Desperately Seeking Revolutionary
Intellectuals-Then, And Now
From The Pen Of Frank
Jackman
Several
years ago, I guess about five years now, in the aftermath of the demise of the
Occupy movement with the shutting down of its campsites across the country (and
the world) I wrote a short piece centered on the need for revolutionary
intellectuals to take their rightful place on the left, on the people’s side,
and to stop sitting on the academic sidelines (or wherever they were hiding
out). One of the reasons for that piece was that in the aftermath of the demise
of the Occupy movement a certain stock-taking was in order. A stock-taking at
first centered on those young radical and revolutionaries that I ran into in
the various campsites and on the flash mob marches who were disoriented and
discouraged when their utopian dreams went up in smoke without a murmur of regret
from the masses. Now a few years later it is apparent that they have, mostly,
moved back to the traditional political ways of operating or have not quite
finished licking their wounds.
Although
I initially addressed my remarks to the activists still busy I also had in mind
those intellectuals who had a radical streak but who then hovered on the
sidelines and were not sure what to make of the whole experiment although some
things seemed very positive like the initial camp comradery. In short, those who
would come by on Sunday and take a lot of photographs and write a couple of
lines but held back. Now in 2014 it is clear as day that the old economic order
(capitalism if you were not quite sure what to name it) that we were fitfully
protesting against (especially the banks who led the way downhill) has survived
another threat to its dominance. The old political order, the way of doing
political business now clearly being defended by one Barack Obama with might
and main is still intact. The needs of working people although now widely
discussed (the increasing gap between the rich, really the very rich, and the
poor, endlessly lamented and then forgotten, the student debt death trap, and
the lingering sense that most of us will never get very far ahead in this
wicked old world especially compared to previous generations) have not been
ameliorated. All of this calls for intellectuals with any activist spark to
come forth and help analyze and plan how the masses are to survive, how a new
social order can be brought forth. Nobody said, or says, that it will be easy
but this is the plea. I have reposted the original piece with some editing to
bring it up to date.
*******
No,
this is not a Personals section ad, although it qualifies as a Help Wanted ad in
a sense. On a number of occasions over past several years, in reviewing books
especially those by James P. Cannon, a founding member of the American
Communist Party and the founder of the Socialist Workers Party in America, I
have mentioned that building off of the work of the classical Marxists,
including that of Marx and Engels themselves, and later that of Lenin and
Trotsky the critical problem before the international working class in the
early part of the 20th century was the question of creating a revolutionary
leadership to lead imminent uprisings. Armed with Lenin’s work on the theory of
the imperialist nature of the epoch and the party question and Trotsky’s on the
questions of permanent revolution and revolutionary timing the tasks for
revolutionaries were more than adequately defined. A century later with some
tweaking, unfortunately, those same theories and the same need for organization
are still on the agenda although, as Trotsky once said, the conditions are
overripe for the overthrow of capitalism as it has long ago outlived its
progressive character in leading humankind forward.
The
conclusion that I originally drew from that observation was that the
revolutionary socialist movement was not as desperately in need of
theoreticians and intellectuals as previously (although having them, and plenty
of them, especially those who can write, is always a good thing). It needed
leaders steeped in those theories and with a capacity to lead revolutions. We
needed a few good day-to-day practical leaders, guys like Cannon, like Debs
from the old Socialist Party, like Ruthenberg from the early Communist Party,
to lead the fight for state power.
In
that regard I have always held up, for the early part of the 20th century, the
name Karl Liebknecht the martyred German Communist co-leader (along with Rosa
Luxemburg) of the aborted Spartacist uprising of 1919 as such an example. He
led the anti-war movement in Germany by refusing to vote for the Kaiser’s war
budgets, found himself in jail as a result, but also had tremendous authority
among the left-wing German workers when that mattered. In contrast the
subsequent leadership of the German Communists in the 1920’s Paul Levi, Henrich
Brandler and Ernest Thaelmann did not meet those qualifications. For later periods
I have, as mentioned previously, held up the name James P. Cannon, founder of
the American Socialist Workers Party (to name only the organization that he was
most closely associated with), as a model. Not so Communist Party leaders like
William Z. Foster and Earl Browder (to speak nothing of Gus Hall from our
generation) or Max Shachtman in his later years after he broke with Cannon and
the SWP. That basically carries us to somewhere around the middle of the 20th
century. Since I have spent a fair amount of time lately going back to try to
draw the lessons of our movement I have also had occasion to think, or rather
to rethink my original argument on the need for revolutionary intellectuals. I
find that position stands in need of some amendment now.
Let’s
be clear here about our needs. The traditional Marxist idea that in order to
break the logjam impeding humankind’s development the international working
class must rule is still on the historic agenda. The Leninist notions that,
since the early part of the 20th century, we have been in the imperialist era
and that a ‘hard’ cadre revolutionary party is necessary to lead the struggle
to take state power are also in play. Moreover, the Trotskyist understanding
that in countries of belated development the working class is the only agency
objectively capable of leading those societies to the tasks traditionally
associated with the bourgeois revolution continues to hold true. That said,
rather than some tweaking, we are seriously in need of revolutionary intellectuals
who can bring these understandings into the 21st century.
It
is almost a political truism that each generation will find its own ways to
cope with the political tasks that confront it. The international working class
movement is no exception in that regard. Moreover, although the general
outlines of Marxist theory mentioned above hold true such tasks as the updating
of the theory of imperialism to take into account the qualitative leap in its
globalization is necessary (as is, as an adjunct to that, the significance of
the gigantic increases in the size of the ‘third world’ proletariat). Also in
need of freshening up is work on the contours of revolutionary political
organization in the age of high speed communications, the increased weight that
non-working class specific questions play in world politics (the national
question which if anything has had a dramatic uptick since the demise of the
Soviet Union), religion (the almost universal trend for the extremes of
religious expression to rear their ugly heads which needs to be combated),
special racial and gender oppressions, and various other tasks that earlier
generations had taken for granted or had not needed to consider. All this
moreover has to be done in a political environment that sees Marxism,
communism, even garden variety reform socialism as failed experiments. To
address all the foregoing issues is where my call for a new crop of
revolutionary intellectuals comes from.
Since
the mid- 20th century we have had no lack of practical revolutionary leaders of
one sort or another - one thinks of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and even Mao in
his less rabid moments. We have witnessed any number of national liberation
struggles, a few attempts at political revolution against Stalinism, a few
military victories against imperialism, notably the Vietnamese struggle. But
mainly this has been an epoch of defeats for the international working class.
Moreover, we have not even come close to developing theoretical leaders of the
statue of Lenin or Trotsky.
As
a case in point, recently I made some commentary about the theory of student
power in the 1960’s and its eventual refutation by the May 1968 General Strike
lead by the working class in France. One of the leading lights for the idea
that students were the “new” working class or a “new” vanguard was one Ernest
Mandel. Mandel held himself out to be an orthodox Marxist (and Trotskyist, to
boot) but that did not stop him from, periodically, perhaps daily, changing the
focus of his work away from the idea of the centrality of the working class in
social struggle an idea that goes back to the days of Marx himself.
And
Mandel, a brilliant well-spoken erudite scholar probably was not the worst of
the lot. The problem is that he was the problem with his impressionistic theories
based on, frankly, opportunistic impulses. Another example, from that same
period, was the idea of Professor Regis Debray (in the service of Fidel at the
time ) that guerrilla foci out in the hills were the way forward ( a
codification of the experience of the Cuban Revolution for which many
subjective revolutionary paid dearly with their lives). Or the anti-Marxist
Maoist notion that the countryside would defeat the cities that flamed the
imagination of many Western radicals in the late 1960s. I could go on with more
examples but they only lead to one conclusion- we are, among other things, in a
theoretical trough. The late Mandel’s students from the 1960s have long gone on
to academia and the professions (and not an inconsiderable few in governmental
harness-how the righteous have fallen). Debray’s guerilla foci have long ago
buried their dead and gone back to the cities. The “cities” of the world now
including to a great extent China had broken the third world countryside. This,
my friends, is why today I have my Help Wanted sign out. Any takers?
No comments:
Post a Comment