Andrew Bolt simply does not understand Marxism

Last week Herald-Sun columnist Andrew Bolt made a written assault against the reservation of any place for the teaching of Marxism in our universities: blaming Marxism for millions of deaths. He described it as a "totalitarian ideology".

In response to Andrew: You're entitled to your opinion as a conservative to oppose Marxism, or leftism in general. But get your facts straight.

In the 19th Century Social Democratic - that is Marxist - parties were at the very forefront of the struggle for free, universal and equal suffrage in Europe. What is more, when the Marxist Left split during the 1914-1919 period Social Democratic Marxists opposed the Great War bloodbath; but also opposed the new 'Communism' as espoused by the Bolsheviks in Russia. Specifically, they resolutely opposed over-centralisation, one party dictatorship, militarisation of labour, the suppression of civil liberties, and the dissolution of the Russian constituent assembly. That's right: Marxists were amongst the most steadfast defenders of democracy.

The Marxist Social Democrats understood the damage that would be done to the Social Democratic cause by desperate and authoritarian strategies that broke the traditional nexus between socialism, democracy and freedom.

Yet for Bolt Marxism is equated with 'totalitarianism' ; and there are arguments that 'socialism has been tried and it failed'.

Yes, Marxists tend to believe in 'totality' in the sense that the 'movement of economy and society as a whole' is held to be graspable at its core largely as a process of class struggle (for example, the liberal capitalists struggle against the old monarchist Absolutism; and the working class's struggle against exploitation by capitalists). But 'totality' is not the same as 'totalitarianism' – interpreted as overwhelming repression. Although some interpretations of Marxism insist on 'closure' in the sense that they believe the trajectory of society's development to be 'inevitable' (yet here also there were dissidents; eg: Eduard Bernstein; and also today's 'Post-Marxists').

Also, those who condemn Marxism rarely concede the atrocities committed for the sake of capitalism, and to smash the Left. Half a million murdered in Indonesia in 1965-66; 300,000 slain in Guatemala in the 1980s; the bloody coup against the democratically elected socialist Allende government in Chile 1973; and the Western role in bombing Cambodia – which precipitated the Khmer Rouge's seizure of power.

And today consider the oppression in Bahrain where the Shia ethnic majority is repressed, and in response to protests dissidents have been killed and jailed; and civil liberties are regularly violated. But Bahrain hosts a US Naval Base just as Syria hosts a Russian Naval Base.

Yes, it must be recognized that self-proclaimed 'Marxist' movements have at times degenerated into Stalinist oppression, terror and mass murder. The Khmer Rouge comes to mind; as does today's North Korean regime. But these have little in common with the democratic Marxists who early on perceived the danger posed by authoritarian and terroristic strategies, as well as the danger posed by 'cults of personality'.

For examples of democratic Marxists: look to Julius Martov, Karl Kautsky, Max Adler and Otto Bauer. Further to the Left consider the position of Rosa Luxemburg. To summarize: all of these figures are notable for their opposition to war, and their criticisms of Bolshevist strategy and tactics. All these Marxists respected human freedom, and the need for participatory democracy as the embodiment of this freedom; but also because self-correction in democracies can best be promoted through the observance of those principles.

For another inspirational example of democratic Marxism in practice, look to the "Austro-Marxists" (members of the Austrian Social-Democratic Workers' Party - including Adler, Bauer and others) and their fight for democracy both before and after WWI.

The Austro-Marxist strategy included the development of social and cultural societies, associations and institutions. These included extensive public housing projects: "64,000 apartments constructed between 1923 and 1933", housing "one seventh of Vienna's population" at "5 per cent of a workers' wages". Also provided for were education services, child-care, libraries, health care, playgrounds, gymnasia, swimming and wading pools, meeting halls, youth facilities, carpentry shops, post-offices, cafes, lectures, music programs, symphony orchestras, choral societies and more. Furthermore, this 'institutional' strategy facilitated "an atmosphere of co-operation and solidarity" amongst the Viennese working class.

What must kept in mind is that all this was achieved between 1919 and 1934 – a time frame where most of the advanced capitalist world's working class had no hope of aspiring to these kind of living standards; or the opportunities to engage in such cultural participation.

Unfortunately democracy in Austria was crushed in 1934 by the 'Austro-Fascist' dictatorship of Engelbert Dolfuss – following a brief civil war.

Marxism is still worth teaching for a number reasons.

First there is historical relevance - including the role of Leninist parties, and the possibility that social and economic breakdown could see a return of radical class struggle. But there is also the importance of observing the truth about the plurality of Marxist tendencies and movements - many of which were (and in some cases still are) deeply democratic.

Crucially, there are also Marxist insights that remain pertinent. Insights into alienation and the division of labour (with the consequence of a lack of creative power and 'self-realisation' enjoyed by working people); insights into the nature of exploitation (that is, workers receive a generally falling proportion of the proceeds of their labours under capitalism), and the tendency in capitalism towards monopoly (which is bad for democracy, and bad for consumers). Consequently, consider the importance of movements for economic democracy, full personal development and cultural participation; and movements for negotiated mutual disarmament and peace. There are still many reasons to teach Marxism today; though in the context of a pluralist curriculum which pays equal attention to liberalism and other critical traditions.

Marxism is also often dismissed on the grounds that it "failed"; as epitomised by the collapse of the USSR and Eastern Bloc during 1989-1991. And yet at the time 'Perestroika' (democratic internal reform) and 'Glasnost' (systemic transparency and openness) under Mikhail Gorbachev (the USSR's former head of state) held the prospect of 'reforming Communism'. This was to involve a larger role for markets, civil liberties, pluralism, détente, and also disarmament and peace. But after the collapse of Gorbachev's efforts things arguably got worse in Russia- not better. A handful of 'Oligarchs' took over the economy - the means of production which had been built up by Russian and other workers without any input by capitalists over the course of more than 70 years.

Today dissidents are still mysteriously murdered; others are jailed or driven into exile. And the destruction of socialist ideology in Russia has seen a return of Chauvinism and reactionary, illiberal and authoritarian politics. The world would have been much better off with a 'gradual interpenetration' of East and West (ending with an extended European Union merging with the Eastern and Southern areas of the USSR) - with Glasnost and Perestroika helping to ensure peace and liberty - but also equality. Instead of this today - look to the war in Syria (approximately 140,000 dead) - with the West effectively backing an opposition which includes extreme Islamic militias - and Russia supporting the authoritarian and repressive Syrian Government - and hence also (indirectly) Iran. There is a return to old style 'Great Power Politics' - 'The Global Chessboard'.

All this said, the threat to democracy in Australia today comes not from the Left but from the Right.

Recent editorialising by the Herald-Sun displays an intolerance for even low intensity civil disobedience. And laws pushed through by the Napthine State Liberal Government in Victoria threaten freedom of assembly. The 'heavy hand of government' may result in up to two years jail for protestors. It is not going 'too far' to suggest liberal democracy is under threat in this country.

What alternative is there to democracy? What alternative to people being free to make their own mistakes - and hence learn from them?

In a real democracy the people never fully cede power to the State. A robust democracy involves a strong and participatory public sphere; a mobilised civil society. Everything from political parties and trade unions to social movements.

People readily dismiss dissenting interests (eg: unions). But look to the double standard where industrial liberties are ceded – and 'freedom' is reduced to 'free markets'...

Liberal rights are critical. I support Andrew Bolt's liberal rights funnily enough. But those liberal rights are hollowed out when in practice they come to apply overwhelmingly to the rights of 'the establishment.' And where educators who want to impart a critical disposition above all - are portrayed as 'trouble-makers' - or dismissed as Marxists. And because of pre-existing prejudices the media establishment feels it doesn't have to include those voices except at the outer periphery.

Marxist perspectives should be included in civil society and in curricula - alongside liberal, conservative and Green perspectives. Even fascism should be wrestled with - if for no other reason than that people understand what it is and how it came about in the past. Pluralism is the creed of any healthy democracy. Teaching people not only to understand their interests - but to wrestle with their beliefs and values - is also necessary.

Recent attacks against the ABC might also be understood in the sense that the accommodation of even moderate left perspectives potentially leads to a greater plurality of competing viewpoints - which is something the authoritarian Right fears.

It's time for a re-evaluation of the truth about the democratic Left. And it's time the Australian people made it clear they will not stand for the erosion of their liberal rights; or the erosion of the pluralism which is at the heart of any robust democracy.

References: