Stalin was a bastard, but he didn’t just appear from nowhere. His rise and his rule are intricately connected to Russian history. The political and historical context of Russia profoundly influenced what the Soviet Union became.
Same story goes for Napoleon and the French Revolution. Winning the Revolution is just the beginning; you have to win the Reconstruction as well. The more oppression there was prior to the revolution, and the more foreign interference afterwards, the harder that is to achieve.
The Bolshevik uprising was not the first Russian Revolution. It was just the first one that wasn’t crushed by the Tsars.
Tsarist oppression:
Cossack/peasant uprisings:
(insert countless other failed uprisings here)
…and then we have all the fun of WWI. Trauma like this changes a society, and not for the better.
That’s a consequence of the structure of politics, unfortunately.
On one side, the socialists (mostly working class). On the other, the reactionaries (upper class, middle class bigots and the working stupid). In between, holding the balance of power, the liberals and SocDems (mostly middle class, mostly educated).
In most places, and in the USA in particular (thanks to the functional disenfranchisement of the working class there), the deciding question is “which way will the middle class liberals jump?”. The liberals have the resources that working class resistance requires in order to succeed, but they also have a long and diverse history of collaboration with the upper classes.
Hitler would never have gotten anywhere if the liberals had joined the working class left in resistance from the beginning.
OTOH, the middle class aren’t totally unreasonable in their fear that working class revolution will reduce their wealth and safety. It usually does, in some ways. When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
For leftists, there ain’t no point in talking to the right; they’re the enemy. There is a point in talking to the liberals, because they are the swing vote.
But, as you’ve observed, the history and ideological differences strain the diplomacy at times. In part, it’s due to the contrast in perspective: the liberals tend to see politics as a difference of opinion, the left as a difference of class identity.
Well, there’s the mundane stuff such as frequently joining with the bosses to oppose rises in wages, public services and union rights. That’s what I’m mainly talking about; just that the class interests of the middle class often coincide with the upper class in a way that the working class does not.
But, on the more dramatic historical side, there’s things like this:
That is what the US left is afraid the liberals will do, though; side with the fascists against the people. The Spartacist thing was just one of many examples.
The US Red Scares were a bipartisan effort; both parties collaborated in crushing (literally; people were killed) the American left.
—
Again, though:
From the worker’s perspective, the upper class are the enemy, and this is a life-and-death struggle. And it isn’t a struggle that poor people can avoid just by changing their opinions.
That’s America This Britain Some things are similar Some different In this country the first enslaved were the working class What’s changed? Worst jobs, worst conditions Worst taxed, look where you’re livin’ You go to the pub, Friday night You will fight with a guy, don’t know what for But won’t fight with a guy, suit and a tie Who sends your kids to die in a war They don’t send the kids of the rich or politicians It’s your kids, the poor British That they send to go die in a foreign land For these wars you don’t understand Yeah they say that you’re British And that lovely patriotism they feed ya But in reality you have more in common with immigrants Than with your leaders I know, both side of my family Black and white are fed ghetto mentality Reality in this system Poor people are dirt regardless of shade
Having listened to that ML episode: nope, no thanks. Still not a fan of Lenin (and their brief foray into the philosophy of science was utter bullshit).
But it was good to hear it, to get a better handle on why I disagree with 'em.
But I’m not in the US and the example you’re using is almost 100 years old.
And you’ve just demonstrated again the problem with thinking on the hard left. Just because we’re not on the hard left does not make us fascist lackeys. There seems to be some difficulty in understanding that either flavour of authoritarianism is unwanted.
Let’s not forget that Tankie is a term for apologists of Stalin crushing the popular revolutions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia
Which is why I was making a point of saying “in the US”. Most of what I’m arguing in this thread is directly in response to the US situation, which is an extreme case.
The UK situation is different (although not entirely, as Akala points out), and I don’t follow it nearly as closely as I do US politics. So I don’t talk about it much, although I do generally think well of Jezza and co.
BTW, for a UK-centric thing coming from an upper/middle-class establishment source, check this out:
For more recent examples of the middle class siding with the authoritarian right against the workers, see the 20th century history of pretty much every country in Latin America. Or current-day Hungary, Poland, Greece.
Or current day USA: more than half of the US middle class are Trumpists. Or, to keep the focus on the liberal middle class, see the Dems recent votes on military funding, police powers, foreign affairs, etc.
No, it doesn’t. I wouldn’t be here talking to folks if it did.
Half of the US middle class aren’t fascists, and a substantial minority are lefties. And liberals don’t always side with the fascists over the socialists. Just regrettably often.
And it’s a high-intensity epithet amongst the left, too. Putting that label on someone is a sure-fire way to start a fight.
Tankies are despised; see the post about the RevLeft Radio Marxist/Leninist episode for a demonstration. Just talking to ML’s draws fire from across the left; the anarchists tend to see MLs as the enemy, while much of the rest of the left thinks of MLs as catastrophically destructive fools.
Socialism is not Stalinism, just as Capitalism is not Nazism. The fact that socialism is so easily painted as such is a sign of the dominance of the capitalist side in the propaganda wars of the 20th century.
Actual Stalinists in the 21st century left are about as rare as NAMBLA advocates at a gay pride march, for similar reasons.
The permanent advantage of the GOP is more money, deeper tribalism, a narrower tent, and the backing of religious organization. There’s a reason the 30% opinion has made up over 50% of government positions for decades.
All of that is a factor, but I’d argue that it’s deeper seated and more structural.
The original intent of the electoral college was to protect wealth from democracy and maintain slavery. Ditto for felon disenfranchisement etc.
It still serves that purpose. It isn’t an advantage to the GOP, it’s an advantage to white supremacy and wealth.
I know I recommend this one often, but have you ever had a poke at McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom? The stuff in that about antebellum political machinations is very reminiscent of recent political history.
It’s worth noting that John Locke actively supported slavery.
One group of tyrants can use liberalism to condemn another group of tyrants. But socialists can use it to recognize emerging tyrants, and use it to structure institutions so they’re less vulnerable to tyrants. If Russia in 1917 had a genuine liberal tradition-- not the Kadets-- then the other socialist parties might have stopped Bolshevik power-grabs in early/mid 1918. Instead they had an assassination politics tradition.
That’s America
