(Part I)
The problem for classical Marxists was that workers in the West proved not to be particularly revolutionary at all. They were easily bought off with modest progressive reforms such as shorter hours and better working conditions. They did not suffer alienation in the sense that the very idea of being under the authority of a capitalist did not bother them as long as that capitalist could provide them with ever greater prosperity.
One solution to this problem was Fascism. While we tend to
think of Fascism as a right-wing movement, it is important to keep in mind that
Mussolini started as a socialist. He then made the perfectly reasonable
assumption that he could make socialism palatable in a country like Italy by embracing nationalism
and using it to show that the Italian people, as Italians, really did have a revolutionary
consciousness. This then led to the acceptance of the Catholic Church as part
of the consciousness of the Italian People and even of the bourgeoise, who willingly
embraced state control once it was made clear to them that, as Italians, they were not being
placed as the villains and their property was not going to be expropriated. (It should be noted that the early Mussolini was not particularly anti-Semitic. Jews had been Italians since the Roman Empire so they were welcomed into the Fascist Party.) From this perspective, it should come as no surprise that Mousellini maintained a
high degree of acceptability within leftist circles during his early years. He
offered a plausible model for achieving socialist aims by avoiding conflict
with the right.
Marxism's only success in the early twentieth century was
Russia, a country that was still transitioning out of an absolute monarchy and still trying to figure out the Industrial Revolution. On top of this, the Czar had managed to bring
the entire country to ruin through his disastrous involvement in World War I. So
the Bolsheviks managed to seize power by promising basic land reforms to improve the
lot of citizens. In the 1920s, it was still plausible to imagine that Marxism
would allow the Soviet Union to leapfrog the West and give workers more of the
cars and electric appliances that Western workers were beginning to take for
granted.
The problem for the Soviet Union was that it was unable to
deliver on these economic promises. Furthermore, even trying to outproduce the
West in consumer goods would betray the revolution. A worker with a truly
revolutionary consciousness would rather labor under the worst horrors of the
nineteenth-century factory system as long as it was an agent of the party who was his boss than
to enjoy the blessings of Western capitalism if it meant being subjected to
a capitalist boss. As such, one had to conclude that the vast majority of
Soviet citizens were counterrevolutionaries. Even the seemingly loyal Soviet
citizens who honestly believed that the Communist Party could deliver the full
abundance of consumer goods had already betrayed the revolution in their
hearts. They demonstrated that they did not believe in Communism as a matter of
principle. If tomorrow they could be convinced that capitalism could offer more
benefits, they would gladly betray the revolution and replace it with
capitalism. (Note that this is what essentially happened to the Soviet Union in
1991.)
This Soviet dilemma explains the Stalinist terror of the
1930s. The attempt to collectivize farms was a failure and led to the deaths of
millions, mainly in Ukraine. If you are a good Communist, the explanation for
this was that the Ukrainian Kulaks were greedy and sabotaged the plan so they
deserved to die. Furthermore, now that we have established that the move toward
actual socialism cannot happen unless the population truly develops a socialist
consciousness, something most of them lack, the only solution is to declare war on
the non-socialist masses in the name of the People. It should be emphasized
that, under Stalin, to be guilty of treason, did not require malicious intent.
Everyone, particularly those born before 1917, was, by definition, a traitor in
spirit. How could it be otherwise if you were born into a capitalist world and
instinctually thought in terms of personal benefit? The mark of a traitor was,
upon being accused of treason, to deny guilt. Such a person demonstrated that
they lacked the proper socialist mindset and still thought in terms of
individual actions instead of accepting that they cannot be anything but
guilty. The mark of a true socialist believer was to confess and accept any
punishment in the hope that this will lead the next generation to develop the
necessary socialist consciousness.
Mid and late twentieth-century leftist revolutionaries faced a
dilemma. As knowledge of Stalinist atrocities became more widespread, it became
harder to openly defend the Soviet Union as any kind of ideal. (This was distinct from
taking money from the Soviet Union and working for Soviet interests during the Cold War.) At the same time, Western economic successes made it less likely
that urban workers would be willing to risk their unions, pension plans, and
welfare benefits on some revolution. As such, leftist revolutionary thought
developed along two streams that looked to different groups of discontented
individuals to serve as revolutionary classes. These were third-world peasants
and members of minority groups in the West.
While classical Marxism had rejected the peasant as a
revolutionary class, in the twentieth century they came to be reevaluated.
Peasants had the advantage of never being seduced by a capitalist consciousness
of individual striving and still maintained a group ethos. Furthermore, while
peasants maintained traditional beliefs, outside of Europe and the
United States, these were not Orthodox Christian beliefs. Even in Latin
America, the Christianity on the ground could assumed to be far enough from
Orthodox Christianity that such beliefs could be held up as manifestations of a
revolutionary consciousness.
Much as religion suddenly became acceptable when taken out
of its Western context, so did nationalism. For example, the nationalism of
the North Vietnamese was acceptable as it manifested itself as opposition to
imperial powers such as the French and later the Americans. As such, the North
Vietnamese demonstrated a revolutionary consciousness and could be counted as a manifestation of the People. Obviously, nationalist movements that were not hostile to the West such
as in Poland or Zionism remained illegitimate. Their existence
demonstrated that Poles and Israelis lacked a revolutionary consciousness and
did not count as part of the People.
This embrace of nationalism and even religion, despite the
fact that these were the things that were supposed to mark someone as a
Fascist, eventually led Western leftists to
embrace the Arab cause. This started by accepting Arab nationalists such as
Nassar but then eventually came to include Islamic fundamentalists such as
Khomeini in Iran. From this perspective, the Palestinians became the ultimate “oppressed
people.” They combined Arab nationalism with Islam and struggled against Western "Imperialism" by opposing the State of Israel. The destruction and its replacement with
Palestine would be the elimination of the Jewish false consciousness of itself as a
people and allow for the manifestation of the true Peoplehood of the
Palestinians.