It must be discouraging these days to be a revolutionary! What ideology can a revolutionary seriously
embrace in this modern age? Is the age of revolution over?
Communism has lost its allure in the past thirty years or
so, and capitalism has ascended to an unrivaled position as the king of the
ideological hill. In the U.S., Marxism
and communism were only ascendant for a relatively short period of time during
the first half of the 20th century.
But aggressive repressive measures in the 20’s and again in the 50’s
eliminated much of the popular support, even among intellectuals.
Socialism, which many in our country equate with communism,
has also taken on pariah status in the post-Reagan political climate. The mere coupling of the words ‘socialized’
and ‘medicine’ is enough to doom any effort for single payer healthcare!
But if we can for a moment cast aside our reflexive disdain
for anything that hints of communism, it may be illuminating to try to
understand why Marxism and all of its associated ‘isms’ appealed to so many
people and whether there is something to be learned from the revolutions and
upheaval that they spawned. We have no
doubt done these concepts something of a disservice by only viewing them
through the lens of the violence and death that accompanied them. After all, there is plenty of death and
violence that one may lay at the feet of capitalism as well!
The world is not a perfect place, and there must always be
people who dream of making it better than it is. These are idealists. Social, political and economic systems are
the currency of dreamers, of idealists.
Without idealists, the world would never have progressed beyond the
chaotic and tyrannical states that defined civilization for millennia.
Today finds the world in a more peaceful and economically
stable state than ever before in history, despite a seemingly endless depiction
of bad news in the media (which is merely performing the service that we demand
– that is, keeping a fickle public
titillated with violence, sex and tragedy).
The simple fact is that less people die each year in violent conflict
than ever before. Less people die from
starvation and disease. There is less
slavery (although it does still exist!), less persecution of minorities, less
subjugation of women and more freedom of expression. Even natural disasters have less impact than
before, although this trend may be reversed as we produce more in the future
through our impact on climate.
We continue to face many diverse challenges in terms of
keeping conflict at bay and providing secure and stable environments for people
around the world. There are religious
extremists and a few rogue states, and tensions between the great powers
(Russia, China and the U.S.) are re-surfacing. But clearly the last great hurdle in achieving
a more peaceful and healthy world is the lingering social and economic
inequality across all populations.
In the developing world, there has always been a very small
class of wealthy oligarchs – a plutocracy – that receives most of the wealth of
the nation. The good news that large
numbers of people across the world have slowly clawed their way out of dire
poverty does not change the fact that the political, social and economic structures
in the developing world are generally rigged and corrupt, primarily benefiting
a very few. Sadly, there seems to be
little or no improvement in this regard in most developing countries over the
last 50 or 60 years. Paul Theroux, a
travelogue author of some renown who was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa in
the early 60’s and then made an extensive tour again in 2005, made a strong
argument that Africa is actually in a worse state now than when he was there
just after most states had claimed their independence.
Perhaps even more disturbing, there appears to be an
increasing chasm between rich and poor in many developed nations that had
previously built up very strong middle classes and seemed to be on the path to
a very equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity. There are several factors in this sad trend –
automation, globalization/outsourcing, the gradual weakening of unions, and the
extreme stratification of salaries to name a few. This chasm has led to populist, nationalist
and anti-globalization/anti-immigrant movements that threaten to re-route or
even blockade the march to global peace and harmony.
Can the world continue to become more just and equitable in
a steady, peaceful manner? Are
inequities, corruption and poverty entrenched and intractable, or can they
slowly be eliminated by good people with noble motives?
Will the poor, as Jesus famously said, ‘always be with
us’? Well, as a side note, what Jesus
actually meant in that passage is subject to much debate. But it does beg the question – is income and
opportunity disparity an inevitability?
Even generally good people with good intentions contribute
to the bias in opportunity and wealth. I
do not take bribes or take part in any outright corrupt business practices, but
I am complicit in certain areas of elite privilege. For example, I readily take advantage of
networking and connections to find jobs or opportunities for my family and
friends. I use my resources to provide
advantages for my children in education and experience that others do not
have. These are relatively small things,
and it is natural for a parent or friend to do such things, but who can argue
that these small actions do not insidiously preserve the exalted positions of
those with power and wealth?
And if these seemingly innocuous actions contribute to the
continuing reign of the elite, then one can only guess at the impact of more
venal efforts to rig the system. The
powerful and wealthy will naturally do everything they can to preserve their
status, and they have many effective tools at their disposal. Even very ethical people find it easy to
rationalize their indiscretions. The
less ethical don’t even pretend.
The highly vaunted meritocratic nature of our society can
certainly benefit high achievers and risk takers, but it is likely that this
phenomenon has a narrow effect – mostly on a small group of top
performers. The bulk of the population
is not particularly mobile either upwardly or downwardly due to factors of
birth, family, education and social status.
Liberty and freedom are the most highly prized attributes of
our society for many good reasons. But
they also contribute to some of our problems. We chafe against rules that
dictate our behavior. We believe that
our good deeds must be done voluntarily, not forced by government or societal
regulation. For example, we are not forced
by law to recycle. It is voluntary. We are reluctant to allow the government to
dictate the gas efficiency of our vehicles – we love our SUVs! We are free to send our children to expensive
pre-schools, private schools and elite universities, and to organize
internships and job opportunities through our connections. We are free to separate ourselves from the
poor and live in gated communities. We
are free to keep most of the money we get from our jobs or investments,
regardless of how absurd the amounts may get.
These freedoms give the rich and powerful, and even the middle class, an
incredibly potent tool to maintain their status and wealth.
If societies are indeed somewhat static and the inequities
resistant to improvement, then the possibility of revolution arises. The downtrodden are long-suffering, but
eventually they will not be placated with empty promises of future good
things. The trickle-down,
all-boats-rising tide of human development is a more comforting illusion to the
consciences of the rich than to the hopes of the poor. At some point, it all begs credulity.
Marxism emerged as a product of the industrial revolution in
the euphoric vein of other scientific and pseudo-scientific theories. The Age of Enlightenment seemed to guarantee
that the physical world, and indeed, all human endeavor, could be understood by
analysis of the laws of physics, chemistry, geology, evolution, or, in the case
of Marxism, the laws of dialectic materialism and economics. Much of the allure of Marxism, and
consequently, communism, came from its apparent scientific inevitability.
The industrial revolution had also put human misery and
injustice in stark relief for all to see.
There appeared to be no way to ‘evolve’ into a more equitable society
and the capitalist class seemed hardened and intransigent. Class warfare leading to a dictatorship of
the proletariat sounded like a relatively good deal to factory workers
performing 12 hour shifts six days a week under inhumane and dangerous
conditions!
The first waves of revolution and union organizing had a
sobering effect on the business owners and they slowly and reluctantly began to
accede to some of the workers’ demands, while also aggressively pulling all of
the levers necessary to brutally eliminate all revolutionary activities. This shifted the balance just enough to avoid
full-scale communist revolution in most of the industrialized world, where
higher wages and better general living conditions tempered the revolutionary
zeal. But revolutionary ideologies and
movements found fertile ground in the developing world, where poverty was
horrific and injustice even more entrenched. , These revolutionary efforts were
often buttressed by independence movements seeking to shed colonial or
imperialist control.
In the west, we have found it convenient to characterize
social and economic revolutions as ‘evil’, noting the reigns of terror, the
purges, the lack of freedom and the frequent famines.
But for the revolutionaries who believed they were remaking
the world into a better place, the ends justified the means. They were merciless, but they believed they
were heeding historical lessons that necessitated their behavior. For example, Lenin saw how the generous
treatment of the bourgeoisie by the Paris Commune in 1871 backfired and resulted
in wholesale slaughter of the communards once the reactionary forces
rallied. He was not going to make the
same mistake and thus the so-called ‘Red Terror’ was initiated.
Committing horrific acts (‘evil’) for a perceived greater
good is something every society does and somehow justifies. The Allies civilian bombing of Germany and
Tokyo, which resulted in the deaths of millions of ‘innocent’ civilians, is a
perfect example. One man’s evil is
another’s heroism. In the view of
revolutionaries, imperialists, militarists, fundamentalists and other zealots,
there are no ‘innocent’ people.
A similar paradox can be detected in our view of
freedoms. We cannot comprehend how the
Soviet Bloc and Cuba could justify preventing their citizens from emigrating to
Western countries or how they could impose such rigid control of their
societies. But if you have the goal of
creating a new society and radically changing the behavior of people –
eliminating greed, competition, nepotism and selfishness – then it is expected
that many will want to flee and it is the duty of the state to ensure that they
stay and participate in the revolution.
From the perspective of the revolutionary, the curtailment of freedom is
worthwhile if the ultimate goal is achieved – the new human and the new
state!
Sadly, none of the communist revolutions have had much
success in achieving this goal. Violence
seems to beget more violence, and it generally produces ruthless leaders prone
to megalomania and paranoia.
Additionally, the centralized planning and control of economies, and the
elimination of individual ownership of businesses and property, produced very
poor economic results. Either the ‘new
man’ was never properly formed, or it may simply never be possible to create
such a being given the idiosyncrasies of human nature.
But the notion of human beings sharing the earth and its
bounty in a more equitable fashion can still stir the soul. The current stymied
state of progress in social justice has begun to spark new revolutionary movements. Marxism will no longer be the foundation of
such movements and to date no adequate replacement has been proposed. Like the Populist movement, modern
revolutionaries are more likely to define themselves in terms of what they
detest than what they embrace – Occupy Wall Street and the Antifas are good
examples. This type of revolutionary
model is more angry than romantic, and will struggle to attract the necessary
critical mass for any real change.
What seems clear to me is that violent revolution is no longer
a good option for achieving positive change.
Violence amplifies the unpleasant traits of humankind and destroys the
civil basis for progress. Instead, we
must slowly chisel and grind away at the stone of society like a renaissance
sculptor, trusting that a form of great beauty will eventually emerge. But part
of this effort to free our better angels must be a more enlightened
understanding of the history of human revolution and the quest for social
justice. As in all human endeavor, much
evil was afoot, but there were also many noble intentions. We must learn from all of it.
