As we enter the last decade of the twentieth century, the ruin of ‘Marxist-Leninist’ Communism has been sufficiently comprehensive to eliminate it as an alternative to capitalism and to compromise the very idea of socialism.footnote＊ The debacle of Stalinism has embraced reform-communism, and has brought no benefit to Trotskyism, or social democracy, or any socialist current. Mummies of Lenin and Mao are still displayed in mausoleums in Moscow and Beijing as emblems of an old order that awaits decent burial. However, today’s moribund ‘Great Power Communism’ is not a spectre stalking the globe, but an unhappy spirit, begging to be laid to rest. Yet a socialism willing to confront history and to engage with the most penetrating critics of the socialist project could enable a new beginning to be made. Significant anti-capitalist movements still exist, some influenced by the Communist tradition, but they lack a programme that could take us beyond capitalism. There are surviving regimes that call themselves Communist or Socialist, but whether or not they can point to real achievements (as can, say, Cuba
As we address the death-throes of the former Communist world, we should not forget the different, but very serious, ills of the capitalist world. The globe is now more firmly within the grip of the processes of capitalist accumulation; we should be all the more attentive to the price exacted by these processes, their harvest of mayhem and misery, destruction and neglect, division and irresponsibility. In the 1980s the workings of capitalism were associated with an obscene process whereby huge populations in the poorest countries found their prospect of development blocked by their debts to the richest, and by the latter’s exclusion of their products. The distribution of economic and political power in much of the capitalist Third World proved compatible with widespread famines and epidemics of curable disease. Attempts by movements based among the poor to challenge this state of affairs were often met by merciless repression and death squads. Indeed there can be no doubt that the loss of human life, and extent of physical suffering, in the capitalist Third World in the eighties greatly exceeded that experienced in the countries ruled by Communist bureaucracy—a dismal comparison that does nothing to justify the stifling tyranny exercised by the latter, but which does put it in perspective. Meanwhile, the workings of capitalism in the metropolitan regions were marked by fundamental instability, mass unemployment, a buoyant arms trade, an escalating crisis of social provision, and—most serious of all—a gathering and global ecological crisis. While the Communist states have a terrible ecological record, their very economic failures have set some limits on the damage done. Capitalism, with its uncontrolled momentum and heedless rapacity, has brought humanity to a point where its powers of intervention in nature risk the destruction of the habitability of the globe.
The destructive and exploitative dynamic of capitalism, and its implication in an unfree social and political order, helps to provoke movements of contestation; but it is still hard to discern the outlines of a non-capitalist model. Anti-capitalist movements can do valuable work checking particular manifestations of the divisive or destructive logic of capitalist organization. Nonetheless if they won sufficient support, what could they offer at the level of regional or national government? And if dissatisfied with the world model presided over by the Group of Seven, what would they develop in its place? Answers to these questions will emerge, if at all, in large measure through impulses derived
Someone as little suspect of sympathy for Communism, or any sort of socialism, as Ludwig von Mises was to describe the broad socialist tradition as the ‘most powerful reform movement that history has ever known, the first ideological trend not limited to a section of mankind but supported by people of all races, nations, religions and civilizations.’footnote1 This is a tribute to Communism as much as to the largely Eurocentric social-democratic tradition. It is neither desirable nor possible to pass by the Communist experience as something without significance to those who would construct an alternative to capitalism. Nor should critical reflection content itself with simply denouncing the evident denial of democracy, including socialist democracy, that is the hallmark of Stalinism. If all that was lacking in these Communist regimes was democracy then its introduction would solve everything. But, however welcome moves towards democratization are, or would be, in the Communist or formerly Communist states, it is already clear that this is far from solving all their problems, and is certainly far from yielding an advance beyond both Stalinism and capitalism. There were always socialists and Marxists who denounced the repressive features of Communism, and who sought to identify the basic flaws in its conception of the socialist project.
It is interesting to recall Kautsky’s first reaction to the Russian Revolution. This is how he later summarized it: