One of those fascinating lives from that bohemian/revolutionary period (like Jaroslav Haśek, author of Good Soldier Švejk). What many people don't know, don't remember, or pretend to ignore is that the fiercest and most articulate criticisms of the Soviet Union came from the left. I remember. Unfortunately there is no left left.
“But there is one interesting, small ideological detail: both, Serge thinks, might have seen fascism within Marxist scheme as a ruse of history where decrepit capitalism adopts fascism as a way to save itself; yet fascism, by imposing a strong state rule over private sector, gradually transforms it, and creates an economy that can, in a future evolution, be readily taken over by workers. In such a bizarre way, fascism was, he believes, seen by the former communists, as a way to end capitalism.”
Ok, let's do some History 101 in order for people reading this to not get too confused. Oversimplifying a lot, we have:
Marx's opus (not the personal stuff like letters and sketches, only the formally written to be published): scientific work, by now consolidated as absolute scientific truth (specially his magnum opus, Das Kapital). If you don't believe it, your loss - it remains true you believing it or not.
Marxism: people who claim to follow Marx's writings to any degree and found an ideology and/or doctrine which they claim to be based on Marx's works. Can vary widely in degrees of sophistication, erudition, and scientific precision. Anybody can claim to be a Marxist.
Marxianism: the alleged scientific and/or academic experts on Marx's opus. They are almost all invariably academics (i.e. scientists), employed as professors in universities, in which they dedicate their research and teach on Marx's theories. The scientific study of Marx.
Political doctrine: a manual of politics and administration of the State based on some principles, often theories and ideologies. After Marx, the scientific debate on socialism was deemed as over in Europe: Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trostky etc. considered themselves Marxists in the sense that they knew Marx was right, and sought to apply his theory to their respective realities in the political arena so as to obtain a certain goal (socialism). Their works were never intended to be elevated to the status of ideologies, let alone scientific theories. That they had just adds another archeological layer to the original question.
What we do with these definitions when studying History? Well, for starters, it shows ideas and ideologies never exist in a pure state: people think they have the same ideology, and/or claim to have this or that ideology, but they almost never have the exact same ideology, because that is virtually impossible. A Marxist may or may not have read Marx at all; some may have read just “Young Marx”, others just “Old Marx”. Most probably just read the Communist Manifesto (which is smart if your time is scarce, because the CM is a political program, therefore has immediate practical applications); a very small percentage may have read the first three chapters of book I of Das Kapital; an amount that can be counted on the fingers of two hands read the whole thing. Either way, someone may believe to be a Marxist just after a small contact with Marx's opus.
Hence, for example, Karl Popper - one of the founding fathers of Neoliberalism - was a communist. And the founder of Neoconservatism was a Trotskyite. Were they really ever “Marxists”? We'll never truly know, if this question is scientifically pertinent in the first place.
And this is a very common thing that permeates all of History, because it is in the nature of ideologies. For example, we know that, in the strict sense, the Roman Senators and emperor Marcus Aurelius were not true Stoics in the original sense, as Stoicism probably had a strong class critique element. It had to be sterilized before being canonized by the Roman elite. But did those senators and emperors really believe they were Stoics? They probably did. Deep down, ideologies are just that: instruments individual humans use and abuse and discard according to their day-to-day needs; there is no IP on ideology.
That's why we should be very careful when studying ideology in History: never take the term itself literally; never assume it was an organized and well-defined political movement; never assume they were uniform. But most importantly, never assume they have the reins of History: those are in the hands of economy.
I don’t have an ounce of pity for these guys, however colorful their biographies are.
In the end, the real historical function of these idiots was destroying the greatest industrial development story of the long nineteenth century (Tsarist Russia’s breackneck development and bourgeois-zation). Their legacy was a wreck, a colossal failure.
In the end, his generation should be remembered as one of the most disastrous in the history of the world. They all got what they deserved during Stalin’s purges, although this particular character managed to escape his judgement.
It is good to know that for this reactionary "Unpolitical Man" and his kind a whole generation of participants in, and supporters of, the October Revolution, both Stalinists and anti-Stalinists, deserved to be killed or sent to the Gulag.
Well, that it is a waste of time to try to react rationally to a post like yours, which is clearly a provocation. This blog, the contributions by serious economists and historians like Branko Milanović and this specific article, and 99% of the comments are dedicated to understanding real historic events. And not, like you do, to start from a fictional and completely unrealistic assumption of a "breakneck" development of Tsarist Russia. Real Tsarism broke her neck because of its internal and external (World War I) crises, like what happened to the German, the Austrian-Hungarian and the Ottoman empire. And in the just as improbable event that it would have survived it would have succumbed to the second imperialist conflagration. Maybe you should post your reactionary fantasies of a frustrated Tsarism and a kind of Stalinist retribution elsewhere.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Late-Tsarist economic growth is a consensus story among economic historians. You are a frustrated leninist and your views are more irrelevant than those of even the most dogmatic reactionary. Completely forgotten by history, your legacy desecrated even in Russia.
One of those fascinating lives from that bohemian/revolutionary period (like Jaroslav Haśek, author of Good Soldier Švejk). What many people don't know, don't remember, or pretend to ignore is that the fiercest and most articulate criticisms of the Soviet Union came from the left. I remember. Unfortunately there is no left left.
“But there is one interesting, small ideological detail: both, Serge thinks, might have seen fascism within Marxist scheme as a ruse of history where decrepit capitalism adopts fascism as a way to save itself; yet fascism, by imposing a strong state rule over private sector, gradually transforms it, and creates an economy that can, in a future evolution, be readily taken over by workers. In such a bizarre way, fascism was, he believes, seen by the former communists, as a way to end capitalism.”
Ok, let's do some History 101 in order for people reading this to not get too confused. Oversimplifying a lot, we have:
Marx's opus (not the personal stuff like letters and sketches, only the formally written to be published): scientific work, by now consolidated as absolute scientific truth (specially his magnum opus, Das Kapital). If you don't believe it, your loss - it remains true you believing it or not.
Marxism: people who claim to follow Marx's writings to any degree and found an ideology and/or doctrine which they claim to be based on Marx's works. Can vary widely in degrees of sophistication, erudition, and scientific precision. Anybody can claim to be a Marxist.
Marxianism: the alleged scientific and/or academic experts on Marx's opus. They are almost all invariably academics (i.e. scientists), employed as professors in universities, in which they dedicate their research and teach on Marx's theories. The scientific study of Marx.
Political doctrine: a manual of politics and administration of the State based on some principles, often theories and ideologies. After Marx, the scientific debate on socialism was deemed as over in Europe: Rosa Luxemburg, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trostky etc. considered themselves Marxists in the sense that they knew Marx was right, and sought to apply his theory to their respective realities in the political arena so as to obtain a certain goal (socialism). Their works were never intended to be elevated to the status of ideologies, let alone scientific theories. That they had just adds another archeological layer to the original question.
What we do with these definitions when studying History? Well, for starters, it shows ideas and ideologies never exist in a pure state: people think they have the same ideology, and/or claim to have this or that ideology, but they almost never have the exact same ideology, because that is virtually impossible. A Marxist may or may not have read Marx at all; some may have read just “Young Marx”, others just “Old Marx”. Most probably just read the Communist Manifesto (which is smart if your time is scarce, because the CM is a political program, therefore has immediate practical applications); a very small percentage may have read the first three chapters of book I of Das Kapital; an amount that can be counted on the fingers of two hands read the whole thing. Either way, someone may believe to be a Marxist just after a small contact with Marx's opus.
Hence, for example, Karl Popper - one of the founding fathers of Neoliberalism - was a communist. And the founder of Neoconservatism was a Trotskyite. Were they really ever “Marxists”? We'll never truly know, if this question is scientifically pertinent in the first place.
And this is a very common thing that permeates all of History, because it is in the nature of ideologies. For example, we know that, in the strict sense, the Roman Senators and emperor Marcus Aurelius were not true Stoics in the original sense, as Stoicism probably had a strong class critique element. It had to be sterilized before being canonized by the Roman elite. But did those senators and emperors really believe they were Stoics? They probably did. Deep down, ideologies are just that: instruments individual humans use and abuse and discard according to their day-to-day needs; there is no IP on ideology.
That's why we should be very careful when studying ideology in History: never take the term itself literally; never assume it was an organized and well-defined political movement; never assume they were uniform. But most importantly, never assume they have the reins of History: those are in the hands of economy.
Memoirs of a revolutionary was one of the great books of my late teenage years
I don’t have an ounce of pity for these guys, however colorful their biographies are.
In the end, the real historical function of these idiots was destroying the greatest industrial development story of the long nineteenth century (Tsarist Russia’s breackneck development and bourgeois-zation). Their legacy was a wreck, a colossal failure.
In the end, his generation should be remembered as one of the most disastrous in the history of the world. They all got what they deserved during Stalin’s purges, although this particular character managed to escape his judgement.
It is good to know that for this reactionary "Unpolitical Man" and his kind a whole generation of participants in, and supporters of, the October Revolution, both Stalinists and anti-Stalinists, deserved to be killed or sent to the Gulag.
Guilty as charged. And?
Well, that it is a waste of time to try to react rationally to a post like yours, which is clearly a provocation. This blog, the contributions by serious economists and historians like Branko Milanović and this specific article, and 99% of the comments are dedicated to understanding real historic events. And not, like you do, to start from a fictional and completely unrealistic assumption of a "breakneck" development of Tsarist Russia. Real Tsarism broke her neck because of its internal and external (World War I) crises, like what happened to the German, the Austrian-Hungarian and the Ottoman empire. And in the just as improbable event that it would have survived it would have succumbed to the second imperialist conflagration. Maybe you should post your reactionary fantasies of a frustrated Tsarism and a kind of Stalinist retribution elsewhere.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Late-Tsarist economic growth is a consensus story among economic historians. You are a frustrated leninist and your views are more irrelevant than those of even the most dogmatic reactionary. Completely forgotten by history, your legacy desecrated even in Russia.