Services
The Long View
by Fred Whitehead
The 100th anniversary of the first Russian Revolution—an event that
while massive, was defeated—gives us an opportunity to reflect on what
has sometimes been called a “long curve” in history. With such a view,
we consider not just “spikes” of social activity, such as strikes, wars and
revolutions, but the underlying fundamental changes in social forms.
Marx’s detailed analysis of the rise of capitalism out of feudalism is, of
course, well known. The old reactionary aristocracy at last gave way to
the new, rising capitalist bourgeoisie, but importantly, this did not
happen in a decade, or even a century: it took hundreds of years, from
around 1450 with the invention of printing and accounting systems,
until capitalism’s clear and universal victory by the mid-19th century.
Just consider the outlines of English history in the mid-17th century: a
Puritan movement against the abuses of the Bishops and the Crown led
to a civil war, culminating in the capture and execution of King
Charles I in 1649. The government which ensued was led by Oliver
Cromwell, whom many consider to be the first political figure of the
rising middle class. After his death, the monarchy and established
church were quickly restored, during a period of sharp and bitter
political reaction. Radicals were themselves imprisoned and
executed. Especially in Scotland, this in turn produced a violent,
armed movement against the King’s soldiers. (Walter Scott’s novel Old
Mortality gives a splendid account of the Scottish chaos.) Finally, a
full-scale revolt against James II, a secret Catholic, produced “The
Glorious Revolution” in 1688. Obviously, this was a notably complex
period, full of dramatic risings, counter-risings, and the like.
The American historian C. H. George once published a paper in the
journal Science & Society, arguing that by 1750, the English
bourgeoisie had established all the important features of its social
economy. That was before the Industrial Revolution transformed
English society and people forever. George’s point is that the
underpinning was in place for the political victory which most other
historians date to the Reform Act of 1832.
The point here is that history does not march steadily “forward” in a
lock-step manner. Sometimes, as the writer E. M. Forster suggested, it
“moves sideways, like a crab.” There are fits and starts, aborted risings,
lost strikes, as well as victories and defeats.
From one standpoint, it seems incredible that the people of the U.S.S.
R., having risen from the ashes of 1905, passing through the horrors of
World War I, a brilliantly successful proletarian Revolution, an
appalling Civil War, then defeating the fascists in the greatest war in
human history, could possibly have let it all go to ruin. Who could
imagine that capitalism would ever be restored there?
In China, Mao Tse Tung used to warn against “capitalist roaders,” and
I always wondered “what can he be talking about??” But we can now
see that in China as well as Russia, there were significant forces
committed to that direction, at the expense of the people. The
Communist Parties were somehow hollowed out, whether by
bureaucracy or corruption, or other subtle compromises. While there
had been heroic sacrifices beyond parallel in history, such grave
problems led to fundamental flaws. That is not the same thing as a
declaration that the effort should never have been made.
In their own day, Marx and Engels—and Lenin after them—insisted
on a ruthless honesty, and a careful attention to historic specifics,
rather than grandly abstract theories. If the first half of the 20th century
was a period of Revolution, wouldn’t it stand to reason that a period of
fierce Counter-Revolution would follow? After all, the Reformation was
followed by the Counter-Reformation, climaxed by the Thirty Years War
in which most of Central Europe was destroyed by marauding bands.
At this present moment, it seems to me our movement needs to re-
form its ranks, to carefully study the experiences of the last century’s
Revolutions—and why they didn’t survive (acknowledging the
impressively long-lasting victory in Cuba, which has been declared
about to collapse for more than forty years). In any case, the impact of
Capitalism has not meanwhile become more pleasant and benign.
While there were negative aspects to life in the Socialist countries,
myriad newspaper articles in the Capitalist press document how bitterly
the common people in them lament the dissolution of health care,
employment, education, and culture. Going the route of mere
cynicism will never restore such social gains.
As I write, I’m listening to Dmitri Shostakovitch’s monumental 11th
Symphony, dedicated to “1905.” Musically it explores all its phases,
from revolt, to defeat and despair in the funeral march of the 3rd
movement. But the 4th movement concludes in a mighty tolling tocsin
of resistance. The artistic visions created in the Socialist U.S.R.R.
remain in all their inspiring complexity, and in their enduring resolve.
FIRST PUBLISHED IN 2005
