Marxism and the Continued Cold-War Rhetoric of the Right. . . . .

Am I the only one who is amazed by the Conservatives who condemn fairly mainstream centrists and mild leftists with epithets such as "Marxist" and "Communist" because they are vaguely critical of the extremes of neo-liberalsim and afraid of the implications of a Prime Minister who refuses to adhere to the rules of our constitution? Has the level of knowledge and discourse fallen this far, or are these just the ignorant wackos on the conservative end of the spectrum? I would like to opt for the explanation of ignorance because anyone who is twisted enough to know anything about Marxism and freely use the label to characterize Liberal Party bloggers is absolutely beyond the pale of regular political discussion.

This is not to imply that defining Marxism, for example, is an easy or uncontroversial matter. I spent years studying Marxism and still find the question to be a fairly thorny one. Some people emphasize the Sociological aspect of Marx's work, and I am somewhat sympathetic to this idea. Though he did not originate the idea, Marx was a very important promoter of the notion that people's personal a social behaviour is a result of their socio-economic context of their lives. This idea has permeated so deeply into our collective minds that it seems almost obvious today. The idea can be found to varying degrees in German and English philosophers before Marx, but his work on economics and class gave new power to the idea and it is now an inescapable part of our social and political consciousness. Even deeply conservative thinkers use such notions today.

Others emphasize the Economic aspect of Marx's work. I have never been fond of this approach for many reasons. I am fairly distrustful of the methodology of Economics for one thing. For another, it doesn't seem to me that Marx did much strictly 'economic' work. His economic ideas always seem inexorably intertwined to his politics and so, like many leftists, I don't think economics as a separate study really means much except in the way that capitalists use it to disguise the political implications of economic issues. (One could say a lot about this subject particularly in regard to the 'labour theory of value' and the notion of so-called 'surplus value,' as well as Marx's complex notion of 'Alienation.')

Some are more interested in the idea of Marx as a philosopher of history. This is indeed an interesting topic. Marx's notion of history as a motion pushed forward by conflict between social and economic classes is fascinating. I am putting this in very simple terms here because I obviously cannot discuss the complex issues of Hegelian dialects etc., but I think most people get the point. I think, whether they realize it or not, most people who are attracted to Marxian ideas are attracted to this aspect of his thinking. And as compelling as it can be, as time has gone by I lost my attachment to such a historicist notion for many reasons. Traditional rationalism has lost most of its appeal to me and this historical model seems to be a mental construct that we thrust onto historical events. History and the social order seem much more random and chaotic than this to me now.

And then there are, of course, more complex aspects of Marxist theory such as the philosophical outlooks of thinkers like Lois Althusser. We obviously cannot discuss these in this context because there is just too much to say and investigate.

Anyway, in the complex web of all of these notions of Marxism, not one of them would make any Liberal bloggers I have read, a Marxist. Because simply being influenced by the impact of Marx's thought on simple sociological analysis does not make one a Marxist. Surely to be considered a Marxist one must adhere to some degree to idea that history moves forward through class conflict, that the capitalist order is a historical phenomenon which is by no means "natural," that capitalist development leads to the possibility of a different, more cooperative social and economic order, that as a system of production capitalism begins to become a fetter on itself, that is to say at some point many aspects of Capitalist production will lose their promotion of efficiency and innovation. These are the kinds of things that make one, in any sense, a Marxist. However, the idea that one is a Marxist because one is critical of the arbitrary use of state power, the dangers of an anti-democratic tendency in our executive branch of government, etc is patently absurd. Even a commitment to a semi-socialist, mixed economy, does not make one a Marxist, or even a 'socialist' in any serious sense.

Ironically, many of those who carelessly throw labels like Marxist and Communist around as a political strategy, claim to be concerned with the power of the government and the so-called nanny-state. Of course, this is largely a fantasy. Modern right-wing governments actively overspend, consistently create larger state structures, and are fully in favour of legislating moral behaviour when it offends their particular sensibilities.


It is very unfortunate that many in this country continue to use to the inflammatory (and meaningless) discourse of the cold-war in attempting to marginalize anyone who believes in social democracy or is cautious of political groups that seem to have little regard for constitutionalism. The fact is that capitalism as it now exists is nothing like the innovative, free-market system that it was, say, a hundred and fifty years ago. Already, we have a profoundly regulated, partially socialized economy. And if a party in Canada actually ran on a strong 'capitalist' and socially right-wing agenda they would have significantly less of a chance to win than the NDP does today. The vast majority of people have accepted some 'socialism,' extensive regulation, and a progressive tax system. Thus to try to marginalize people as 'socialists' or 'Marxists' is not only usually factually wrong but deeply disingenuous.

Hate, Violence, and Lessons of History. . . . .

Terrible events have a tendency of focusing people's attention. As I said yesterday, it is not always a matter of cause and effect, people see something that causes people to look at what has been going on and where they have been going. A health crisis, or a food crisis, or violent event, all of these kinds of events can cause people to reexamine how things have been going and why.

Now, personally I don't think we really need a terrible event to remind us that the right-wing has poisoned the political atmosphere in North America with vitriolic, hateful rhetoric that belittles democracy and belittles all of us. We should not forget our history lessons. Fascism in Europe (and we are not just talking about Germany here) gradually moved in against the back-drop of angry, hateful speech in which the right blamed the left for everything from moral decay to tooth decay. The vocal advocates of Fascism often tried to hide behind respectability and political legitimacy but when you look back you can see the gradual decay of genuine political discourse and the rise in scapegoating the vulnerable and systematic lying in the public sphere. And let us not forget that in many cases the vocal right-wing opponents of everything and everybody on the left, were not the ones who eventually took up arms and organized the worst events of fascism. Some people just set the tone that legitimized the more radical voices of hate and violence.

Make no mistake, people like John Baird, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Pierre Poilievre, and Glen Beck are the ones that are poisoning the political atmosphere and setting the stage for a shift in the paradigm. Today such hateful speech influenced one sad, unbalanced man. But history has demonstrated that such rhetoric can eventually pervert an entire generation to acts of terrible violence. No matter what these people say or do, we must continue to stand for a more compassionate, more cooperative, more humane society. Jean-Paul Sartre once said that we have two options for the future of our race, a form of Barbarism or a form of Socialism. The statement is more clear today than it was when the great existentialist first said it. The barbarians may be at the gate but the only method we have to struggle against them is a cooperative and compassionate society. In the 1930s, it took too long to realize where the anger and hate of the right-wing was leading. Let's not let it happen again.

Harper and History

The unusual  events of history brought Stephen Harper to power, and soon I believe history will take that power away from him. First Harper was lucky enough to come across the rather ineffectual Peter Mackay who was willing, despite written promises to the contrary, to give the entire Tory party away. Then the Sponsorship scandal landed right in his lap coupled with an unusually honest Prime Minister in the guise of Paul Martin who, instead of brushing it under the rug, was willing to start a genuine independent investigation. (Unlike Harper who would never have investigated  such a scandal) And with the Sponsorship issue in the air, Harper had no need to run a genuine election campaign but just kept telling us that the Liberals were ‘corrupt’ and we should get rid of the bums. Yet even with one of the worst scandals in Canadian politics Harper still couldn’t come close to a majority. They managed to play this out for nearly two years, and any time they were caught in their own scandals they simply pointed at the opposition and told us that the Liberals did worse things. Then they broke their own electoral laws and in a vain attempt to get their much sought after majority. But despite their relentless attacks on Dion which worked remarkably well on a gullible electorate, the Conservatives were still unable to win a majority. Then came Harper’s two biggest mistakes; a denial that there was a looming economic crisis, and his disastrous fall economic statement which finally exposed the depth of his partisanship. But the real spanner in the works for Harper is the economic slowdown which he reacted to by abandoning his entire economic oeuvre.  In his master’s thesis Harper condemned all deficit spending as an attempt by governments to get reelected. Now suddenly when his political power was threatened, he is a great convert to government intervention. This conversion seems hollow to just about everyone. But despite the abandonment of his so-called principles, the economy will wrench Harper from power as it has done to so many politicians before him. Oh, the Conservatives will fall back on their old tactics; they will begin relentless attacks on Ignatieff, but one can only cry wolf so many times and these attacks in the midst of a depression will appear to most people as particularly unseemly. Bullying will only take you so far even in politics. Indeed, the conditions of history will oust Harper from power just as it brought him to power. 

Conservatism and history

I have trouble understanding the conservative mindset. Almost every good idea since the dawn of time has been opposed by conservatives. In the modern era conservatives opposed the abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, legislation protecting people in the workplace (even children), the vote for women, almost every social welfare program, universal education, universal healthcare, environmental restrictions etc. Face it, if we had listened to conservatives since, say, 1750, slavery would still be legal, only rich white male property owners would have the vote, women would still have more or less the status of property, and children would still be working in factories. Anyone who denies this is simply denying some simple facts of history. Most of the positive social legislative ideas we enjoy today, from education to the five day work week, exists today because radical people on the left conceived the idea and then struggled for it. Conservatives only accept these ideas fifty or a hundred years after they are instituted by liberal or left-leaning governments. The tragedy now is that, through massive propaganda efforts, help from the religious right, and great influxes of money from large corporations, conservatives are actually now slowly trying to dismantle many of the ideas that we have taken for granted. They are dismantling health-care, education, and they are even slowly attempting to dismantle the fundamental elements of democracy. If the conservatives have their way workers will lose all their legislative protections, only the rich will get an education, and democratic accountable government will slowly disappear.

History continued

It is history that people have trouble with; they have trouble learning lessons from the past and placing those lessons in their own time. If they could see history more effectively they would know what the forces of conservatism have meant in the past, and they would know the dangers that they represent for the future. Even Edmund Burke, the conceptual founder of modern Toryism, as brilliant as he was, was unable to place himself in historical context. He had spoken so eloquently in defense of the established powers of society, and had helped to define the modern notion of conservatism and yet when it came time for him to retire, Lords Bedford and Lauderdale had opposed the granting of his pension on the grounds that it was contrary to his own principles of conservatism. Many of the people who today vote conservative will eventually suffer its wrath when their children or grand-children can no longer afford health-care or get an education, or eventually they will lose their most basic and fundamental rights. There was a time, not that long ago, when people were chained to their machines in factories. The only thing that saved us from these worst excesses of capitalism were people who sacrificed their lives in the trade-union struggle against the forces of conservatism. Read history and don’t be fooled by conservatives who have us march headlong into the past.

Don't forget the Tory history

Two hundred years ago Stephen Harper would have been the type of man who opposed the abolition of slavery on the grounds that it would have hurt British enterprise in the Caribbean. (A prime reason given against men like William Wilberforce and John Clarkson by Tories that abolitionist efforts were misguided.)