THE “COMMUNIST” AND “RADICAL LEFTIST” BOGEYMEN – YET ANOTHER CYNICAL PLOY
Dr. Common Good
Every once in a while, or, more accurately, when he has no other means of criticizing an adverse Supreme Court or Federal Court decision, or when a progressive Democrat speaks out against one or more of his egregious lies or breaches of the democratic process, or when a vocal critic is elected (even if it is a Republican), Trump and his “ugliness pal” Stephen Miller invoke the “communist” or “radical leftist” bogeymen. It’s one of their vituperative faves. So, I think we need to straighten this out, because it is yet another fabricated and manipulative ploy, from the Trumpian cesspool of lies.
The first thing to straighten out is this. Trump has no idea what a communist is, or what communism is. And Stephen Miller is either equally ignorant or even more cynical. They use the term because they think it will work as a smear, not because it means anything in modern-day America.
Now for a very brief primer on communism, which, of course means that a lot of detail and nuance will be missed. But let’s do this anyway because it is important to understand the context and meaning of terms that the Trumpians just throw out there as diversionary flak. Communism, as a political ideology, is rooted in the work of social philosopher Karl Marx, with important input from his collaborator Friedrich Engels, most prominently in The Communist Manifesto (1848) and in Das Kapital (or Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, published in three volumes between 1867 and 1894). These works of economic and social critique and political advocacy, influenced by the historical philosophy of George W. F. Hegel, were a reaction to the harsh conditions imposed on people working in the factories of England’s burgeoning industrial revolution. [Note: While the analysis and prescriptions for change came from the combined work of Marx and Engels, I will use the common term Marxism as the general descriptor.] Marxist analysis framed human history in terms of social classes, and the conflict between classes as a driver of historical change. It placed industrial capitalism in historical context, calling it the next stage of social organization and economic production after feudalism – the Medieval European system of landholding lords and the peasants or serfs who lived on that land and were obliged to be loyal, to work the land, and give the lord a share of what they grew. Under capitalism, society is divided between two major classes, the bourgeoisie who own the means of production (factories, machines, financial resources), and the proletariat or working class, who work for them. As a class, the bourgeoise were seen as holding economic and political power, using that to extract maximum profit and benefit from the proletariat, a condition Marx viewed as oppressive and inhuman.
The contradictions built into this system of exploitation and the unceasing drive for profit were seen as laying the groundwork for the (inevitable) next stage of social organization and economic production – communism. Under communism, the means of production would be owned by the proletariat. There would be no exploiting owner class. There would be no need for profit, as the means of production and all that was produced would be distributed to people according to need. It was proposed as a “classless” society, with no private property, semi-communal in nature, hence the term “communist.” There are of course a lot of other elements to the Marxist analysis of capitalism, including the idea of profit itself as “surplus value” extracted from labor, the idea that, because of systemic exploitation, workers were alienated or disconnected from the fruits of their labor, and the existence of subclass categories. The important key to Marxist political advocacy is this — the movement from exploitative capitalism to more humanist communism could only be accomplished when the proletariat realized its own power (gained “class consciousness”) and overthrew the bourgeoise. So, Marxism in this form was clearly a utopian, revolutionary philosophy, connected to its historical moment and place.
But that was then, this is now. The predicted revolution did not happen. There have been and continue to be many problems and historical trends blunting the translation of Marxism into an actual plan of action and social system. Here are just a few of those problems and trends:
- By and large, the working class in Europe did not develop a widespread class consciousness enough to prompt a wholesale revolution. Yes, there were revolutionary groups and armed uprisings, especially in 1848, but these were limited.
- Widespread working-class revolution was also mitigated by a number of other historical trends, including progressive and liberal politics that, based on an increased recognition of the depredations of unfettered capitalism, led to the passage of laws – in England, the U.S., and other countries, to protect workers and restrict the more extreme excesses of industrial labor. These included child labor laws, anti-trust laws, universal access to public education, and limits on work hours. Another very important trend was the growth of labor unions, which were originally viewed as radical and anti-capitalist, but eventually became mainstream, and a key force for improving work conditions and protecting against harmful corporate practices.
- In part because of those protections, and the kinds of benefits increasingly available to workers (e.g., as a result of labor unions and the New Deal in the U.S.), a significant middle class of people emerged who earned enough and benefited from what is now often called the social safety net so that they could live good lives and pass these resources on to their children.
- The increasing fuzziness of the term “working class.” Because of the growth of a middle class, and because the economies of most developed nations evolved beyond just industrial in nature, to include lots of occupations that are “white collar,” service oriented, IT oriented, and so on, it is now difficult to pinpoint an obvious working class. Is that based on income? Something else? People working in trades such as plumbing or electrical typically make more money than many academics who might otherwise be seen as members of the elite class.
- The diffusion of key Marxist concepts into the broader social sciences. The construct of social class itself, and analysis of class and its role are now mainstays of sociology, political science, economics, and many other fields of study. Class and class conflict are no longer the exclusive domain of Marxism. Plus, general analyses of class and power have been integrated into communications theory, post-modern theory, post-colonial theory and much else.
- The emergence of social-democratic countries in Europe since WWII, which are now the norm. Think Sweden, or Germany. Most Northern European countries now have extensive social safety nets, and benefits like free health care and childcare, free or supported university educations, limited work weeks, maternal and family leave, and many others. The income distribution in these countries is far less skewed than it is, for example, in the United States, where some of these protections and benefits exist, but where there continues to be volatile political controversy about them.
What, then, became of Marxism and communism? The historic Marxist or communist revolutions ended up occurring in societies that were not actually industrialized, Russia and China being the prime examples. And they happened in part because of a twist added to traditional Marxist theory by a Russian, Vladimir Lenin. In that ideological twist, the working class was not likely to develop a class consciousness sufficient to engage in revolution by itself. It needed help, in the form of a “vanguard party” that would take the lead in organizing the working class for revolution and then take the lead role in managing the governance of the post-revolutionary state. That ideological change is generally called Marxist-Leninism.
Enter human nature, the most profound spoiler of utopian Marxism. Once you designate a lead or governing group to run and manage a revolution, you “call forth the beast,” so to speak. Power. Grant power to any group, without a whole lot of accountability, and you quickly devolve into an authoritarian or top-down system, which is exactly what Russia (as the Soviet Union) and China became.
In fact, Dr. Common Good would say that there are no, and never were, any actual communist countries. Yes, some countries incorporated aspects of classic Marxism or Marxist-Leninism, including state ownership of property and control of the economy. Some used and still use quasi-Marxist terminology. But which countries, of those that are currently labeled communist, are actually communist? North Korea? Not a chance. That is clearly a dynastic cult dictatorship. China? No, not really. It is a massive, single party authoritarian state with a thriving capitalist economy. Vietnam? The same – a one-party authoritarian state that manages a booming capitalist economy. Dr. Common Good would even argue that most communist-leaning revolutions really just produced authoritarian states that “re-lexicalized” traditional or variations of traditional power structures. Think Daniel Ortega and Nicaragua. The once-leftist revolutionary and head of the Sandinistas is now a long-running dictator, in the classic caudillo strong-man mold.
And in the U.S., are there any actual communists, in the Marxist sense? Sure, there are, but very few, and scattered. It is a free country. One can believe in any political or other philosophy, so why shouldn’t there be?
What we do see, and increasingly so, is the aspiration for social democracy, as advocated by the Social Democratic Party, with New Hampshire Senator Bernie Sanders as the godfather, along with progressive Democrats. The differences between communists/Marxists and social or progressive democrats are important and profound. Social democrats are not advocating for armed revolution. Social democrats are not a vanguard party advocating for control of the state and ideological control of the population (that, actually, is truer of Trumpians than social democrats). Social democrats are not calling for the elimination of capitalism. What social democrats seek is a reduction in the power and control now exerted by powerful corporations, and the resulting distortion of policy in favor of corporate interests as opposed to those of the greater population. Social democrats want to see more of the nation’s resources devoted to supporting the well-being of people – better and free health care, free access to education, and protection of the environment. Social democrats want to protect the essential rights of people in a democracy to vote, to exercise free speech, to be treated equally and fairly, to be free from inequality and bigotry, and to be free from any enforced religion or ideology. Think about those aspirations. Are they not as essentially American as one can get? And, given the extreme skewing of the U.S. economy under Trump, his tax breaks to the wealthy, his corrupt pay to play schemes, his vanity wars, and his parasitic scamming of Americans at the expense of health care or other social benefits for most Americans, these views – without the label – are what a lot of Americans would like to see implemented. Not “radical.” Not “communist.” Just human.
And how about those “radical leftists”? Over the past century or so, there have been a few organized groups who referred to themselves that way – think of some early 20th century labor activists, the Symbionese Liberation Army in the 1970s, and a few others in more recent years. Really, though, these are few and far between. While there have been many groups and parties across the spectrum of liberal and leftist politics – as befitting a plural democracy — there has never been a significant, organized radical left in the U.S. It is just a convenient chimera. Just like the term “communist,” the Trump distortion machine calls anyone who opposes Trump’s corrupt, undemocratic efforts to enrich himself and control opposition a “radical left lunatic.” He even uses this term for Federal court justices who rule against him.
When you hear the fraudulent use of these terms, Dr. Common Good asks you, like in the famous Who song, for one thing: “DON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN”! The specter of communists and radical leftists infiltrating American society and politics is an ignorant, and/or cynical ploy. It is a meaningless deception.