Showing posts with label Right wing populism rise. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Right wing populism rise. 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)

Thursday, June 6, 2019

Moenie vrees nie

van Mathews Phosa

(Excerpt from Deur die oog van 'n naald; Tafelberg, Cape Town, 1996)

Hoekom moet jy vrees
as jy niks het om te vrees nie?
Jou gewete is mos skoon,
moenie vrees nie.

Hoekom moet jy vrees
as jy niks het om te verloor nie?
Jy het mos niks nie,
moenie vrees nie.

Hoekom moet jeg vrees
as jy weeb jy's geen onderdrukker nie?
Jy het niemand onderdruk nie,
moenie vrees nie.

(Translation:
Why must you fear
if you have nothing to be afraid of?
You say your conscience is clean,
do not fear. 

Why must you fear, 
if you have nothing left to lose?
You say you have nothing, 
do not fear. 

Why must you fear
if you know that you are no oppressor?
You haven't oppressed anyone, 
do not fear. )

Why I like this poem?  It is a poem for wbiteness. For our need to justify and excuse. And yet how fragile and afraid we are. This has become particularly relevant as in recent days social media have indicated the white fear of becoming a minority in the US is a major driver of their current policies. I have long believed that deep in our hearts we know what we and our kind have been up to the world. A people who fear justice are afraid.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Charlotteville and confronting whiteness




I have come to the conclusion that this blog is a kind of therapy for me. A place to think aloud. Now, yes, you are probably right - I should just get a therapist and yes, does the world need yet another white voice? No. On the other hand, as a white person coming to grips with the inherent racism in Western society (my society) and not to mention white supremacy, not to mention because I am "stuck" here in Norway and so cannot go join a march somewhere in the US (nor am I engaged in such a manner as to be aware should someone here in Oslo be taking such an initiative, something I would be inclined to organise if I myself were an organiser, yes, yes, excuses, excuse).

Anyway, let me continue. My mind is, well percolating on the events in Charlottesville, Virginia and the USA at large (including their stooge-in-chief) and there is just so much which can and should be said (and a few thing which probably should not).

Inspired by Zizek, I am trying to not get distracted by leaves or even trees when there is a wicked forest we have to deal with. So, for example, blaming Trump is just stupid. Yes, he has emboldened the monster to come out of hiding, but truth is that Clinton would simply have chopped off the head of the hydra (presumably) and the beast would go back into hiding (and if you know about hydras, you will get that analogy without further explanation). Like Zizek implied, some beasts must be dealt with (see my previous post) in the open.

Secondly, it will be typical white supremacy if the death of a white woman actually contributes to the recognition that there is a problem. But at this point I am starting to feel that better that than the alternative if this actually does contribute to realising what we are in fact dealing with. The resilience of our ability to avoid and forget is however perhaps the only human quality comparable to our general stupidity (ref. Einstein attributed quote: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe").



I have now posted two tweets with pictures, which in conclusion I want to make some observations about, which I feel kind of sum up what we as whites need to chew on, but in particular whites in the USA.

With respect to the first picture, there are three things that strike me:
1. The Nazi salute(s) on the right of the picutre;
2. The red, so-called kleagle KKK robe being worn by the guy behind the policeman; and
3. the poster being held by the guy on the right, which is both Anti-Semitic and goes as far as to quote New Testament scriptures to justify this.

With respect to the second twitter, note that these participants consider it entirely acceptable and even appropriate to wield a Nazi Swastika and the Confederate flag in tandem.

Let all of this sink in.

I have a thousand problems with these two images, but the one which outrages me the most is the one where there is a clear and unmistakable part for Christianity in this situation. You who claim you love Jesus Christ of Nazareth and support the stooge-in-chief, take a good long hard look at yourselves, and preferably also your Bibles. Because something is, well, just a tad awry, and as you guys would claim: 'it ain't the Bible'. (Will leave it at that for now).

This must be roundly condemned by all who do not want to be associated with these unmistakable and egregious symbols. And we whites living in other parts of the world should not fall into the trap of seeking to merely 'other' the whites in the USA. Last time it was it's worst, it was us. The TV, entertainment and technology we enjoy are from this country. We need to be more considered in our response to it, because truth is, it is not as far removed from our white and Western lives as we would like it to be at this moment.

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.