Skip to content or view screen version

THE SENSE OF A LEFT-WING BATTLE

The Great | 30.07.2005 16:11 | Analysis | Globalisation | Social Struggles

What is the real sense of a left-wing battle?

THE SENSE OF A LEFT-WING BATTLE

The year of 1917 is remembered today thanks to the so-called “revolution” that took place in Russia in that year. It was a beginning of work on a project called “socialism”, which spread to other countries and came to its disaster around fifteen years ago. People who took part in that project were guided by generous goals, but achieved result was equally disastrous everywhere. Their wish to overthrow capitalism and replace it with a classless society didn’t come true. Contrary to that, the world capitalist system survived and became stronger. After the collapse of socialism, a new world anti-capitalist movement appeared, this time under different name - alterglobalism. This movement is as critical towards its left-wing precursor, as it is towards its capitalist adversary. Breaking ties with socialism (communism) it tends to show off as a quite new movement capable of achieving long ago promised goal of creating more just world society. However, no matter how much it strives to present itself as different, this movement will, as far as I am concerned, inevitably share one of the characteristics with an old left-wing movement – it will experience a historical failure. I will try to explain why.
An old left wing, or at least its part that had the biggest influence on the course of the last century history, working on creation of more just society, invoked founders of so-called “scientific socialism”, Marx and Engels. The two of them created a theory of capitalism that hasn’t been surpassed yet. I am ready, however, to say that practitioners of “socialism” shifted from the theory to the extent that I can claim that Marx and Engels wrongly interpreted themselves alone. Namely, it stems from their theory that there are some necessary stages that humanity has to pass through during its development, if conditions are to be created for moving to that, so much desired, classless society. It means that we may regret the destiny of the people who became slaves at the crossing from classless original human community to the slave holding, as much as we want. It would be a useless regret, cause if society wants to progress both in material and intellectual sense, and to upgrade its quality of life to a higher level, human price has to be paid for it, no matter how great and painful it is. The mistake that was made by Marx and Engels as practitioners, their followers - revolutionists of the 20th century, and is being made by alterglobalists nowadays, is that they all hoped and still hope for the fall of capitalism before it passed through all historically necessary stages. Premature revolution leads to worse state of the one that is wanted to be changed, and an existing order increases its power, while the alternatives lose their attractiveness being compromised. In favor of this we can consider the term “alterglobalism”, which presupposes globalization a matter of choice, meaning it can be of one or another kind, with “human” or some other face. Contemporary left-wingers should understand globalization, such it is, as a historical necessity, which can not be considered a conspiracy of the rich against the poor. Exploitation of people by other people lasts for millenniums, and all those who think that they are the ones who belong to the generation predestined to cease that exploitation are wrong. They make the same error as their left-wing precursors.
What is then the sense of a left-wing battle? I’ll be clear – it doesn’t have a sense. I think I can describe it picturesquely in the following way: let’s imagine that capitalism is a vehicle that moves down the slope towards the abyss. If left-wingers are interested in a fall of capitalism, they should let the vehicle move freely down the slope, or possibly push it in order to move faster. However, both old and new left wingers do the opposite thing – they stick pistons in that vehicles’ wheels and make it move slower. Let’s take an example of privatization of a factory. If they privatize it, which left wingers oppose, a part of workers will be fired, but those who remain on the job will live better, because the factory will work successfully. If they don’t privatize it, everyone will lose, because the factory won’t work. If the factory doesn’t work, there isn’t production, so there isn’t a material base of any, especially more just society, either. Hence, opposing the privatization is sticking a piston in the vehicles’ wheel. Supporting the privatization is pushing the vehicle towards the abyss, given it means helping the capitalist mode of production to spread through the whole world and approach to its homogeneity. When it happens, it will face destruction for its inner contradictions. Only then left wingers should offer an alternative, for which creation conditions will appear in the meanwhile. What should they do until then? They should examine the world capitalist system, further developing Marxist theory liberated from ideological ingredients, in order not to think to early that the final moment of the system has come, and jump into a revolution without a chance to succeed. They should consider possibilities for building a new society, of course on a base created inside the scope of capitalism, in order not to let it be replaced with some reactionary order. Of course, until that critical moment many more people will suffer, but the consciousness of a great historical mission and the sacrifice for it will make their suffering easier. Only two centuries ago, even the richest man couldn’t afford a medicine against a bacterial infection, which can be cured today even if you are one of the poorest. Let somebody just tell me that nothing has changed. Many more diseases will be cured if people get rid of an illusion that they can change world as they wish, and gradually, excepting the reality, on a scientific base, make presumptions for their descendants to become capable of truly changing the world.


The Great

Comments

Hide the following 6 comments

The revolutionary equation

30.07.2005 18:39

So, we'll know when the revolution shall happen when the social scientists tell us eh?

ErnestEverhard
mail e-mail: alienlovebeast2003@yahoo.com


...

30.07.2005 19:44

Well, 'the great', personally I think it better to keep trying with various socialist experiments until one is found that works. Theory is just that. Sometimes when it is put into practice, various contradictions are found, which weren't thought about in the original draft.

In any case, the idea of driving society to complete destruction and then rebuilding it isn't one which exactly appeals to me. It's a bit like the Christian Fundamentalists, eagerly awaiting armageddon, so the Holy Kingdom can take the place of our corrupt decadent society.

The experiment in communism forced western capitalist governments to concede various workers rights, in order to appease the restless working class. The socialist experiments in Latin America are gaining momentum, in Venezuela for example. Whether it succeeds or fails, we will learn a lot from that. If society completely collapses, and we try and implement a theory which is flawed, well, what a waste of time. In Venezuela, there is a move towards socialism without the complete destruction of the old.

In any case, the various social movements springing up around the world, and often violent resistance such as in Iraq, are in fact capitalism's inner contradictions showing themselves. In fact, capitalism did almost drive itself to self destruction. The last time the inner contradictions displayed themselves in such a violent way were the first and second world wars. The first, at least, was a result of capitalist and colonial greed. And from the wreckage of the first came the Soviet Union. They thought they had the correct theory but obviously it didn't work.

And in any case, I find life more fulfilling working for a progressive organisation, than in working for some shit capitalist scum-bag company. I'd rather try and build the socialist alternative, and risk failing, than live an unfulfilling life working for McDonalds in the hope that society will eventually collapse.

Hermes


In complete disagreement

30.07.2005 23:36

--

Hence, opposing the privatization is sticking a piston in the vehicles’ wheel. Supporting the privatization is pushing the vehicle towards the abyss, given it means helping the capitalist mode of production to spread through the whole world and approach to its homogeneity. When it happens, it will face destruction for its inner contradictions.

--

Your assertion that that privatisation always leads to greater efficiency is wrong, as plenty of empirical evidence shows. There is a strong argument that the USSR was not a communist system but a state capitalist system because it didn't give the worker's control of the means of production. Ergo the belief that movements towards workers' control are just progressions down the slippery slope to USSR style economic sclerosis are incorrect. What if Rover had been made a worker's coop? Would that 'left wing' solution have resulted in a worse economic outcome than the govt's laissez faire approach? I really think not!

Your idea of scientific socialism is wrong too I think. Dialectical materialism is the idea that history is shaped by the struggle between productive and unproductive classes, which is subjective and involves free willl as well as being deterministic. Marx wasn't just an economic determinist. He thought the working class needed class consciousness not false consciousness (ie. an attitude of acquiescence in their own exploitation)

The really difficult question for the left is why hasn't revolution occurred (see the Situationists) and whether Socialism can ever be compatible with individual freedom.

--

Only two centuries ago, even the richest man couldn’t afford a medicine against a bacterial infection

--

Only two centuries ago, there was no global warming, nuclear weaponry or mega-mass starvation. And the reason he couldn't afford it was that it hadn't been invented. Personally, I don't think that a socialist economy would be less innovative. Look at open source software - freedom of information and ideas leads to better intellectual competition.

anon


Clarification

31.07.2005 06:20

I just want to point out to the reader that the Left, spoken of in this article, is much, much different than what is commonly referred to as "the Left" today.

Today, that term is applied to anyone who opposes anything that the Hard Right does, and they apply this label because they're desperate to paint the Informed Centre as somehow outside of mainstream thought, and misrepresent the size and diversity of their Opposition, because they're afraid people will discover how far to the Right, how outisde of the mainstream they, themselves and their ideas/beliefs, actually are.

Carry On


meaningless privatisation?

31.07.2005 09:55

the statement that a premature revolution is a bad thing is interesting, however as a sidenote..
an revolution 'in time' with evryone ready for it wouldnt be a revolution, but a rather late acknowledgement of consent?
I also find 'great' rather 'on the side of the system'
how so does not privatising make factorys unprofitable?

Lastly i think the point of pushing mankinds vehicle downhill at a higher speed isnt constructive at all, its dangerous and arrogant and in that sense unsocial.
Whatever is defined as left wing has no big interest in pushing mankinds social vehicle down a hill, becus we will have to do loads of work to haul it back up..

thinking like that, and degenerating what is left of human value in our chaotic world,
only helps the surpressors by creating more insecurity and despair.
(I am not evrywhere sure of that, but i think it generally holds.

As an example: people do remember good social iniatives and the results of them,
such experiences do thus have a value as a precedence, in individual lives.
Also evry speeding downhill means ecological rampage.
Exactly not regognising ecological value is what momentarilly is the biggest source of human suffering.(desertification, droughts versus climatechange hunger(failed crops) eg. but the list is endless)

onix


To everyone

01.08.2005 10:22

I’m glad that my article was noticed. Obviously, visitors to indymedia in the UK are more willing for debate than those in some other countries. Let me first cite the following sentence: “I'd rather try and build the socialist alternative, and risk failing, than live an unfulfilling life working for McDonalds in the hope that society will eventually collapse”. I have a great respect for such a brave standpoint, but there are not many people that could share such an opinion. Moreover, the risk of failing to build an alternative society is much bigger for those from the working class, than for some adventuresome intellectuals. I can agree with statement that privatization doesn’t always lead to greater efficiency, but only if we think of economies in a developed world. In the rest of the planet, especially in former “socialist” countries, privatization is essential for the revival of a normal production.
I would like to add that I don’t consider myself being “on the side of the system”. I just don’t want to be involved in some new utopian project and regret it, like many of those who took part in “socialist” revolutions and were killed, not by their opponents, but by their comrades. I have never mentioned a mankind’s vehicle, but capitalisms. On the contrary, I think that mankind’s vehicle is going upside, and has a chance to get to a better future, but only if we are smart enough.

The Great