This lecture, we will cover communism and Marxism, focusing on the Communist Manifesto by Marx & Engels. Next time, we cover the thought of several Marxists, focusing on Trotsky, Gramsci, and Mao.
As
mentioned last week, communism is radical socialism. While socialism
argues that some industrial production should be publicly owned and
controlled for social interests rather than private interests in a mixed
economy, communism argues for an entirely planned economy in which the
“anarchy” of private ownership of industrial capitalism is transformed
into a centralized system of social interests and production. Marx and
Engels argued that just as the French Revolution threw off the first and
second estates, the clergy and nobility, giving all power to the third
estate, the common people, so must the communist revolution throw off
the industrial capitalists and give all power to the laborers, the
industrialized farmers and factory workers. Though the French
Revolution fell apart and Napoleon took over, they viewed history much
like Hegel and argued that industrialization signaled the final stage of
economic development when an egalitarian revolution could finally
succeed.
As
we discussed with Saint-Simon and socialism, Marx and Engels argued
that socialism would lead to communism such that there would be no more
“thieves” who contribute nothing to society and “to each according to
contribution” could become “to each according to need”. Saint-Simon
argued for meritocracy, but Marx and Engels argued for a more radical
egalitarian democracy that have no need to take benefits or voting
rights from anyone. This assumes two things: first, that society would
maximize the productivity and contribution of all members of society,
and second, that society would produce a superabundance of wealth such
that all could take as needed.
In
theory, communism was supposed to be a radical form of direct democracy
in which free-associating individuals participate in labor and labor
councils (soviets, in Russia), which then form larger groups that form
society as a whole. This would be very similar if not identical to
bottom-up socialism and anarchism. The problem arises, most famously in
Russia and China, in the transition to this final stage by process.
Just as the French Revolution fell first to the dictatorship of
Robespierre and then Napoleon, the Russian and Chinese communist
revolutions did not come to erase divisions of power and create
classless direct democracy but rather resulted in the dictatorships of
Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. In every case, a top-down radical communist
government was installed to transition the people into a bottom-up
communist direct democracy. Unfortunately, in both Russia and China
(North Korea, Cuba) the people were never deemed “ready” by the
oligarchs and the dictatorships persisted, unwilling to relinquish
control. The most famous case is the duel between Lenin and Trotsky.
After the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia, Lenin was not willing to
compromise with opinions different than his own so he quickly abolished
the democratic assembly and took power. Trotsky, who argued that there
should be continuous revolution and democratic criticism of power, was
tossed out, Stalin took power after Lenin and eventually had Trotsky
killed. This was parodied by Orwell in his famous book Animal Farm.
To
play devil’s advocate, all of these societies were under barrage by
European wealthy capitalist nations and had reason to fear that
communism would be overthrown without a strong leader shepherding the
people and protecting them from communism. Consider the US blockade of
Cuba and the jokes Reagan makes about the poverty of Cuba and Russia.
In addition, there were large portions of the population who did not
believe in either socialism or communism, and the leaders could easily
convince themselves that they were acting out of the people’s interests
in a top-down capacity even if the people were not yet capable of seeing
their own advantage in communism from a bottom-up perspective. Would
you trust America to be a direct democracy at this moment? Both the
left and the right would worry that a democratic vote might sweep away
their own programs and reforms. Those on the left would be afraid of
popular racism, distrust of intellectuals and nationalism, while those
on the right would be afraid of socialism, multiculturalism and
internationalism.
Today
many Marxists, or post-Marxists as the most critical call themselves
after Stalin, acknowledge the serious problems with the Russian and
Chinese revolutions and propose many different forms other than vanguard
party dictatorship for the transition from capitalist to communist
society. Unlike socialists, who would compromise with a mixed economy,
they would still argue that an entirely planned economy is possible and
most beneficial for all members of society. The question is that
between top-down and bottom-up forms of power, the struggle we find in
all societies that has certainly been raised wherever there has been
leadership and division of labor. How much can leaders or the common
people be trusted to work from their own particular individual interests
and view toward the overall common social interest and view. From the
top one can more easily take a longer view and social view (in line with
Mill’s Utilitarianism) but one is detached from the labor and struggles
of the common people. From the bottom one is involved with the labor
and struggles of the common people, but one has more trouble taking the
detached view while attached to one’s own position and in-group.
Another
important idea of communism is internationalism. Nationalism, of
course, is the allegiance to one’s homeland. Just as communism proposed
common property and interest, internationalism proposes a common
society beyond the boundaries of nation-states and a system that
benefits all people of the world equally.
MARX & ENGELS
Karl
Marx (1818 – 1883) was a German political philosopher and economist who
co-wrote the Communist Manifesto with Engels in 1848. He wrote many
works, his most famous other than the manifesto being Capital, a massive
three volume work on capitalism and the possibility of communism. Born
upper-middle class in Prussia, he became involved with the Young
Hegelians at the University of Berlin. He spend most of his life in
London writing, supported by Engels in poor conditions. His tombstone
in London reads, “Workers of all lands unite”, the final line from the
manifesto, and “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in
various ways – the point however is to change it”.
Friedrich
Engels (1820 – 1895) was the son of a wealthy German cotton cloth
manufacturer who read Hegel and began denouncing the conditions of the
laborers in factories such as those owned by his father. With Marx, he
attended the University of Berlin, joined the young Hegelians and
co-wrote the Communist Manifesto. While he wrote many works on his own,
including The Conditions of the Working Class in England, he considered
Marx to be a better writer and philosopher than himself, at one time
calling Marx the greatest philosopher who has existed so far, and he
used his family’s wealth to support Marx and his writings.
THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
I
gave you the Preface to the Russian Edition of 1882 as a preface to the
manifesto because not only do you find Marx & Engels mentioning
that the first Russian edition was translated by Bakunin, obviously
before he broke from the communists to become a major leader of
anarchism though the break is not mentioned, you also find them telling
Russia that America will clearly overtake Europe as the greatest
industrial power and that the revolution can only succeed if Russia,
Europe and America all develop together. Considering the resistance of
England and America in particular to the Soviet Union and its fall, this
is quite remarkable to hear coming from Marx and Engels who would both
be dead for decades before the Russian Revolution.
Marx
and Engels start by noting that communism is feared by the powers that
be in Europe, and so communism is clearly strong enough to publish its
views openly in spite of persecution. The opening line famously reads,
“A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of Communism”. The French
philosopher Derrida wrote a book Spectres of Marx in which he, like the
postmodernist he is, shows that every Marxist believes they follow what
Marx really believed but this is taken in many different directions such
that one may wonder if there is a single meaning behind or correct
interpretation of Marxism.
Marx
and Engels write that all history is the history of class struggle. As
already mentioned, Gramsci and others will be critical of this
reduction of all struggles between oppressor and oppressed into the
single struggle of owners and workers. Marx and Engels believe that the
final polarized struggle is crystallizing in their lifetime such that
the final battle has been set by industrialization. The world has been
united through international trade such that industrialization covers
the globe. Factories and industrialized farms (hence the hammer,
industry, and the sickle, agriculture, crossed as the symbol of
communism) have created great alienating divisions between great masses
of laborers who view each other as common in interest and the small
number of wealthy capitalist owners who control the laborers. Notice
how similar this is to Hegel’s master/slave dialectic.
As
mentioned, a new time calls for a new stage of development. Between
the owners and laborers is the bourgeoisie, what we often call the
middle class (doctors, lawyers, professors, business managers,
scientists, priests, artists, etc), who are the privileged servants of
the capitalist owners but are in a prime position to lead the workers to
liberation and a new way of life. The middle class is needed by the
owners because the modes of production, the theories of management,
academics, art and science, are in constant need of revolution and new
ideas. Because of this, the middle class must be kept under control or
they will revolutionize the structure of society in a way that does not
benefit the small number of owners. However, because the world has
become a smaller place and the machines allow for greater and greater
achievements, capitalism is like a sorcerer whose magical spells have
gotten too powerful for the sorcerer to control. All the peoples of the
world are now in communication and exploited in the same ways by a
small minority while the human individual becomes ever more capable of
achievements through technology and science.
The
manifesto argues that communists have no interests other than the
interests of everyone, and that their theories and conclusions are not
based on ideas or principles but rather the actual historical relations
of the class struggle. Here we see the scientific positivism of
Saint-Simon, a positivism that I myself do not admire for the same
reasons Marcuse is critical of it. Marxists often argue that Hegel was
an idealist, but Marxism avoids idealism and is scientific and
materialistic. Marcuse argues, in the wake of Stalin, that this
positivism is an unwarranted defense against criticism that does not
liberate people but helps to enslave them. Next time, we will see that
Trotsky would say the same and became the hated enemy of Lenin and later
Stalin for it. This is a particularly interesting problem given that
Marx was a great admirer of Hegel’s Logic, calling it fundamentally
revolutionary, and thought the bourgeoisie who did not share his views
were not critical enough of society.
The
manifesto argues that communism is called the abolition of
individuality and liberty by the middle and upper classes, and this is
correct insofar as this sort of freedom is only provided by brutality
and exploitation. Here again we see socialism and communism leaning
toward equality where capitalism leans toward freedom. Marxists argue
that they want freedom, but the sort of freedom that capitalists are
afraid of losing is unsustainable in an economically just and
egalitarian society. We read, “you reproach us with intending to do
away with your property…Precisely so, for is just what we intend”.
Middle and upper class individuality should be made impossible. Only
then can common people be given their just due. The middle and upper
class say that society will fall apart because everyone will be lazy,
but the manifesto argues that if this is so, society should have
collapsed already because those who work do not gain and those who gain
do not work.
The
manifesto calls for the abolition of the family, that children and
women are objectified and exploited by the household head who seeks for
his own gain rather than society or equal benefit throughout the family.
Nationality and religious divisions need also be swept away, as these
also divide the people who should view and share in common. Inheritance
will be abolished, public education established, rebel property seized,
central services nationalized, and heavy taxes on the wealthy imposed.
In the beginning, these radical changes must be established through
dictatorship or the property and power of the ruling class will thwart
the revolution. Once the changes have taken, the dictatorship can be
gradually dismantled and society will be ready for direct bottom-up
democracy. Unfortunately, as we will see next time with Trotsky,
Gramsci and Mao, this did not go according to the manifesto’s idealistic
plan.
Vladimir Lenin (1870 – 1924)
While
Marx believed that the workers would rise up and create the communist
revolution, Lenin argued that a small vanguard party of professional
revolutionaries must take power to make the transition from capitalism
to dictatorial communism to democratic communism possible. This became
known as Leninism, along with specific economic theories Lenin believed
would be the best way of implementing Marxism. Lenin, like Trotsky, was
exiled from Russia for these views and organizing as a communist. In
the midst of WWI, with starvation throughout the land, the Tsar
abdicated the thrown as the people of Russia rose up demanding
revolution in February 1917. The social democrats (like the US
democratic party, who push for social reforms without nationalization)
continued to invest in fighting the war, which upset the starving
Russian people and led to the return of Lenin and Trotsky and the
October revolution, the second and final stage of the Russian
Revolution. Lenin, who famously announced, “I bring you peace, land and
bread”, found himself politically on top of a volatile and unstable
situation with many parties demanding many things. Unfortunately, after
the Tsar and social democrats running the country were overthrown,
Lenin called together a democratic assembly but disbanded it when it did
not support a majority for Lenin’s Bolshevik party.
Leon Trotsky (1879 - 1940)
After
Lenin’s death in 1924, not very long after the October Revolution,
Trotsky and Stalin vied for power. Stalin argued that the Soviet Union
should create “socialism in one country”, concentrating on Russia but
supporting communist parties worldwide. This became known as Stalinism,
though Stalin’s supporters called it Marxism and Leninism. Trotsky
opposed this, arguing as Marx and Engels had done in the Communist
Manifesto that Russia must work for revolution in developed countries
like France, Germany, Britain and America. When Stalin seized power,
Trotsky was exiled from Russia yet again, but this time by the communist
government that he had played a large part in creating. Not only was
Trotsky for internationalism, he was for democratic continuous
revolution that would keep the top-down party structure in check, the
Theory of Permanent Revolution. This became known as Trotskyism, and
Stalin worked hard to eliminate all Trotskyites from power. Stalin
became a brutal dictator, like Lenin suppressing all democratic dissent
and criticism of his regime as counter-revolutionary enemies.
Trotskyites argue to this day that their version is the true Marxism,
just like the Stalinists, calling each other counter-revolutionaries who
want to destroy true Marxism and the communist state. Today, in the
wake of the tragedies of Stalin and Mao, most hard lining communists
today ascribe to Trotskyism.
Antonio Gramsci (1891 - 1937)
Gramsci’s
thought, contained in his Prison Notebooks, has become hip for many
left leaning people including socialists and communists who do not like
what happened in Russia or China. One of the founders of the Italian
Communist Party (PCI), he was jailed by Mussolini after he took fascist
control of the country in 1922 while Gramsci was visiting Russia as a
representative. The prosecutor at Gramsci’s trial famously said, “For
twenty years we must stop this brain from functioning”. Gramsci died in
prison, but not before writing extensively in his prison notebooks
which were smuggled out by visitors. Gramsci’s centrally celebrated
concept amongst socialists, Marxists and post-Marxists is cultural
hegemony.
In
the wake of Stalinism, communists began wondering why the revolution
was not succeeding worldwide as planned. Gramsci argued that while Marx
and Engels reduced all conflict to the struggle between workers and
owners, society is more complex and certain groups dominate others (ex:
Christians are predominant in America and this can lead to demonization
of Muslims, just as Europeans are predominant such that minority groups
are suppressed). The process by which these dominant and marginal
forces work out their struggles is known as hegemonic discourse. With
such a complex situation, communists should switch from an outright war
of frontal attack to one of social positioning. Only such a long and
patient effort would succeed given the divisions that exist in the world
population.
Like
Trotsky, and following his lead, Gramsci believed that Lenin and Stalin
had come to betray the revolution not because they wished to but
because they did not grasp the need for a slow process of continuous
revolution in setting up the dictatorship of a vanguard party. All
dissent was labeled “reactionary” and “counter-revolutionary”, which
masked the real divisions and issues.
Mao Zedong (1893 - 1976)
Mao
had his own take on Marxism and Leninism. While the communist symbol
is a hammer (for factory workers) and sickle (for farm workers), Mao
argued that Lenin and Stalin had paid too much attention to the
factories in the city and not enough to the farmers of the countryside.
Mao shifted his attention and reforms to agriculture and farm life,
which made sense considering China. Mao argued that communism in a
developing country would only succeed if it did not try to jump to
advanced industrialization in imitation of Britain and America but
rather developed the life of the farming peasants. Mao famously said
that the leader must be down on his knees with the peasants in the soil,
or else there would be alienation between the rulers and the workers of
the sort Marx had hoped to overcome. Unfortunately, Mao surrounded
himself with supporters who wanted to please him while brutally
suppressing dissent, and this created a situation where everyone was
telling Mao the farms were producing overabundance when they were in
fact creating massive starvation. In the wake of Mao’s death, factions
accused each other of undermining Mao’s policies and thwarting the
revolution. Since 1978 and the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, capitalist
free-market reforms were introduced and China remains an officially
communist country that has a mixed economy that leans far towards
socialism. Bob Avakian, who participated in the 60s Free Speech
Movement and worked with the Black Panther Party, is the most well known
American Maoist.
I
gave you Slavoj Zizek’s (1949 – present) introduction to the writings
of Mao to read. Zizek, a post-Marxist socialist philosopher himself,
argues that people make the mistake of trying to find the single moment
when communism became dictatorship, but there may not be a single famous
figure who “got it wrong” as Judas to Marx’s Jesus. As a Slovenian
socialist, Zizek has particular interest in this because Slovenia was
one of the lands brutalized under Stalin. He argues that the primary
struggle today is between the first and third world, and that communism,
like capitalism, can become the oppressive force that it attempts to
oppose. Zizek often takes controversial figures like Jesus, Descartes
and Mao and finds important contributions that are often overlooked in
the wake of tragedy, opposing the externalization of the enemy. I
appreciate this reversal of perspective. Thus, Zizek applauds Mao’s
turn towards the farmers who Lenin sidelined for the sake of city
development, as well as his return to a Hegelian understanding of the
pervasiveness of contradiction and continuous struggle.
