FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Mutant October: Learning from the Rough Beast of Revolution

A bizarre temporality enters into almost all accounts of the October Revolution. Perhaps the most famous chronicle of the event is John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook the World. The idea behind Reed’s title seems straightforward enough, but the scope of his narrative is much wider than the period referred to. Further, Reed’s “ten days” fall neatly within the thirteen-day gap between the Gregorian and Julian calendars, which also explains why the October Revolution actually happened in November.

On the level of theory, the orthodox Marxist explanation of a revolutionary situation emphasizes a mismatch between two timelines: on the one hand, the secular growth of material productive forces, and, on the other, the evolution of property relations. When the former takes a long lead on the latter, a revolutionary period opens up. In the October Revolution, the mismatched timelines were many and quite varied in character but not precisely the one referred to in classic theory (though that contradiction may have had relevance on a global scale).

Instead, what clashed were the aspirations of advanced intellectuals and Petrograd workers versus the grim realities of their now republican and capitalist country; further, the expectations raised by the new provisional government did not coincide with its day-to-day conduct. Then there also were two clocks that, instead of counting forward toward progress, were rapidly counting-down toward disaster. The first such clock was the Great War itself: a ticking doomsday machine that hewed down lives at an unprecedented rate every month. The second count-down was toward an almost inevitable military coup that would restore autocracy (Kornilov had tried such a coup in September, and others were sure to come).

The result was that, in the summer and fall of 1917, there was a revolutionary situation in which “time was out of joint” but with far greater complexity than is usually allowed for, even by those sophisticated stories that take into account “combined and uneven development.” Such a scheme might allow that revolution breaks out in a more backward country (“the weak link in the imperialist chain”) buts still supposes there will be echoes along that chain.

It was in this sense that Lenin, who was attuned to the complexity of the situation, referred to how

history… has taken such a peculiar course that it has given birth in 1918 to two unconnected halves of socialism existing side by side like two future chickens in the single shell of international imperialism.

The two halves of socialism – the two “future chickens” in one shell – were the revolutions in Germany and Russia. The problem was that the German creature never hatched, leaving only a single, freakish bird.

In effect, it has usually been the singular character of the October revolution – its freakishness – that becomes the focus of criticism. Socialist heavyweights Karl Kautsky and Georgi Plekhanov, who were alive at that time, and a long string of critics ever since, have claimed that the October Revolution was premature. What they imply is that it was a mutant birth or mere outlier. A socialist revolution should not have come into being so early in a country with so small a working class, so weak a democratic tradition, and such underdeveloped productive forces.

Those who defend the October Revolution respond by pointing to the complexity of historical developments, the way history’s laws play out in an aleatory context, and the underlying necessities to which the Revolution responded. That is correct, of course, but we should never deny the essentially freakish and mutant character of the October Revolution. To do so is to suppose that history, on some deep level, represents the teleological unfolding of an underlying perfection.

In the field of natural history, Stephen Jay Gould has shown that “odd arrangements and funny solutions” are an important part of evolution’s drunken walk forward. The same is surely true of human history in which, despite the role of tendential laws and human planning, there are no overreaching final causes either. This means that every revolutionary change, almost by definition, has to involve unforeseen, freakish mutations.

In fact, the October Revolution wears its freakishness on its sleeve. Think of its strange gaggle of leaders and reflect on the catastrophic situation and precarious alliances that allowed it to happen! The problem with the Revolution was not its weird and jury-rigged character but simply that the mutation did not succeed in taking root. Instead, mutant October became normalized before long. It got a suit and a uniform during the course of the twentieth century, but by then had ceased to be revolutionary.

In my view, it was W. B. Yeats who inadvertently captured the essence of October in his poem The Second Coming (1919). For Yeats, there is no linear logic to time, but rather widening “gyres” that get farther and farther from the center. The latter “cannot hold” –Yeats says in a famous phrase – leading to “mere anarchy.” From this strange mix, there emerges a “rough beast,” which is an excellent figure for revolution. The revolution is not a perfect machine, but it does move forward: it “slouches towards” its destination.

Recognizing the mutant and rough character of the October Revolution has important consequences for its reception today. Most people who hope to repeat the October Revolution want to do so without repeating its strangeness and singularity. They want a Lenin who is better dressed, taller, and more courteous. They want to forge class alliances that are more certain and less inventive than the worker-peasant one was at that time. They also want colleagues who are easier to manage than Stalin, Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinoviev, together with conditions that are less chaotic and clearer.

They are barking up the wrong tree. A revolution is always a rough beast, and the problem with the October Revolution was not its weirdness, “untimeliness,” or imperfection, but simply that the mutation did not take hold and spread.

Consider how strange capitalism must have seemed at its inception. No one would have imagined that a system based on individual private property owners – without direct violence at their own disposition – could have much future. Further, these property owners are forced under capitalist social relations to enter into cutthroat competition with each other and to confront legally free workers. Even now, it sounds like a formula doomed to disaster. Yet instead it took hold: mutant capitalism spread like wildfire and is now the bane of all of us on the planet.

In trying to learn from the October Revolution in its centennial, we should recognize that one of its key lessons is that the way forward is usually not via slick, perfect and “historically necessary” alternatives but rather through improvised, surprising contrivances that respond to unimagined opportunities. These contrivances may be patched together out of both old and new elements. Whatever their “roughness” and unseemly appearances, the important thing is that they actually go forward toward a more democratic and economically just society.

The October Revolution may have been glorious, but it was also weird and mutant. Surely the next gateway that opens onto the future will be just as weird, just as complex, and just as surprising.

 

More articles by:

Chris Gilbert is professor of political science in the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela.

September 19, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
When Bernie Sold Out His Hero, Anti-Authoritarians Paid
Lawrence Davidson
Political Fragmentation on the Homefront
George Ochenski
How’s That “Chinese Hoax” Treating You, Mr. President?
Cesar Chelala
The Afghan Morass
Chris Wright
Three Cheers for the Decline of the Middle Class
Howard Lisnoff
The Beat Goes On Against Protest in Saudi Arabia
Nomi Prins 
The Donald in Wonderland: Down the Financial Rabbit Hole With Trump
Jack Rasmus
On the 10th Anniversary of Lehman Brothers 2008: Can ‘IT’ Happen Again?
Richard Schuberth
Make Them Suffer Too
Geoff Beckman
Kavanaugh in Extremis
Jonathan Engel
Rather Than Mining in Irreplaceable Wilderness, Why Can’t We Mine Landfills?
Binoy Kampmark
Needled Strawberries: Food Terrorism Down Under
Michael McCaffrey
A Curious Case of Mysterious Attacks, Microwave Weapons and Media Manipulation
Elliot Sperber
Eating the Constitution
September 18, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Britain: the Anti-Semitism Debate
Tamara Pearson
Why Mexico’s Next President is No Friend of Migrants
Richard Moser
Both the Commune and Revolution
Nick Pemberton
Serena 15, Tennis Love
Binoy Kampmark
Inconvenient Realities: Climate Change and the South Pacific
Martin Billheimer
La Grand’Route: Waiting for the Bus
John Kendall Hawkins
Seymour Hersh: a Life of Adversarial Democracy at Work
Faisal Khan
Is Israel a Democracy?
John Feffer
The GOP Wants Trumpism…Without Trump
Kim Ives
The Roots of Haiti’s Movement for PetroCaribe Transparency
Dave Lindorff
We Already Have a Fake Billionaire President; Why Would We want a Real One Running in 2020?
Gerry Brown
Is China Springing Debt Traps or Throwing a Lifeline to Countries in Distress?
Pete Tucker
The Washington Post Really Wants to Stop Ben Jealous
Dean Baker
Getting It Wrong Again: Consumer Spending and the Great Recession
September 17, 2018
Melvin Goodman
What is to be Done?
Rob Urie
American Fascism
Patrick Cockburn
The Adults in the White House Trying to Save the US From Trump Are Just as Dangerous as He Is
Jeffrey St. Clair - Alexander Cockburn
The Long Fall of Bob Woodward: From Nixon’s Nemesis to Cheney’s Savior
Mairead Maguire
Demonization of Russia in a New Cold War Era
Dean Baker
The Bank Bailout of 2008 was Unnecessary
Wim Laven
Hurricane Trump, Season 2
Yves Engler
Smearing Dimitri Lascaris
Ron Jacobs
From ROTC to Revolution and Beyond
Clark T. Scott
The Cannibals of Horsepower
Binoy Kampmark
A Traditional Right: Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats
Laura Flanders
History Markers
Weekend Edition
September 14, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Carl Boggs
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Joshua Frank
From CO2 to Methane, Trump’s Hurricane of Destruction
Jeffrey St. Clair
Maria’s Missing Dead
Andrew Levine
A Bulwark Against the Idiocy of Conservatives Like Brett Kavanaugh
T.J. Coles
Neil deGrasse Tyson: A Celebrity Salesman for the Military-Industrial-Complex
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail