Anti-Climacus

LINK: Tacitus goes off on Communism, apparently, like Willie Nelson, forgetting what year it is exactly.

Now, nothing I'm about to say should be construed as a defence of small-c communism ("theoretical" communism, if you like), for reasons that will be explained at the end.

1. Tacitus blurs the distinction between Marx's earlier and later periods. In the Communist Manifesto, as my Marxism-Leninism teacher was fond of pointing out, the great heroes of the story are the bourgeoisie, because it is through their development of capitalism that humankind is able to make a tremendous leap in terms of standards of living, etc. And the basic tack of communism is (depending on which bits you read) is that capitalism is a perfectly fine way of going about life, so long as the capitalist system remains competitive (competition = higher wages, lower prices). What's problematic for communists is what they called 'monopoly capitalism,' which is your basic Gilded Age stuff, and State Monopoly Capitalism, which is when the state begins to assume too many functions of the government and society (churches, banks, etc) under its aegis. Later Marx is more than willing to suggest violent means are necessary (after the failed experiment of the Paris Commune), earlier Marx is less likely to advocate violence, but, as he's something of a diffuse writer, anyone can come in and find support for their agenda.

2. I agree with Richard Pipes' thesis in The Russian Revolution that the October Revolution was a coup d'etat, not a real revolution. But it is far from clear that was how things had to turn out. The motive force for the Bolsheviks becoming the group they did was Lenin, but when Lenin returned to St. Petersburg, he was definitely on the outs with his supposed followers: the power at that time was with Kamenev, who was preaching tolerance of the Provisional Government and support for a socialist revolution only after Russia had the time to develop its industry and the class consciousness of their workers and peasants. Even as late as July or August, it was Trotsky, not Lenin, who was wielding power. Indeed, when it came time for the vote about whether or not to go forward with the 'revolution' as soon as possible, Lenin was the only one who thought that the time was best if it was right that instant.

But, what has to be said here is that there was an untimate failure of nerve on the part of Kamenev, Zinoviev, Trotsky and their followers. They knew what was coming, and (being smart men all) they had to have understood the consequences of their actions, but they chose, for whatever reason, not to care about that. For their willingness to overlook the flaws of Lenin, and for their complicity in everything that happened after, they ought to be soundly condemned.