The Long View

•

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.