- Let’s be honest. There’s a clear link with Islam (£) by David Aaronovitch, The Times
- Intellectual property is an innovation killer by Joshua Lachkovic , KernalMag
- Dumb Idea Hall of Fame by Aaron David Miller, Foreign Policy
- Nadine Dorries threatens Cameron's Party Leadership by Nadine Dorries, Daily Mail
- Boris set for party leadership? by Traci Watson, USAToday
- Anti-Israel students deface Star of David at student conference by Jonny Paul, Jerusalem Post
- Jihadist Videos on University Facebook by Rupert Sutton, Huffington Post UK
- Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose by Alex Massie, Spectator UK
- Green tax on conservatories by James Slack and Tamara Cohen, Daily Mail
- Saudi princess: What I'd change about my country by Staff writers, BBC
Lenin, Trotsky and the 99 percent: The denial of democracy
The Spanish fiasco of the Indignants is the latest avatar of the pernicious nature of the denial of democracy. Such a denial, when manifested by those who hold power, leads to a totalitarian State
One of the key features of the Marxist movement, since the days of Lenin and Trotsky in the early 20th century, relates to its infatuation with what has been called the “avant-garde of the Revolution”.
This is supposed to be an enlightened elite, grouped in a political party, on which communist, anticapitalist organisations needed to count so as to, first, effectively seize power and, subsequently, carry out the reforms aimed at creating a perfectly egalitarian society.
According to the actual rules of the game of the international communist movement, this “avant-garde” – in fact the Party’s leadership – always had pre-eminence over the people’s will. For the followers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, the Party knew better than the people itself what was best for the latter and, therefore, could speak and act on its behalf.
Once the famous “avant-garde” seized power in a country (Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam), to consult the people through free elections became a burdensome and redundant exercise. Indeed, what would have been the use to seek the people’s views and preferences, and to allow them to choose among competing political options, since the Party, the rulers argued, had the competence and authority to do that itself?
The primacy of the “avant-garde”, at the cost of the people’s right to express its views and wishes through the ballots, led – now we all know – to the annihilation and imprisonment of dissidents and to the establishment of concentration camps.
With the collapse of the Soviet bloc, and the transformation of China’s economy in a State capitalism, a good number of dogmas of the anticapitalist movement have fizzled out. In the post-Soviet, post-Mao era, the advent of the communist society is no longer seen as an ineluctable, scientific law of History, but merely as one possibility among others.
The “proletariat” has ceased to be regarded as the leading motor of the Revolution, this function being now entrusted to the so-called “multitude”, a loosely defined groups with disparate motivations. And in lieu of “imperialism”, a term too much reminiscent of the bygone era of colonial powers, it is the word “Empire” that today’s US-bashers such as Hugo Chávez prefer.
And yet, despite all these changes in the imagery of the radical left, the arrogant pretension to speak and act on behalf of the people hasn’t aged a bit in the hearts and minds of anticapitalist protestors.
The proof of such resilience is a slogan displayed by “Indignants” in Europe and the “Occupiers” in the US. That spellbinding slogan is no other than “We are the 99 percent”. Nothing less!
Better not to ask on which grounds these protest movements, which have never crossed swords in an electoral contest, can boast to represent the near totality of society (99 percent!). The answer to that question will be found nowhere.
Indeed, never has one been able to gauge their true political weight: like Lenin and Trotsky in their times, today’s protestors refuse to allow the ballots to test the degree of popular support to their vague, unrealistic and often contradictory stances.
There undoubtedly exists a democracy deficit in the manner in which European institutions currently operate, as much as there may be reasons to address, and correct, the clout that the Washington establishment and its bureaucracy have acquired over US politics.
The solution to all these shortcomings, however, calls for a reinforcement of democratic institutions and channels and, therefore, cannot and does not lie in a group’s pretending to represent the entire society without having received from the people a mandate and legitimacy to do so.
The reality check finally took place. It occurred in the very place where the manifestations of Indignants had started, namely Spain. There, the parliamentary elections held on November 20th dealt a heavy blow to the arrogance of the “99 percent”. The turnout reached an honourable 71.7 percent (down by merely two points, despite all the Indignants’ racket), thus demonstrating that Spaniards do not follow suit the Indignants’ contempt for parliamentary democracy.
More tellingly, the elections gave an overwhelming victory to the center-right Popular Party (PP), which had promised to enact austerity measures in the antipodes of the requests formulated by the Indignants prior to the elections. (The PP registered its best score since its creation in 1989).
The Spanish fiasco of the Indignants is the latest avatar of the pernicious nature of the denial of democracy. We knew that such a denial, when manifested by those who hold power, leads to a totalitarian state.
And now, when democracy deniers stay away from power by refusing to organise their struggle through parliamentary channels, the only thing they succeed in obtaining is the unlawful destruction of property, the filthy occupation of public places and, ultimately, the infertile vacuum of concrete political results.
Have the Indignants drawn lessons from the Spanish snub? It doesn’t look like it. Indeed, the day after the elections – that is to say, well before the leader of the PP, Mariano Rajoy, assumed the function of president of the government in accordance with the Spanish Constitution – the social media platforms (blogs, twitters) were invaded by a brand-new request of the Indignants: “Rajoy, Resignation!”
In terms of denial of democracy, the Indignants couldn’t have done more – or worse.
Fabio Rafael Fiallo is a Dominican-born economist, writer and former UN official. The author of four books, he has contributed articles, among others, to The Commentator, The Wall Street Journal, Real Clear World, Hudson New York, Le Monde, The Jerusalem Post and Le Temps (Switzerland)
Print
This is just silly. The argument is that the only legitimate political action is that taken through parliaments. The implication is that no one has any legitimacy unless elected.
So that means we should be condemning a whole load of institutions as well as the indignados. Let's start with the Taxpayers' Alliance, which claims to represent everyone in the UK. It obviously doesn't. Do you think it should just shut up until its staff all get elected?
Thought not.
The Occupy movement is not as far as I can see identifiably Marxist, and that simple fact means that two thirds of this article is tilting at a straw man.
To the extent it has a politics Occupy appears to want a different kind of capitalism. I'd like one of those as well, as would anyone in their right mind after the past few years. Even the commentator wants a different kind of capitalism.
How about you just admit that you don't like them because you disagree with them? It would be more honest than this inconsistent nonsense.
Sparky is right: the Occupy movement is not identifyably Marxist. As a matter of fact, the movement is nothing but a conglomerate of grievances. That does not mean, however, that it cannot have the same hubris that had sunk Marxist movements. If what the Occupiers want is a different kind of capitalism, when and where did they say it? why, then, do they not structure a coherent platform?
These people are the perpetual jokes of history, there is a reason people like Stalin, Mao, Castro and others rise through the ranks on the backs of the hordes of these naive clowns and take control for themselves and send most of their former comrades and peasant supporters to the gulags.
It's because they majority of them are essentially 'weak' for a lack of a better word or to be less brutally honest; useless and cannot survive or thrive under ANY system as it's quickly found out after the 'revolution'.
Strip away the BS and it all boils down to good old Mother Natures rules every time 'Survival Of The Fittest' the fit will find a way to survive under Capitalism, Communism, Dictatorships, Primal or Civilised Society etc. etc. you name it etc. etc.
The uncomfortable truth is that a vast quantity of these people are the chaff that plagues, famines and war used to take care off. Now in modern times we have to rely on ever increasing Leviathan governments or iron willed dictators to do something with them because they have no gumption to make something of themselves.
Also the sad fact that alot of them in the USSR couldn't understand why they were imprisoned and thought it was all a big mistake and that 'Dear Leader' Stalin would come rescue them one day says it all.....
Am I saying people like Stalin, Mao and Castro etc. are people to proud off and great examples of humanity?
No but let's not be mistaken they got stuff done and where strong enough to do it regardless of only having vast majorities of the uneducated effluence of Humanity to work with. They where strong realists surrounded by a pool of idealistic dreamers that dreams remained exactly that, intangible in reality and devoid of practical solutions other than mob rule.
If these people can't find a way to fit into society now then they better be careful what they wish for, cause as history has proven the grass isn't greener on the other side, you may get away being a bum and doing nothing now but after the so called 'revolution' trying to be a bum and doing nothing will be a whole different kettle of fish when you suddenly find yourself and your actions completely accountable to a 'Dear Leader'.
@Sparky
Bailing out the banks is NOT capitalism - suggest you familiarise yourself with what capitalism actually is.
@Alex - the bank bailout happened under a capitalist system. You're saying you would like a different sort of capitalism that doesn't support losers. That's fine, but in wanting that different sort of capitalism you have more in common with Occupy than you think.
@Desindignant - Occupy is best understood as a howl of protest against a system that has failed the vast majority of society. Commentator writers clearly recognise this impulse, even if they don't agree with the Occupier aims and analysis (whatever those are). Anarchist collectives seldom have coherent platforms, and their ability to represent social discontent would be fatally weakened if they did. For the record, I'm not an Occupy sympathiser, but I am angry as hell at what's happened to our economy and they are the only people I see articulating that.
@Jus Saying: your comment is a joke, right? The idea that the Occupy movement has anything to do with Mao or Stalin is just nonsense. The biggest difference lies in organisation - communists are furiously bossy and tightly structured - Occupy can't even agree on what it believes in.
Sparky, the bank bailout did not happen under a capitalist system. The crooks in Washington and Wall Street hijacked that system decades ago. Capitalism is the best system we got; it's not perfect, but it is better than the alternatives. A capitalist system would have let the banks fail. A government who was had the people's interest in mind would not be prone to insider trading and selling us out to lobbyist. We NEED to get back to capitalism or we are sunk.
@DD Ok fine, you can call it what you like. For most people it was a result of deregulation followed by crash and government's picking up the pieces to stop the economy from collapsing (in the process creating massive unfairness and moral hazard).
I do think it's a bit rich for neo-liberals to claim the problem wasn't enough capitalism, when the system was run by neo-liberals like Greenspan and supported to the hilt by the political right. This is a bit like those horrible old trots who claim we never did communism properly, so we should try again.
But that's not the point I really wanted to make. My point is that you want something different from the economic system that created the banking crisis. You think the bankers haven't been punished sufficiently (because you think they should have been allowed to go to the wall). And you want a system that generates real value, wealth and prosperity. So do the Occupiers.
You're two sides of the same disgusted and outraged coin.
@Sparky
The point is that in a proper capitalist system, the banks WOULD have been allowed to fail. In that respect, yes I do share something with the protesters, but that's about as far as it goes - you only need to look at the kind of crap coming from the mouths of the protesters to see what a joke they are. I won't forget the moron who suggested that we should do away with money altogether and replace it with bartering because "that's what I do, I barter for everything" - one example of many that have appeared on TV in recent months.
Driving past the occupy camp twice a day to see the Stalin posters on the side of one of the tents made me feel physically sick - they've been taken down at least, but it took more than 6 weeks to take them down. You will never get me to support a movement that is happy to be advertised via posters celebrating a mass murderer.
Walking past the camp to get to or from lunch and being stopped by dreadlocked morons asking me if I "want to see a trick with a stick" simply made me hope that trick involved the cretin shoving it up his a***.
P.S. I'm not a well paid city worker, I'm currently temping on a low wage due to redundancy - not ideal but necessary, as my profession is one where temp work is nonexistent. Whilst I'd prefer to not be earning less than £2 per hour above the minimum wage, low paid work is better than nowt.
No matter how rubbish the money is, a self respecting person would rather be doing some kind of paid work than doing nothing. Presumably the people in the camp have private incomes that most of us can only dream about - either that or they're on the dole, in which case they are violating the terms of said dole, as they are clearly not "actively looking for work".
The author could have simply shortened the story by saying "Dictatorship of the proletarian is bad." to which we communists would reply, suck it up. Better yet, how would you like a bullet or a bed in the gulag? Exactly why would we care what some bourgeois journalist thinks, when come the revolution his type would not think at all. If people aren't prepared to give up a bit of freedom for global justice then they will be forced to give up everything. Simple as that.
BTW, f*** Trotsky and Chavez is a social-democrat who uses completely fair bourgeois-democratic elections. Maybe your s*** Empire should stop interfering with everyone else's country before you point your pig fingers.