor union organization of an economy, but "anarcho-syndicalism" specifically calls for the immediate overthrow of the state and the wage system.

Historically, anarcho-syndicalism has been the most powerful of all anarchist traditions.  It was central to the anarchist zones that flourished during the Spanish Revolution before being crushed by fascists (and Stalinists).  Anarcho-syndicalism is the central ideology of the Industrial Workers of the World and was a popular strain in the U.S. during the Great Depression, helping popularize such heroes as Eugene V Debs and Emma Goldman.  World-renowned linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky is a well-known anarcho-syndicalist.

Practically every building of any size had been seized by the workers and was draped with red flags or with the red and black flag of the Anarchists; every wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle and with the initials of the revolutionary parties[...] Every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized[...] Waiters and shop-walkers looked you in the face and treated you as an equal. Servile and even ceremonial forms of speech had temporarily disappeared. -- George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia

So How Does It Work?

Anarcho-syndicalism uses labor unions to organize a revolution, building the revolutionary consciousness of the workers, bringing them together, and building solidarity with the workers of the world by unifying them to fight for their interests while capitalism still exists.

Once a revolutionary period occurs, the unions are ready to act.  The strength of this idea showed itself in the Spanish Revolution.  Because the anarcho-syndicalists had already been making decisions democratically and organizing the overthrow private property and the wage system, they were able to quickly overtake the economy and run it democratically.  While the figures are hard to pin down, the local records suggest that productivity rose sharply under anarcho-syndicalism.

Anarcho-syndicalism believes that after the revolution, worker and general citizen unions become the decision making groups in society.  These groups elect delegates (always able to be recalled) who help organize the society at large.

Wildcat Strikes:  the Fight for Good Unions
 
So maybe you think unions are just corrupt, greedy clubs ran by mobsters, and maybe you think that isn't the best group to lead a revolution.  Anarcho-syndicalists are not naive, they know that most unions are not capable or willing to lead revolutions, and that is what led to Wildcat strikes.

A "Wildcat strike" is a strike action by unionized workers who plan, organize, and lead the strike on their own, without the union bosses.  This accomplishes several things all at once:  it improves worker conditions when the strike succeeds, it puts power in the hands of the workers, it shows the uselessness of union bosses, and it makes for good practice in group decision making and solidarity.

Further Reading:

Friday, September 19, 2014

Really Existing Socialism

What "Really Existing Socialism" Refers To

This is the phrase most commonly used on the left to describe societies like the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China under Mao, Revolutionary Cuba, etc.

Other people might use other terms like degenerated workers state, state-capitalism, Marxist-Leninism, etc.  For this site, I will (almost) always use the term "really existing socialism" to refer to these countries and systems as different as they are from each other.

Wait, So the Soviet Union Society Was Socialism?

Well, that's a weakness of the phrase.  Most people on the radical left agree that socialism never really existed in the Soviet Union or related societies.  However, many people in the revolution and the ruling parties either did or still are valiantly fighting to build socialism.
There is no trace of such Communism—that is to say, of any Communism—in Soviet Russia. In fact, the mere suggestion of such a system is considered criminal there, and any attempt to carry it out is punished by death. -- Emma Goldman, There Is No Communism In Russia
Leftist critics of really existing socialist countries sometimes have points in history where a revolution seemed to have stopped pushing for socialism, if they think it ever truly fought for socialism at all.

Benefits of Using the Phrase

I personal will use it because I think it does the following well:
  • Parallels the phrase "really existing capitalism"
  • Emphasizes historical pressures
  • Almost everyone (left, right, and center) knows what you are talking about 
Hindsight:  Two Views on the USSR From Two Leftists

Micheal Parenti has a long (but fascinating) lecture about the fall of the Soviet Union which might give some perspective on what really existed. 

Noam Chomsky with a different view.

The Gulag Argument: Common Leftist Responses to Repression in Really Existing Socialism

The Gulag Argument

Typically, the biggest issue people have with really existing socialist countries is the Gulag (or the Stasi, or censorship, or any of the famous repressive practices by these societies). The criticism goes something like this:
Communism is so focused on equality and the group that individual rights get ignored. Further, since groups are made up of individuals, the group ends up without rights anyway. You’ve robbed Peter to pay Paul.
I'm going to show the two most common counter-arguments.  The first is a more left-communist or anarchist argument which seeks to condemn these actions by really existing socialist countries.  The second is from defenders of really existing socialist countries.

Note:  this is sidestepping a common reaction to such an argument on the left which is to point out the worldwide mass murder, support of genocide, incarceration, and political repression committed by the capitalist West.  While important to consider, that doesn't actually address the argument above directly.

The Left-Commies and Anarchists Cry Out:  You're Blaming the Wrong Thing
Freedom is always freedom for dissenters. -- Rosa Luxemburg
Libertarian strains on the left are just as (in fact more) anti-Gulga, anti-Stasi, etc. as anyone.  They often point out that anarchists and left-communists were often targets of state repression in these societies.

Their counter-argument insists that it was the mechanism of the state (they often point to the philosophy of Lenin as a right-wing deviation from the norm of the left at the time of the Russian Revolution) as the problem in really existing socialist societies.  These states were running a state-capitalist society (an economy based on the exploitation of workers, just with the state owning the means of production).

By eliminating poverty (capitalists probably celebrate poverty as the "freedom to starve") and pursuing "actual" communism, you evade the Gulag of the USSR and the extreme poverty, imperialist invasion, genocide, and social oppression so pervasive in the capitalist West.

The "Tankie" Response:  History Will Absolve Me
Condemn me, it does not matter: history will absolve me. -- Fidel Castro, History Will Absolve Me
So defenders of the really existing socialist societies ("tankies" as they are lovingly and not-so lovingly called) have two points in their argument:  the West has lied about the true nature of the Gulag and other "repressive" elements of these societies, and what repression did exist were required to defend the real gains of these revolutions against the ongoing military and economic violence of the capitalist nations.

A lot of scholarship goes into refuting capitalist claims of different "crimes" of socialist countries.  Not all of them can be listed here, but a very popular one is Another View of Stalin by Ludo Martens, the work of Grover Furr, and Dongping Han to name a few.  Because the West has so much to gain by taking these either wholly fabricated or greatly exaggerated stories as historical fact, it follows that the capitalist West would promote this as the gospel truth.

Still, many will agree that political repression occurred and that, while struggled for, "communism" was never reached.  That being said, these societies had massive gains in the quality of life for the citizens, progressed these societies out of poverty and feudalism and fear of Western imperialism, and if they have ended, were done so against the democratic wishes of the people and only with disastrous consequences.

An uncommon (but not unheard of) sentiment among these defenders goes along the lines of:  there were prisons, there were executions, there was not tolerance of dissenting views, and that is because the revolutions defended themselves and the gains were worth the necessary sacrifices.

Why the Word "Communism" Is so Misunderstood

A Brief Historical Explanation

The word "communism" has seen things.  The term, still relatively new, was used for over a hundred years in the propaganda of the most powerful countries in human history (in one corner the USA with much of Western Europe, and in the other corner the USSR, the PRC, and allied forces).

Public (and private) schooling in capitalist countries do little to allow the left to tell its side of the story, and the owners of the biggest media companies make money by selling ads, but ads don't work as well after media depicting a leftist message (not for lack of interest in leftism, but in those viewers lack of interest in what is being advertised -- not to mention those media billionaires kind of like capitalism).

So, really, it wouldn't make sense if "communism" wasn't a confusing word.

This Is a Big Problem for the Radical Left...

... because communism is what the Radical Left is all about.

When you can sit down and use a word that one person thinks means an all-power state and another thinks the end of the state, when one person thinks the end of surplus and another thinks the end of scarcity, when one person thinks imprisonment without trial and another thinks true democracy... that word is going to seem a little vague to most people.
Barack Obama is a socialist. -- Sarah Palin
Common Exceptions

The definition I gave is what almost any radical leftist will mean by "communism."  There are, of course, exceptions.  There are also a couple of (sloppy) strategies the left has used to cope with the exceptions and the general misunderstanding.

The most common exception happens when a radical leftist is talking to a non-radical.  Non-radicals often call societies similar to the Soviet Union "communist."  Radical leftists might use that word in that sense to simplify things or just by accidental mirroring of language.  Many communists also defend these societies (China during Mao's leadership for example) anyway, and so clarifying the mistake seems beside the point.

Another exception occurs most often in anarchist circles or when anarchists are talking with communists.  Anarchists might prefer the term "anarchism" to describe "communism" to emphasize the differing beliefs about dealing with the state after revolution.

Two Strategies Or:  What Little Progress Has Been Made for (C/c)larity

One common strategy to clarify whether "communism" is being used to describe the political goal or societies like the Soviet Union is this:
  • Lower case "c" for the political goal (e.g. "communism is stateless")
  • Upper case "C" for a society like the Soviet Union (e.g. "Communist Russia")
It is clear this doesn't help when starting a sentence with the word or when speaking, but this is one strategy that you will see, especially on the internet.

Another strategy is to use the phrase "really existing socialism" to describe the historical experiences of the Soviet Union, Revolutionary China, etc.

The Still Misunderstood and Misused Word
So the word "(C/c)ommunism" is used (especially in the West or among many non-leftists) to describe Soviet Union style societies, tribal societies (what the radical left calls "primitive communism"), fascism (which communists hate more than capitalism), welfare programs, work safety regulations, progressive tax, secularism, and the list goes on.  Almost as a rule:  if a Western politician didn't like something during the past hundred years or so, it was labelled "communism."