BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Marx, revolutions and the secret police

  
 
jmw
20:57 / 23.08.05
Taking Tom's Marxism thread as a jumping off point, can a proponent of revolutionary politics dodge the consequences of their world-view?

In my opinion, common or garden Marx-lite groups such as the SWP (IS in the USA, not the Cannonites of whom I know very little) are thoroughly irresponsible in advocating sweeping change but not having the nerve to either bring those changes about, or accept the outcome of such changes.

Being Irish I'm particularly interested in this. I recently interviewed a very prominent figure in the republican movement and his honesty struck me as refreshing.

Here is a brief quotation from the article (brief, because it's not due to be published until next month):

Whatever one thinks of Irish republicanism, [****NAME DELETED****] is honest. I mention Slavoj Zizek, the Slovenian philosopher. In his book The Ticklish Subject, Zizek takes an obvious sideswipe at the contemporary left: "What a true Leninist and a political conservative have in common is the fact that they reject what one could call leftist 'irresponsibility' (advocating grand projects of solidarity, freedom, and so on, yet ducking out when one has to pay the price for them in the guise of concrete and often 'cruel' political measures)". Lacking a copy of the book to hand, I mumble Zizek's name and reduce his thesis to the trite remark that "revolutions are an unpleasant business". [****NAME DELETED****] agrees:

"These people did lack spine. For a lot of them it was a phase they were going through – their 'revolutionary growing-up'.

"The IMG [International Marxist Group] had a much more pragmatic stance than the broad left, but they were also calling for a general strike and 'revolution now' – pie in the sky stuff. To engage in struggle is a serious proposition, People suffer, families are broken up. You have to reach a threshold in public consciousness. The IRA armed struggle wasn't inevitable," he explains.


J...
 
 
Disco is My Class War
02:47 / 24.08.05
And your question or point was.....? Please unpack.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:37 / 24.08.05
...can a proponent of revolutionary politics dodge the consequences of their world-view?

I thought the whole point of following revolutionary politics was the consequence? That consequence being a better world, which is why the person chooses to follow those politics in the first place?

Your post is confusing because there are so many different strands. You mention Marx- that's one thing- secret police- another thing- and then ask if the end justifies the means- I mean there are three threads in there, really.

However. What I think you might be referring to is the notion that it's easy to say revolution without doing it, right?

And more specifically, the notion that it's easy for a left wing middle class intelectual (here we go again) in Britain to applaud a marxist revolution in (for example) South America from the comfort of their own easy lifestyle, without picking up a weapon or getting their hands dirty? "Revolution" as a fashion for the middle classes?

Or have I just read that into your post?
 
 
jmw
11:47 / 24.08.05
What I think you might be referring to is the notion that it's easy to say revolution without doing it, right?

And more specifically, the notion that it's easy for a left wing middle class intelectual (here we go again) in Britain to applaud a marxist revolution in (for example) South America from the comfort of their own easy lifestyle, without picking up a weapon or getting their hands dirty? "Revolution" as a fashion for the middle classes?

Kind of. That's as good a question as any, so please discuss. On that point, the British left applauded revolutions everywhere around the world but most ran a mile from the conflict in Ireland which, legitimate or otherwise, was revolutionary (effectively Leninist). They seemed to not enjoy being close to the bombs, political murders and so on (in Ireland, I'm not talking about the IRA's campaign in Britain) yet are those not inevitable in the very revolution which they preached?

What I specifically meant is, as Zizek says, can you have the revolution without the pogroms and the secret police which follow?

J...
 
 
We're The Great Old Ones Now
13:48 / 24.08.05
I've argued here before that the world created is indivisible from the means used to create it. The end cannot justify the means, because the journey is the thing itself; there is no telos, there is no endpoint to the historical process. There may be states of stable and unstable equilibrium, for better or worse.

It seems to me that you must use means commensurate with your end to achieve it.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
20:01 / 24.08.05
On that point, the British left applauded revolutions everywhere around the world but most ran a mile from the conflict in Ireland which, legitimate or otherwise, was revolutionary (effectively Leninist). They seemed to not enjoy being close to the bombs, political murders and so on (in Ireland, I'm not talking about the IRA's campaign in Britain) yet are those not inevitable in the very revolution which they preached?

Did the British Left unequivocally support all actions taken by revolutionaries worldwide?

Did the British Left "run a mile from the bombs"? Do you mean physically, or ideologically?

I thought the IRA were strongly Nationalist. That's not Leninist, is it?

I think the main problem here is that you're falling into a reactionary generalisation of: "All left wingers support violent acts deemed "revolutionary" by the acting entity". And further "This is because they do not understand the nature of violence."(My words, not a direct quote).
 
 
jmw
13:23 / 25.08.05
I thought the IRA were strongly Nationalist. That's not Leninist, is it?

No, the IRA haven't been nationalist since the 1950s. The OIRA, PIRA and INLA are all Leninist organisations [with the OIRA (defunct) and INLA being Stalinists]. Arguably the CIRA are nationalists and I'm not sure the RIRA have anything in the way of a serious political outlook.

The CPI infiltrated Sinn Féin in the 1960s and pushed it away from nationalism. It then split into Official Sinn Féin/OIRA and Provisional Sinn Féin/PIRA. OSF became Sinn Féin - The Workers' Paryy and then just The Workers' Party. Most of that party has now been swallowed by (Irish) Labour.

Provisional Sinn Féin and the PIRA were originally a right-wing element but over the years became Marxists also. Arguably the party is still split between bourgeois and Marxist factions, though most of the right-wingers left in 1986, during the abstentionist crisis, to form Republican Sinn Féin and the Continuity IRA.

What right-wing there now is in SF, particularly in the leadership, is best characterised as post-Marxist (think Marxism Today, New Labour etc.) rather than as bourgeois chauvinists.

Did the British Left "run a mile from the bombs"? Do you mean physically, or ideologically?

With the exception of the RCP, RCG, Red Action and CPGB(PCC) [ex-The Leninist faction], yes, they did. Ideologically.

I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't, run a mile. I'm just asking why the conflict in Ireland was not seen as suitable for support. I am suggesting that the reason is that the consequences of revolutions (violence, murder etc.) were all to apparent when it was occurring so close to home.

I think the main problem here is that you're falling into a reactionary generalisation of: "All left wingers support violent acts deemed "revolutionary" by the acting entity". And further "This is because they do not understand the nature of violence."(My words, not a direct quote).

I can see why you think that, but, believe me, I'm not. I'm just suggesting that some Marxist groups during the 1980s were decidedly dishonest. I think that many wanted to disguise the nature of violence, not that they didn't understand it.

My other question is, is a post-revolutionary situation always going to be unpleasant and feature, as Zizek suggests, "concrete and often 'cruel' political measures", EG, the secret police etc.

J...
 
 
Tom Coates
10:34 / 28.08.05
I believe Marx said that revolution was inevitable when the conditions were right - which is of course a debatable proposition. What pretty much isn't debatable is that the conditions under which most supposedly Marxist revolutions have been undertaken were not those that Marx stated as requirements. In fact, the state that most strongly resembled the industrialised capitalist state in Marx's day was Britain, which resolutely refused to rise up to revolution. It was mostly the pre-industrialised, pre-capitalist societies like China and Russia which saw uprisings. So to answer the question - maybe it is possible to have a Marxist revolution without pogroms and the like, except of course that we wouldn't know because we've never had one.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
20:20 / 28.08.05
I can see why you think that, but, believe me, I'm not. I'm just suggesting that some Marxist groups during the 1980s were decidedly dishonest. I think that many wanted to disguise the nature of violence, not that they didn't understand it.

Good point. Perhaps disguising the nature of the revolution could be akin to the way capitalism makes it profitable to lie about the properties of a material product? Perhaps for another thread.

My other question is, is a post-revolutionary situation always going to be unpleasant and feature, as Zizek suggests, "concrete and often 'cruel' political measures", EG, the secret police etc.

I think the key word here is "always". All of South America is post-revolutionary, and while in some cases we see the cruel political measures you mention there, in others we don't. So, I personally don't think we will always see these politics appearing, but if anyone has any counter evidence?

Of course, this is definitely something to look out for, and anyone supporting a "revolution" needs to think about what happens afterwards as a matter of course.
 
 
jmw
12:18 / 29.08.05
What pretty much isn't debatable is that the conditions under which most supposedly Marxist revolutions have been undertaken were not those that Marx stated as requirements.

That's pretty much the standard-issue post-war Trotskyist position. I can see the sense of it, but is it verifiable?

Perhaps disguising the nature of the revolution could be akin to the way capitalism makes it profitable to lie about the properties of a material product? Perhaps for another thread.

Certainly. I'm not here to defend capitalism, except perhaps in the abstract insofar as modern socialists seem (to me) to hate the best aspects of capitalism, rather than the worst.

I think the key word here is "always". All of South America is post-revolutionary, and while in some cases we see the cruel political measures you mention there, in others we don't. So, I personally don't think we will always see these politics appearing, but if anyone has any counter evidence?

Where don't you see them? (Serious inquiry, not rhetoric.)

My opinion is that if a revolution aims for, say, 'the suppression of the property owning elite at the hands of the majority', there will always be cruel measures against the members of that elite. Well, tough, I don't really care.

What I am curious about is, does the revolution always begat the likes of Maximilien Robespierre, Stalin etc? Does the revolution devour its children?

Both Tom and yourself seem to suggest that it need not be so 'as long as the conditions are right'. OK, what exactly are these condition and how do they alter the outcome?

J...
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
10:34 / 30.08.05
Now I'm not by any stretch an expert on Marx, Leninism etc - but isn't it a basic requirement for such a society that power and privilege are devolved to the extent that the terms no longer have any political meaning? That there is no privileged class, no class division at all?

Presupposing this is the case, this would either require every part of that society to accept that this should be the case, or would require imposition upon those who chose not to accept it. Since we're talking revolution (transformation of a social order rather than generation of a new society/nation), we're talking the latter. The revolution would impose change upon those members of society perceived to be privileged.

That imposition requires one section of society to have power over another. Historically, it's been seen that power creates privilege, as in time the method of acquisition of that power becomes an institutionalised process. I believe that the cliche "power corrupts" isn't just a reference to the abuse of power or privilege, it's central to the whole notion of having power. I don't believe it is possible to have it without being changed by it, and I don't believe it is possible to apply it without fear or favour in every case. People are fucked up. Give them power over others, and they will start fucking other people up too, to a greater or lesser degree. It's the only constant in human nature and human history. Incidentally, revolution as described also ends up causing the creation of privilege, supposedly the destruction of which is the aim of said revolution in the first place.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
11:25 / 30.08.05
I think one of the factors that can affect the political measures taken post-revolution is actually the size of the country. The larger the country is, the harder it is to control, therefore the controls themselves become harder and less personal.

For example, how capable was someone in Moscow of creating sensible, useful policies for a Siberian village half a continent away? Whereas if we look at Allende in Chile- a much smaller country- we find that he was popular and successful. Perhaps because the county was much smaller it was easier to travel and to know it's people better?

This is an open idea and I'd be glad to hear other's views.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
02:41 / 31.08.05
Well, the ancient Greeks believed that in order for a Democracy (that is, a Democracy, not an American-style Republic) to function the maximum number of citizens should number no more than 10,000. Anything larger becomes unmanageable. Of course by the time Communism came along the maximum number of governable citizens would have gone up, and the innate differences between Greek Democracy and Communism would have affected it too. Today it's probably even higher, what with greater education and communication.
However, if we're talking about the USSR then I don't population managability can account for pogroms, the brutal nature of the KGB, the persecution of intellectuals etc. that's just down to that four letter word we don't use much any more, evil.
As for the main part of the thread; let's say the revolutionary leftists of Country A are angry with the revolutionary leftists of Country B, who started out in colleges and backrooms with noble intentions just like they did, for persecuting people and being genuinely nasty when the Country B government was overthrown and replaced. If the Country A revolutionaries think that persecution and nastiness are unnacceptable then doesn't it stand to reason that when the time comes for them to take control of their country they will behave in accordance with their own morality? Excepting the fact that power inevitably corrupts to some degree of course.
 
  
Add Your Reply