Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Sunday, October 20, 2019

FIVE THINGS: Kautsky's The dictatorship of the proletariat

I have long fancied myself an academic wannabe of sorts. Essentially if I have one regret in life it is that I waited so long to do my Masters degree, and that I missed the opportunity, possibly to have become a researcher or academic. Nevertheless, I did realise when I finally got around to my postgraduate degree a few years ago that I love theories which attempt to explain the world and can get a surprising amount of energy from the intellectual stimulation which comes from tackling such theories. As a result I am making a concerted effort to improve my education, one could say - my learning journey, as it were.

I recently finished two Norwegian books which basically gave précis of a wide range of thinkers. The first was Demokratisk beredskap which considered thinkers who stood against totalitarianism, both on the right and the left. The people included in this book ranged from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Raymond Aron and George Orwell, as well as a few Norwegians such as Odd Nansen, son of the better known Fridtjof Nansen. This was the book that first introduced me to Karl Kautsky, student of Karl Marx, but perhaps more significantly, opponent of Lenin and Trotsky, and the Bolshevik notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. So, I got hold of the very pamphlet with the same name and have now read it. And herewith, my "five things" on that.

1. It is quite fascinating to consider socialism as an inherently democratic organisation of society. This contradicts the framing I have heard my entire life. This includes undergraduate courses in sociology. Well, perhaps not so much was said about socialism, but certainly I have the distinct impression that Marx was a communist, and communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Nary a word was said about Lenin though. So Kautsky's posit that democracy is a sine qua non of socialism was a fairly new idea to me. Certainly one I approve of wholeheartedly. Suddenly I may consider the whole "democratic socialism" claims of Bernie Saunders supporters in the US differently. Although, if I cling rigidly to what I understand Kautsky to be saying, that phrase is in fact a tautology.

2. Which in turn raises an interesting question as to why Leninism was so long supported in Europe by the left wing of Europe following the Russian revolution and throughout the 20th Century. Even here in Norway, one of our parties has yet to address to the satisfaction of many their Leninist-totalitarian roots. However, both Demokratisk beredskap and a subsequent book I read - Ideologienes århundre both indicate that Kautsky was largely marginalised in terms of Marxist thinking. Lenin won the framing war on the revolution and communism/socialism. (To understand what I mean by framing, read Don't think of an elephant by George Lakoff). Now there is a research topic, just there - the relationship between framing and hegemonic discourses.

3. Kautsky claims that Karl merely used the phrase "the dictatorship of the proletariat" once, and then in passing in a letter in 1875 (Kautsky, 1919: 42). This was the hook on which the entirety of the Soviet communism was hung as it were. Now this is a blog, and it is after all almost three decades since I first studied Marx, but it must surely be telling that I have such a strong association between precisely Marx and the notion of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". It leads me wonder about the academic rigour of this linkage which I at least take for granted. I am by no means an expert, but perhaps it is fair to assume that as someone who has considered herself quite left wing in my political beliefs my entire life, I may be a tad better informed than those who are to my right on the political scale. (Naturally, I have no basis to make such an assertion, but for argument's sake and should just not. Let's just leave it at the fact that I have learnt something from reading this book which I did not know before).

4. The ends justify the means? Kautsky contrasts the state of the societies in Western Europe versus precisely Russia and refers to the tradition and culture of democracy in each case. Which is possibly why I find the high level of support in Western Europe communist circles for Leninism (and even more so Stalinism) so intriguing. The only rationale reason I can come up with the idea that the ends justify the means. In this case, the final goal is the end of capitalism and the socialisation of the means of production. A very economic analysis (and for this I look forward to finishing the other book I happen to be reading at present, Karl Marx's Ecosocialism  - watch this space for more on that).

5. Kautsky was wrong about a few things, but perhaps not everything. When one consider's the state of Russia today, they are not exactly a robust democracy, it may be warranted to note that Russia has at no point in its history had the opportunity to develop a sturdy democratic culture. Which leads me to wonder whether democracy is as natural human condition as it should be. The trajectory of history in Western Europe has certainly called into question whether democracy was a natural stepping stone to socialism. Certainly, while I have the distinct impression that there is more evidence that socialism would allow for better societal welfare, Western societies have shown themselves more prone to liberal capitalism, even neo-liberal capitalism, even countries well on their way to socialism, as envisaged by Kautsky, like the Scandinavian countries. Furthermore, now in 2019, democratic principles do seem a mite more vulnerable than one would have thought possible. It is disquieting.

So an interesting read, and hopefully I will be able to continue my sojourn to finally plug those holes I have been wondering about. Better late than never after all.

My learning journey continues.

Pictures: Demokratisk beredskap cover, dreyersforlag.no and Picture of Karl Kautsky

Kautskay, Karl (1919) The dictatorship of the proletariat,
Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood publishers (1981 reprint)

Friday, July 28, 2017

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Trump's Law #1


For every tweet (or action), there is an earlier entirely contradictory tweet.

Sunday, June 11, 2017

Identiy based on external factors




I grew up in South Africa in the 80s. I remember figuring out for myself at some point that for white South African men, their identity was very much based on what they did (or didn't do). Even then I thought this was fairly dangerous, though obviously I could not tell you why. If this same performative gender is one of the factors which has contributed to the rise of right-wing populism in, at least, the USA and Great Britain, then it may have even greater significance than I realised.

About time I read Judith Butler.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

"After the party" by Andrew Feinstein

Hmmm, you know that you may need to reconsider being a blogger when it is so long since you have been to your own site that you have forgotten the name of your site! How embarrassing.

Nevertheless I cannot quite give up on blogging. It is not lack of ideas, it is rather just tricky to remember them and most of all sit down and do the writing.

It is already April, but neverthless a new year (at least in terms of my blogs), so here we go again.

FOr my "opening shot" - I have just finished reading "After the Party". First and foremost it confirms what I have already known (and this is not what you think!). I really do not follow things that closely. Perhaps it is remarkable that despite working for the South African government for almost a decade that I am so incredibly ignorant of its political workings! After a mere two years in Norway I feel as though I am better informed here than I was there. To be honest I cannot be sure.

Nevertheless, it was both fascinating and distressing to read more about the Arms deal. Of course all the things which I did notice now make much greater sense. It really is very disturbing and makes me quite sad. I think I am quite ambivalent whether it would have been better to have known this when making my decision to leave. On reflection I think that I am glad that I made the decision on personal grounds. The "inklings" which I had are unrelated.

I tried to read the book somewhat critically, yet I have no major criticisms against the author. I am bemused by his obvious admiration for Vlaclav Havel and Edward Said (who are both quoted on several occasions) and am tempted to read the former myself. I respect the fact that he somehow manages to not vilify anyone (which with my view and perception of whites South Africans is quite admirable) and the real bad guys are without a doubt the arms industry. This in no way causes problems with my own worldview.

I think that the one area which I found lacking was that of the role of culture. Is it coincidental that he and Gavin Woods come out as the crusaders for truth in this story. I can understand why it is not his place to go into detail as to the ultimate fate of some of the other players (like Laloo, who makes up a trio with Feinstein and Woods initially, but somehow disappears, something which I consider with some foreboding). Given the complexity of the "Rainbow nation" in terms of its multicultural population, I personally think that this is also a major factor in how things have played out. (Note, I in NO WAY consider any culture to be better than any other, quite to the contrary I think that every culture has significant strengths and weaknesses. Cultures, like most things, can also benefit from a dialectic process whereby they can build on their strengths and work on their weaknesses).

I also am amazed that the author manages to retain such idealism, though I sincerely hope that he is no longer naive (how can someone who has been through what he has remain so?). Which is why I respect his idealism and certainly see the logic of much of what he posits is required to ensure that any country avoid such a quagmire in the future as this entire saga has, is and I fear may continue to be for a while to come.

On a final note, I could not help but chuckle as the irony of Menzi Simelane's appointment to head the National Prosecuting Agency after Vusi Pikoli became apparent. In fact if it wasn't so tragic it is nothing less than quite absurd. I found myself wondering if it was not his reward for being the scapegoat, while other fish swam away unhurt.

A good read indeed. (Buy it here at Amazon)

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Much ado about a Nobel Peace Prize


By stroke of fate I was in China at the time of the announcement of the 2010 Nobel Peace prize - which as is well known now, has gone to the gaoled Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo.

I have to admit that my first reaction was: typical! After mucking things up with Obama last year, the Nobel peace committee have overcompensated this year by going for someone in gaol in a non-democratic state. (There can be little doubt though that it was a much better decision than last year!).

However, there I was, in China. So naturally one wondered if we would feel it at all, and it was certainly curious that of the eight days that I was there, I only received one complimentary newspaper from the hotel - the one that happened to be carrying the almost, but not quite innocuous article about how this was going to damage the bilateral relations between Norway and China. Mostly it was the blank screen on CNN which was the most obvious way one noticed it. (The photograph of the "blank" TV above is in fact of CNN - blanked out for the duration of the report. A few days later when the same thing happened one realised immediately that there was clearly a report on the house report of Liu Xiaobo's wife! How quickly one got used to it...).

But it made me think of other things too. I remember recently seeing a documentary series on BBC - on South Africa under Apartheid. I remember in particular a woman being interviewed, a white, English-speaking South African - who was so annoyed that Desmond Tutu had received the Nobel Peace prize (though for life and death of me, I cannot exactly recall WHY she was so upset). Somehow though, she perceived it as a slap in the face, she seemed to almost take it personally. This is not unlike how the Chinese are reacting. It is true, they have undertaken tremendous reforms lately (which I do not think the South Africans had done at the same time). When discussing another issue (climate change and the "Copenhagen Accord" as it happens), I got a sense that China takes itself very seriously and as such does not appreciate its efforts being seemingly ignored or pocketed. Certainly it is useful to take into account that this is a very different culture from Western cultures. What this means for how one encourages such a society to reform is unclear to me. But I can understand the validity of such offenses.

In the end though, experiencing the smog which is probably so normal for the Chinese living in big cities that they barely notice it, being afraid for those who being kept in the dark of the Nobel Peace prize, kindly expressed an interest in visiting Norway - I realised that the freedoms and empowerment which I have is not to be taken lightly. Far too many in the world are not as fortunate.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Banned book week


I always thought that the first banned book that I read was Burger's Daughter by Nadine Gordimer. Then again I grew up in Apartheid South Africa where banned books were a bit of a thing. Ironically "To kill a mockingbird" by Harper Lee was one of my school set-work books. The fact that this book has been banned places n the United States I find quite amazing. So much for the American free speech.

Of course under those circumstances I automatically and without much reflection am against banning. To be honest though I realise that I had to give it more thought for other circumstances.

Of course personally I practice self-censorship when it comes to books. I remember being shocked when I saw Mein kampf by Adolf Hitler on sale in Geneva, Switzerland. I was of the view that it should not be available for sale! I was tempted to buy it and burn it! But perhaps advice that someone twittered around the Koran-burning threat on 911 by a church in the US is worth further consideration: reading the book should be a prerequisite if you intend to burn it. I do not intend to ever read Mein kampf. If I start a book I don't like - whatever the reaon - I stop. I give the book away.

When it comes to children I would hope that the parents are aware of what their kids are reading and talk to them about it. That is how I would've handled my children reading Harry Potter (something many christian parents would not let their children read).

Which leaves me wondering whether I am against banning books. As I am currently becoming more aware of violence against women and children and other such things, I don't want to say entirely and unconditionally so. But far too many books have been banned which I do not agree with! As with so many things, it's all about where one draws the line. At some point or another far too many fabulous books have been banned and that is definitely a problem.


I consider Burger's daughter by Nadine Gordimer, and I write what I like by Steve Biko to be probably THE two defining books of my life. They were both banned and that was without a doubt a shame!

source for covers: fantasticfiction.co.uk and Open library

Monday, September 14, 2009

Respect for Leaders

Well, it has been a while (not that anyone has noticed :-) but now suddenly I am inspired again! So, here it is:

The saga around Congressman Joe Wilson calling President Obama a liar was in the news, but even more so the response to the whole thing is quite amazing.

I am quite a fan of "West Wing" - even though I initially (naively) believed it was a vision of how the country wanted to be, and have realised that even if things were that good (which in some senses they are with President Obama), I still wouldn't be entirely satisfied (then again, who would ever be "entirely satisfied" with the state of a country, the things I say! But I digress). One of the scenes which made quite an impression on me was when President Bartlett (played by Martin Sheen) was considering whether to give Debbie Fiderer (played by Lily Tomlin) the job as his personal assistant. The exact details are a bit hazy but the point which struck me was that despite the fact that she had written a letter of protest to a previous President, she had still shown respect for the office, but referring to "Mr. President.

This made an impression on me, and even in our own country, where we now have a President which was under investigation for corruption prior to his taking office, and who also was tried for rape (and found not guilty), but who will remain infamous for saying that he believed a shower was sufficient to protect him from HIV infection! (Following on which, he was always recognisable in cartoons by our most well-known political cartoonist Zapiro, by the showerhead attached to his head). But the man is now my President, and even Zapiro, out of respect for that position, made a great show of removing the showerhead (even if it does hover above his head in most cartoons, a bit like a halo of sorts). That might not have gone as far as some would have liked, but it was still a show of respect on the part of Zapiro.

Then we come to the "you lie" incident. I have to say that I am disappointed! Even under the presidency of George W. I thought that there was still some semblance of respect (although what do I know?), but for a Congressman, during a speech in the House to yell such a thing, shows, as he admits himself, a complete lack of self-control, and I daresay, self-respect. That is one thing, the show of support however is something else, and it is astounding to me how much emotion the Health Bill seems to have invoked in the US. What scares me even more is wondering how many "christians" are the ones who are supporting Wilson and doing the heckling themselves. Like Sarah Palin's emotional rather than factual comments about "death panels". I have to be honest and say that it is "christians" like that who make me ashamed of the label!

Guys, just remember, the Bible clearly says we should pray for our leaders, and render to caesar what is caesar's. I do not understand how you can react emotionally and disrespectfully for someone you pray for. Even politics and legislation is a bit like the Bible: though we see through a glass darkly (it's not easy to fully understand everything). But I think the point that I am making is that perhaps it is time to grow up, and remember that we're to live in the spirit, not in the flesh (or by emotions), and that is what will make us a good fragrance to God. Though I may not always be able to live up to it myself, this saga with Congressman Wilson has made me think about how that fragrance is about respecting leaders, and where we strongly believe that they are not doing God's will, to pray, and when acting, act in respect, for they too are the creation of God.