Putting Leninism in its Place

The title of this blog, and its (misspelled) URL, refer to Victor Serge's greatest, darkest novel about the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Serge explores the motivation of the revolution's heroes, even as they are (more or less) willingly devoured by the machine they themselves built. Kiril Rublev, a character clearly modelled on Nicolai Bukharin, old Bolshevik, former theoretician, now a minor official in charge of libraries, banned from writing. Now implicated in a conspiracy to murder a CC member, he awaits his trial and execution, writing a final testament charting the course of history and the reasons for the revolution's cannibalisation of its greatest.¹

I certainly don't want to lay claim to suffering the privations of the Old Bolsheviks as I watched my own party destroy itself and its greatest strength over the last eighteen months, but I started this blog in the spirit in which Rublev started his notebook – to attempt to grasp and clarify just what has gone wrong, to allow myself to say unheard of things. And I will admit to feeling a sense of hopelessness, which perhaps makes me somewhat more inclined to write freely (if anonymously): “A man feels singularly free when all is lost.”

So with that pessimism in mind, I want to address the question of how we (being the revolutionary left, SWP survivors and others) should organise. We have inherited a fetishism for Leninism, democratic centralism, a political creed whose adherents imagine to mirror the organisation built by the Bolsheviks between the Second Congress and the revolution of 1917. Enough work has been done on history of the Bolshevik organisation to, at the very least, show that their operations differed drastically over time. In addition, it is also very clear that contemporary organisations have not in fact closely emulated these structures, but built their own around certain interpreted principles and traditions.

At its best, democratic centralism can entail the kind of openness, spontaneity and dynamism of the Soviets of Workers, Peasants and Soldiers Deputies in the revolution of 1917, the Petrograd soviet of 1905, or the Paris Commune, the principles of mandative democracy, instant recall, unity of action after full debate. At worst, a dreadful formalism, worse than the democratic bureaucracy of the trade union or labour movement, inflexible, dictatorial, where unity of action is expected to extend to unity of thought or theory. In practise, our experience has tended towards the latter, with occasional hints of the former.

But why the insistence on an organisational formula suited to a party in a revolutionary situation? While in prison, Rublev thinks of his wife, a conversation they may have had:

'Perhaps there are whole periods when, for men of a certain kind, it is no longer worthwhile to live...'

Kiril answered slowly: 'Whole periods, you say? You are right. But since, in the present state of our knowledge, no one can foresee the duration or the succession of periods, and since we must try to be present at the moment when history needs us...'

We schooled ourselves in the history of revolutionary movements, those decisive moments where a military discipline made the difference between revolution and reaction. When something that might legitimately be called Leninism prevented Kornilov's counter revolutionary coup, and organised the seizure of state power by the Soviets, we projected that model back all the way to 1898. Where revolutions or movements failed, as in say Allende's Chile, it is the failure of the left to have had a pre-existing Leninist party ready.

But it does not necessarily follow that the best way to ensure a mass, democratic centralist party existing at that crucial moment of crisis, is to maintain a miniature version in embryo, ready to open its doors to the radicalised. In its more thoughtful moments, even the SWP admitted this, and could pay lip service to its own transitory nature. In practise, however, maintaining this very particular, military, structure rather implies the expectation that the 'party' will remain unchanged, other than in its size, until it receives its just inheritance.

The recording and preservation of history, the continual development of theory, reconciling old ideas, new ideas, and useful ones imported from outside our ranks; involvement in the small, localised, sometimes petty (by world-historic standards) little struggles against oppression and exploitation, trade union work. These are the tasks of the left outside of the centennial moment of opportunity, and it does not require a 'combat organisation' to do it. Indeed, efforts to maintain an unsuitable method of organisation at any time might turn out to be self-defeating – the appearance of unity becomes an end in itself, diluting the capacity of members to operate independently of the relatively homogenised orthodoxy.

The SWP's intellectual activities take a peculiar form. Nothing is required of new recruits, beyond a vague commitment to some kind of social collectivist improvement – they are not Marxists in any sense of the term, and socialists only in the broadest possible sense. But just like a new employee in a workplace, they are liable to dismissal if they fail to very quickly assimilate to the intellectual environment. This process, however, is much more superficial than we would like to believe. It involves a rapid process of learning, not of how to read and comprehend theory or history, not of how to critically evaluate ideas, nor of how to generate and develop new ones.

Instead, new members are quickly galvanised, with a coating of basic truisms, seemingly logical turns-of-phrase, and a handful of dialectical thought terminating clichés. Actual intellectual activity has, since the demise of the old IS, been reserved for increasingly small upper echelons of the party. The rank and file having the duty of quickly assimilating the text, all the better to be able to defend it against all comers; it does not, on the other hand, behoove them to genuinely grasp it, only to be immune to outside critique. Soldiers must be immune to the propaganda of the enemy. This fact notwithstanding, they must still fancy themselves as experts, as organic intellectuals and independent thinkers. In reality, just like the cult member who fancies himself quite the theologian, he has simply memorised the gospel so well he can quote it at will.

This reliance on a relatively fixed theoretical framework comes, at least in part from the position of the IS at the time of its formation; in opposition both to Stalinism and orthodox Trotskyism which had, in various ways, abandoned working class self activity, an insistence on Cliff's State Capitalist thesis worked to stimulate, rather than fetter, intellectual activity. Compare, for example, Mike Kidron's Permanent Arms economy, a thesis that, although not readily admitted by the SWP now, owes a great debt to Keynesianism (a theory quite clearly from outside our ranks), to the SWP's confused responses to a far less objectionable theory, one that merely codifies the implicit and self evident.

I want to suggest that organisation today ought to have no other intellectual function than to facilitate discussion. Certainly, it is unwise to restrict the breadth of discussion, except within the broadest of limits. Not only should the class nature of the Soviet Union be contestable, but even the assumed tenets of Marxism itself. Some of the most challenging developments in left political thought in recent years have gone almost unnoticed by our comrades, or worse have been written off by their revolutionary schoolmasters².

Likewise our practical arrangements should take a facilitative form – aimed at helping activists to coordinate their efforts within the various spheres of their activities. But importantly, without fetishising uniformity, without demanding a unity of approach between unrelated spheres, and without a mechanism for demanding and enforcing unity at the expense of persuasion.

1Interestingly, it should be noted that Bukharin attempted a very similar prison notebook, which came to light only recently. Philosophical Arabesques, a monumental attempt to wrestle historical and dialectical materialism from Stalinist bastardisation. Although a difficult read, it is perhaps the most thorough and successful defence of Marxist thought, and comes closer to convincing me of the validity of dialectics than any other work has done.

2See the most recent ISJ, issue 141, for a full demonstration of this process. We have a basic article on a subject that good social democrats understood a decade ago, a treatise that painfully attempts to save Engel's philosophical pretensions, and a defensive jibe devoid of meaning.

Men under Rape Culture

Online discussions of men as victims of typically gendered types of violence (sexual, domestic) tend to take three forms, the first of which I won't cover in this essay¹: Dismissive jokes, genuine attempts to grapple with the subject (these typically belong to established, women feminists), and a great deal of bluster from so-called MRAs (men's rights activists). I want to be clear, MRAs are motivated not by a concern for male survivors of violence, but by a desire to roll back and minimise the gains made by women in these areas, and to derail useful feminist discussion of rape and other violence.

I do want to make the case, however, that our understanding of how men fit in to conceptions of gendered violence is open to improvement. We need to accept that our understanding of the scale of the problem, and our conceptualisation of it, may be in a very poor state; that properly conceptualising male victims in our narratives may allow for greater clarity in our understanding of sexual and domestic violence in general; and that improving the state of our knowledge may result in subtle changes in our discussions of the subject in general.

A quick perusal of the internet will show how feminists, confronted by the disingenuous arguments of MRAs, are forced to argue in favour of basic and reasonable positions: the right of women to exclude men in certain arenas such as refuges, the right to discuss their own experiences. In doing so, they are forced to follow a tight line between ceding those basic, reasonable positions or dismissing the possibility that the male experience in general may be of relevance.

The simplest position is to regard male victims as anomalous and rare. Just as straight white men occasionally murder one another in freak, random occurrences, as a result of fits of anger, passion or insanity, so do they sometimes rape one another, outside of any oppressive structures of power and dominance. Perhaps in a future, oppression-free utopia, we will regard all rapes as vanishingly rare, unpredictable aberrations.

I should note that I am sympathetic to that position, though not because I agree with it. I think it is partly a result of the natural desire to dismiss MRAs as the misogynists they are, especially when women are attempting reasonable discussion of difficult subjects to be confronted with cries of “what about the men”.

Most responses are in fact more sophisticated than that, hinting at some subtle interplays, potential contrasts between the male and female experience, and ways in which the male experience can be tied into a structural analysis. I think, though, that the development of these ideas is held back by an insufficiently rigorous evaluation of our established position. It is customary to preface these discussions with a disclaimer along the lines of “rape/DV is overwhelmingly a gendered phenomenon, but...”, which implies an acceptance of the 'anomalous and rare' view, even when followed by a more complex argument.

But what does it mean for an issue to be 'gendered'? Is a simple majority of victims on one side enough? It is hard to think of a phenomenon that doesn't tend to affect men and women in different ways or at different rates, or at least for which a case for different experiences could be made. It can't be so simple. What about a larger, more significant majority? If a sufficiently large majority is the criterion we apply, we face two new problems when evaluating that majority.

Just how is it that we are defining rape (etc., but I will concentrate on rape from here on. Similar issues present themselves in respect of DV)? Historically, rape tended to be considered a property crime, committed against the male 'owners' of women, an act of vandalism. The slightly more enlightened view was of a specific act of violence, with consideration of the mechanics of the act, committed against an invariably weaker victim. Modern discourse has shifted this definition in part to one centred around consent. This process of change is incomplete, however. The notion that rape can occur inside of an established relationship is now commonly accepted (even if some on the nominal left refuse to accept this position), as is the position that consent can be instantly revoked, that consent depends on informed knowledge. And we have seen a partial rejection of prescriptive, mechanical definitions.

Our empirical knowledge then, might be poor. The law retains obsolete definitions, and there is the potential for any number of other factors to skew our perceptions. The US Center for Disease Control 2010 National Domestic Violence Survey uses the formal, legalistic definition of rape to report that:

Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and 1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United States have been raped at some time in their lives

By a consent-based definition, both of these statistics are inevitably underestimated – They exclude scenarios without the threat of use of physical force. The CDC additionally reports that:

An estimated 13% of women and 6% of men have experienced sexual coercion in their lifetime (i.e., unwanted sexual penetration after being pressured in a nonphysical way)

Approximately 1 in 21 men (4.8%) reported that they were made to penetrate someone else during their lifetime;

The italicised phrase in the final quote is a troubling one. Everything above quite clearly belongs inside of a consent-based definition of rape, but I will admit to a feeling of reticence when placing the final one there.

We should keep in mind the limitations of these figures – We well know the factors that influence the propensity of women to report rape, and it is not inconceivable that these operate on men in unpredictable ways. I don't therefore wish to manipulate these figures to arrive at any conclusions regarding relative rates of victimhood. I do intend to show that the majority that doubtless exists is perhaps not as overwhelming as we might first think, and that our conception of what constitutes rape should continue to evolve.

I contend that the gendering of sexual violence lies not solely in who constitutes the bulk of victims or perpetrators, but in a set of unspoken assumptions about men and masculinity, women and femininity, and consent. Penetration, victimhood and consent are tied to femininity, penetrating and dominance to masculinity. The various possible permutations of aggressor and victim either operate within this paradigm, or transgress it, with consequences for how the act, and the victim, is perceived (There is a great deal to be said about the trans, and non-binary experience that I haven't covered here, for lack of sufficient knowledge).

There remains an unwillingness to characterise certain rapes as rape. Many of the typical victim blaming rape myths have subtly altered corollaries. Convenient euphemisms are employed: hazing, Because you know what he needs. Victim blaming operates in distinct ways, with victims' sex, sexuality and the sex of their attacker affecting precisely how they are to be blamed. Men refusing consent to women are figures of fun, because it is inconceivable that they could refuse sex, or because they are unable to overpower their attacker. Gay men raped by men have their sexuality to blame. Both are likely to experience physiological arousal against their wishes, as women are, and this complicates matters for survivors, who may be confused by their own physical reactions. Erectile function and orgasm operates independently of desire in men as it does in women, but this is not fully accepted. Straight men might not actually be straight. Prison rape of course remains one of the few sub-genres of rape joke acceptable in polite company.

Understanding the way victim's sex/gender affects the influence of rape culture (being a culture in which the value of consent is disregarded, devalued, assumed, or explained away, in subtly different ways depending on the permutation of both aggressors' and victims' sex/gender) on their experience can only help us to deepen our understanding of rape culture in general.

But what practical implications does this have? Very little, except an openness to the heterogeneity of experiences. Framing our discussions in terms of 'violence against women', except where a particular discussion warrants an exclusive focus, fails to reflect the complexity of that violence (and I want to repeat, as bad as this is for men, for trans and non-binary persons, it is worse). Worse, it can have the effect of isolating particular types of victim or denying the validity of their experience, in the same way that rape culture does. Rape culture does not oppress directly, patriarchy does not oppress directly. Oppression is mediated through individuals and social structures. 

The second requirement is of course more obvious. We must persist in challenging rape culture at every turn. Far from being the cause of male victimhood (or at least a passive, malevolent observer) as the MRAs would have it, feminism provides the conceptual tools for understanding it.

The third, and most important, is that men, especially but not exclusively, and especially those with experience of sexual violence, must work better to articulate and theorise their experiences within a feminist, theoretical framework.

1Although perhaps it should be covered at some point – the left is clearly far from immune from this.

It's Not What You Say, It's How You Say It

Please be aware that I intend to make a series of posts here about a number of issues about which I have felt unable to speak until recently. An introductory post was planned, but it will now follow this one, which I have hurriedly prepared whilst the debate it hopes to inform is still ongoing.

I hope members of the ISN won't consider it too presumptuous of me to wade uninvited into their internal affairs. I have watched with interest an argument unfold within their ranks, centring on an issue that has troubled me for many years, but which I have been unable to articulate until relatively recently. It concerns the style and nature of our discussions, who it is that dominates them, how they do so, and what result this has on our practise. I also hope that the heavy reliance on personal anecdote in this short essay will be tolerated; I can't imagine any systematic work has taken place on the subject.

The left's endless round of meetings seem to follow the same format, no matter who is involved in them, their tendencies, size, and even their content (whether theoretical lectures, rallies or administrative 'business' meetings). Week after week, the same group of people speak, and the same group of people remain silent. If a speaker happens to question an issue raised, no matter their demeanour, they will be roundly denounced by a series of speakers, each becoming more shrill.

James H's contribution centred on how the socialisation of men and boys prepares them much better to dominate in this sort of environment, and how this can stifle the potential of women (and others) to contribute to our activity. He even helpfully links to another article, written from outside of the traditional left, that although imperfect, could further help us to understand this issue.

The response has been, as one would expect, robust:

The subtext here is that women are by their very nature meek and mild creatures, and non-women must take these feminine sensibilities into account at all times lest the poor dears become upset at a loud voice. Of course this may not be the intent of our critics, but the implication of such arguments – that women are delicate things who must be protected in this way – is itself sexist.

Certainly, plenty of women do not fit this (distorted) characterisation, especially on the left. On the gender issue I am not qualified to say more (and so I will not). However, I do wish to argue that, although it may not immediately be apparent, a significant proportion of comrades are “ by their very nature meek and mild creatures”, and we collectively fail to operate in a way that utilises their potential.

James put it better that I could:

I've often encountered women (and non-binary defined people) with some of the most sophisticated politics I've ever met falling entirely silent in these kind of environments, often passing comment only later, among a 'safer', smaller crowd. (Usually perspectives with considerably more nuance and utility than the noisy bluster which earlier stifled it.)

I am neither a woman nor non-binary defined, nor would I lay claim to especially sophisticated politics, but rarely has a better description of my behavior been made. At work and in my political life, meetings have always been, at best, uncomfortable. A feeling made worse by my SWP organiser at one time, who would chastise me, aggressively, after every branch meeting in which I didn't speak. I recall managers doing the same.

The fact of my not speaking was not wholly due to shyness (I was always able to overcome this, even when addressing large gatherings of comrades). It was usually down to the fact that I could not bring myself to simply repeat what had already been said, or that I did not dispute anything that had been said.

If I had a unique, salient point to make, I would try to do so. This would often fail because, by the time I had written the full speech out in my head, considered the most concise way to phrase my argument, checked it for error, and considered any potential challenges or holes in my logic, the discussion would have moved on to another area.

On other occasions, I might begin speaking, only to suffer another comrade interjecting. I would usually concede (or occasionally suffer a fit of anger, for which I would usually apologise later).

Naturally, I felt that my planned contribution was useful, that it would have improved the discussion, and that my comrades were poorer for not having heard it. I accepted then, and still do, that these issues were the product of clashing personalities. Many people do 'think aloud', testing ideas verbally, repeating them to emphasise their agreement, considering silence a personal slight, or as evidence of apathy. Many people do carry on conversations by talking over one another, never listening and considering. But the fact is that many of us cannot perform at our best under these conditions. I have often avoided meetings for this very reason, and have been derided as vacant or uncommunicative. And this condition is far from rare, and not restricted to comrades considered to be members of oppressed groups, although I am sure they are significantly over-represented among such ones.

I resisted these ideas for a long time, regarding my own natural tendencies to be aberrant. I was accustomed to what Charlotte B and Rosie W refer to as “legitimised bullying that characterised what the SWP CC liked to call its ‘polemical’ tradition”. I ignored my own feelings on the matter, considering myself and others to be over sensitive to the “sharp” arguments. I feel that Charlotte and Rosie have not fully considered just how fine the distinction between bullying and polemic might be.

In reality, this problem pervades the entire left, not just the SWP.

I want to stress that I, and I assume others, do not feel ourselves to be 'disabled' as a result of our communicative styles or preferences. I do not want to “silence those who already possess the oratory confidence we want everyone to enjoy”, but neither do I want to possess it myself. I am happy and confident as I am, but more importantly, I believe that I am better able to contribute to our collective struggles using my own particular skills and aptitudes. But please comrades, be aware that my ability to do so may well depend on others' willingness to rein in their boisterous, 'passionate' inclinations, and to accept my own as they are.