The other day, a friend and I had a brief exchange (in the gym of all places) about the history of Communism. Basically, I made a comment that insinuated that many current self-designated “communists” lack the humility to admit that 20th century state socialism was an “absolute failure.” At this, my friend was quick to note how “successful” he thought Soviet Russia had been; particularly in light of their rapid growth in industrialization and placing a man on the moon. To which I responded that such “successes” were great for what they were, but that in light of the overall fallout of the death of 50-100 million citizens under communist rule I hardly consider industrialization a gloating fact.
Upon reflection, I’ve begun to wonder by what does History measure “success”? Is it rapid industrial growth? The development of space programs? A few hundred years of relative prosperity for a nation’s citizens? What? The answer that floats around amorphously in my thoughts currently has something to do with the flourishing of persons globally. I’m not exactly sure what this means, but I’m ok with that at the moment. I think that if I were able to define what this flourishing might look like then I’d be erecting an idealist totality (particularly if I defined this flourishing in terms of the nation). Instead of the latter, I think we ought to listen to Sartre who, in Search for a Method, rails against idealist Marxist determinism, which is stuck thinking a priori or teleologically. Rather, for Sartre, human praxis is irreducible to material conditions, which means that human intent and the results that come from such are excessive; and as such are never able to be determined except through the process of ongoing totalization or History. Thus, the idea of success itself is something that is perhaps never realizable by any given generation of actants, for the fallout of human praxis has a ripple-effect that only makes sense within History as absolute (which of course is not knowable a priori and only a posteriori).
That said, perhaps in my hastiness to accuse communism of the 20th century as an “absolute failure” I neglected the power of this ripple-effect that is perhaps only beginning to emerge through the cracks of History in figures like Zizek, Badiou, Negri, Hardt, (contemporary readings of) Sartre, etc. who are not thinking of communism per se but rather from communism (more as a platform from which one can emerge and affect the situation in which one is placed) as a concept that still has vitality for today (this is not to even mention places where contemporary appropriations of Marxist thought are manifest). This doesn’t mean that there isn’t still an unwillingness to admit the failures of 20th century state socialism in many contemporary communist thinkers, but that rather than writing off Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. tout court we need a more nuanced approach to discourse; one that recognizes History as becoming; one sprinkled with a little humility and patience. And who knows, perhaps Sartre was right when he said that Marxism was only in its infancy, only just beginning to emerge…
Sub Specie Aeterni 
kvond said:
You: That said, perhaps in my hastiness to accuse communism of the 20th century as an “absolute failure” I neglected the power of this ripple-effect that is perhaps only beginning to emerge through the cracks of History in figures like Zizek, Badiou, Negri, Hardt, (contemporary readings of) Sartre…
Me: Only a philosophy student would dare to imagine that Stalinism (its brutalities) and its antecedents is somehow redeemable or a “success” because it produced authors such as these (authors I enjoy) who basically sell books to rich white Capitalist kids.
I do really love you raising the question, but I found this one section completely incongruous.
Austin said:
As soon as I finished typing this I knew such a critique might come up. I’m honestly trying to navigate away from the typical criticism of Hegel and Marxism that “justifies” all of history as long as Absolute Spirit or subjective self-consciousness is achieved. I’m just not really sure how to articulate it at this moment… because I really don’t think that atrocities are justifiable at all (there is no theodicy here), but at the same time I’m trying to reason beyond making hasty judgements. So, is there a sense in which we can acknowledge the failures and horrors of 20th century state socialism while simultaneously holding out that it wasn’t an “absolute” failure? I mean, in one sense, is not this very discussion a product of the failures of Stalinism? And isn’t it this type of discussion that can motivate progress? Thus, is there a sense in which we can at least hold off on sweeping judgements, without falling into a theodicy of sorts?
kvond said:
Austin: So, is there a sense in which we can acknowledge the failures and horrors of 20th century state socialism while simultaneously holding out that it wasn’t an “absolute” failure?
Me: So how would this be different than, let’s say, saying that the Holocaust wasn’t the worst thing after all because of how much Good came out of it afterwards?
Austin said:
I’m not sure that fits because “Holocaust” designates a particular event that by its definition is the paradigm of evil in the 20th century, whereas “state socialism” is not so defined – the latter is a much broader term. As a much broader term, we need to be more precise with our critiques and more nuanced with our analysis.
Again, I’m not saying that Stalinism is “justifiable” (i.e. viewed positively in some “ends justifies the means sense”); rather, I’m asking whether or not it’s at least better to tread carefully when making sweeping judgments about such large conceptual and historical events. In other words, perhaps Stalinism is not justifiable (and I’m fine with that), but perhaps it’s also not able to be declared an absolute failure precisely because of our proximity to its historical presence.
kvond said:
You: “I’m asking whether or not it’s at least better to tread carefully when making sweeping judgments about such large conceptual and historical events.”
Me: Well, I’m all for treading carefully whenever passing judgments. But I would also tell you that the Holocaust was a “large conceptual and historical event” (and we should tread carefully there as well.
I would also add that when treading carefully involves balancing things like Stalinism on one hand and an author like Zizek who sells a few thousand books to rich white kids on the other hand, this is not careful treading, but rather a vast historical minimization in favor of whatever cultural micro-climate the treader is living in.
If you want to say that Stalinism did not really ultimately “fail” despite the HUGE brutality of its attempt, because somewhere in its after life it will inspire some other HUGE (perhaps brutal) transformation of society, this is ethical Science Fiction, the same kind of belief in the Afterlife that governed Religious attempts to purge and transform societies through war and persecution.
Austin said:
You’re right. We do need to tread carefully… I would say in all things. And that’s why I wouldn’t hold out for a point in History that would somehow justify Stalinism – especially in toto. And I think that last point (in toto) is the key here. I think I was just being a bit flippant and hasty in my convo with my friend by saying 20th century communism was an absolute failure (this is also the mistake that many or most conservative commentators in the States make). Instead I’m wondering if the meaning of historical events is something that can never be “known” by any given generation of persons. Thus, the “success” or “failure” of a given historical moment may not ever be “known” – but maybe that’s ok… maybe “success” and “failure” are themselves faulty categories for thinking about history anyway; for they imply finality, and if History is becoming and open then there is no final position that can determine success or failure.
On a side note: I’m no advocate of the ivory tower of academia. So, while my thoughts may seem to resonate with a typical philosophy student’s mentality maybe I can chalk that up to immaturity (and the limits of a blog that is pretty much dedicated to the outworkings of that immaturity). Hopefully, I never become the cozy academic. That’s not why I study philosophy. And that’s why I appreciate yours and others challenging thoughts.
Eric said:
To my mind, more interesting than judging whether state socialism (I insist on this term, fwiw) was a failure or not, absolutely or not, would be asking the questions that might help make such a judgment. For me, these would include: did it arrest the rate of capitalist accumulation; did it give rise, both materially and inspirationally, to other revolutionary movements; did it impact positively workers and emarginati in capitalist countries? In some ways you could answer yes to all these questions, which would indicate that it was far from an absolute failure.
But these are all complicated by other developments, methinks. For instance, it did offer support to other, mostly Third World, movements, but it did so selectively and with its own interests as the primary determinative factor in who it supported; and it only supported revolutions built in its own image — Stalin’s sabotage of the Spanish Revolution is merely the most famous (and tragic) example of this. You could say it inspired radicalism in the First World — though that’s pretty hard to quantify — but it also provided just as much disillusionment and skepticism about the desirabiliity of communism. Finally, given that the period of state socialism also saw the period of greatest accumulation in capitalism’s history, it was certainly a failure stopping accumulation and its discontents. Some people might point out that it also gave rise to the greatest advances in wages in the core capitalist countries, but this was accomplished by ruthless exploitation in the home and in the colonies, to say nothing of the exporting of violence to every corner of the world. None of this is anything I can look fondly on. (I hadn’t intended to prattle on for so long. Sorry.)
Austin said:
I agree that there isn’t much to look fondly on when surveying the history of state socialism. What I didn’t really articulate well above is that the evils of Stalinism (in particular) are in themselves irreducible and thus ultimately unjustifiable as crimes against humanity. That said, and this is what I need to develop more in my own mind, the meaning of 20th century state socialism is perhaps beyond signification and thus beyond totalizable knowledge; not only considering theoretical advances among contemporary communist thinkers, but also keeping an eye on South American and Caribbean socialist/marxist activity might yield alternative perspectives on the meaning of 20th century state socialism (particularly as ALBA gains strength).
kvond said:
Austin: ‘What I didn’t really articulate well above is that the evils of Stalinism (in particular) are in themselves irreducible and thus ultimately unjustifiable as crimes against humanity. That said, and this is what I need to develop more in my own mind, the meaning of 20th century state socialism is perhaps beyond signification and thus beyond totalizable knowledge”
Me: So it works something like an algebra equation. You have the irreducible crimes against humanity which we isolate as x, and then on the other side of the equation we look for some non-signifiable good which as resulted from x, which we call y. And they say something like “Well x wasn’t so bad after all, because it help produce y”.
What this all leaves out, aside from the absurdly abstract way of dealing with systematic human brutality, talk about Stalin’s view of statistics, is that the PURPOSE of State Socialism was actually to PRODUCE this irreducible x. The x was not an ACCIDENT of the system, but is purpose. In otherwords, it was not a failure, it produced exactly what it was designed to produce – there is just a disjunction between its ideological claim of purpose, and its real purpose.
sorry for typos.
Austin said:
btw, i like your emphasis on determining and then asking questions that might determine the meaning of 20th century state socialism. This approach reminds me of Sartre’s regressive-progressive method in “Search for a Method” (which I’ve just recently read so it’s really fresh in my mind), which basically examines the conditions a given event or situation. Thus, for us, inquiring into what 20th century state socialism means for us today, we have to analyze the facts which lay before us and then (by being progressive) intend beyond our given situation toward that which is yet to come (or yet to be known). THus, in any and every future instant the same procedure (regressive-progressive) occurs ad infinitum, which from generation to generation allows a perpetual reassessment of the conditions that have been inherited by said generation, in order that they may make History with the conditions they’ve been given.
Austin said:
Kvond, what do you mean that the irreducible x was the purpose of the system? Was not the system designed (supposedly at least, in intent) to create subjects who would become self-conscious through the prodding of the state that theoretically was to wither away?
kvond said:
The ideological claim was the latter, but the REAL aim was the production of an unlessly tortured social body that endlessly needed to be PURGED. It is the logic of State power and Law to circulate emptily upon itself, creating its own Jouissance circuit. That is why the actual guilt of Stalinist subjects didn’t matter. That is why the subjects so produced admitted crimes they didn’t commit. It was a Hermetic madness, not an accident of the system. It WORKED, like a Kafka machine.
kvond said:
*endlessly, not unlessly.
Austin said:
I see what you mean.
I’m all but convinced that there is no way to justify 20th century state socialism. There will never be a time when we might say, “well, it wasn’t that bad after all because it led to y.” However, the “meaning” of 20th century state socialism is something that is still open; and will remain open and in-becoming as it connects with other thinkers and movements throughout the generations. I guess, what I need to clearly delineate is the difference between a value judgment (“x is a success or failure”) and knowledge (“x means y”). The latter is open to synthesis, whereas the former (particularly in regards to the topic at hand) is not…
kvond said:
Sure, the meaning is open and ever revisable, but whenever the “meaning” becomes divorced from its REAL purpose, the infinite risk is that just that sort of torture subject machine will be put back into service with similar results.
it strikes me that given the nature of subjects now days liberations are best not sought entirely or even principally at the level of the State and Law.
Pingback: The Moral Liberal
Jookart M. Ontana said:
It would seriously help if you wouldn’t buy anticommunist lies about death tolls. The death tolls are CONSIDERABLY lower and consistent with revolution.
So no, not a total failure in any way, shape, or manner.
A measured triumph although defeated.