On Revolutionaries…

“…to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.”

— Robert M Pirsig

Revolutionaries produce what should be understood as systems of power that invariably must be defended from exterior forces. Whether these forces are counterrevolutionaries seeking to reimplement the old system, intrinsically leading to repression of the overall populace (The Red Terror in post revolutionary Russia for example), or everyday people who have ideas about democracy, workers control, reducing inequality and so on.

The two main currents of analytical and revolutionary leftist thought—Marxism and Anarchism—initially diverged in a schism between Mikhail Bakunin and Karl Marx over what Bakunin perceived to be the increasingly authoritarian approach being taken and advocated for by Marx and his supporters. Of course, in reality, there is a spectrum of beliefs attempting to revise the present tyrannical centralization of wealth, and the dictatorship of capital, and replace it with a model that seeks a more equitable distribution of the value and wealth produced by workers.

These approaches range from highly centralized, authoritarian state-driven planning to radical democratization of the economy, empowering workers and producers through democratic unions, managing production and trade, working together through democratic institutions, combining themselves in a federative manner, but with elected representatives and managers remaining part of the communities or organizations to which they belong, while their position is always elected and revocable from below. Enough theoretical work, as well as practical experience, has borne out the fact that centralized, authoritarian ‘party states’ are in fact no better, and often far worse, than western parliamentary democracies at realizing workers’ rights, an increase of human freedom, democratic participation in decision making, etc.

Even Khrushchev denounced Stalinism (no different from Leninism besides being run by a more paranoid, reactionary and maniacal personality); Deng and others denounced the “errors” (mass murder) committed by Mao; and the left has even developed its own terminology (Tankie) to describe those who continue to insist authoritarian policies represent the will and freedom of the people, even as the tanks roll in and prove otherwise. But even many who fall on the spectrum near neo-Marxism, secular humanism, democratic confederalism, anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism more broadly, still often fall victim to the hero worship and cults of personality that we know were central to the antidemocratic, and ultimately anti-worker, tendencies of those we recognize as having undermined the struggle for a more humane and just social order (Thomas Sankara was certainly resistant to this god-like worship in his time, to be fair). Look no further than the lack of critical assessment from many anarchists on Abdullah Ocalan and Subcomandante Marcos.

The fact is that, regardless of one’s feelings about a particular personality, revolutionary period and its potential, what we should be adhering to with consistency is principles, and practices in accord with those principles (this criteria is indispensable), which have been demonstrated to lead to success and a furthering of human rights, as well as achievement of specific goals. To those of us committed to lasting change and the ongoing development of human progress—a struggle that is truly never ending— the refusal to separate means and ends is a core maxim which must be upheld.

As soon as you become willing to sacritice your ideals in the belief that this will lead to the realization of those ideals in the distant future, you begin sacrificing what is to what we promise and hope will be; and you have taken both the first and final step that all reactionaries have taken, in justifying the unjustifiable in the belief that eventually, somehow, we will get to a just society, and it will all have been worth it.

The second one takes power and becomes a state priest, in effect, their very existence is predicated on managing those below on the social ladder, and leading their state into battle against other states vying for political and economic supremacy. In other words, once you take power, you invariably transition towards domination, order and control. The participation in these systems, built on market expansion for privileged economic elites, quite literally requires it. Which is why people like Lenin and Castro openly referred to themselves as State Capitalists.

For Marxists and supporters of supposed leftist revolutionaries, these figures represent but one step in the socialist transitional period. Hence, workers must of course accept being subjugated by their bourgeois “labor leaders” in real time for the hope of a socialist future someday. This is why revolutionaries should be understood as state priests; they are really asking working class citizens to support policies as inherently against their interests as any feudal lord asked of serfs or that any Republican or Democrat will ask of American workers for that matter.

We don’t need to go into details about how there’s little to nothing in Marxian State Socialism, as in Western Liberal Capitalism, that benefits ordinary people rather than the interests of corporate masters. The historical record is clear. The object of any form of oppression can only be the resulting action. As Orwell put it “the object of terror is terror, the object of power is power”—and it’s our job to wrestle with power, make it bend to the popular will of the people and advance the interests of society as a whole. The practices and tactics which lead to the most success should be built upon in order to move things forward and obtain future success. In this sense, it is natural to gravitate towards leaders who made significant contributions, and to experience nostalgia for the seeming hope that they were so close to realizing utopia if not for their defeat or marginalization by the organized forces of reaction.

We can think here of past revolutionaries like Thomas Sankara, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Vladimir Lenin and others who, as alluded to and according to leftist lore, are often assigned the status of saints. One can debate about who belongs on the list, if any, and a significant amount of leftist infighting relates to arguments over which of these revolutionaries were actually ‘pure’ and deserving of our adulation (this adulation often serves as a litmus test for ideological alignment on the left). But even other historical revolutionaries—for instance people like George Washington or Napoleon Bonaparte—were viewed in their time as supposed “revolutionary examples” that set forth a blueprint for others to follow in their quests for liberation. While great differences exist amongst these revolutionaries of vastly different times and cultures, it’s important to understand how they overlap historically.

Many supporters of so-called “leftist” revolutionaries—Lenin, Castro, Mao, Sankara—wholeheartedly support these figures and view them essentially as shepherds for the masses. Vanguards of social justice and working class ideals who acted on the behalf of ordinary people while very clearly occupying places of power and privilege themselves in the societies they established or seized control of. None of these revolutionaries created classless social paradigms, allowed political freedom, or lived up to the supposed noble ideals of their revolutions. This isn’t to say every single policy they implemented was evil, but to deify obviously flawed figures is not wise. This is how we end up with the Caesars, Khans, Hitlers, Stalins, Mussolinis, etc. Regardless of whom one chooses as their ideal hero, including leftists, the problems remain the same—orthodoxy and endorsement of power.

On the one hand, statements and positions taken by these leaders become sacrosanct, and are adhered to and defended in the same way people defend other dogmas, for example religious ones. On the other hand, by virtue of being well known figures, they are people who have climbed to the apex of power, and found themselves in positions of authority over entire nations, peoples, and leading states with militaries, police and bureaucracies. This immediately turns one’s attention away from organizing, and from opposition to power, to becoming its wielders or mangers. Rather than having to win over the people, one now finds themselves in charge of them. Unless this position is truly revocable by the will of popular assembly, then those occupying these elite positions of authority, due to the constraints of the position as a state manager (priest), they will intrinsically have interests that diverge from those they rule over. As Bakunin put it: “If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.”

But beyond said revolutionaries occupying powerful positions where their interests don’t align with those they rule over, they were hardly transformative and engaged in horrors that harken back to much maligned revolutionaries of the past like Washington and Napoleon. In fact, figures like Napoleon and Lenin really represent prime historical examples of counterrevolutionaries who prempted the developing revolutionary process, creating autocratic systems that placed power with themselves, and did so under a guise of radical revolution. Take note of the connection between more contemporary and past revolutionaries because it’s something most people never seem to think of. Those who support figures like Lenin, Mao, Castro and Sankara on the basis that they were revolutionaries seeking to free themselves from their rulers and the grips of empire, who sought to advance their own nationalized interests rather than those of the dominant power or leader subjugating them, would almost never support George Washington or Napoleon Bonaparte under any circumstances. But why not? Were they not revolutionaries in their time?

After all, Washington “liberated” the colonies from one of the dominant powers of his time—the British empire—and worked to advance the nationalized interests of America rather than be a lapdog to Britain. Napoleon implemented many lasting reforms and helped break France free from the rule of feudal lords. Sure, in practice he simply exploited the French Revolution to implement an autocratic system of his own choosing, exactly as Lenin did over a century later when he seized power from the Provisional Government set up after the February Revolution of 1917. But this was viewed, at the time, as a massive transition in French political power, despite ordinary citizens in France still being powerless to their “leaders.”

Which is not terribly different than recognizing that in the century since Lenin and Trotsky’s “revolution,” and indeed in the 75 years since Mao seized power, we’ve really seen the reimplementation of the czarist and feudal systems, in effect. With Putin representing something of a modern Czar and actively rolling back freedoms for ordinary Russians, as well as the increasing autocratic nature of the Chinese, American and French systems, the parallels between the failures of contemporary and past revolutions should be clear. And this is the inherent contradiction in supporting people on the basis of being supposed revolutionaries: if the aforementioned supporters of Lenin, Mao, Castro and Sankara existed in the late 1700s or early 1800s, when the cults of personality around Washington and Napoleon were at their peak, they’d likely support or sympathize with them and their causes. But would these people, who claim to possess solidarity with the oppressed, actually throw their support behind slave owning, army deserter executing and classist George Washington? How about the mass murdering, slave reinstating and genocidal emperor Napoleon?

They would not, and they certainly don’t overlook the horrific acts when it comes to Washington or Napoleon, but they’ll always excuse the unflattering details of a Lenin, Mao, Castro or Sankara regime because of the ideological drivel they subscribe to. They’re true believers, not principled human beings.

Washington founded a country that professed the noblest of values about freedom, equality and the right to pursuit of happiness, but he never intended that to be for anyone besides wealthy white men like himself during these times. His supposed noble ideals and revolution didn’t result in fundamental class transtormation, but rather further forms of tyranny and repression for slaves, indigenous Americans, immigrants, women, poor white farmers/workers, etc. Likewise, Napoleon took power to further a supposed democratic revolution and proceeded to literally crown himself King while waging war to conquer all of Europe. Where did the democratic ideals and decolonial values go, or how much were they ever really there?

Most people attracted to power are at best mediocre compromisers and at worst venal. Much as the so called American and French revolutions (coups in reality) didn’t result in transformative class dynamics or social relations—the Bolshevik, Chinese Communist, Cuban and August revolutions didn’t change the top-down hierarchal nature of each society and led to further forms of repression domestically for most ordinary people. This isn’t to say the revolutions achieved nothing. Castros distribution of land, implementation of nationalized education and healthcare, as well as the remarkable international aid from Cuba, are accomplishments. As were Sankara’s advances in land reform and the literacy campaigns which were immediately overturned following his assassination by the French. The same goes for the millions of Chinese and Russians lifted out of poverty that enjoy the benefits of nationalized healthcare and education systems. Not to mention the industrialization bringing China and Russia into the modern era, though this came at the expense of millions of lives to be clear.

Even Washington and Napoleon’s revolutionary deeds produced some positive results. Washington’s revolution produced higher degrees of individual liberty than prior and the American system at least represented a split from monarchy, allowing citizens political representation, however much this didn’t represent the common man’s interests. The reason the US was seen as a beacon of hope in the world during the late 1800s and early 1900s was largely because of the sheer lengths it’s gone compared to others when it comes to defending individual liberty and things like freedom of speech and expression.

Meanwhile Napoleon’s rule saw lasting reforms with a centralized government/bank, higher education, and infrastructure systems that are still in place today. Even a bourgeois “revolution” like Washington’s, or coup by Napoleon, to further a supposed revolutionary process, produced some verifiably positive results.

But there was no real progression in standards of living until the working classes of America and France organized to bring that about. These prior wins for ordinary people are also being usurped by corporate interests who seek more autocracy in their control of state affairs. Which is why we see privatization increasing in not only places like the US, France and western world more broadly, but even in places like China, Russia, Cuba and others with supposed socialist values or histories. Sankara didn’t get to see his August Revolution through but there’s little in the record of human rights violations, explicit participation in the capitalist system, the arbitrary detention of “lazy workers,” and summary executions of political opponents to suggest that his revolution would’ve ended up much different than all the rest.

This is not to say that some leaders aren’t obviously better than others, or that we should not also pursue parliamentary and alternative options for improving workers conditions, opposing capitalist exploitation, and increasing democratic institutions in our societies. It is rather to say that, if we fancy ourselves revolutionaries, our focus should be on ways to challenge and hold to account those in positions of authority, not to attempt to ensure the “right” people are in power.

It is senseless to endorse or idolize governments that use or used secret police and surveillance to advance their goals, and it does not provide us with any practical advice on how to move our own movements forward. It is also interesting that many of those who refuse to vote for ‘lesser of two evils’ candidates on the grounds that this is a concession to power, will excuse the use of state repression under a leader they determine to have had the “correct” views. If we’re unwilling to overlook the mischievous deeds of those we despise, who are after power for their own interests and implement or uphold systems that benefit them, while also actively repressing others and denying them political freedom, then we really shouldn’t be overlooking figures who exploited social justice movements for their own interests, implemented systems that served them, and repressed political opponents with brutality.

People are really highlighting contradictions in their personal political philosophies, flaws in their inherent value systems, and are playing into the narratives of rival governments any time they throw support behind ideologues occupying places of power.

Perhaps people should refrain from treating the words of wealthy 18th century men who owned human beings and colonized others as if they’re sacrosanct and an accurate representation of freedom. Likewise, people should not be persuaded to treat 20th century men who subjugated the working class and betrayed the core ideals of socialism as if they’re the vanguards of social justice and human progress. In a world of would-be revolutionaries seeking power, be a rebel perpetually alienated by it. Revolutions give rise to systems of power associated with the archaic idea of nation-states, whereas rebellions foster social conditions that advance the scope of human freedom. Human beings could use more critical thinking rebels and less reactionary revolutionaries, to be quite honest.

Within our movements, amongst ourselves and in our own thinking, we should remain committed to learning from the successes and failures of the past; emulating those tactics which led to success; and yes, referring to the experience of those who have spent time learning and applying successful strategies. But always without abandoning our own independence of thought and commitment to principles instead of picking a team, finding a leader, and supporting them unquestioningly.

When it comes to organizing revolutionary movements, or vying with the state for power, we can refer to the authority of those who have shown what methods are effective, remaining cautious and vigilant, always conscious of the primal human urge to submit to authority, blend in with the crowd and then act radically against outsiders. This is not a revolutionary instinct, but rather an evolutionary defect inherited from our past.

Referring once more to Bakunin—a flawed human we should learn from while remaining critical of his oversights and failings: “For behind us is our animality and before us our humanity; human light, the only thing that can warm and enlighten us, the only thing that can emancipate us, give us dignity, freedom, and happiness, and realise fraternity among us, is never at the beginning, but, relatively to the epoch in which we live, always at the end of history. Let us, then, never look back, let us look ever forward; for forward is our sunlight, forward our salvation. If it is justifiable, and even useful and necessary, to turn back to study our past, it is only in order to establish what we have been and what we must no longer be, what we have believed and thought and what we must no longer believe or think, what we have done and what we must do nevermore.”