New Realism, New Barbarism

Boris Kagarlitsky

Description

In this radical and controversial overview of the post-communist world, Boris Kagarlitsky argues that the very success of neoliberal capitalism has made traditional socialism all the more necessary and feasible.



Kagarlitsky argues that leftists exaggerate the importance of the 'objective' aspects of the 'new reality' - globalisation - and the weakening of the state, while underestimating the importance of the hegemony of neoliberalism. As long as neoliberalism retains its ideological hegemony, despite its economic failure, the consequence is a 'new barbarism' - already a reality in Eastern Europe, and now also emerging in the West.



Kagarlitsky challenges the political neurosis of the left and prevailing assumptions of Marxism to argue that Marx's theories are now more timely than they were in the mid-twentieth century. He analyses theories of the 'end of the proletariat' and the 'end of work', and assesses the potential of the new technologies - such as the Internet - which create fresh challenges for capitalism and new arenas for struggle.
Preface

Introduction

1. The Left As it Is

2. De-Revising Marx

3. The Return of the Proletariat

4. New Technologies and New Struggles

Notes

Index

Sujets

• Political Ideologies
• Political Science
• Histoire
• Communism
• Theory
• History
• Communisme

Informations

• Publié par: Pluto Press
• Date de parution: 20 septembre 1999
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781849640619
• Langue: English

Extrait

New Realism, New Barbarism

Socialist Theory in the Era of Globalization

Boris Kagarlitsky

Translated by Renfrey Clarke

P Pluto Press LONDON • STERLING, VIRGINIA

First published 1999 by Pluto Press 345 Archway Road, London N6 5AA and 22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 21066–2012, USA

Copyright © Boris Kagarlitsky 1999 This translation © Renfrey Clarke 1999

The right of Boris Kagarlitsky to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

ISBN 0 7453 1556 9 hbk

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Kagarlitsky, Boris, 1958– New realism, new barbarism : socialist theory in the era of globalization / Boris Kagarlitsky ; translated by Renfrey Clarke. p. cm. — (Recasting Marxism) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0–7453–1556–9 (hbk.) 1. Post-communism. 2. Capitalism. 3. Communism. 4. Socialism. I. Title. II. Series. HX44.5.K34 1999 330.12'2—dc21 99–3

Designed and produced for Pluto Press by Chase Production Services, Chadlington, OX7 3LN Typeset from disk by Stanford DTP Services, Northampton Printed in the EC by TJ International, Padstow

5172 CIP

Contents

Preface

Introduction: The New Barbarism 1 The Left As it Is 2 De-Revising Marx 3 The Return of the Proletariat 4 New Technologies, New Struggles 5 The New Periphery Conclusion Notes Index

vi

1 20 63 79 104 121 145 147 159

Preface

Capitalism is in crisis, but so is the left. While the structural crisis of the capitalist world-system became visible from a common- sense perspective only in 1998 when the Asian ‘tiger economies’ and Russia collapsed, the crisis of the left was a permanent political factor throughout the 1990s. It started around 1989 when Sovietperestroika, which was seen as a great project to renew socialism, turned out to be a disastrous prelude to the restoration of capitalism. What was achieved was not the promised democratic transformation but a decline in social standards and the triumph of the mafia, which established its own regime with the full support of liberal Western powers. Socialist slogans were discredited but democratic ideals were discredited as well. Private property triumphed but respect for the law collapsed. The international communist movement disintegrated in 1991 together with the Soviet Union. Social democracy, instead of moving into the political space vacated by its long-time communist opponents, moved further to the right. The crisis of the left was moral and ideological rather than social. Although the left-wing vote declined somewhat interna- tionally between 1989 and 1992, this decline was far less than the demoralization of socialist politicians and intellectuals would indicate. From 1993 the left has been becoming stronger everywhere in electoral terms. But that does not change the situation. In the West, in Latin America and to a certain extent in Eastern Europe a whole generation of activists, intellectuals and leaders was inspired by the ideas and experiences of the great radical movements of 1968. That era ended in 1989. The spirit of 1968 evaporated. The libertarian values of the 1960s influenced the lifestyles of the emerging cosmopolitan middle class, and they were diffused through material culture by the 1 new information technologies spreading all over the world. Some of these libertarian ideas and approaches were even incor-

Preface

vii

porated into the ideology of the neo-liberal right. But the movement was finally defeated. Ideologically, 1968 was an attempt to combine libertarian culture with Marxist theory; but culture and style were absorbed by capitalism, Marxism was declared dead and the radical middle-class intellectuals, who led the movement for a couple of decades, surrendered. They either retreated into academic ghettos or accepted the ‘great truth’ of capitalism, or they restricted their radicalism to culture, dropping out of real political struggles. Or they disconnected their cultural struggles from the class struggle, which made cultural politics at best irrelevant, at worst reactionary. Reform-communist intellectuals in the East, who were often ready to face persecution under the Soviet regime, were seduced by the opportunity to get rich and to be rewarded by the new authorities for their previous efforts. The new authorities were often worse than the old Soviet ones – at least Leonid Brezhnev and late-Soviet bureaucracy did not bomb their own cities, did not let their population starve. But that did not matter, or it was seen as part of the price to be paid for the ‘transition to democracy’. Surprisingly enough, those who were bombed or forced to starve did not want to pay the price. Resistance continued – in Russia as well as in Albania, in Indonesia as well as in Mexico. It was desperate, badly organized, but it was real. Only this time political intellectuals and the organised left were not part of it. Instead of leading and educating the masses, they abstained from the struggles, commenting on them, or trying to use them for narrow electoral purposes. WhileThe Communist Manifestonow reads as if it was written just a few weeks ago, the political left prefers other sources of inspiration, which are eagerly purveyed to them by the bourgeois media. At best, Marxist studies became purely academic, and the intellectuals rush around, always looking for another trendy idea which never lasts more than a year or two. However Marxismisrelevant and the crisis of capitalism proves that. Ironically, it is the very success of neo-liberal capitalism that is making the traditional socialist project as defined by Marx and Engels both necessary and feasible. It is not Marxism but its revisions that are becoming outdated in the era of free market capitalism and globalization. There are simple

viii

New Realism, New Barbarism

truths which must be remembered. Capitalism is a system which generates poverty and crises. It is also a system which generates class struggle and revolutionary socialist movements. If the old movement is dead, it is time for the new one to be born. ‘Recasting Marxism’, comprising three volumes, is an attempt to provide a general overview of the perspectives of the left and the socialist project following the shocks of the period 1989–91. Enough time has now passed for it to be possible to speak not just about the shock, but about the processes that are going on within the left itself, and which often have no particular links with the ‘collapse of communism’. In the books, I try to show how the defeat of the left has exacerbated the contradictions of capitalism, which objectively needs ‘external supports’ and which, throughout its history, has turned for this purpose to other social systems, both pre-capitalist and post-capitalist or socialist. The inability of leftists to issue a systematic challenge to capitalism is, in turn, a sign of their inability to reform capitalism. The anti-capitalist thrust of left ideology has been a key factor not just for the revolutionary movement, but also for effective reformism, which has sought to administer some remedies to capitalism. In forswearing anti- capitalism, leftists not only lose the ability to claim the role of forces capable of creating a new society, but also become incapable of improving the society of the present day. The weakness of the left and the lack of forces capable of realizing a socialist project does not automatically mean that neo-liberal capitalism is strong. So long as neo-liberalism retains its ideological hegemony in society, despite proving a failure in economic terms, the only alternative to it is a new barbarism, which is becoming a reality in Eastern Europe (signs of it are also appearing in the West). To the extent that the neo-liberal hegemony has changed the overall relationship of forces in politics, this hegemony is a key topic of the book. In my view, leftists exaggerate the importance of the ‘objective’ aspects of the ‘new reality’ – that is, globalization, the weakening of the state and so forth – while underestimating the importance of the hegemony of the neo-liberal project. This first volumeNew Realism,New Barbarism, is devoted to a discussion of the myth of ‘the end of the Marxist project’. The psychological state of the left movement is characterized as one of collective neurosis giving rise to inadequate responses. The

Preface

ix

book is in essence an attempt (almost Freudian in its inspiration) to do battle against political neurosis with the help of political analysis. The second volume (The Twilight of Gobalization) is concerned with the objective external limitations confronted by attempts at social transformation on the threshold of the new century. While any revolutionary or reformist project necessarily faces these limitations, the neo-liberal reactionary project faces them as well. I try to show the falsity both of the interpretation of glob- alization as a completely new and all-changing phenomenon, and of the attempt to treat it simply as a policy of the ruling layers and to show that there is nothing technologically or eco- nomically legitimate in it. The question is one of transforming and strengthening the state as an answer to the challenge of glob- alization. But the ‘return of the state’ to the economy will become a reality only if the state itself changes radically, along with its methods of intervening and functioning, including on the international level. The third volumeThe Return of Radicalismis devoted to the crisis of the institutions and organizations with which the left project has traditionally been associated. It deals with the crisis of the trade unions and attempts to revive them. It deals with the emergence of the postmodernist left in the West during the 1990s. Contrary to some Western interpretations, the experience of Eastern Europe and of the Third World shows the vital need for a universalist left as theonly real alternativeto diverse forms of barbarism. And it examines the state of the contemporary left, the experience of left parties and movements of the ‘new wave’ such as the German Party of Democratic Socialism, the Workers’ Party in Brazil and the Mexican Zapatistas. Not only the successes of these formations, but also their problems and failures, provide extremely important material for developing the strategy of the left in new conditions. Our duty as socialists is to resist capitalism and to fight even those struggles which seem most desperate. That is the essence of duty: you do not just fight because you can win but because you have to defend your principles and values. However, as experience shows, many calculations ofRealpolitikfailed and many desperate struggles ended up in victories. For many years the left has been in retreat. I think it is about time to change this.

x

New Realism, New Barbarism

‘Recasting Marxism’ was started in 1995 when the prospects for the left seemed to be much worse than they seem now, in 1999. But not everybody shared this pessimism. During all this time I was helped and encouraged by so many people that I do not have enough space here to thank all of them. But still I must mention at least some names. I have to thank my friend and translator Renfrey Clarke, who stayed in Moscow through all these terrible frustrating years of Yeltsin regime and who did an incredible amount of work on this manuscript without even being sure that it was going to be published. I have to thank Eric Canepa, from the New York Marxist School, and Dale McKinley, an activist and theorist of the South African communist movement; I discussed the ideas of this book with both of them, and both helped me to get the right sources and necessary contacts. Naturally I have to thank my family which supported me in my effort. And finally, I think that we all have to be grateful to the Zapatistas in Mexico and to the miners of Russian Kuzbass – for their resistance to neo-liberalism, for reviving hope.

Introduction

The New Barbarism

The last decade of the twentieth century began as a time of hope. Millions of people were captivated by the dream of a wonderful new epoch. The victory of the West over the East was perceived as the triumph of freedom and initiative. No one in the East par- ticularly lamented their defeat in the Cold War. It seemed that prosperity was just around the corner. All that was needed was for the countries of the East to rejoin ‘world civilization’ and to enter the ‘common European home’. But, after only a few years, the bright hopes were replaced by scepticism. In the West today many economists and sociologists are recalling the last century of the Roman Empire. That period began with the growing feeling of weakness which was suppressed by unexpected triumphs. For a short time the Empire regained its lost confidence, but this did not last for long. That century ended in catastrophe.

The Decade of Frustration

In 1989 it seemed obvious to millions of people that the free market and private enterprise, combined with Western-style democracy, would automatically bring prosperity to all. By the mid-1990s it had not only become necessary to forget about prosperity, but Western-style democracy was also looking shaky, and was showing few signs of being able to solve its own problems. The liberal economic order, that had been proclaimed as the natural basis for political freedom, was increasingly con- tradicting this freedom; the voices arguing that democratic institutions should be rejected as impediments to the freedom of the market were growing louder. The crisis that erupted in France in December 1995 showed how wide the gulf had become between the new elites and the majority of the population. The government explained that there were no alternatives to welfare cuts but the unions said ‘No’ and suddenly the great majority of working people joined the

1

2

New Realism, New Barbarism

struggle. The media, backed by the intellectual elite, failed to convince people that they had to give up. Finally it was the government that had to retreat. And we suddenly learned that the alternative was possible. The popular uprising in the Mexican state of Chiapas in 1994 bore witness to the same phenomenon. Accepted concepts of order, law, concord and of trust in authority were placed in doubt. Journalists and sociologists who observed the Paris demonstrations remarked that people no longer perceived the state, even if democratic, as their own. ‘Before the economic crises of the 1970s and 1980s, the state incorporated many aspects of the post-war “social peace” and “consensus model”’, Raghu Krishnan observed in the journal Links:

These aspects were adopted as a result of specific social and political struggles and because of the willingness of ruling layers to compromise in a context of strong economic growth and Cold War pressures. This was actually an exceptional period, and we are now returning to ‘business as usual’ as far as the history of capitalism is concerned. The state is reverting back to its ‘lean and mean’ role, a tool to be wielded exclusively in the interests of big business, the banks and the 1 wealthiest layers of the population.

The End of Alternatives?

Despite the unprecedented political and ideological strength of capital on a world scale, most societies display a growing instability, uncertainty and sense of crisis. Neo-liberalism has not only been unable to improve the well-being of workers (this was never its goal in any case), it has also been unable to create favourable conditions for its own rule. The defeat of neo- liberalism is no longer a question for debate. The triumph of neo-liberalism never occurred, the economic model of the free market is disintegrating before our eyes, and in the countries of Eastern Europe the words and expressions making up the liberal lexicon have taken on the force of obscenities. It would seem that the time for alternatives has now come. But where are these alter- natives? And why have they not as yet been formulated? ‘The individualist, laissez-faire values which imbue the economic and political elite have been found wanting – but with