Politics – Page 21 – The Dream Café

The Fantasy World called “Practical Politics”

One of the most important things to a writer of fantasy is to know how to make a magical, impossible world seem real to the reader. This is one of the skills we share with capitalist politicians. There is a conversation many of us have heard over and over, which, distilled to its essence, goes something like this:

“There is actually no way forward for the oppressed unless the working people unite and challenge the two parties of big business.”

“Agreed. But in practice, that’s never going to happen, or at least not for a long, long time. So, in the meantime, wouldn’t you rather vote for someone who is at least going to support <insert favorite liberal hobby-horse>? That’s something that affects real people, you know, and until this magic day (in which I don’t truly believe), we should do the best we can.” This is often found in neat, succinct form in such phrases as, “Who is your viable alternative?”

This is, by the way, closely related to the “lesser evil” theory. One difference between the usual fantasy setting and the Land Of Practical Politics is that, in the latter, the protagonist is recognized as evil, which is something I find potentially interesting in fiction, but rather frightening in reality.

In constructing a fantasy world, one of the key elements is misdirection–“Hey, reader, look over here, at the wonderful meal, or the explosive magic, or the sword fight, or the witty dialogue–nothing to see over there.” Or, “Hey, reader, look over here at the dangers of terrorism, or how jobs are going overseas, or how despicable our enemies are, or our inane dialogue–nothing to see over there.”

At this point, I must tip my hat to Bernie “As Trustworthy as Syriza” Sanders, who has mastered what is, for fantasy novelists, a key technique: injecting just enough reality to be convincing. If I have roses in my novel, and I can manage to describe the sight, smell, and texture well enough that the reader fully identifies this with his or her own experience, the reader will then be that much more likely to believe my wizardry and sorcery and witchcraft. In Sanders’ case, he talks about actual problems that no other bourgeois politician is addressing, which makes the reader think that he’s going to do something about them. Then, when he bows out of the race and throws his support to Hilary Clinton, you won’t notice him smiling and muttering, “gotcha” under his breath. (Of course, if he were somehow elected, it wouldn’t be any different–he remains a capitalist politician).

Point being, for a fantasist, there are things one doesn’t want the reader to think about: Magic isn’t real; in many cases, the economy simply doesn’t make sense; sometimes, for the story to work, the author must introduce basic errors in biology or geology or even metallurgy. If the author is doing things right, the reader will never notice. For a capitalist politician, the big thing the reader’s attention must be directed away from, at all costs, is history, but pretty much every other realm of social science can also break the “willing suspension of disbelief” that leads to electoral victories.

History teaches us that, when reform is possible, it is accomplished not by “kinder, gentler” politicians, but by the ruling class’s fear of the movement of the masses. Just in this country we saw the women’s suffrage movement emerge from the Civil War, and become a powerhouse with the 1909 New York garment workers strike; the mass movements of the ’30s in the wake of the Bolshevik revolution that led to the rise of the CIO and produced the New Deal; the mass movements and riots of the 60s that resulted in Medicaire and Medicaid; and the mass movement against racial inequality that led to the end of Jim Crow segregation. Can someone show me a serious step forward in equality that was not accomplished by mass action on such a scale that the ruling class felt threatened? They don’t give away their power because they want to have less–they give away some of their power when they fear they have no other choice except to lose it all–again, assuming there remains the possibility of reform.

Short version: when reform is possible, it is only the threat of revolution that produces it. When reform is impossible–in my opinion, that is the case today–a reformist party will inevitably betray those who trust it into the hands of the most reactionary, right-wing elements. We saw that in Hungary in 1921, in Italy in 1922, in Germany in 1933, in Spain in 1936, and on and on–until the latest example, Syrzia (not even really a reform party, they just like to sound like one) that has opened the door of Greece to the Golden Dawn.

Of course, the question “is reform possible” never comes up, because in the Land of Practical Politics, reform is always possible–the fascist dictatorships that arose were simply errors made by bad people, having nothing to do with intolerable social crisis.

And in the Land of Practical Politics, capitalism is permanent; it is the economic system that is the final culmination of human wisdom. The fact that no other economic system has been permanent in history, and that it has inevitably required revolution to replace it, is simply not the case in this fantasy world.

In the Land of Practical Politics there is no history–the past is gone.

In the Land of Practical Politics people have opposing viewpoints just because.

In the Land of Practical Politics there is no possibility of understanding economics–things cost what they cost, and we can never understand why.

In the Land of Practical Politics there are no social classes–political parties just represent folks who kind of think alike.

In the Land of Practical Politics racism and sexism are sins in the hearts of individuals, not products of definite economic and social relations.

In the Land of Practical Politics the masses can do nothing for themselves, and it is up to the Enlightened Middle Class to ease their sufferering a bit when their attention can be spared from improving the condition of the Enlightened Middle Class.

In the Land of Practical Politics nothing ever changes in a fundamental way, because things have always been the way they are.

In the Land of Practical Politics we are helpless.

In our world, revolution happens when intolerable conditions produced by an economic system meet the end of that system’s flexibility. Sometimes the revolution is successful, sometimes it is not. One of the factors that determines its success–the key factor–is how ready the revolutionary class is to take and hold power. In modern society, preparing the revolutionary class is the task of the vanguard party. Preventing the revolutionary class from being prepared is the task of the authors and distributors of stories set in the fantasy world called Practical Politics.

The Right and the Pseudo-Left: Matching Agendas

Someone on Facebook linked to this article. If you don’t want to read it, I’ll quote the headline: “Why aren’t we as universally outraged over Sandra Bland’s death as we are over Cecil the lion?” One immediately finds one’s self asking, “What do you mean, ‘we’?” According to the article “we” means all of us–but according to the facts given in the article, “we” means news anchors.

Are we supposed to ignore everything we know about the mass media under capitalism, what its role is, who it serves? Of course news anchors want to accent, increase, dramatize, highlight, and expand racial divisions. Racial divisions have been consciously used to keep working people apart in this country at least since the New York Draft Riots during the Civil War. What do you think Jim Crow was about? Hint: it wasn’t there because the Southern elite felt kindly disposed toward the white working class.

Everywhere I’ve looked, I’ve seen outrage–justified outrage–about the illegal arrest and brutal police murder (yeah, sorry, I still don’t buy suicide) of Sandra Bland. So, okay, we know why the anchorman for a reactionary TV Network doesn’t want us knowing how united we feel about this. But why are so many of those who call themselves leftists going along with it? What is their agenda? Why is it so important to the so-called Liberals and the well-trained pets who sit at their left hand that we believe “no one cares”?

Did you know the New York Times–the voice of American Liberalism–did a poll that showed most people believed there had been considerable progress in race relations, and also showed an increase in class consciousness? They released the results under a banner headline that read, “A Broad Division Over Race in US Is Found In Poll: Relations Seen as Bad.” Here is a good analysis of it.

Police murders, income disparity, domestic spying, health care, education, poverty–these things are bringing us together in our anger and hatred for the oppressors. The Ring Wing is quite reasonably doing everything it can to keep us apart. Why is the New York Times? The International Socialist Organization? The authors of the article on The Raw Story?

Because their agenda has nothing to do with eliminating social privilege; it is about expanding the privilege to include themselves–to give the upper middle class a “bigger slice of the pie.” They hate and envy the ruling class, but despise and fear the working class.

My agenda has nothing to do with giving the upper middle class greater social privilege; my agenda is the destruction of all social privilege forever. You can’t do both. What is your agenda? Or, as they used to say in Harlan County, which side are you on?

And Yet Again, the U.S. Civil War

I’ve noticed more than once that fools and internet trolls can occasionally provide a useful service in that they can make us take a fresh look at our own arguments. Right now, someone on Facebook is pulling out the old, tired chestnut that the U.S. Civil War “wasn’t actually about slavery,” and in reading the replies from those naive enough to believe he can be reasoned with, I’ve noticed some things that are worth clarifying.

First of all, putting the question as it is usually put, “What was the Civil War about?” or, “Why was the Civil War fought?” introduces ambiguity right away. The question can mean any of four closely interrelated things: 1) what were the social, economic, and political pressures that led to secession? 2) What were the social, economic, and political pressures that led the North to resist secession? 3) Why did those on either side volunteer for military service? 4) Once there, what drove them to actually charge into those horrific killing fields, willing to die or to take life?

For 3) and 4) in particular, I strongly recommend For Cause and Comrades by James McPherson. For the moment, I’ll just say that, in general, in 1861, Northerners did not enlist to fight slavery, nor Southerners to defend it. This is far from absolute–certain Southern officers certainly thought of slavery as a noble cause and enlisted to defend it, and some thousands of Northern enlisted men, particularly from the New England states, did join to fight for Abolition. But these were a small minority on both sides.

However, I think 1) and 2) are the more significant questions. And the point I want to make is that the North (in particular, Northeastern capitalism) did not need an end to slavery, it needed to break the power of the slaveocracy. This is an important distinction. Since the founding of the country, it was the slaveholders who controlled the Federal government, and the building conflict was over control of that government, which the slaveholders simply could not give up without economically destroying themselves. So far in history, no ruling class has ever voluntarily destroyed itself, or failed to fight to defend its privileges when it could.

And this fact–that the North and South went to war over conflicting economic interests–does not make the Northern cause one whit less progressive, nor the Southern cause one whit less reactionary.

Those who look back into history and want to find purity of motive (whatever that even means) in the actions of social classes, and then wag a finger and say tsk tsk when they fail to find it, are utterly unscientific and contribute nothing to our understanding of history. The North was on the side of increased equality and advancing human freedom–not because Northern capitalists were good people who thought those were good things to do, but because in order to continue to develop the productive forces, capitalism required free labor, and free labor, though still oppressive, is a significant improvement over chattel slavery! When we call an economic system “progressive” at a given time and place, such as U.S. capitalism in the 19th Century, that’s what it means: not that a bunch of saints are in charge of it, but that it moves society in the direction of more equality, greater freedom, toward plenty. If we call an economic system “reactionary” in a given time and place, such as U.S. capitalism in the 21st Century, it means that it is holding back advances in equality, freedom, and plenty.

All of which leads us back to points 3) and 4) above: as Professor MacPherson makes clear, it was the progressive character of the war against secession, and the Northern enlisted man’s understanding of this character, that provide much of the answer to these questions. To a Marxist, one of the things that defines a revolution is the conscious participation of the masses in making history–the key word being conscious. The most cursory study of Civil War letters and diaries will convince an impartial observer that the Northern soldier knew very well what he was fighting for. Those who have a vested interest in seeing the masses as ignorant tools to be led by the nose will have to have their ideological blinders on especially tight if they study this question.

Today, those who want to deny the progressive character of the North in the U.S. Civil War, fall generally into two camps: Those on the Right who overtly oppose human freedom, who feel shame before the courage and determination of their capitalist forebears and, now that capitalism is reactionary, fear mass movements as a fundamentalist Christian fears hell. And those who call themselves Leftists, who are so desperate to protect their middle class privileges that they will do anything to deny the progressive force of the masses, and must find a way to interpret history in light of their narrow, petty, individualistic concerns.

What these two groups have in common is fear and hatred of the oppressed fighting in their own name. It is no longer 1861. It is not even 1980. It is 2015, and we are beginning to see the stirring of the masses: the Greek working class is not done; we’ve seen mass movements in Egypt; London and Glasgow just saw tens of thousands demonstrate against austerity; and there are signs of renewed labor struggles in the United States, for example among refinery workers. The study of history in general, and the U.S. Civil War in particular, will help arm the working class with the understanding necessary to carry matters through to a successful end of the next Civil War.

ETA 2021: I’ve learned a great deal since making this post. For the most part, I stand behind it, but I need to add, first, that anti-slavery sentiment among Northern soldiers was considerably greater than I’d thought, and, second, thanks to work by such historians as Victoria Bynum, I’ve learned that there was a great deal of anti-slavery sentiment—to the point of picking up arms—in the South, as well.

The Power of Symbols

One aspect of the recent, horrific events in South Carolina that has gotten some attention involves the “Confederate Flag” (technically, a rendering of the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia)–displayed on the license plate holder of the shooter (If this were a newspaper, I’d be obligated to say “alleged shooter” but it’s not so I’m not so I won’t) and also flying on the grounds of the South Carolina statehouse. Some are giving intellectual, carefully wrought defenses of the flag, explaining what it “really” means–that’s fine; such people can be written off as morally bankrupt and we don’t need to deal with them. But I’ve recently come across some who are saying, “Let’s forget about the symbol and concentrate on the substance.” That’s worth taking a moment to look at.

A symbol is a concentrated image. Symbols can be powerful rallying points, like union songs during a strike. They can establish points of commonality, both by loving them and hating them. I know my pulse quickens when I see the hammer&sickle-4, symbol of the Fourth International, because of all that it means in history and in defiance and in hope. I know that I clench my teeth on seeing the Confederate flag because of all that it means in violent, organized opposition to freedom.

Let me quote from my own book. I can do that, because this passage was written by my collaborator: “But it’s never the symbol–the bird itself, the cross itself, the prophet’s name in and of itself that is sacred–it’s the welter of emotions, ideas, and insights it triggers. If it triggers nothing, its power is nothing.”--The Incrementalists

To be sure, a symbol can only do so much; its power is limited. It cannot answer arguments, or explore nuances, or provide a cost-effective treatment for subdural hemotoma. But thousands of avowed white supremicists have taken the Confederate flag as their symbol. There are, no doubt, many to whom it represents something different. Yet to me, it is significant that it is impossible to disagree on the meaning of that flag without the conversation at once leading to a discussion of the U.S. Civil war in which the person defending the flag will pull out all of the old idiocies–“It wasn’t really about slavery” “they had a constitutional right to secede” “Lincoln was a bad human being” &c &c ad nauseam. And what all of those arguments boil down to is a defense of human chattel slavery, which today means a defense of all that is backward, reactionary, ignorant, anti-democratic.

That is one thing that symbol does. Another thing it does is that in our (in my opinion, fully justified) disdain, it can bring many of us together. Whatever our differences, when use of that flag makes us seethe, we know that what we have in common is a hatred of oppression and injustice.

The differences among those of us who support equality are legion, and non-trivial. But with that much in common, it is good to be reminded that those differences may be worth talking about.

That is the power of symbols.

Quoted Without Comment

There is a passage in John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook The World–his account of the Bolshevik revolution–that has always had a special place in my heart. I reproduce it here, because I feel like it:

We sallied out into the town. Just at the door of the station stood two soldiers with rifles and bayonets fixed. They were surrounded by about a hundred business men, Government officials and students, who attacked them with passionate argument and epithet. The soldiers were uncomfortable and hurt, like children unjustly scolded.

A tall young man with a supercilious expression, dressed in the uniform of a student, was leading the attack.

“You realise, I presume,” he said insolently, “that by taking up arms against your brothers you are making yourselves the tools of murderers and traitors?”

“Now brother,” answered the soldier earnestly, “you don’t understand. There are two classes, don’t you see, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We—”

“Oh, I know that silly talk!” broke in the student rudely. “A bunch of ignorant peasants like you hear somebody bawling a few catch-words. You don’t understand what they mean. You just echo them like a lot of parrots.” The crowd laughed. “I’m a Marxian student. And I tell you that this isn’t Socialism you are fighting for. It’s just plain pro-German anarchy!”

“Oh, yes, I know,” answered the soldier, with sweat dripping from his brow. “You are an educated man, that is easy to see, and I am only a simple man. But it seems to me—”

“I suppose,” interrupted the other contemptuously, “that you believe Lenin is a real friend of the proletariat?”

“Yes, I do,” answered the soldier, suffering.

“Well, my friend, do you know that Lenin was sent through Germany in a closed car? Do you know that Lenin took money from the Germans?”

“Well, I don’t know much about that,” answered the soldier stubbornly, “but it seems to me that what he says is what I want to hear, and all the simple men like me. Now there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat—”

“You are a fool! Why, my friend, I spent two years in Schlüsselburg for revolutionary activity, when you were still shooting down revolutionists and singing ‘God Save the Tsar!’ My name is Vasili Georgevitch Panyin. Didn’t you ever hear of me?”

“I’m sorry to say I never did,” answered the soldier with humility. “But then, I am not an educated man. You are probably a great hero.”

“I am,” said the student with conviction. “And I am opposed to the Bolsheviki, who are destroying our Russia, our free Revolution. Now how do you account for that?”

The soldier scratched his head. “I can’t account for it at all,” he said, grimacing with the pain of his intellectual processes. “To me it seems perfectly simple—but then, I’m not well educated. It seems like there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—”

“There you go again with your silly formula!” cried the student.

“—only two classes,” went on the soldier, doggedly. “And whoever isn’t on one side is on the other…”

We wandered on up the street….