Milan Valach
valach @ iol.cz
www.valach.info
This article is mainly based on the author’s knowledge from his books “World at the crossroads” and “Czechs in troubled times”.
More than 60 years after the end of World War two fascism and rasistic nationalism still present a real threat. It is very likely that this threat will become more serious in relation to the developing global economic crisis. Its seriousness is rising mainly in connection with the gradual decay of moral values of democracy, especially noticeable in the so-called post communist countries. However, it also more or less exists in all the developed countries, especially with the deepening of the consumption mentality with it related values of personal benefit and live in the moment lifestyle of the majority of the population, as was already written by Herbert Marcuse.
This critical evolution is also noticeable in philosophy, in which the post-modern movement has emphasized the natural plurality of the world and values as a way to overcome totalitarian principles in the European way of thinking. With this it gave, paradoxly, the right to exist to all totalitarian ideologies, worldly of religious, as equally valuable viewpoints as any other for example democratical and humanitarian.
From the viewpoint of understanding our common totalitarian past and it’s sources it is obvious that the essentials remain hidden. Despite the efforts of post-modern philosophers the greatest danger for democracy still remains to be the totalitarian heritage in our minds.
To verify this statement we can look at the proposal of a group of conservative members of the European parliament, which were mainly from post-communist countries, who three years ago, during the debate about the prohibition of fascist symbols, demanded the prohibition of communist symbols as well. In a negative reaction to this proposal philosopher Slavoj Žižek highlighted the fundamental differences between these two ideologies, foremost the humanitarian values that constitute the core of the communist belief. Žižek was right, but what relationship do these positive values have with the cruel practices of the communist regimes? Something essential remained hidden again.
At first sight, nothing extraordinary is happening and therefore there is no reason to worry about the fate of democracy and our own safety. In all the countries of the so called euro-american cultural circle elections take place, ruling parties change and the whole democratic system seems to be working, if we suffice with this shallow view. We receive a somewhat less optimistic view when we ask about the possibility of citizens to put across their interests and will in this system of representative democracy. As we have seen in the bloody war in Iraq, governments can act contrary to the interest of the majority of the citizens. This is not a single case. At this time the Czech government is putting through the construction of American military radar on domestic ground even when almost 70% of the population disagrees with it. These and similar cases discredit the sole idea of democracy. And that is a serious thing, especially in relationship with other problems, from the already mentioned financial crisis through ecological crisis and many more, which we all have to face together. In order to find the solution we necessarily need the vision and belief in democracy and humanitarian values, which is currently strongly shattered. As the aforementioned example of European parliament conservative members shows, this trust crisis is deepened by the unsolved problem of totalitarianism. It could in a critical situation, which we are now facing, come back with unprecedented force and with much more devastating consequences.
In discussions, focusing on this topic, one side underlines the similarities of both totalitarianisms – conservationists – the other side, left-wing oriented intellectuals, emphasize the differences. How to solve this dispute?
Let’s look at the basic values of the communist minds, as they are in the texts of its most significant philosopher Karl Marx. We can find these values in his early work, written together with his friend Frederick Engels, this means in the Communist Manifesto.
However, we can find them in all his texts as their background and the main goal of Marx’s effort. Freedom, equality and all human solidarity are some of the values. Compared to the classical liberal concept of freedom Marx points to the private ownership of means of production resources as a key factor of the dominance of a relatively small elite of private owners over the majority of the society. According to him, private ownership of means of production is contradictory to values of freedom and equality as well as solidarity. There can be no solidarity between capitalists and their employees. Their interests are repugnant, antagonistic. All three basic values, in Marx’s and later in the whole left-wing minds, are then spread into the social field and taken as a normative request and wanted idea, as from a slightly different perspective Norberto Bobbio shows. The widening of the comprehension of these values leads to a transcendence of a merely legal or political level to the level of employee relations, as relations that are most important in life. It is not necessary to emphasize that all these values are not to be administered within national or ethnical boundaries but are meant to be global, which is illustrated by the famous sentence from the Communist manifesto: “Workers of all countries, unite!“
Beside the aforementioned values, the values of creative labour, peace and common well-being play an important part, in Marx’s and later in the whole left-wing minds. As it is known, an economic model for communism cannot be found in Marx’s works but it is possible to find a political model. Marx was an advocate of direct democracy (see Writings on the Paris Commune), which has among its important tools the citizens’ right to recall-off their delegates – representatives – at any time. Power was to be strongly distributed and in its major part taken over by citizens themselves. It is good to mention that the revolution introducing the communist social model had to be, according to Marx, the creation of the workers themselves; therefore it had to be executed from the lower layers of the social hierarchy.
It is clear that this model is hardly compatible with the Soviet totalitarianism: the rule of a single party, abolition of civil liberties and significant oppression of human rights.
By historical coincidence the radical left-wing democratical theory was taken by the revolutionary party in Russia, in a country where until then no preconditions existed to begin the development of capitalism or representative democracy. However Lenin made dramatical changes to this theory. He took out Marx’s radical democratism and replaced it with the idea of ruling privileged elite of professional revolutionaries as he states in his work What Is to Be Done. The whole state was then to be centralized ( see The State and Revolution) and controlled from above. With this he merely interpreted the thinking of a wide range of Russian people including a majority of Russian intellectuals, which did not know any other form of social administration nor could they imagine one. Lenin basically took over the ideal essence of the tsarist regime and replaced Marx’s materialistic and radical democratic philosophy with Platon’s idealistic philosophy and it’s absolutist, totalitarian philosopher king on the top of the social pyramid ( see Popper).
The core of values of the left-wing west-European minds was altered by the revolutionary avant-garde idea – the communist party. It should lead the unknowing masses into socialist paradise. Its right to rule was ideologically excused by the fact that it alone possessed needed knowledge for the realization of this goal. In the beginning of Russian communism the bearer of this privilege was a single person, at first Lenin himself and later, to an even larger degree, Stalin.
By this changeover and transformation of the left-wing ideal it became an ideology in the sense of false consciousness. I will try to explain it in detail. The original humanitarian values were considerably supplemented in the upcoming evolution of the communist minds, resulting in this ideology consisting of two contradictory parts.
The first part, let us say Marx’s, was based on the following values (it is not a complete list):
Freedom
Solidarity
Equality
Creative labour
Peace
Common well-being.
The second part, let us say imperial or more precisely Lenin’s then states that a society, in which all these values are realized i.e. communism, can only reach this dreamed-of paradise when the citizens fully subject themselves to the power of a privileged minority of communist officials. Contrary to the aforementioned Marx’s theory this is a revolution directed from above. In Russia and similar countries, the revolution itself then becomes a struggle of small elites for power. The public only plays a passive role of guided masses.
As we can very well see throughout history, all power corrupts and every power elite tries to keep its status for ever. The same was true in the Soviet Union.
A similar process took place in the environment of west-European intellectuals and left-wing parties. The avant-garde idea was widely accepted, even in my own country. This deviation from Marx’s democratic radicalism happened because most citizens in Europe did not and still do not aspire for control over their own lives. They only keep looking for rulers, who would rule in their favour, in spite of that they continue to be disappointed in this naive belief. Most intellectuals then share the elite’s conviction about their right to rule others. Some want to be ruled, others want to rule. In this we can see the negative heritage of European culture which contains two parts – democratical and humanitarian as well as totalitarian.
That is why the first part of the communist ideology has only become a promise that will be carried out in the future. Its second part, the rule of small elite over the whole society, was then carried out in the present. That is why the promise of justice, freedom and so on, could never have been realized in this system because it expected the suppression of all reigning elites, including the communist ones. Fulfilment of the communist ideal would only be possible in case a revolution would overthrow the reigning communist party. The reality was somewhat different. However, that would lead us outside the scope of this text.
The important lesson from the history of the communist movement is that moral ideals mean very little in political practice, sometimes nothing at all. Importance is hidden in the structure of power. Humanitarian moral values can only be realized in a system where the decision-making power will belong to the hands of the citizens (majority of people) themselves. If this is not the case, these values only become empty phrases used to lie to the believers and justify the power of the ruling minority.
The communist regimes claimed that there are the implementation of ideals that they had however completely denied in their practice. Based on this fact, the citizens of post-communist countries as well as many foreign observers, came to the conclusion that these ideals are impossible to realize. Practice is a truly merciless criterion of truth, as Marx wrote. The fact, that this practice only showed the frightening consequences of uncontrolled power and not the impracticability of Marx’s humanistic ideals, completely lacks the attention of most people. What contributed to this state of affairs is that, a slight shift towards the decentralisation of power has occurred after the end of the communist era. The rule of a single power elite over the entire society was replaced by several power elites taking turns in the execution of the same power over citizens. This change is not a minor one but major indeed. Essentially it can be said that post-communist countries took a step from the feudal system to the bourgeois system including the constitution of civil rights.
Everything would look truly optimistic if at the same time the practice of present- day communist parties would not continue to discredit the aforementioned humanitarian ideals and the sole belief in progress, the possibility of the creation of a more just, more democratic society.
The crisis of values is in fact much deeper. Not only were the values of freedom, equality, solidarity and so on discredited, they are being replaced by their opposites in this process. Freedom by the belief of the necessity of the rule of elites, equality by the belief of natural inequality between people, solidarity by selfish individualism. Instead of the value of labour in its creative role and the role of the source of self-esteem, the currently used criterion of the value of a person, is the money he or she owns (Fromm: To Have or to Be?). The desire for global peace was forgotten and ridiculed. It is claimed that the natural condition of mankind is war. People believe in power and their own benefits and nothing more.
The important thing is, that the essence of communist regimes, the power of minority over majority, was not discredited nor could it be. We can find it more or less in any current society.
And in it we can see the common fundamentals of fascism or more precisely Nazism on one side and the rule of communist parties on the other side. In the willingness to implicitly submit oneself to the leaders on one hand and the desire to rule others on the other hand, lies the common core of fascism and communism as was written by the already mentioned Erich Fromm in his book Escape from Freedom. Fascist movements openly confessed to this idea. There was no major conflict between their ideology and practice. Communist parties falsely called for radical democracy and humanitarian values only to glorify in the second part of their ideology the same ideal of absolute power as the fascists did. The major conflict between practice and the humanitarian part of the communist ideology lead to the discreditation of the humanitarian ideals and the ideals of a socially just society. What remains is respect for power. What remains is the core of totalitarianism, deprived of its humanitarian cover and showing its fascist essence.
And that is what we have as an idealistic outfit for the coming crisis. As soon as people’s consumer lifestyle will be threatened they will call for a strong leader to protect them. I hope this is not a portrait of the future but it is a fairly probable scenario.
Another way leads through the rehabilitation of the aforementioned humanistic values and through the cleansing of their perverse attachment with the totalitarian ideology of communist parties, with the belief in the power of an enlightened elite over the whole society. Humanism can only be real in a radically democratic society, where the radicalism of its democratic system will only be a political expression of these positive moral values.
References:
Bobbio, N.: Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. University Of Chicago Press, 1997.
Lenin, V.I.: Essential Works of Lenin: "What Is to Be Done?" and Other Writings, Dover Publications, 1987.
Lenin, V.I.: The State and Revolution. Penguin Classics, 1993.
Fromm, E.: To Have or to Be? Kontinuum, 2005.
Fromm, E.: Escape from Freedom. Holt Paperbacks, 1994.
Marcuse, H.: One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Beacon Press, 1991.
Marx, K.: The Communist Manifesto: Complete With Seven Rarely Published Prefaces. Filiquarian, 2007.
Marx, K.: Writings on the Paris Commune. Red and Black Publisher, 2008.
Popper, K.: The Open Society and Its Enemies. Routledge, 2006.
Žižek, S.: The Two Totalitarianisms. In: London Review of Books. March 17, 2005,
(http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n06/zize01_.html).