THE STALIN SEED
When Victor Serge was ever presented with the argument that the Russian Revolution held the seeds of Stalinism from the very outset he would concur, although pointing out that there were many other seeds as well, which I also believe to be true. Looking around the world from China, to Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, it is evident that the Stalin seed has proven to be much more virilant, aggressive and resistant to antibodies that it invariably ends up strangling all the other seeds before they get the chance to thrive. Why should this be?
For all its many faults Twitter can be a useful place for examining the mindset of the fanatic of either left or right, though it can be a depressing affair. When reading the tweets of those imagining themselves to be very left wing or progressive defending regimes like those in Cuba or Venezuela one cannot but be struck by the prevalent imperviousness to argument, the aggression and hostility to any narrative other than their own. Any such narrative can only be the product of ‘the enemy’ This is a world in which facts are malleable and reality merely an ideological construct. However, the defining element, shared with the hard right, is aggression and the never too distant threat of physical violence.
We are all at our most aggressive when feeling threatened, either threats to our core values, the beliefs that we feel define u or, of course, threats to our physical safety. It is the aggression inspired by the former that provide just some of the explanation for the strength of the Stalin seed. Those wedded to extreme solutions seem to be the most unable to handle contradictions or challenges to their stated beliefs and react with the greatest aggression. Though having done so they soon discover that the ability to intimidate and coerce can feel good.
Few things help facilitate the slide from open and democratic processes to authoritarianism, dictatorship and totalitarianism than self-righteousness. The belief in the purity of one’s motives and goals, as opposed to the criminality and bad faith of one's opponents. For who would not destroy anything, or anyone, that stands in the path of creating a better world? Armed with power this is precisely how Stalinists behave. However, it is the nature of things that arming oneself with power under such impulses eventually leads to motives and goals dissolving into pure hatred. Those who oppose you, are not of course, just your enemies but are ‘enemies of the people.’ In turn, anyone who defends or seeks to support such people will immediately find themselves defined as part of the enemy camp. The road from being accused of being a fellow comrade to ‘reactionary’ and ‘fascist enemy’ can be a surprisingly short one. For the death of ‘innocent until proved guilty’ first occurs in the mind.
In this universe, the idea of ‘the rule of law’ is presented purely as a bourgeois fiction, perpetuated to defend bourgeois interests. Thus, the Stalin seed is tough, with a logic resistant to argument, uncontaminated with the virus of doubt. Whilst liberals and Social Democrats dither and ponder upon the correctness of any course of action, the Stalinist in contrast, protected by a casing of certainty, is swift and decisive. In fact, moral equivocation is demonstrated to be completely dishonest, again a mere pretext the aim of which is to thwart the ‘will of the people.’[i]
In the US, it has been the right who have sought to turn ‘liberal’ into a dirty word, here in the UK it has been the left. The virulent hatred and denigration of the centre-left is a key element in the DNA of the Stalin seed, along with a coarseness and vulgarity, a delight in abuse combined with an innate cruelty. The thrill of the ‘chase’ is always eclipsed by the pleasure in the savage destruction of opponents. Power is desirable as a means to get even with opponents, as much as a means of realising ideological visions, perhaps even more so. Indeed, such visions, projects and plans often remain hazy and unclear beyond self-assembly jargon, platitudes and sweeping generalities. This very lack of precision leads to the well-founded, suspicion that, unlike real Stalinists, this variety has no desire for real power and responsibility, except at the local and very immediate level. For them, the ‘war’ is an end in itself.
It is no exaggeration to say that the Stalin seed, and its earlier Jacobin variety, have strangled every attempt to radically reconstruct society on firm foundations of liberty, equality and fraternity.[ii] The only successful model of social justice has come in the form of Social Democracy, of a form of mild socialism that reaches an accommodation with capitalism. By its very nature, this means that reforms, progress in justice and equality can be tenuous, liable to be dismantled as soon as the economic circumstances allow. However, unless and until the liberal left can develop much more effective means to deal with the virulent hatred and poisonous power worship of the Stalin seed, it is the only model on offer.
[i] The overlap with the far-right worldview/mindset is obvious here, and it is not new. The self-righteousness frustrations and impatience with liberal democracy have all historically been shared by the nationalist right. With echoes of Weimar Germany, the left directs its greatest venom at liberals and social democrats, whilst George Galloway and Farage are happy to share a platform, and the former leader of the BNP Nick Griffin endorses Corbyn and states that he will vote Labour!
[ii] The idea that Trotsky and Trotskyism provided an antidote to the Stalin poison is risible. Trotsky was infected just as much with the ‘Stalin’ seed as Lenin or Bukharin.
