Re: Socialism 2.0

“Men fight and lose the battle, and the thing they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and then it turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name.”

- William Morris

Equality is the shared goal of social democracy, socialism and communism. Socialists have pursued this goal since at least 1817 (not 1867, as some may erroneously claim), or perhaps even earlier, perhaps during the 6^th Century, under the proto-socialist, Mazdak. As a believer in liberal and social-democratic ideals, I feel it only appropriate that I should correct some of the misconceptions surrounding socialism, as propounded by the opponents of the left. Socialism is chiefly concerned with the establishment of a more equal state. In order to do so, all forms of oppression, class distinction and societal division must be brought to an end. Some socialists, or their less radical counterparts, social-democrats, have sought to bring about this change through legal and political institutions, in the social-democratic tradition of Bernstein, whereas others, including the Marxists, Bolsheviks and their misguided intellectual descendants, have attempted to bring about this change through violent, revolutionary means. In other words, there were attempts at “change from above” and “change from below”. Neither has been entirely successful to date.

Again, someone has made the foolish claim as to suggest that the USSR, and its remaining successor states, North Korea, the PRC and Cuba, embody everything that socialism has to offer to the world. Allow me to make, very, very clear once again that there has never been a socialist state established for a prolonged period of one year or more, as far as our recent history is concerned. It has been claimed by some (most notably the Trotskyists) that Russia was a socialist society in the first few months following the October Revolution in 1917. That may be true, considering how private property was abolished (to a certain degree), the franchise was provided to all, marriage and divorce were made readily available autonomous of the Church, and the general democratisation of factories, the armed forces, and (purportedly) society took place. However, any notion of popular equality existing in this initial Soviet government was brought crashing down when, on 19 January 1918, the Bolsheviks forcefully closed down the Constituent Assembly, the democratic voice of the people. The following decades of war communism under Trotsky, totalitarian terror under Stalin, and excessive bureaucratisation under Khrushchev and Brezhnev illustrate the abandonment of socialist and communist ideals by the Soviet government and hence, its successors.

According to Marxist theory, Russia, China, Korea and Cuba should not have been able to advance into socialism, as they had yet to experience capitalism in its full throes. I have been told, quite legitimately, that these states have done worse for the socialist cause than any conservative “bourgeois” movement, but that is simply because they were not socialist, nor even capable of becoming socialist in the first place! Instead of destroying class divisions, these societies prolonged old class divisions, persecuting and murdering those members of the old upper and middle classes, replacing them with an inefficient and corrupt bureaucracy which would lord over and oppress the common people. Where is the equality in that?

Those causes outlined in BT’s catalyst for this response, including the advocacy of LGBT rights, the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and the conservation of our natural environment for future use by our descendants are not deviations from the socialist movement; they lie at the very heart of it. Each and every one of those causes is concerned with the establishment of equality in society, in ending the discrimination inherent in capitalist superstructures, defeating the oppression of an entire people by another, and preserving the natural beauties of our world so that future generations can enjoy them freely and equally. What is so inherently wrong and un-socialist about those ideas? Those who consider socialism to be exclusively the terrorist, revolutionary drive towards the abolition of private property and the establishment of a totalitarian state obviously have no understanding of the single ideal which motivates all socialists, social-democrats and communists: equality.

There will always be those who misinterpret, or take to an inappropriate degree, the beliefs of a particular school of thought. Those who defend the Stalinist regimes of today are completely ignorant of their imperialist and oppressive natures. Those who support the Libyan rebels and yet condemn the foreign intervention are also misguided in their beliefs. We would all love to believe that popular revolutions, like those that took place in Egypt and Tunisia will succeed throughout the Middle East, and cast down the strongmen who have, for so long, been propped up by the US Government. But the fact of the matter is that many of these dictators are incredibly stubborn, and have well-established coercive machineries, in the form of secret police forces and powerful armies, in the Soviet tradition. Hence, it is only natural that the Libyan people would require foreign aid in order to topple that murderous madman, Qaddafi, who has so entrenched himself into his regime. We can only wish them the best of fortune in their attempts to be free of his bloody tyranny. If the great powers of capitalism want to aid in the liberation of the Libyan people, then socialists should invite them to do so, for in doing so, they will only be furthering the socialist cause of equality.

Then there is the case of Marrickville Council… I can’t say that I believe their course of action to be logical. It isn’t. BT’s right about what he says of the council. They have done little for the cause, and have served only to depreciate themselves in the eyes of the people. But at least they’re trying. The Israeli occupation of Palestine has returned to the attention of the media, and that is a small success in itself, I suppose.

Regardless of the failures of socialism in the past, socialists, social-democrats and communists will continue to fight for the rights of the disenfranchised, whoever they may be, including the working class, women, LGBT, ethnic minorities and the rest of humanity. For that, they have my undying respect. The working class has learned to cope, somewhat, with the yoke of capital, thanks to the progress made by egalitarian parties in providing for equal rights and responsibilities. Take all of the anti-discrimination acts which have been legislated in our own society, they are shining examples of egalitarianism in practice. But, should the growing income disparities and discrimination in contemporary societies continue to increase, capitalism may find its days numbered. Marx may yet be proved correct. I won’t speculate about the course of social progress, but I will continue to defend socialism, liberalism and social-democracy. Perhaps it’s time for men to take up the fight under a different name? It might do them well to dispel the cloud of misunderstanding surrounding the terms “socialism” and “communism”.

***

Also, before I go, anybody who thinks that egalitarianism “belongs in books” has, quite blatantly, either a very limited understanding of human history, or no understanding of what egalitarianism is. Quite simply, egalitarianism is the belief that there should be equality, or at least, a more equal society. Every single revolution that has taken place in our history has had egalitarianism at its core. It has been put into practice countless times, in the promises of revolutionaries everywhere. From “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” to “Peace, bread, land”, from “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” to “Freedom, Justice, Democracy” in Libya today, these were and are all egalitarian movements. Egalitarianism does not only belong in books containing our grandest and most memorable moments in history, it belongs in the hearts of every disenfranchised human being, waiting to burst forth into the world as it has so many times in the past, and push humanity even closer to its noble goal of equality.

By the way, until somebody blogs something in favour of egalitarianism, liberalism, socialism or the like, it’s still 1 v 3. And you’re on, bastards.

***

Another thing, if you want something nice and apolitical to read, then I suggest a little blog called “Happiness Equals Bracket”. The bloggers recently organised a very successful combined school prefect charity event for the Australian Red Cross’ Japanese and Pacific Disaster Appeal, and I’m proud to say that I took part! They did a splendid job, and raised over $5000 for the appeal. I’ve got to say though, for an event I wasn’t exactly looking forward to (because I was only informed of it at the last second, thanks to some miscreants who caused the disabling of my facebook account), I really enjoyed it, and I’ve learned how to make origami cranes again!!! So, feel free to read their inspirational stories and make sure to spread the happiness! =)

***

Suggested Readings:

An interesting post-Marxist critique of capitalism, known as The Communist Manifesto of the 21st Century:

http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/negri/HAREMI_printable.pdf

Happiness Equals Bracket =)

http://happinessequalsbracket.blogspot.com/

Elitism and Egalitarianism

It has come to my attention that a certain thinker has recently exposed the merits of elitism and the evils of idealistic egalitarianism. He believes that it is perfectly fine for society to hold a single group of people above all others. Now, I am not suggesting that one cannot trust an individual as having more weight in a specific field than others upon considering her/his background, that is a matter of subjectivity. Rather, I believe that there is an inherent danger in supposing that a single group in society can be given priority or unbridled power within a given field, insofar as that group will be provided with the opportunity to abuse that power to their own ends. We have seen this throughout history, in the absolute monarchies of Europe – where a single group was believed to have a “divine right” to govern every aspect of their fellow humans’ lives – and, more recently, in the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia (yes, I am using the USSR to exemplify the flaws of elitism, not egalitarianism as my friend has inappropriately noted) – where a single race, the so-called Aryans, were described as the “master race” and provided with a mandate to rule; and where the proletarian revolutionaries were noted for being the only holders of “the truth”, and thus given absolute bureaucratic power, respectively.

It is difficult to see how anyone could honestly support the ideal of elitism, when it has spawned such horrific regimes as those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Is it really OK for us to give up our rights and our beliefs to a group of people who tell us that they are better than us, and therefore deserve our adoration and undying trust? In every instance where one group has been provided with unfettered power over the rest of the population, it has resulted in the exploitation of those who were not part of the ruling group. Elitism is at the root of this exploitation, and to support the ideals of elitism is to prolong, and, in most instances, worsen the inequalities within society.

Now, this distinguished member of the “intelligentsia” has argued that elitism is a natural aspect of the human condition, as he believes that the doctrine of “survival of the fittest”, as applicable to nature, is also applicable to human society, in justifying the elitist and discriminatory attitudes of the “elite”. While the survival of the fittest may have held true to humanity in the past, insofar as nature once had the power to kill off those humans who were too weak to exist, advances in medicine have allowed us to overcome our shortcomings, and essentially defeat the doctrine of “survival of the fittest” within human society. This is one of the defining traits of humanity: the ability to adapt our environment to suit our needs and values. And while humans may be capable of great selfishness and greed, as my good friend has quite depressingly highlighted, humans are also capable of great compassion and empathy, which is unrivalled in nature. Hence, we have sought ways to allow all humans to live full lives through advances in medicine, and now, babies who have undergone only thirteen weeks of gestation can lead complete, healthy lives where they once would have perished if they were born as little as ten years ago. If we, as humans, are able to defeat even the inequality of the natural law of “survival of the fittest”, then there is no reason why we cannot overcome the societal inequality enforced by elitism, which is merely a non-physical construct of the mind.

He has also attempted to provide justification for the elitist mindset by arguing that democracy, our most preferred form of government, is an inherently elitist system of government. I will digress that, at least through a dialectical analysis of parliamentary democracy, it is democracy in form, but dictatorship in content. I recognise that parliamentary democracy will never provide society with absolute equality in terms of the power which each individual holds over how the state is governed. But democracy is definitely the most desirable form of government, when compared with the other options, aristocracy and (worst of all) autocracy, at least in providing people with the equal opportunity to determine how their country will be governed. To take a page out of Churchill’s book (once again): “Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” To argue that voters elect people in an elitist fashion, that is to say, based on the perceived superiority of the social group the politician belongs to, is to ignore the fundamental ideal of democratic elections, which is to provide voters with equal power to elect someone who best represents the values and requirements of the voter.

To use a Rousseauesque term, democracy provides for the best expression of the general will. The general will is the commitment of the entirety of a populace to the good of all alike. That is not to say that humans are not selfish and do not have sectional interests, but rather, the general will is a mutual interest to protect the individual from the masses. All social groups, be they “elite” or not, share the general will, and it is only democratic government which can sustain and represent the general will. In this way, democracy is in no way elitist, in that it provides for government by the majority, and the “elite” is, by definition, a minority. Now, I must digress once again, and recognise that the “elite” can hold more power within a democracy than what is normally provided to the ordinary citizen, but this is due to a corruption of the democratic system, rather than because of some lingering strain of elitism in the democratic process. The reign of populist ideology within the two-party democracies of modern states is a tragedy, but even in the face of populism, equality, not elitism, remains at the heart of the democratic process. Again, I must draw attention to another of humanity’s accomplishments in the form of the establishment of democratic governments, something which even Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the champion of equal rights, could not dream of, in stating “If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men.” This is an illustration of humanity’s achievements towards greater equality, and our mutual pursuit of this goal this is all the more evident today in the revolutions of the people of the Middle East to achieve democracy in their respective autocratic regimes. To argue that their collective desire for equal opportunities in deciding how their country is run is, in essence, an elitist desire is to be absolutely ignorant of the reality of their plight under the yoke of elitist governments.

Our intelligent, but misguided young “intelligentsia” has rightly pointed out that there has never been a truly “egalitarian” society in the history of humanity. To state that egalitarianism has given rise to such horrid states as the USSR and the PRC is simply false, the USSR and the PRC were created by elitist revolutionaries who believed that they were the only social group who held the “truth” of class consciousness. Whether or not the USSR and the PRC were ever actual socialist states (or were even capable of becoming socialist states) is a debate beyond the scope of this discourse. Those two states have probably done irrevocably worse for the cause of egalitarianism than any other incidents in human history. But their failure as twisted social experiments of the Bolsheviks and Maoists does not mean that humanity should lose faith in the egalitarian cause. Just because we have failed in the past does not mean that we will not succeed in the future. To argue that, because of the failure of socialism in the 20^th Century and the resurgence of discrimination in developed societies in the 21^st Century, we should abandon egalitarianism in favour of elitism is to be embrace sheer defeatism.  And this is what surprises me most about the ideals of this admirably hard working and persistent young man. I cannot understand how he can adopt such a fatalistic ideal as to believe that the vast majority of humanity will inevitably fall prey to exploitation by the “elite”. Instead of arguing for the merits of a divided, classed society, we should instead be devoting our mental efforts to supporting the attempts of genuinely popular revolutionaries to establish more equal societies, because it is their goals which are truly the most admirable in this world. Such are the goals of the popular revolutions of the Middle East, where there is no Robespierre or Trotsky covertly directing the general will according to elitist ambitions. To the author in question, I suggest you reconsider your elitism when applying your ideology to the world stage.

To claim that egalitarianism is inherently flawed because texts which endorse egalitarian ideals are hypocritical, e.g. the Bible is a moot point. I have personally already rejected the Bible as a determinant of human morality and thought, precisely because it is so riddled with hypocrisies. But, from my education in liberal and socialist ideals, I have settled upon egalitarianism as the ideology which has the most potential to benefit all of humankind. Our “elite” friend may be correct in believing that “egalitarianism will rule once hell freezes over" but that doesn't mean that we should stop trying to achieve it. Egalitarianism is not "a belief that most people wish to believe in", it is an ideal which the vast majority of the downtrodden and the disenfranchised genuinely do believe in. We have already made so much progress towards equality; both in the medical/scientific field and in our socio-political environment. To stop and revert to elitist beliefs and allow recent trends of growing disparity to continue would be a travesty against the journey of humanity towards a more equal future. Even if we never do achieve absolute equality, we should never stop believing in the pursuit of greater equality, because if we ever do stop believing, we surrender ourselves to the discrimination, the oppression, and the terror which elitism entails.

Suggested Readings:

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques – The Social Contract

I recommend this to anyone who wants to gain an understanding of how a society is constructed, as perceived by an Enlightenment philosophe.

Marx, Karl – The Communist Manifesto

Everybody should read this to understand how our world of rampant global capitalism came about, and to learn about one of the alternatives to our current economic base, as advocated by Karl Marx. If you’re going to go about criticising communism due to the practices of the USSR and PRC, I suggest you read this before you go about labelling their societies as “communist”.

Service, Robert – Trotsky

This is a lengthy biography, but a great read. If you want a detailed explanation of why the Bolsheviks were actually elitist in their beliefs, I suggest you read Service’s explanation of their ideas about the “revolutionary elite” who would lead the Revolution. Starff, this guy basically ruins your argument that the governments of the USSR and the PRC were egalitarian in essence, even though their long, long, long-term goals may have been egalitarian.