There is a shocking lack of critical engagement amongst the left. I seem to continually berate and lambaste the left, and I do, however I do so out of commitment and out of genuine fervour for the values that designate me a lefty. I have continually expressed my stance on apologists whom I think are the extreme representation of a symptom upon the left that is debilitating and embarrassing. The issue is rather a simple one, we have lost sight of the values that we are supposedly fighting for. Too often do I witness the left attempting to salvage figures and ideas that should, by my account, be left on the rubbish heap of history, or at least firmly thrown into it once again.
It is not unknown that the left lacks its heroes, it lacks its historical success stories and it lacks credible figures. Perhaps this is down, as many claim, to the bourgeois historiographies and biographies that attempt to inoculate and discredit figures on the left, or perhaps this is down to a reluctance upon the left to let go of those figures that have been close to the mark, a near-hit. This is down to a neglect of values and a lack of internal criticism amongst left-wing organisations. Apologists exist throughout the left, apologists for figures such as Stalin; for despotic “anti-imperialists” such as Gaddafi and Saddam; for corrupt and brutal regimes such as North Korea and the PRC, it is endemic of the left to cling to our failed experiments, to the grotesque abortions born of despotism, extremism and brutality. The left clings to these mangled corpses, crying praises with blinded eyes and deafened ears. This is the situation in many of the communist parties which are now inhabited solely by deluded old men who cant see past their crinkled and faded copy of the Manifesto, trying desperately to justify the failures of a doctrine they cannot bear to let go, refusing to stray from the path set by theorists of a different world, preserving their words with religious dedication and wishing they were there in 1917 to witness the birth of their glorious projection, the Soviet Union.
Set aside the fact that many of these people have never experienced hardships like those endured by the victims of the failed communistic experiments of the past, and we are left with the question as to why so many people, whether they be the cariacture of the fading Leninist, or the youthful radical, cling to examples of communistic experiments that have largely failed; ideas that have brutalism and despotism built within them; and to figures which embody the very evils any socialist should vehemently despise?
The answer to this may be out of my depth. Perhaps it is the rejection of bourgeois morality within the left, which allows them to set aside worries of genocide and repression for the sake of the glorious revolution, or maybe I am just a victim of bourgeois propaganda. I, however, would like to posit another explanation, one that may be premature, ill-thought out and rough around the edges, but who cares, I am a socialist after all. I believe that the acceptance of such figures is the outward projection of the narcissism within the left, the very same narcissism that has blocked critical self-reflection. I would argue that to re-assess the fundamentals of their ideology proves too much for some left-wing organisations, as this runs the risk of implosion. However, this implosion may not be as negative as it sounds. To implode the dogmatic pretensions of the existing left would be to reinvent the left itself, to reassess our ideology and to, most importantly, reacquaint ourselves with the fundamental values we are striving for. Socialists should not have to waste time apologising for Stalin and defending corrupt states such as North Korea, instead we should be tackling oppression and exploitation, servitude and repression. We should be fighting for freedom from the capitalist machine and the hierarchical brutalism of the state. These are the fights that make us socialists, and because of these values, we should never move to defend the malformed, despotic failures of socialism’s past.
This is not to suggest that we should forget the lessons of history, quite the contrary, I believe that it is these lessons that need to be internalised, reflected upon and used in order for us to move forward. However, this will be no simple task. I mention time and time again the closed, narcissistic tendencies of a number left-wing parties, but I have yet to explain why this has developed. Centralised democracy does not help foster true democracy and self-criticism, but focusing too heavily on the internal nature of the parties and organisations in question is perhaps missing a large part of the problem. Capitalism and the hegemony it erects in order to protect itself is something that can inoculate and castrate left-wing organisations. Many believe that to maintain the radicalism needed to overthrow the state and achieve socialism is safeguarded by strong internal structure, anti-democratic organisation and dogmatism. These are all tools that can close any organisation off from the deradicalising nature of capitalist hegemony, however it also has served to separate organisations from eachother, from the people and from their values. The shield that some left-wing organisations seem to have erected is there for safety- their narcissism is a symptom of this defensive manoeuvre- however I believe that in order to provide a real alternative to capitalism the left needs to open itself up to criticism from within, from outside and criticism that is perpetual in motion. The critical left will not simply vanish into capitalist hegemony, but will pierce through the flabby layer of hegemony that is serving to bolster capitalism’s hold on the world. The left can pierce through this and take it apart, however, to do so we must shed all our prejudices. We must abandon the failures of the past, abandon the leftist anachronisms, reject those who are in breach of our values and carry ourselves forward in a united manner.
Capitalism is a real bastard. It is a rather tough enemy to fight. The state, too, is a real bastard. These things embody that which we despise, and it is for this reason that we fight. However, Stalin was a real bastard; Lenin and Trotsky, despite voluminous additions to theory, were of questionable character; North Korea is a repressive, sexist, despotic regime; the PRC was a quagmire of awful tragedy and ridiculous policy; and the Soviet Union was the slow death of a model of Marxism that did nothing other than redraw the lines of inequality. As a socialist, I look at these examples and I see nothing of substantial value that can hold me to them. A hammer and sickle and reference to Marx may impress on a superficial level, but those are empty gestures. Socialism should be the ideology of equality, peace and freedom, not the ideology of eulogising despots because they flew the red flag or shouted angrily at an Imperialist power. Along the path to socialism, we will be faced with the inevitability of self-criticism and re-evaluation. Meeting these obstacles and surpassing them will move us forward, succumbing to them will leave us with nothing but ghosts to chase and skeletons in our closet.
No comments:
Post a Comment