If at first you don’t succeed
Bubble — By Hywel Griffiths on May 17, 2010 7:00 am
Changed for the better? A scene from Good Bye Lenin!, in which a son tries to hide the fall of the Wall from his ill mother. But does it mean the end of communism?
TARIQ Ali’s The Idea of Communism is the first in a series examining the practice of communism in the 20th Century and its relevance for the world in the present crisis of capitalism.
In the first two chapters, Ali charts the sources and development of communism from its beginnings as a response to the “wage slavery of the workers during the earlier years of the Industrial Revolution”, through its codifying in the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, through the Russian Revolution and its transition to Stalinism. He asks the question of how communism in the 20th Century would have fared if the revolution had happened in “economies of abundance”, in Germany or France rather than Russia.
Ali concedes near the end of the book that this material is “hardly original”, as it has been well known and rehearsed by historians. Yet his account of the history is concise and readable and couched in the terms of the present crisis. As a non-historian, I found this particularly useful and enlightening.
Some of the points are particularly effective. For example, discussing the lessons learned from the 20th Century:
“The practitioners of Communism failed. The divorce of theory from practice had become a permanent fixture. With the collapse of the practice, the doctors of theory, too, became discredited.
That is the difficulty with which the left continues to struggle.
In the third chapter, Ali examines the importance of the ideals of communism/socialism.anti-capitalism in the light of the present capitalist crisis and its continued exploitation of the working classes and of the fragile environment. The main thrust of this argument raises one vital question: Why, even after a crisis as dramatic as the present one, have governments slid so easily back into a system in which failure and collapse are inherent?
Capitalism has failed regularly, yet communism has failed once. The failure of Soviet and Chinese communism was, of course, calamitous due to the totalitarianism and repression undertaken by its leaders rather than due to the failure of the theory or ideal.
Ali also poses the question: why do the majority of people think that the failure of Russian and Chinese communism in the 20th Century is somehow the failure, once and for all, of the Marxist or communist ideology?
Ali tells us that the transition from feudalism to capitalism and democracy took 500 years, and saw periods of dictatorship. He then asks why we cannot consider that the failure of Russian and Chinese communism, with their dictatorships, is not simply a step on a long road to a possibly socialist future.
It is an interesting and hopeful message to those of us who despair in an apathetic generation. Ali also points to one of the most important lessons of Marx – who, Ali suggests, would have been horrified at seeing his work treated as a religious text – who said that:
“Proletarian revolutions … criticise themselves continuously, come back to the apparently accomplished in order to begin afresh, deride with unmerciful thoroughness the inadequacies, weaknesses and paltriness of their first attempts.”
This quote highlights the main reason for my personal enjoyment of this book, in that it reminds us that we must continue to be self-critical and improve our campaigning techniques. This is particularly important with the apparent threat of the BNP and the challenge it provides for the left in this particular period.
Ali’s writing in general provides inspiration, ideas and counter-arguments to the right. it would be a valuable addition to any radical bookshelf. Enjoy.
- The May edition of Celynis out now, priced £2. Contact Leanne Wood’s office on (029) 2089 8719, email leanne.wood@wales.gov.uk.
- The Idea of Communism, by Tariq Ali, is published by Seagull Books
Tags: book review, communism, political thought, socialism, Stalin






Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
2 Comments
A good article, and a particularly interesting point (though possibly slightly simplistic) that communism has only failed once, as opposed to the constant failures of capitalism. I guess the difference between the capitalism collapses ad the communism collapses is that generally, a new, slightly modified, capitalism takes the place of the old collapsed system, whereas the collapse of Soviet communism has been almost total.
I would think that the reason that capitalism “works” and communism “doesn’t work” is that concentrations of wealth also cause concentrations of power. Therefore, anyone who can exploit a system to increase their personal wealth almost automatically gains a greater say in the running of the system.
Meanwhile, the people who lose out from such a system don’t necessarily lose out enough to make a fuss about it, and those that do become the poorest and least empowered.
For instance, if a million people earn £1000 a month each, and all pay equally to receive the services they need etc, then everyone is theoretically happy. However, if the system is changed slightly so that everyone receives £999 a month, who’s going to complain? But the person who receives the “odd” £1 000 000 on top of their allotted £1000 is instantly in a position of influence. If a small minority of people end up with only £250 a month, then who’s going to help them? After all, the majority on £999 are going to be looking after their own interests, and the one on a million+ is happy enough. That is market forces, isn’t it?
John Kay ( who I think advises or advised the current Scottish FM ) provided an interesting case in the FT two weeks ago:
“…markets operate successfully only when they were embedded in communities; that trust and co-operation are not antithetic to a market economy, but essential to it; that the driving force of innovation is pluralism and experiment, not greed and monopoly; that corporations acquire legitimacy only from the contribution they make to the societies in which they operate.
The crisis of 2007-08 revealed starkly the limits of redistributive market liberalism. The range of market failures was a good deal wider than the limited list defined by market fundamentalists would allow. Both socialists and social democrats have re-emerged from the shadows. For socialists the crisis renewed hopes that Marx’s promise of the collapse of capitalism under the weight of its own internal contradictions would finally be fulfilled. For social democrats, forever in Utopian search of stability and harmony, salvation lay in the creation of a new global financial order, although no one seems to have much specific idea of the nature of that global financial order.”
Discuss.
Full article
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc919ce4-57af-11df-855b-00144feab49a.html