The Slovo critique - South African History Online...SOCIALISM The Slovo critique: socialism utopian...
Transcript of The Slovo critique - South African History Online...SOCIALISM The Slovo critique: socialism utopian...
SOCIALISM
The Slovo critique:socialism utopian
and scientificJOHN HOFFMAN* - better known to many of our readers as theCommunist writer DIALEGO - responds to the debate between JoeSlovo and Patio Jordan (Labour Bulletin Vol 14 No 6 and Vol 15 No 3).He argues that 'backward circumstances' led to a 'backward socialism'which had more in common with the utopian socialism condemned byMarx than with the scientific socialism developed by him. Scientificsocialism builds on and extends the political democracy and liberal rightsestablished by bourgeois democracy - and so the dictatorship of theproletariat should be seen as a post-Jiberal state. In contrast, thebackward socialism of Stalin glorified authoritarian, pre-liberal forms ofpolitical rule.
Slovo's pamphlet has beenwidely discussed and generally welcomed. It is in myview a veritable model of a'discussion paper'. It is courageous and critical. It raisesuncomfonable and difficultquestions in a searching andopen-minded way. Everything, Slovo insists, must bejustifiedaoew. We can nolonger assume that there areany axioms or assumptiooswhich can be taken forgranted - hence the tiLie ofthe pamphlet: Has SocialismFailed?
Indeed since Slovo's
pamphlet appeared, the German Democratic Republic(GDR) - a country with a special relationship with theSouth African liberationmovement - has ceased toexist as a national entity andthe USSR itself, the countryof the October Revolution, isin the grip of a social, economic and political crisis oftruly awesome proponions. Itmay well be that in desperation, its rulers will introducesome fonn ofcapitalism inorder to revive its economyand maintain its politicalcohesion.
The unthinkable dancesmenacingly before our veryeyes. In a situation lik.e this,who can deny the need forthe k.ind of '110 holds barred'critique which Slovo has initiated? It was Marx himselfwho adopted as his ownmOlto the Latin tag: 'de omnibus dubitandum '. Questioneverything! This is surely thehistorical moment for each ofus to do likewise.
Have Marxists beenoverthrown by history?The British communist journal Marxism Today carried
• John Hoffman was born irl Zimbabwe and now reaches pclitics at I.eicesl9r Univemity. Eng/and. Ha hasboot! a frequent conrnburor to Afriearl Communist and alllhor 0I1hf1 pamphlet Philosophy and ClassStruggm, undsr the nom-de-plume Dialogo. He has authowdseveral books. has boon active in the BritishAnti-Aparthflid Movem6tl1 and was for many years a member 01 rhfI Communist Parry 01 Great Brilain.
57 $ALB Vo/IS No 7
DEBATE
on its February cover in 1990a Karl Marx spattered witheggs and tomatoes - thechampion of the people nowthe hapless target of popularwrath. Some conuibutors tothe journal pointed wilh iIIconcealed glee to what theysaw as a painful and terribleirony. Marxism, they argued,has fallen viclim to its owndialeclical processes. It hasbegun to supersede itselfbefore our very eyes. With thecollapse of communist partystates in Ea$tem Europe,Marxism, in a word, hasbeen overthrown by history.
Given the 'shock-waves',as Slovo calls them, triggered by the events of 1989(p I), it seems tome !hat the'overthrow of Marxism'thesis deserves a consideredresponse. After all, the argument is no more scandaIoosthan the queslion whichSiovo takes as the title of hispamphlet. Unless we canfind a convincing reply tothose who say that MarJ[ismitself has collapsed with theBerlin Wall and the socialistSlates, we do not deserve tobe taken seriously. For on theface of it, the 'historical petard thesis' appears aplausible reaction to the fateof so many states and partieswho have adopted Marxismas their official creed.
Moreover it is an argument which recalls Marx'sown criticisms of the~mighty Hegel" - the philosopher whose idealist theoryof dialectics decisively influenced the development ofMarxist thought. For Marxcriticised Hegel by basically
April 1991
Has Marxism been'overthrown by history'?
turning his own theoryagainst him. Hegel, we recall, had argued !hatdialectics exist in both nawreand society as an incll:orableand universal force forchange. The founders of Marxism agreed. But, theycontended, these radicalpremises are contradicted s0
cially by Hegel'sconservalive view ofproperty, class divisions andthe state, and philosophicallyby the way he ascribed historical movcment to the'labours' of a metaphysicalgod - a divine creator subjectto none of the dialectical processes he supposedlyembodied.
Is it possible !hat Marxismitself has now fallen victimto a similar kind of internal(or, as it is sometimes called,'immanent') critique'! The argument might be presented
58
as follows. Marxism Standsor falls as a lheory which istied to and seeks confirmation in historical praclice.~The dispute over the r<'4llityor non-reality of thinkingthat is isolated from practiceis purely scholastic queslion~; thus runs Marx'sfamous second thesis onFeuerbach. Theories, in otherwords, are nm autonomOllsvisions which simply arise inthe minds of people. Theyare mental reflections of thematerial world. They derivefrom practice and they guidepractice. Theory and practiceare inCJl:tricably linked.
"Can we simply blamethe practise?"This being so, what then arethe implications of the crisesand traumas which have afmeted the socialist worldsince 1989'! Ever since theRussian Revolution, 'dissident' Marxists havecomplained of an apparentgulf between Marxist theoryand Marxist practice. Marll:ism, they argued, is a theoryof emancipation and yet(they assert) its self-professed adherents have builtsocicties which are autocraticand repressive in practice.Trotskyists contend that thefault lay with Stalin and theStalinists. Others haveblamed Lenin. In the 1%Osand 1970s it became fashionable in New Left circles toinsist thai the problem hadbeen created by Engels who,it was said, had over-simpli.fied and vulgarised Marx'swriting.
By the late 1970s the
French Mantist Louis AIthusser (once the greatchampion of the Mantist classics) could conclude lhatMarxism ilSelf is in crisis,and disillusioned radicalsjoined with liberals and conservatives in arguing lhatMarxism is an inherentlyautocratic and IOIalilarian tIlLory because the societieswhich invoke its name areautocratic and tota1iWian inpractiu. The Polish philosopher in exile LesekKolakowski in a subslalllialthree volume work describedMarxism as "the greatest fantasy of our century" andinsisted: "Communism realised it [the fantasy - eoa'] inthe only way feasible in anindusuial society, namely, bya despotic system of government~ (Kolakowski, pp 523;527).
Marxism in other words isnot only an oppressive Iheorybut - the argument runs - itstands condemned as such byis own premises. Cenlral toits !heory of knowledge is!he link it asserts betweentheory and practice. If !henMarxist!hooreticians alwaysend up establishing systemswhich are autocratic and repressive, can we simplyblame the practice without atthe same time implicating thetheory? Manists - of allpeople - cannot plausiblyargue that theories bear no responsibility for the historicalpractice enacted in theirname.
Cenlral bo!h to Slovo'spamphlet and to !he responses which it has alreadyprovoked is this basic prob-
lem. If Siovo is to convincewith his argument that ~the
fault lies with us, not with socialism~ (p 11), !hen he muststimulate us to find arguments which successfullyrefute what I have called the'overthrow of Marxism'thesis.
The 'argument ofcircumstances'In his pamphlet Slovo refersto !he fact !hat socialist theory was applied "in newrealities which were not foreseen by the founders ofMarxism" (p II). A numberof the responses to hispamphlet make the samepoint, emphasising in particular the problem of uying tobuild socialist societies inbackward counuies. HarryGwala quotes the words ofthe late Paul Baran: "socialism in backward andunderdeveloped counuieshas a powerful tendency tobecome backward and underdeveloped socialism". This,Gwala comments, is the kindof scientific approach wewould expect ofMaaist-Leninists who employ theirtools of dialectical materialism (Gwala 1990, p 40).
I will call this the 'argument of circumstances' sinceit seeks to explain the apparent gulf betwecn Marxisttheory and practice by referring to the hostile andunpromising environment inwhich real socialist societieshad to emerge. The argumentis on the face of it an effective rejoinder to the'overthrow of Marxism'thesis since it explains the
59
SOCiAliSM
problems, errors, exeessesand distortions of the socialist countries wi!h the 'tools'of Marxist theory ilSelf.After all, Marxism ilSelf acknowledges lhat newsocieties will necessarily beshaped by the circumstancesin which they emerge. Doesnot Marx say (for example)that a communist society isin every respect stampedwith the binhlTtaJks of theold society from whosewomb it emerges?
In other words, the distortions within 'existingsocialism' reflect a unity oftheory and practice in difficult and unforeseencircumstances. Harry Gwalaspeaks of the effect whichTsarist autocracy had on Bolshevik organisation; the factthat before World War II,communists in Eastern Europe lived mostly underdictatorships rather thandemocracies, and they werecompelled tactically to formalliances with their own national bourgeoisie and richpeasants. As a result, Gwala~ues,theknetsofMM
xism-Leninism weresomewhat diluted, but (andthis is the point) in wayswhich Man:ism itself canadequately explain.
Jeremy Cronin puts particular emphasis on the needto "locate errors within abroad objective situation".He stresses the problemsgenerated by civil war andexternal invasion, both afterthe revolution and duringWorld War II. Russia's economic backwardnessdramatically affected the
$ALB Vo/IS No 7
DEBATE
qualir.y of its socialist structures while the isolation ofthe country meant that it hadto exuaet a surplus from itspeople. a circumstancewhich resulted in the massiveoppression of the peasants(Cronin 1990, p 98).
Again the point of the 'circumstances argument' is thatthe apparent conuadiction between Marxist theory andpractice is explicable intenns of the harsh and hostileenvironment in which socialist countries had todevelop.The 'fault'lies with history.Far from Marxism beinghoist upon any historical petard, its explanatory powerhas if anything been ~n
hanc~d by its capacity toprovide a materialist analysisof painful and difficult circumstances.
It is significant howeverthat although Slovo does himself allude to the relevance ofcircumstances, he is wary ofthe argument as a response tothe uaumas of 1989. Butwhy his reservations? If backward circumstances create abackward socialism, doesn'tthis observation vindicaterather than undennine a Marxist theory of history?
The problem ofJustificationJeremy Cronin commentsthat Win writing his pamphlet,Slovo felt that any historicalexplanation might seem likespecial pleading,like an at··tempt to explain away errorsand deviations". As SlovohimselfpulS it, historical circumstances help "to explain,but in no way justify, the
April 1991
awful grip which Stalinismcame to exercise in every sector of the socialist worldw(p11).
This comment goes to thehean of the problem. I saythis because the sharp distinction Siovo makes herebetween wexplaining" historical circumstances and"justifying" them is nOl assuaight.forward as it seems.For Marxists must surelyargue that moml positions ultimately derive from ascientific assessment of material circumstances. Thereare no 'supra.historical'verities to which we can tum- no 'transcendental ideals'which stand outside of thehistorical process. This iswhy M3IJl. and Engels insistin the Communist Manifeslothat "the theoretical conclusions ofCommunistsW
merely express in generaltenns "actual relations spring.ing from an existing classstruggle, from an historicalmovement going on underOUt very eyes". 'Communism' is not an abstract ideal:it is the real movementwhich abolishes the presentstate of things.
Ifwe argue therefore thatthe socialist societies
60
emerged through painful anddifflCu!tcircumstances as his·torically progressivephenomena, then we are notsimply explaining these circumstances. We are also (atleast in a general sense) justifying them as well. What weare saying is this: "We certainly don't like some oCthethings which have happenedin the name of Marxism inthe socialist countries and wewould not condone suchcriminal excesses and tactical blunders if they occurredin our own movements. Butgiven the circumstances inwhich the USSR and EasternEurope had to develop, howcould things have been otherwise?"
Of course the actual wayin which events tum out canalways be different at thelevel of detail. Perhaps, Jeremy Cronin notes, a moreco-operative approach withthe peasantry might havebeen possible in the 19205.Both Stalin and Trotsky argued for a wharsh approach tothe peasantry" whereasBukharin toolc the oppositeview. Cronin takes the pointpressed strongly by Pallo Jordan that the writings ofanti·Stalinists deserve to beseriously if critically reac!.
But if what happens ingeneral terms is judged to behistorically necessary, howthen can we condemn it?This point emerges particularly poignantly in the case ofPallo Jordan's fierce critiqueof Stalinism. "It is our task,"Jordan says emphatically, ~toexplain what has led to theauocities we condemn," and
he takes Slovo to laSk foridentifying the symptomsrather than the causes of theillness (199Oa, p 67). Buthow successful is he in getling round what I have calledthe 'problem of justification'?
Jordan divides Stalin'scritics into IWO basic campswhich derive from lhecono-asting position orTrotsIcyand Bukharin. 80lh Russiansaccepted that the isolation ofthe revolution in a backwardCOl1tlll}' created conditionsfor the emergence of a parasitic: bureauc:rncy. HoweverTrotsky favoured the posi
tion supported by the leftoppositionist Preobl amensky, Ihar. the USSR wouldhave 10 indusuialise at the expense of the peasanuy,whereas Bukharin arguedthat the worker-peasant alliance should be maintainedso that the economy could bedeveloped at a much moreleisurely pace. This was apolicy debate with momentous historical con$C(lUencessince once the 'gentler'policies of the New Economic Policy (NEP) (favouredby Bukharin) were aban·
doned, then (Jordan tells Wi)the Soviet Stale began to aclin a dieworial manner likethe Tsarisl. state before it.
This raises two pointswtuclt are relevant to theproblem ofjustifICationthrough historical explanation. The ftrSl is that Jadanhimself acknowledges thaiTrotsky· although a bilter 0p
ponent of Stalin - supportedpolicies which created theconditions for authoritarianrule in general. Indeed, Trotsky had already displayedmarked 'Stalinist' tendenciesin his argument with Leninover the II'ade unions whenhe favoured mititarising theworkers. Stalin may havebeen more successful thanTrotsky in combining Marxisl rhelOric and Russiannationalism, but there is nothing in Jordan'sown accountto show thai had the USSRdeveloped under Trotskyistleadership, its characlUwould have been fundamentaUy different. -Once.- as heputs it, -theCPSU succumbed to the needs ofprimitive socialist KCUmu!.alion, there was no way ofbreaking the cycle- Qordan19903, P 74).
BUI what about thepolicies advocated byBukharin· greater freedomfor small property ownersand private enterprise? Thisbrings me 10 the second pointraised by Jordan's critique ofSlovo. It is revealing that atno time does Jordan suggestthat it have been f>tller forthe USSR 10 have continuedwith Ihe NEP (as Bukharinwanted) than to have em-
61
Pallo JordanPhoIo:~aIItWil
barked on a programme ofrapid industrialisation (whichboth Stalin and Trotsky supported). However even ifBukharin's policies had woothe day, Jordan argues (Ithink correctly) that the seedsof the authoritarianism whichreached such horrendous proportions under Stalin hadalready been sown during thecivil war and its immedialeaflermath, ie even befCR!hedecision to abandon the NEPwas taken.
1be Social-Revolutionaries and other right.wingsocialist parties were bannedin 1918. Three years later !hesailors olthe Kronstadt garrison rose in rebellion againstwhat they perceived 10 be anew tyr.tMy. In March of !hesame year factions were outlawed in the CPSU and inthis way, JCl"dan comments,"the cancer had been plantedin the body of Ihe patty-. Signincantly, as Jordan himselfmakes clear, both Trotsl:.yand Bukharin supported thesuppression of oppositionaltendencies. His dilemmatherefore is this:
His own analysis demon-
SALB VoltS No 7
DEBATEstrates Wi! the problem ofauthoritarianism and repression arose OUI of thecircumstances swroundingthe fate of the Russian Revolution. He claims that theSovielleadership faced 'arange of alternatives al allthe crucial turning points ofits history', but in fact he isquite unable 10 give any indication as to how UlItkr thesecircumstances, authoritarianpolicies could have beenavoided. Although hostile toStalin, he notes that Stalin'sapproach was supported bythe overwhelming majorityof Soviet Communists. Withthe adoption of a strategy ofprimitive socialist industrialisation, he tells us, theauthoritarian die was casl,and yet he appears 10 supponTn:KSky rather thanBukharin. Even if Jordan'ssympathies are more Bukhari·nite than we suspect, thepoint is that Bukharin himself (as Jordan points out)displayed the same willingness as the other Bolsheviksdid 10 crush dissent and opposition.
In what sense thereforecan it be said that under thecjrClUtlS/(l/IUS things couldhave been significantly different? Indeed in one version ofhis critiqueJordan arguesthat the rise of Stalinism wasnot inevitable but it was historically necessary.Necessity, he says, impliesan element of choice but thechoice is not unlimited "forthe alternatives themselvesare structured by previouschoices and inherited circumstanees~ (Jordan 199Gb, P
April 1991
34). In other words, generaltrends always manifest themselves through particular(and thus 'accidental') circumstances so that theprecise configuration ofevery event could alwayshave been different. I agree.
. The same (it seems 10 me)could also be said about adialectical view of 'inevitability' as well, but this is justa terminological point Whatis significant here is that Jor·dan concedes that some formor other of authoritarian rulewas historically necessary inthe USSR after the RussianRevolution.
That being so, how is itpossible for him to colUkmlldevelopments which hejudges at the same time to behistorically necessary? He exhens South Africans to"rediscover the true meaningof the communist vision" andpraises the oppositionists inthe socialist world who stoodout against the ~degradaLion
of the ideals ofcommunism~(199Oa, p 74). But the uuth isthai (from a Marxist point ofview) ideals and visions canonly emerge from and be realised in concrete historicalcircumstances, and his ownaccount gives us no reason to
62
suppose that a significantlyless repressive outcome washistorically possible.
His historical explanationemphasises the basic circumstances which others havenoted and leaves him withthe same dilemma. Backward circumstances lead 10 abackward socialism. It is uuethat Pallo Jordan is muchmore critical ofStalin andStalinism than say HarryGwala (although Gwala himself finds thai Stalin'sexcesses are ~notjustified").
The problem, however, isthat since he offers no argument 10 suggest that aradically different scenariocould have occurred, it ishard 10 see how he can extricate himself from theimplicit justificaLion embodied in the ~circumslaIlces
argument".
The dictatorship of theproletariat as apost·liberal stateup unLiI now we have assumed that the system whichemerged in the USSR afterthe revolution was autocraticand authoritarian in character. Although some Marxistsmight dispute this, it is (inmy view) greatly to Slovo'scredit that he calls a spade aspade and does nothing 10
hide the fact that the RussianRevolution posed seriousproblems for the development ofdem.ocraLicinstituLions in the new society.
Thcre may be moments inthe life of a revolution, Slovoargues, ~which justify a postponement of full democratic
processes~ and he feels itnecessary lO raise (withoutactually addressing) ~the
question of whether the Bolsheviks were justified intaking a monopoly of statepower during the extraordinary period of both internaland external assault on thegains of the revolution~ (p17). The point is put delicately but the thrust of hisargument is clear. Should theBolsheviks have dissolvedthe Constituent Assembly inJanuary 1918 when this action led many socialists athome and abroad 10 condemnthe new Bolshevik government as a dictatorship?
Siovo records the fact theBolsheviks received less thana third of the popular votewhen the assembly waselected. The elections tookplace before October 1917.The assembly only met afterthe revolution. Lenin arguedthat as a result the assemblyhad ceased 10 be representative of Russian opinionbut, as Slovo recalls (pp 1416), even so significant arevolutionary as the Germansocialist Rosa Luxembourgdisagreed. She expressedgrave reservations over theaction by warning that "freedom only for the supportersof the government is no freedom atall".
Siovo cites these wordsand argues that they "maynot" have been appropriate inthe special conditions whichprevailed after the revolutionin 1917 since (as she puts it)"without a limitation ondemocracy", there was noway in which the revolution
could have defended itself ina situation of civil war andmassive intervention fromoutside. The comment is ofconsiderable significance, forin describing the dissolutionof the assembly as a /imitation on democracy, Siovoimplicitly chaHenges the argument which both Leninand Trotsky used to justifytheir actions at the time.
For the Bolsheviks did notjustify dissolving the assembly as a restriction orlimitation on democracy.They presented it as the adoption of democracy in 'ahigher form'. The democracyof the soviets was, they contended, a thousand timeshigher than the old bourgeoisdemocracy as represented bythe Constituent Assembly. Itwas this argument in panicular that Rosa luxembourgcriticised. Despite her opposition 10 the dissolution of theConstituent Assembly, shewas (like Stovo) prepared 10acknowledge that the Bolsheviks might have had a casefor limiting democracy inconditions of extreme crisis.What she was, however, unambiguously opposed 10, wasthe way in which the Bolshe·viks, as she put it, had madea ~vinue out of necessity~.
They had presented a limitation on democracy as thoughit was a higher form ofdemocracy itself.
But it might be arguedthat on this matter the Bolsheviks were right and that Rosaluxembourg was wrong. Bysuppressing a minority of exploiters, they were creating,as Lenin said at the time, a
63
SOCiAliSM
"democracy for the majority"on the grounds that a wetalOrship for the bourgeoisie is ademocracy for the workers.Dissolving the ConstituentAssembly, banning opposition parties, restrictingfreedom of the press etc. didnot constitute a 'limitation'on democracy since the suppression of class enemies isitself implied by the veryidea of a socialist state as the'dictatorship of the proleta·riat' .
Siovo is right to be waryof this argumenL The truth isthat the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat asdeveloped in me Marxistclassics denotes a form of thestate which builds uponrather than suppresses liberalpolitical institutions. Theclassical Marxist view is thatdemocracy under capitalismis inadequate and formalsince in itself it does not giveworkers resources andpower. However the politicaland legal rights which workers do enjoy undercapitalism are profoundly important for they serve lOeducate the class in themeaning of freedom andemancipation. Liberal orbourgeois democracy is described by Marx and Engelsas a system which "perfects"the state in the sense Wt itpromises self-govemment intheory - all citizens are equalin the eyes of the law - and inthis way compels the workers 10 struggle forself-government in practice.
It should be noted wtLenin himself had genera1lyanalysed bourgeois democ-
SALB Vol 15 No 7
DEBATEracy in these terms up toaround January 1918 - thedate on which the Constituent Assembly wasdissolved. This is why Iwould not really agree wilhKarl von HoIdt's argumentthat Lenin's view of democracy is generally problematic(von Holdt, 1990). Of courseLenin (like Man and Engels)saw political democracy as'bourgeois democracy', buthe stressed that his democracy was a necessaryprecondition for socialism itself. It was a system whichhad to be transcended andnot suppressed. It was a question of making lhe 'formalfreedoms' of bourgeois~ciety 'real' - not dismissingthem as mere fictions to beswept away.
In my view therefore, lheclassical Manist conceptionof the dictatorship of lheproletariat must be cluuacterised as aposi-liberal formof the state. It is a system inwhich (in Slovo's words)power is exercised "in lhe interests of the overwhelmingmajority of the people~ andwhich embodies 'an ever-expanding genuine democracy'(p 15). It is a concept whichtakes for granted freedom ofspeech and association (freedoms which Man andEngels defended throughoutlheir political lives) but looksto a deepening of the democratic process so that lhemass of the population canbegin to exercise real powerover their lives.
What happened after19181 Opposition panieswere banned, critics were
April 1991
silenced, and power becameever more concentrated Theclassical Marxist view ofproletarian democracy as alr(JJl:JilionaJ form oflhe statea state dissolving itsconcentrated powers backinto society - ceased to haveany meaning. To speak of thewithering away of the statein a situation in which thisstate now exercised (increasingly) aUlOCrntic powersseemed abswd and paradoxical. The dismallrulh is that'dictatorship of the proletariat' as it actually emergedafter 1917 was less representative - less free and lessdemocratic -lhan lhe bourgeois system of democracy itwas supposed to have surpassed. It is true that theBolsheviks were not confronted after February 1917by a liberal bourgeois democracy. They were confrontedby a provisional governmentthat showed a1anning signsof veering towards militarydictatorship. Neverthelessthe suppression of libeta1 political freedoms in the nameof a higher democrncy in1918led to the tragic polarisation between thosesocialists who supported Bolsheviks and those who now
64
called lhemselves 'democratic socialists' becausethey opposed 'dictatorship'.
Skwo himself makes lhepoint that Lenin did not address in any detail the natureof established socialist civilsociety - questions such asthe relationship betweenparty, state, people's electedrepresentatives, social organisations elC. But this is notsurprising. The 'space' forthis kind ofconsiderationwas shut out by the development ofan authoritarianmodel of socialism whichloolced upon 'civil society'(ie, social institutions outsidethe party and state) as arealm which was basicallysubversive and anti-socialistin character.
It has to be said (and thisis a point at which Siovo himself hints) that the noting ofthe state as a 'dictatorship' inMarxist theory is a muchmore complicated andnuanced idea lhan is sometimes thought. The term'dictatorship' was only usedpositively by Marx and Engels in rather unusualconteJl:ts where, for example,lhey were building bridgeswith authoritarian minded allies whom lhey wished toplacate, or making polemicalpoints against socialists wilh1ibeta1 or anarchist views.11Ie point is that a democratic socialist society is only'dictatorial' in the rather technical sense that like anysociety with a state it must'dictate' to those wholhreaten to destroy its institutions. A socialist state,however, which 'dictates' in
Was the 1917 revolution a progressive event?
..-".".', -..... ---,...-SOCIALISM
The problematic characterof the society produced bythe Russian Revolutionmakes it nea:ssary to emphasise an important point aboutthe 'circumstances argument'which might otherwise bemissed. Marxists do notderive their perspectivesfrom historical evenlll assuch. As materialists, we areonly obliged to derive ideasfrom historical challge. Thischange is only necessarywhen it renects itself in his·torical developments whichare progressive in character,that is, they take human history to a higher stage.
A number of communists(or 'post-communists' asthey sometimes style themselves in Britain) are nowarguing that the Russian Revolution itself is to blame forthe crisis in the socialistworld. The revolution laidthe basis (argument goes) fora post-1918 Leninism whichdeveloped into Stalinism and
~ ......, ". _J> .g::...••.."
1
glorious form of Marxism. Itis therefore with Stalin's(rather than Lenin's) namethat Sklvo rightly associatesthe model of wllat he calls"socialism without democracy" (p 3).
The Russian Revolution:8progressivephenomenon?11Iose who argue that the rev·olution produced a repressiveand aulhoritarian society areright to do so. But this pointhas an important bearing onthe problem of justificationas noted above· the problemas to how Mantists cancriticise developments whichare historicaIly inevitable.We have seen earlier howeven staunch anti-Stalinistslike Pallo Jordan argue thatthe Russian Revolution (andall that flowed from it) washistorically necessary and yetwant to vehemently criticisewhat actually happened as aresult.
a way !.hat prevenlll!.he members of !.his or that class fromenjoying the classical liberalfreedoms of association andspeech, ceases to be democratic.
But what happens whensuch a state represents lhemajority? Isn't this in itselfenough to make it democratic? Those who argue in!.his way overlook a crucialpoint The fact is !.hat a proletariat which suppressestraditional civic freedoms,also suppresses itself, if opposition parties and papers arebanned and critics aresilenced, how can anyone insuch a society be said to exercise meaningful democraticrights? Engels once declaredthat a nation which oppressesanother cannot itself be free.The same is uue of a classeven when its members constitute a majority. A majoritywhich represses a minority(in the sense of lhe overt repression which developed inthe USSR after 1918) canonly repress itself since theconditions under which theopinion of the majority canbe properly and reliably expressed no longer reallyobtain.
While it is true that after1918 Lenin himself began tojustify !.he authoritarianmeasures of the new Sovietstate as the expression of ahigher fonn of democracy,he did so hesitantJy and wi!.hcaution. Stalin, by way ofcontraSt, made a full bloodedvirtue outof necessity, extoll-
•ing pre-tiberal forms ofpolitical rule as !.hough theyrepresented a new and more
65 SALB Vo/1S No 7
DEBATE
therefore the event representsa disaster (and not a triumph)for the socialist movement. Itwas not a step forward but astep backward, and thereforeMarxists should not feel obliged to 'justify' the event(and all that nowed from it).TIle revolution fails to qualify as 'a real historicalmovement going on beforeour eyes', that is, as a pr0
gressive development whichmakes the case for real communism.
What are we to make ofan argument like this? It iscertainly wmth rememberingthat even in 1917 there weresocialists who opposed theRussian Revolution. Veterans like George Plekhanovand Karl Kautsky argued thatRussia was not ready for s0
cialism. TIle bourgeoisrevolution of February 1917had, they contended, not yetcreated the material and cultural basis for thedevelopment of a higher s0
ciety. To attempt a socialistrevolution under these circumstances was thereforefutile and self-defeating.
Of course Lenin and theBolsheviks assumed that IheOctober Revolution wouldseJVe as the catalyst to socialist revolutions in Ihe'developed' West and no-oneanticipated that the revolution would find itselfisolated in a backwardcountry. But given the factthat Ihis isolation did notoccur, we have to ask thequestion: under these circumStances what kind ofsocialism could emerge? Theproblem of democtaey after
Apri/1991
1918 is itself part of a widerproblem - the question ofwhen the development of asocialist society actuallycounts as a progressive ralherthan a reactionary phenomenon. 1be point is IIOt asbiUUTe as it sounds.
In Part 3 of the COmmwl
ist Manifesto Marx andEngels review a wide varietyof other socialist and communist ooctrines prevalent atthe time. One factor in particular differentiates thesesocialisms and communismsfrom the argument advancedin the Manifes/(): the aWUldetowards capitalism. Non-Marxist socialisms, the Manifestoargues, either take an uncritical and reformist view ofcapitalism, oreven worse,they take a IXlsition towardscapitalism which is reactionary in character. Reactionarysocialists (as Ihe Manifestodescribes them) look backwards by ~pressing supportfor pre-capitalist ideas of amedieval kind. Communismin this view is not a higherform of society which buildsupon the technologicalachievements and politicalculture of the capitalist system.lt is merely a (backwardlooking) moral ideal or utopia which shuns bourgeoisethics and practices. It is a reactionary or "crude- (asMarx and Engels sometimescall it) communism becauseit projects socialism as a system of sl\ared poverty ratherthan as a system whichutilises and builds upon capitalist abundance.
It is surely not difficult toidentify elements of this
66
"crude communism" in theinstitutions and practices of~isting (or fonnerly ~ist
ing) socialism. Slovo himselfrefers to the "primitive egalitarianism" which reachedlunatic proportions under thePol Pot regime, the absenceof cost accounting, a dismissive attiwde tocommodity production, thepremature abandonment ofmarket forces, and a doctrinaire approach 10 questionsof collectivisation (p 22).
While we are right tocriticise Ihese developments,it is important to be clearabout Iheir character. 1beyare not, strictly speaking, deviations from socialism assuch. What they are (asMarx's own writings makeclear) are deviations from aparticular ki"d of socialism namely a scientific socialism- a socialism which seeks tobuild upon and thus move beyond the capitalist system. Ascientific socialism is a progressive socialism because itseeks to transcend capitalism. A socialism whichsimply rejects capitalism onmoral grounds and sets aboutsuppressing the market byforce accords with the kindof socialism which lheMa,,;festo calls reactionary. In thissense Harty Gwala is right toargue that backward circumstances create a backwardsocialism. But the implications of this comment aregrave indeed.
For the MOJ1ifeslo makesit clear that a socialismwhich is simply anti-liberaland anti-capitalist is very different from socialism which
is post-libenl.l and post-capitalist in characlel. The onebuilds upon capilalism andits achievements, the othermerely 'negateS' or rejects itThe one harnesses the energyand dynamism of capitalism its technology, its libernlculture. its scientifIC achievements - and puts them toprogressive use. The othersimply rejects capitalism byseeking to impose aulOCrntically crude communistnoons so that (and this is thereally uocomfonable point)individuals become even lessfree - even further away fromhuman emancipation - thanthey would be under a system or Iibenl.l capitalism.
Siovo refers to "episodesof direct compulsion againstproducers· in the development of socialism after 1917- the forced coUectivisationin the 1930s, the eJ;tensiveuse of convict labour as a direct state and party eJ;ercise(P 22). It is true that capital.ism had its own period ofprimitive accumulation inwhich the system comes intothe world dripping blood andgore, and South Africandemocrats for their partknow only too well how capitalists can for long periods oftime support and connivewith colonial and racistfonns of rule. Nevertheless ifwe want to understand thepopular uprisings in EasternEurope in 1989 and the current crisis in the USSR, thenwe need to confront the painful fact that individuals canenjoy greater freedom underliberal capitalism than theydo undecoll. fonn of autocratic
socialism which involves the"direct compulsion of the producers-,
Under capitalism, as Engels put it, "the principle offreedom is afrumed· and the·oppressed wiU one day seeto it that his principle is carried out· (Colluttd Works4,p 474). But what happens ifunder socialism the principleof freedom is dismissed as abourgeois IX"Cjudice (ie, it isnOl. afrumed at all), and workers find themselves subjectto the kind of direct coercioncharacteristic ofpre-capitaliSl systems'! What ishistorically progressive about....,
Our problem therefore islhis: given its tragic is0lation, the RlL'lsian Revolutionbrought into eJ;istence a system which displayed at leastsome of the features of whatMarx and Engels would haveidentified as utopian ratherthan scientific socialism.These features were characteristic of a reactionary ratherthan progressive socialisman autocratic rather than ademocratic socialism - a s0
cialism thus dramatically alodds with a scientific socialism which is necessarilypost-capitalist rather than pre-
67
SOCIAllSMcapitalist in illl political andeconomic character.
Marxism and solldarhy:the dilemma of ademocratic socialismThe painful question nowarises: should Marxists havefollowed Plekhanov andKautsky and refused to havesupported the Russian Revolution at all'! Should theyhave identified themselvesbody and soul with a socialism which turned out to bereactionary I3ther than progressive in significantrespects'!
I think that we are right topose this question but we arealso right to think long andhard before we answer it affirmatively. Because the menand women who sacrificedso much to build socialism inthe USSR were acting withgreat selnessness and courage. Workers all over theworld were inspired by theirexample. As a result of therevolution. millions ofpeople fought for freedomand equality who would nototherwise have had the confidence and courage to do so.Rosa Lw!:embourg, thoughsharply critical of Lenin'stactics, was to say of lhe Bolsheviks that they wenl aheadas an eJ;ample to the proletariat of the world by cryingout "I have dared!" (1972, P251). This, she argued. iswhat is "essential and tnduring in the Bolshevik policy·and ·and in this sense, the future everywhere belongs to'Bolshevism'·.
Can Mantists really callthemselves revolutionaries
SALB VoltS No 7
DEBATEunless, like Rosa Luxembourg, !hey fed compeUed toexpress solidarity with thosewho sect to build a betterworld? It is tJue that revolutions may occur undercin:umstanees in which heroic efforts an:: likely to fail.To -carry OUl-, Rosa Luxemboutg declared., -!hedic~ip of!he pro1erariatand the socialist revolution ina single country surroundedby reactionary imperialistrule and in the facc of !hebloodiest world war inhuman history - that is squaring!he circleR (19n, p 242).It was a venture which shebelieved was tnIgicallydoomed. Was she wrongtherefore to support it?
The problem is not a newone for Manists although ithas to be said that with !heRussian Revolution it was aproblem which tool:.: on a particularly acute fann. Forcrucial 10 Marxism as a scientific socialism is theargument that people are edLleated, and can only really beeducated, by material circumsrances themselves. This is Iphilosophical point with critical political implications.The CO#rIIrlWIisl Manifntomakes it clear (as we havesecn) that the thcor"etical C(»
clusions or Communists arenot invented by reformenbut spring from the histoicalmovement 'going on beforeour very eyes'. This is whyMarxists are implacably 0p
posed 10 conspirators andelitists -10 those who believethat they can manipulateevents or act patemalisticallyon behalf or people. As far as
April 1991
Marxists are concerned, thematerialist argument for circumstances is also I politicalargument for democracy.
But it is here that the pr0blem arises.. For the fact thatpeople are educated by citCWllSlaJlCeS (and are not'enlighlelJed' by paternalistickadcnhip from on high) inevitably means that peoplewill from time to time (Marxists included) findlhemselves in circumstanceswtuch are not of lheir choosing. Under suchcircumstanCes they may be'compelled' 10 take actionswtuch they know (or whichthey should know as long asthey remain Marxists) arenecessarily problematic incharactel". Thus Engels toldthe Gennan sociaIistJosephWcyderncyer that R we shall
find ourselves compelled tomake commmist uperiments and leaps whichno-one Icnows better than ourselves to be untimelyR (citedby Levin 1989, p 69). Matxists are part of the historicalprocesses they try to understand and like everyone else,they have to learn from theirmistakes. Only 'utopian s0
cialists' believe otherwise.It is true that Man and En-
68
gels for example fried 10 distance themselves from thosewho nlised communist demands during the (bourgeois)democnItic: revolutions of1848. But they were notwholly sveeessful. There isevidence to suggest thatsome of the formulations during this period were made byMan: and Engels not out oftheoretical conviction bUl inorder to cement tactical alliances with other socialistswho were impatient at thepace of events. Thus the argument in the CommunistManifest() that I backwardGennany (as it was in 1848)might uperience a proletarian revolutionRimmediately" following onfrom I bourgeois revolution,is difficult to square with !heManifesto's general analysisof how workers become classconscious. It is also confradicted by other commentsMarx and Engels make at thetime where they envisage the-pennanent revolution" as amuch more protracted pro« ..
But why should contradictions ol this sort arise? Aneven more dramatic exampleis furnished by the upisingof workers in 1871 leading tothe formation of the shortlived Paris Commune.. Manand Engels wen: opposed 10the uprising since they coosidered that under thecircumStanCes it could notpossibly succeed. Paris wasringed by the troops of an invading Gennan anny whichwould inevitably assist theFrench government (whichhad retreated 10 VersaiUes) to
restore 'order'.But when the uprising did
occur, how did Marx and Engels respond? Did theycomplain that because the uprising was 'untimely', theywould therefore have nothingto do with it? Did they usethe occasion to deliver (in aschoolmasterly Menshevikfashion) a severe reprimandto me communards for takingdestiny into their hands before the material conditionsfor political success hadcome 10 fruition? The creators of Marxism did nothingof the kind! As the Civil Warjn France demonstrates, theyfelt compelled out of a senseof solidarity 10 present theCommune as me heroic attempt by ordinary men andwomen 10 ~SlOfTIl heaven"and lay the basis for a futurecommunist society.
The workers, Marx writesofthe communards, "have noideals 10 realise~ but ~will
have to pass through longstruggles, through a series ofhistoric processes,lnlnsforming circumstances andmenM (1971, p 76). For this isme point. People have 10
make history for themselves.They can only lcam fromtheir own experience andtherefore from their own mistakes. II is significant thatRosa Luxembourg defendsthe Russian Revolution in thesame way and for the samereasons that Marx and Engelssupport the Paris Commune.
It is also revealing that theGerman socialist, EduardBernstein should find Marx'scomment about "ideals" 10 beeither "self-deception" or "a
mere play on words on thepartof the author" (1961, p222). For Bernstein and hisfellow 'revisionists' hadceased to believe that a revolutionary reconstruction ofsociety was either possible ordesirable. They did fIOlminkthat people must do mingsfor themselves and.thereforeidentified themselves as liberal rather than tUm,ocraticsocialists in their opposition10 revolutionary developments.
Siovo makes no attempt(he tells his readers) "toanswer the complex questionof why so many millions ofgenuine socialists and revolutionaries became such blindworshippers in the temple ofthe cult of the personality~ (p12). But at least part of theexplanation surely lies in thetension just noted betweenthe logic of Marxism as ascientific socialism and thepressure ofcircumstanceswhich compels revolutionaries to undertakeexperiments ofa 'utopian'kind. It is true that the ParisCommune lasted only for afew months and did notundertake any unambiguously authoritarian measures inits defence. But what if,againSltheodds, it had main·tained itself in power throughthe introduction, say, of a draconian authoritarianism andthe consolidation of Staliniststyle personality cults? Howwould Marx and Engels havereacted then?
The USSR did survive. Itweathered the fierce onslaughts of counterrevolution and Nazi attack. It
69
SOCIAliSMinvolved millions of itscitizens in the construction ofa new social order. It inspired millions elsewhere ata time when fascism hadstrangled the Spanish republic and capitalism wascrippled by slump. ~I haveseen the future and itsworks~. The utopian character of the USSR wasapparently belied by its practical successes and thepopular suppen which Stalinenjoyed. Moreover the capitalist countries remainedbitterly hostile to the USSRso that it seemed that criticism constituted treachery tothe makers of a new world.George Orwell continued toregard himself as a socialistbut his fierce auaek on Stalinism in Animal Farm and1984 was, it is said. wonh acool million votes to me British Conservative party in thepostwar period.
The need for solidaritycan pose grave dilemmas fordemocratic socialists, and reflects the fact that the tensionbetween scientific socialismand circumstances whichgenerate utopian perspectivesand practices is a real one. Itis a tension which arises because Marxism as a scientificsocialism sometimes !las toface in two directions at oneand the same time. Preciselybecause our values are rootedin the 'historical movementgoing on before our veryeyes', Marxists cannot analyse society in terms oftimeless 'values' which standoutside the historical process.If this is its enduringstrength, it also creates prob-
SALB Vo/15 No 7
DEBATElems. For whatllappenswhen there are circumstances(as in the case of the RussianRevolution) which compelMarxists to act in wayswhich are contrary to the'logic' of their own !heory?We then have to witness thetragic spectacle of Marxists(as with Lenin after 1918) de·fending the indefensible andtrying to justify what cannotbe justified.
The problem is !herefore,as Siovo says, a "complex"one. The contradictory relationship between Marxisttheory and Marxist practicebetween a scientific logicand utopian circumstances arises as pan of !he historicalprocess itself, Marxists aresubject to the same historicalcircumstances which compelhumans in general 10 ~enter
social relations independentof !heir will". Long historicalprocesses have 10 be enduredin the struggle for humanemancipation, These pm.cesses involve heroic leapsand untimely experiments,They are also contradictoryin character for they requireMarxists 10 organise politically and supponcocrcivestate institutions in order toreach a world in which lIlestate and (hierarchically organised) politics itself willdisappear.
The lessons of 1989There can be liUle doubt (asSiovo acknowledges) lIlat theprestige and credibility ofMarxism has been seriouslydamaged by !he fact that a"socialism without democracy" has been created in !he
Apri/1991
name of Marxism, This hasgenerated a sense of theoreticaI'crisis' as ow criticsgleefully proclaim that Marxists have been overthrownby history.
On the other hand the riseof unpopular and autocraticstates can only be understoodin Marxist terms as develop-ments which are radically atvariance with the logic of ascientific socialism. The collapse of these statesdemonstrates beyond all shadow of doubt that utopianforms of socialism are unworkable and ultimatelyunpopular (even if they arenot without some progressivefeatures like the desire forpeace and the solidaritygiven 10 national liberationmovements).
Circumstances imprisonbut they also liberate and theevents of 1989 have helped10 liberate Marxism from thetragic strnit-jacket of circumstances placed upon it after1911. The popular revolutions in Eastern Europehave made it possible topoint once again to historicaldevelopments as a vindication of the logic of Marxism(however painful and unwelcome this vindication is).
70
The tensions between theoryand practice remain inherentin the historical process butwe are now in a position toanswer our critics with a con·fidence and a conviction thatwas not possible as long aswe believed that we had todefend the problematic Iegaciesofl911.
In a word: Marxists nolonger need to make vinuesoutof necessities. This, itseems to me, is the realles·son of Siavo's courageouscritique and it is the reasonwhy socialism does indeedhave a future. '"
ReferencesBernstein. Eduard 1961. £,,01OIlioNuySocitJlism, New York,Schocken Books.Cronin. Jeremy 1990, 'Rediscovering our socialist history',SA LDbour Buller;n 15 (3), pp97-100.Gwala, Harty 1m, 'Let usLook at HistoJ)' in the Round'AfricanColltlnlmis/, 123, PI' 3948.Jordan. Pallo 1990.. 'Crisis ofconscience in the SACP', SA La·bour BuJlelitl15 (3), pp 66_74.199Q), 'Crisis of conscience inthe South African ConummistPan)", S",,'hernAfrie/J 3 (8)pp28-34.Kolakowski. well:: 1978, MainCurrents ofManism vol. 3, Oxford University Press.Levin, Michael 1989, MtlJ'%, En·gels and Uberlll Democraq.London, Maemillan.Luxembourg, Rosa 1972, Se.lee/d PoiiJielll WriJings,London, Jonathan Cape.Man. and Engels 1971.0" lhePtlJ'isCommwIl!, Moscow, Progress Publishers.von Holdt, Karl 1990, 'Marxism, Leninism and Stalin', SALabour Bullel;" IS (3), pp 94-96.