Search This Blog

Saturday, December 31, 2022

Marxism's challenge - Overcoming the stigma of Stalin

Marxism's challenge - Overcoming the stigma of Stalin

By Ranting Panda, 31 December 2022

Communism and Socialism are often equated with the Soviet Union and China. While both these nations claimed to be Marxist, they were not operated in any way that Marx would have identified as aligning with his theories and propositions. 

Sure, there was a seizing of property, but Stalin missed the point of redistribution to meet the needs of all people. 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Stalin missed the point of workers having power over the means of production, of workers having power within government. Stalin operated a brutal totalitarian regime that stripped workers of what little they had and then exploited and persecuted them further. This was not Marxism. 

Marx and Engels stood for the working class. These days, most workers do not see themselves as part of a working class and generally see capitalism as their only hope to achieve wealth and meet their needs. Left wing groups have also moved away from working class struggle to identity politics, in which they will stand for certain social causes, such as environment, race, sex and gender. issues These causes are important and must be addressed, but ultimately they have fractured the left-wing into competing factions and diverted attention from the worker struggles identified by Marx. This plays into the hands of capitalism which thrives on left-wing disunity and has turned workers against the very solution that would end their exploitation, namely socialism. Capitalism has succeeded in this because they have been able to equate Marxism with Stalinism; its purges, severe exploitation, famines, pogroms, torture, disappearances, totalitarianism, lack of freedom of speech or thought, censorship, and so on. Each of these things is not what Marx stood for. They are contrary to Marxism, but they are what Stalin stood for in the name of Marxism. What worker in their right mind would want a revolution that replaced the relative freedoms of western democracy with a totalitarian Stalinist regime?

In 1949, China experienced the 'People's Revolution' which swept Mao Tse Tung to power. Chairman Mao claimed to be Marxist but fashioned himself on Stalin, including the use of purges, removal of freedoms, and a closed economy.

Marx did not advocate for closed economies. He understood that socialism would only succeed in an open internationalist environment with the cooperation of every nation. Marx advocated for socialism in all countries, not socialism in one country or in a centrally controlled government. Because of this, nationalism is anathema to Marxism, yet Stalin violently imposed centralism and nationalism, not internationalism. Stalin focused on socialism in one country through a closed economy and ensuring other socialist nations were merely satellites of Moscow. Hence, the so-called 'Iron Curtain' that imposed Soviet Union control over socialist nations in Europe.

Marx described a workers' revolution in which the working class would have control over the means of production and government. Marxism is the ultimate in democracy and freedom. It ensures people are treated fairly and equitably. Workers have a voice and have control. Stalin stripped workers of their voices and certainly did not give them control. Quite the opposite in fact. Anyone who dared challenge Stalin's power, politics or practices was liable to be tortured in Lubyanka or transported to the Gulags for years of harsh punishment and forced labour, often dying in the camps. 

Licenced from Shutterstock

The 1917 Russian Revolution was led by a triumvirate consisting of Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky. Following the revolution, Lenin became the first leader of the new Russian socialist state, which was initially founded on the principals of Marxism-Leninism. It gave power to workers, removed Russia from the first world war, and gave equality to women. Lenin however, was not a well man and he died in 1924. Prior to his death, Lenin penned a letter stating that leadership of the Russian state should be passed to Trotsky. He specifically stated that it should not go to Stalin, because of Stalin's desire for power at all costs. Lenin knew that Stalin was a megalomaniac who was using Marxism for his own narcissistic benefit. Unfortunately, on Lenin's death, Stalin ensured the letter did not immediately see the light of day. Prior to Lenin's death, Stalin had begun positioning himself to weaken Trotsky's position within the government. On assuming power, Stalin proceeded to besmirch and ultimately exiled Trotsky. Even after Trotsky was forced out of the country, Stalin used him as a scapegoat to arrest anyone who appeared a threat to him or for any other political purpose. People who Stalin wanted to get rid of were often accused of being Trotskyists. Stalin's obsession with Trotsky resulted in show trials against Trotsky and Trotsky-loyalists throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Despite Trotsky not even being in the country for many of the things he was accused of, the show trials found him guilty of anti-Communist activities. Many of the charges and accusations blamed Trotsky for things he had never been present for and which were completely fabricated. For decades, Stalin portrayed Trotsky as a bogeyman or bugaboo. It had nothing to do with Trotsky being anti-Marxist, but everything to do with Trotsky being a leader who posed a threat to Stalin's grip on power. 

Trotsky settled in Mexico, where he wrote numerous papers and books on Marxism, including 'The Revolution Betrayed' (published in 1936) which exposed Stalin's crimes and showed him to be an anti-Marxist megalomaniac who had betrayed the revolution, the people, the proletariat. In 1938, Trotsky and his exiled supporters created the Fourth International, which accused the Communist International  (ComIntern or Third International) of being Stalinists, anti-Marxists and traitors to the revolution. Even with that, Trotsky did not want the ComIntern destroyed, as he was hoping for socialist unity. He blamed the Third International and Stalin as providing impetus for the rise of Hitler and Nazism. After living in several countries, including Turkey, France and Norway. Trotsky had relocated to Mexico in 1937. Stalin eventually succeeding in having Trotsky assassinated in 1941.    

Even after his death, Stalin and the ComIntern continued to portray Trotsky as anti-Marxist and an enemy of the Soviet state. However, Trotsky was far more Marxist than Stalin had ever been. Trotsky's issue was not with Marxism, but with Stalinism. Trotsky correctly portrayed Stalin as having betrayed the revolution. Stalin claimed to be Marxist, but his actions did not align with Marxist policies and practices. 

Stalin's purges made the 'Reds Under the Bed' paranoia of 1950's USA look positively harmless in comparison. The 'Great Purge' of 1936 to 1938 resulted in the deaths of somewhere between 700,000 and 1.2 million people. The purges resulted in an estimated 14 million being sent to the Gulags. Most of these people were imprisoned or executed on trumped up charges, with the Comintern relying on the most absurd propaganda. 

Initially, the Russian Revolution successfully supplanted the brutal and delinquent Tsar Nicholas II with a Marxist government led by Lenin. However, by 1924, rather than being the leader of a workers' state, Stalin emerged as just another Tsar with a brutal and totalitarian regime that served himself at the cost of the people. 

In his book 'Animal Farm', British author, George Orwell described this transition from a workers' revolution to a government that was almost identical to the regime the revolution had replaced. Not surprisingly, like Trotsky, Orwell was portrayed as anti-Communist. Similar to Trotsky, Orwell did not have an issue with Communism per se, but with Stalinism.

Orwell is revered by some capitalists as being a conservative who detested communism. However, Orwell was an anarcho-Communist who fought for the left-wing Republicans in the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939. It is a little ironic that anarchists fought for a government, as left-wing anarchism doesn't believe in government and is based on selective Marxist principles. Petr Kropotkin, a leading 19th century anarchist, described an anarchist state as one in which the people ruled themselves without government. Although a Marxist of sorts, Kropotkin was highly critical of the communists and the communists were highly critical of anarchism. Kropotkin unleashed on the communist version of Marxism in his 1899 book The Conquest of Bread. Lenin returned the favour in his 1917 book The State and Revolution

The democratically elected Spanish Republican government was made up of a variety of left-wing groups, including communists, socialists, and anarcho-communists. In 1936, right-wing nationalist forces led by rebel elements of the Spanish military attempted a coup to overthrow the government and implement a right-wing Fascist regime. While the coup was unsuccessful, Spain descended into civil war. However, this was not just a war between republicans and nationalists. 

Numerous nations joined in the war, with countries such as Germany (under Hitler), Italy (under Mussolini), Portugal, Britain and United States siding with the fascist-aligned nationalists, while the Soviet Union (under Stalin) and Mexico sided with the republicans. 

Further, there was a 'war within a war', because the republicans were not a unified force. The various leftist groups were often fighting each other. They were comprised of a variety of leftist factions, including the communist Workers Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), The Popular Front, anarchists (CNT-FAI), unionists (UGT), Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE), Catalonian nationalists and Basque nationalists (not to be confused with the fascist nationalists who were fighting the Republicans). These were just the local Spanish groups. They were also joined by the communist International Brigades (international recruits under the control of Stalin).

Even though multiple nations were fighting on the side of the fascists, the UK and the USA were particularly concerned with appeasing Hitler as they were gravely worried that Germany would wage war throughout Europe. Similarly, although Stalin sided with the republicans, he too was concerned with not provoking Hitler for the same reason.  

To put it bluntly, the Spanish Civil War was a clusterfuck. It resulted in around 500,000 deaths and destroyed much of Spain, leaving it unable to effectively participate in World War II, although it's fascist president, General Franco, sided with Hitler and offered what little assistance he could.

Some commentators described the Spanish Civil War as the Second World War because of the number of nations involved in the conflict. It essentially ended in April 1939, only months before Hitler invaded Poland and initiated what is now known as the Second World War, but which could be argued was actually the Third World War. 

Stalin had sent more than 2000 Soviet officers and troops into Spain to both assist with the war effort and to infiltrate the leftist forces and undermine them. Some of the officers would report on other leftists as being traitors or Trotskyists if they dared to criticise Stalin, sometimes resulting in those leftists being executed or imprisoned by the Communists. Not surprisingly, the other leftist groups retaliated by firing on the Communists. It was clear that the Communists were being directed by Moscow. Stalin was more interested in shoring up his own power in Spain, than in winning the war for the Spanish. He even ordered the creation of concentration camps for leftists who did not kowtow to Stalinism. The Communist attacks on other leftists forces created a civil war within the civil war. It's no wonder that Franco and his fascist forces won. 

During the Spanish Civil War, the Soviet NKVD exported their torture, persecution and executions to Spain; establishing dozens of concentration camps around Madrid. Although the Russian Communists claimed to be anti-fascist and allied with the Republicans, it wasn't only the fascists and Nationalists who the NKVD imprisoned, tortured and executed. The Soviets had deployed the NKVD and SIM to Spain to persecute, torture, imprison, and execute anti-Stalinists, including other leftist groups, such as the anarchists, unionists, the communist POUM, and anyone who dared criticise Stalin or the intentions of the Communist Party in the Civil War. It should be noted, that the Nationalists also were guilty of imprisoning, torturing and executing people. Between the Soviets and the Nationalists, it is estimated that up to 200,000 people died as a result of torture and execution; accounting for approximately 40% of all deaths in the civil war. After the war, the Nationalists executed a further 50,000.

The Communists claimed victory over the nationalists when they attacked Madrid in November 1936, even though the Communists only accounted for around 5% of the leftist forces. The majority of forces were from other leftist groups. The Communist declaration of victory was extremely premature, with the war dragging on for another two and half years. By late 1938, the Nationalists were clearly winning the war. The Communists wanted to continue hostilities even in the face of imminent defeat. Stalin had been hoping for victory in Spain to increase his power and influence in Europe by turning Spain into a satellite of the Soviet Union. The Communists wanted a centralised government that they controlled, which did not fare well with other leftists, who were not particularly endeared to Stalin.

Local Spaniards just wanted peace regardless of who would win. Not surprisingly, they too had become disillusioned with the Communists, because of their arrogance, anti-Trotskyist paranoia, brutality towards civilians, fascists and other leftists. 

British writer, George Orwell and American writer, Ernest Hemingway, both travelled to Spain to fight on the side of the Republicans. Orwell fought for the Anarchists. In seeing the brutality that Communist forces and the NKVD unleashed against fellow leftists, Orwell became disillusioned with Stalin's version of Communism. 

Not much has changed since the Spanish Civil War. Leftist groups still have disparate views of what a Marxist state would look like, and whether it would be achieved through revolution or reformism. Revolutionaries consider that the only way to introduce Marxism is to overthrow the capitalist state . Reformists have the view of incremental change through election of left-wing groups to government within the capitalist state.

Disappointingly, most socialist or communist groups spend more time criticising each other than in working together against the forces of capitalism and to end the exploitation of workers. Sociologist and economic historian, Immanuel Wallerstein referred to '1000 Marxisms' in describing the fragmentation of political parties and groups that align themselves with Marxism. They all have different interpretations of Marxism and different priorities. Many describe themselves as revolutionary, others as reformist. Until Marxists have at least a modicum of unity, there will be no successful socialist revolution. 

Workers in the west do not see themselves as needing socialism. They are terrified of it because of the association with the totalitarian regimes of Stalin and Mao. In his book 'A Short History of Progress', Canadian author, Ronald Wright, paraphrased John Steinbeck with a quote that perfectly encapsulates the issue that Marxists face in motivating workers to rise up in revolution:

'Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires'. 

Illustration by Greg Newbold for the Wall Street Journal

In the current environment of contrasting Marxist groups, reformation is the best that can be hoped for through the promotion of identity politics in lieu of workers seizing the means of production, and the election of left-wing politicians to democratic governments. This is far removed from the workers' state that Marx had in mind, but it is better than nothing. Until Marxists can decouple themselves from Stalin, unify their position and articulate the need for Marxism in a manner that is meaningful to workers, then there will not be a successful socialist revolution. Perhaps, it may be worthwhile to decouple from Trotsky and Lenin as well. The association with the Soviet Union makes a toxic brand for Marxists. Instead, go back to the basics that Marx and Engels proposed and start afresh. 

Right-wing governments have been using bigotry and xenophobia to stoke fear in people and subsequently encouraging nationalism to galvanise support from the electorate. They turn workers and the electorate against others, against minorities, against 'woke' agendas, against socialism. The danger with this is that we saw what happened previously with extreme nationalism through the rise of Hitler and the use of nationalism by Stalin. Even though Stalin and Hitler were politically on opposing ends of the political spectrum, they both established regimes based on nationalism, totalitarianism and xenophobia. 

Marxist groups need to counter this through promoting unity and internationalism. The brutal exploitation of capitalism needs to be exposed. People consider slavery to have ended in the 19th century, however, as of 2021 there were an estimated 50 million people enslaved across the globe. Slavery exists in all countries and its victims are from all works of life. Much of it is driven by the insatiable desire for reducing costs while maximising profits, which happens at the expense of workers.

Many other workers are exploited through wage theft, underpayment of wages or working longer hours than they are paid. There some who are known as the 'working poor'. They have jobs, sometimes several jobs, and still struggle to make ends meet or are homeless. Meanwhile, corporate profits and CEO wages grossly outstrip workers' wages. Marx described profit as being 'the surplus value, or that part of the total value of the commodity in which the surplus labour or unpaid labour of the working man is realized'. In other words, profit is realised through the underpayment of workers. Marxism ensures an equitable sharing of products and wages with workers, while workers also have control over the workplace. 

Workers are still an exploited proletariat, they just don't realise it. Capitalism appeals to people's greed and individualism, while politicians manipulate them through nationalism and fear. Marxist groups have to address this and convince people to share and care for each other, to build community cohesion, to stand against exploitation of people and the environment. Conservatives call this being 'woke'. Well, it's time for workers to wake up and see that they are the exploited, they are being manipulated for corporate greed, and that the real enemy is capitalism, not minorities or other workers. Workers need to unify against the capitalist oppressors in order to end exploitation and liberate workers globally.

Marx and Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, in which they called for worker unity. The sentiment is as true and necessary today as it was back then.

Workers of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains.  

Image of Karl Marx licenced from Shutterstock


Sources

Beevor, A, 2006, The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939, Weidenfeld & Nicolson 

Briggs, W, 2020, Removing the Stalin Stain, Zero Books

Kropotkin, P, 1899, The Conquest of Bread

Lenin, V, 1917, The State and Revolution.

Large, DC, 1991, Between Two Fires: Europe's Path in the 1930s, WW Norton & Co

Marx, K, 1865, Value, Price and Profithttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/value-price-profit.pdf

Marx, K, & Engels, F, 1848, The Communist Manifestohttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

McCannon, J, 1995, Soviet Intervention in the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39: A Reexamination, Russian History, Vol 22(2), pp 154-180, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24657802

Orwell, G, 1938, Homage to Catalonia, Mariner Books (2015)

Romendik, D, 2014, The dark history of Lubyanka, 11 February, Russia Beyond, viewed 31 December 2022, https://www.rbth.com/arts/2014/02/11/the_dark_history_of_lubyanka_32985

Trotsky, L, 1936, The Revolution Betrayed, Dover Publications (2004)

Walk Free Foundation, Global estimates of modern slavery 2022, https://www.walkfree.org/reports/global-estimates-of-modern-slavery-2022/ 

Wall Street Journal, ‘Mad at the World: A Life of John Steinbeck’ Review: The Poison Cup of Gold, viewed 31 December 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/mad-at-the-world-a-life-of-john-steinbeck-review-the-poison-cup-of-gold-11601567960







Tuesday, December 27, 2022

Santa Claus - the capitalist disenfranchisement of the poor

Santa Claus - the capitalist disenfranchisement of the poor

By Ranting Panda, 27 December 2022


In the words of John Lennon, 'so this is Christmas, for weak and for strong, for rich and the poor ones, the world is so wrong'. 

Is Christmas for the poor ones though? Lennon is correct that the world is so wrong ... it's wrong in its treatment of the poor, of the marginalised. And Santa, hero of the capitalist world, perpetuates the marginalisation of the poor.

Most people look forward to Christmas, if for nothing more than having a few days off. However, for children it is usually the biggest day in their calendar, often eclipsing even their birthdays. So what's wrong with this picture? Santa Claus. That's what's wrong with it.

Now, we could argue that Santa is based on the real life character of St Nicholas, a 3rd century monk who was also known as Kris Kringle. St Nicholas gave away his inherited wealth and spent his time helping the sick and the poor. 

While the modern day Santa also ostensibly gives away wealth to children across the globe, there is a big difference between the contemporary version and his 3rd century namesake. The difference isn't the obvious fact that one was real and one isn't, but more that modern Santa maintains a Naughty or Nice list in which he supposedly only gives gifts to the 'Nice' kids, the 'Good' kids. You may wonder what is wrong with that.

I'm glad you asked.

Santa Clause is not real. Ok, that may not be a revelation, however, that means that the parents or carers for children are required to step in for Santa. This may not be an issue for people who have money, but there's a lot of people across the world who don't have that much money. Therefore, poor kids are made to feel they are naughty, that they are bad.


The 1989 comedy, National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, referred to this very situation. Clark Griswald's niece, Ruby, is from an impoverished family. She says to Clark that the previous Christmas, Santa hadn't brought her and her brother anything, so they must have been naughty even though they had tried to be nice all year. 

Santa Clause represents the capitalist disenfranchisement of the poor. While Christmas may be an exciting time for privileged children, for impoverished families it is a time of stress by either not being able to afford much for their children or going into debt to keep up appearances. 

Santa Claus's Naughty or Nice list reinforces negative stereotypes by stigmatising the poor as bad, naughty, misbehaved, and not deserving of his gifts.

Of course, Christmas isn't just about Santa and gifts for privileged kids, it is also meant to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. You may know of him from a book called the Bible. It is irrelevant whether you believe in Christ or the Bible. What is relevant is that Christmas is a Christian celebration. Yes, we can argue about the pagan roots of it, but Christmas by definition is about Christ. I'm labouring this point because Christ also preached a message of loving and caring for all people, not just rich or privileged people. Yet many who celebrate Christ's birthday also disenfranchise the poor by perpetuating the myth that those who don't receive presents from Santa must be naughty ... instead of acknowledging that those kids may be poor and in need of help.

Christ condemned the accumulation of wealth and preached a message of sharing and redistribution wealth. Christ was a socialist. The original St Nicholas or Kris Kringle also practised socialism by giving his wealth and time selflessly to those who needed it. As Karl Marx penned, 'From each according to their ability, to each according to their need'. Interestingly, this mirrors some bible verses, namely Acts 4:32-35:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

Even the Old Testament got into the creed of sharing to meet people's needs. Exodus 16:16-18:

16 This is what the Lord has commanded: ‘Everyone is to gather as much as they need. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.’” 17 The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. 18 And when they measured it by the omer, the one who gathered much did not have too much, and the one who gathered little did not have too little. Everyone had gathered just as much as they needed.

Capitalism is about accumulation, greed and selfishness. Socialism is about sharing of wealth, selflessness and caring for the poor and disenfranchised, ensuring that everyone's needs are met. In capitalism, wealth is accumulated through the exploitation of others, particularly exploitation of the poor. Socialism achieves wealth for all through sharing the gains of fair productivity to meet the needs of all. 

The modern day Santa Claus is a capitalist misrepresentation of the original message of Christmas that was preached by Jesus and practiced by St Nicholas. It rewards the rich and demonises the poor. 

Every Christmas, privileged Christians will claim that there is a 'War on Christmas', because someone dares to say 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas'. Meanwhile, these very people have completely lost the message of Christmas, which was not to accumulate wealth, but to redistribute it, to care for the poor, not to exploit them, to love the poor, not to stigmatise them. Such a 'war' is a concoction of the rich who are more interested in fairy lights & flying reindeers, than they are in redistributing wealth or ending the exploitation of the poor. War on Christmas? As Guns N' Roses sang in Civil War, 'I don't need your civil war, it feeds the rich and buries the poor'. 

The avarice of Christmas and Santa's 'Naughty or Nice' list only benefits the rich and besmirches the poor.