« Capitalism (not Jesus) is the reason for the season | Main | Thinking beyond that coloured label »
December 28, 2005
Don't equate ideologies
Sydney Morning Herald
12 January 2005
Hope and optimism were associated with Marxism in a way that was impossible with fascism. This article responded to a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald by writer Louis Nowra.
Do Australian communists have blood on their hands? Is the Che-T-shirt-wearing generation a modern version of the Hitler Youth? Louis Nowra claimed on this page on Monday that communism and fascism are equal and he lamented that a plaque near his home records the life of an East Sydney communist.
The fact that Che is chic and that Soviet-era kitsch is sold widely is significant but not in the way Nowra thinks. Not only have these symbols been emptied of their original meaning but the old framework defining right and left has been transformed since the end of the Cold War and the reconstruction of the right by the free-traders and neo-liberals.
On the left, Marxism no longer sets the intellectual and moral compass as it did for 80 years. On the right, an older style of conservatism has been sidelined. This is symbolised by people like Malcolm Fraser and Robert Manne, whose conservatism was built on a moral outlook now disparaged by both amoral free-marketeers and neo-conservative populists who fan fears about cultural identity.
Like the anti-communism which Manne and Fraser once espoused, the ideas of Che Guevara and Mao Zedong are relics from a historical period now closed. But history still has its claims. One of them is an argument about interpretation.
The claim that Stalin and Hitler were equals is part of an argument which tries to prove that Marxism, as an intellectual framework, was akin to fascism.
Marxism, now largely defunct, was very unlike fascism. Marxism was very much part of the Enlightenment heritage of the West. It was an ideology based on rationalism, science and progress. As such it influenced social science and the humanities. Its critique of economic power has become part of the common sense of our era. It was the militant wing of the Enlightenment.
By contrast, fascism was a product of the counter-Enlightenment. Its call to blood, race and nation was utterly different to Marxism. Both produced dystopias but for different reasons. Marxism's fatal flaw was precisely its utopianism, based on a literal implementation of its Enlightenment values of equality and rationality. It took little account of the nature of human beings, and did not have a functional and elaborate moral sense. (A similar critique can be made of current ideologies of free-trade globalisation.)
That Marxism won a wide following in the West is therefore hardly surprising given that Marxism's core ideas were a utopian elaboration of core values of the modern West such as equality and fraternity. In Australia it is humorously, but probably accurately, said that the biggest political party has always been the ex-members of the Communist Party.
But is it true to say that Australian communists slavishly supported Stalin and leave it at that? Partial truths can distort as effectively as untruths.
It is true that until the late 1960s Australian communists believed that the Soviet Union was a progressive and humane society. They admired the opposition of the Red Army to Nazism during World War II. They denied the obvious truth that Stalin's rule rested on secret police, labour camps and an unworkable economy.
But history is paradoxical, not simple. While the Communist Party of Australia embraced a Russified Marxism and worshipped Stalin, it also represented a genuine extension of native Australian working-class radicalism. It was both a victim of the Cold War and it used Stalinist methods internally.
But it is also true that in 1968 the Australian communists were the first in the world to condemn the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia. For the next 25 years, the Australian party chose an independent course, which included acknowledging the horrors of Stalinism.
One consequence of this independent period was the communists' embrace of environmentalism, which helped save much of Sydney's heritage from the demolisher's hammer. Another was that, alongside certain Christians, communists were some of the few Australians who could hold their heads high with a consistent record of opposition to racism against indigenous Australians.
Such stances won support from the young new-left radicals of the 1970s. I know because I was one of them.
I joined the Communist Party of Australia in 1972 at the age of 21 out of unashamed idealism but with a full awareness of the tragedy that was Stalinism. I was confident that socialism did not automatically lead to Stalinism. I had enjoyed George Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 but also his idealistic Homage to Catalonia. Socialism and equality seemed so obviously the answer to the world's ills. By the late 1980s my views had changed. Both the problems and solutions were not so simple any more. I drifted out of the Communist Party and by 1991 the party itself dissolved.
Optimism, hope and idealism were associated with Marxism in a way that was impossible with fascism. The theory of fascism wanted to crush Jews, the disabled, trade unionists and many others. The theory of Marxism wanted a better world for all. In Nazi Germany fascist ideals were realised. In the Soviet Union, as in present-day Cuba, Marx's ideals were not realised, and can never be realised.
New kinds of idealism need to be rethought, not buried.
Posted by David at December 28, 2005 11:32 AM
Comments
This post was originally intended as a test but whilst I'm here...
I guess the Gerard Henderson response here would be that because the CPA supported Stalin and that Stalin massacred millions then the CPA and its supporters has blood on its hands. Guilt by third-party extension.
Gerard and his fellow pedants wouldn't worry about that the CPA condemned Stalin in 1968 or the fact that the CPA never engaged in such atrocities.
In return, you could also that domestic right-wingers who had actively supported and defended fellow right-wing governments that have been responsible for the massacre of millions also have blood on their hands...but this logic is just as flawed as Henderson's.
In the end, if the commentariat keeps tarring their opponents with the one brush of history and keeps ignoring the not even subtle differences between Marxism, Socialism and Social Democracy then we haven't got much hope of progressing our current political debates.
Of course, it's within the interests of those on the right of the political debate to keep performing this simplistic tarring: it smears their opponents and misinforms those on the sideline occasionally watching the debate without progressing it one iota.
Moving on from this historical argument to actual policy differences is I guess part of DM's framework of Beyond Right & Left.
Posted by: Mark McGrath at January 13, 2006 12:57 PM
Does anyone know of books or articles by present or former anti-communists who have publicly regretted their approval (or silence) on various bloody dictatorships in LAtin America, South east Asia etc which where at an earlier time justified in the name of defeating communism?
Posted by: David McKnight at January 14, 2006 07:09 PM
you could try to obtain a copy of 'Deadly Deceits, 25 years in the CIA' by Ralph McGeehee obtainable from Amazon.com. I could send you more information by snail mail if you wish. I did send a comment to your Email address that you may post here if you think it appropriate. At first glance your logo looks a bit like a symbol of male impotence! Good luck with the book sales. Jim Connolly
Posted by: Jim Connolly at January 17, 2006 04:00 PM
To equate Fascism with Communism is like comparing fact with and ideal. IE. Fascism was a fact in that it was totalitarian state contolled ideology that tried to conquer the world and to build a 1000 year Reich. Where Communism was an utopian ideal tht only existed in the mind of Carl Marx's. Most attempts at utopianism fail or are hijacked by authoritarian personality in that the means all ways justified the end.
Stalin may have been totalitarian but at least he tried to build Marx's utopia for his fellow countrymen. Hitler was also totalitarian and wanted to rule the world and was anti communist and prepared to destroy his own people when they failed to met his goals.
Posted by: john probert at February 17, 2006 04:02 PM



