top of page
Search

Middle is Moderate and Moderate is Good

  • Heather Sakaki
  • Nov 3, 2022
  • 7 min read

Updated: May 28, 2023

“A socialist is someone who has read Lenin and Marx. An anti-socialist is someone who understands Lenin and Marx” -Ronald Reagan


What could Ronald Reagan have meant by this? My guess is that he was suggesting several things. Most obviously, he was implying that there is, in fact, a right way to read Marxism-Leninism ideology which means that there is also a wrong way to read Marxism-Leninism ideology (which I will explain later in this post). Reagan is also suggesting that Lenin and Marx purpose was not to create a communist society necessarily and/or that Lenin and Marx themselves may have even been opposed to communist ideals. More generally, he was trying to draw attention to the ambiguity of their work so that socialists might reconsider their allegiance to this doctrine. I call it a “doctrine” because it is something that was fabricated. In other words, “Marxism-Leninism” did not exist in the state of nature, it was designed much like Judaism or Christianity. I personally think of “communism” as being the result of misinterpreted biblical teachings with communist thinking being the final stage in this distorted line of thought which I will explain in the following paragraph.


In Christianity, human beings were created in “the image of God” as opposed to Judaism which insists that “God” has no appearance, therefore, cannot project an “image”. However, the problem with both of these concepts, is that they are concepts which means that they must be conceived in the mind. As a result, this conception will occur a bit differently for everyone who is exposed to them. Interestingly, one thing that all the most dangerous revolutionaries in Western history have in common is that they all began their lives as Christians which means that they would have all likely been exposed to the belief that they were made in the “image of God” at a fairly young age. Therefore, it is also possible that young Stalin and young Hitler (for example), misinterpreted this concept, resulting in a distorted view of themselves, perhaps even viewed themselves as “God”? Their seemingly limitless desire for political dominance suggests this argument is at least plausible I would say. Children who were raised secular like me on the other hand, do not integrate this concept into our initial understanding of ourselves in relation to the universe which may help to explain why we (unreligious folk) rarely gain any "real" political power throughout the course of our lives.


Note: This (possible) conclusion is the result of “circular thinking” which is the type of thinking that my brain does. This is in contrast to “linear thinking” which can sometimes compliment “circular thinking” very nicely since linear thinkers can help fill in the gaps of circular thinking which can fill a very important void for circular thinkers like myself.


So, putting those thoughts aside for a moment, lets get back to Marxism and how it ought to be interpreted and how it ought not to be interpreted because this is a critical distinction. In The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), Karl Marx explains the relations of production which begin as a social relationship, some of which occur voluntarily (ex. friendships) and some of which occur involuntary (ex. family). These social relationships lead to economic relationships which eventually lead to technological relationships. In a nutshell, Marx’s sociological theory suggests that these relations of production ultimately lead to a capitalist society that alienates and exploits workers/labourers because they are producing more wealth than they earn. This surplus of money is appropriated as capital by the capitalist exploiting them. Inevitably, this leads to an interdependent society in which the workers/labourers are eventually dependent on capitalists for their survival. This is not unlike the involuntary social relationship we started from (child dependent on parent(s) and/or parental figure for survival). The Communist Manifesto (1848) presents one possible theory explaining the “development” of civil society in terms of class distinctions and capitalist modes of production which is sometimes referred to as “historical materialism”. Marx believed it was labour that forms the basis for societies because our (natural) instinct for self-preservation compels us to collect in groups to produce (or "better" produce) our modes of subsistence. In Das Kapital (1867), Marx discusses technological relationships which he describes as a major “force of production” because large-scale industry (organized system of machines) replaces single machines which he says “transform[s] people into mere appendages of mechanical devices”. At this stage, humans are so far removed from that which they are producing, their work becomes a monotonous and painful task as their minds are no longer mentally engaged in their labour resulting in lower paying jobs and a diminished sense of enjoyment in their work. This also means that these workers/labourers will be much more likely to seek pleasure elsewhere to make up for these countless hours of internal deprivation.


So if we read all of Marx's books (and there are many) and interpret his thoughts as one whole rather than individual pieces, we can see that one of his main purposes for writing is to help oppressed workers/labourers (in capitalist societies) understand all the ways in which they are being oppressed. However, if we read only one of his books, we run the risk of misinterpreting both his writing and his purpose. For example, The Communist Manifesto, when isolated, can unfortunately be very easily misinterpreted as the ultimate end or "goal" (which it is not) rather than one means to an end (which it is). Obviously, this is going to create problems for societies/nations that are at younger stages in their development if their political leaders use this theory to guide their regimes. For example, The Communist Manifesto was written shortly after the Industrial Revolution by two philosophers from Central Europe where political order had already been established. Marx and Engels were able to predict class struggles because they were writing from a region that had already completed one full evolution of socio-economic relations, sometimes referred to as the "feudal system", in which land/property owners employed workers to work their land resulting in a major class struggle and eventually civil war between these two major factions.


Vladimir Lenin on the other hand, was from a region of Europe that was less developed (by industrial standards) because of where it is geographically situated. Worryingly, Lenin's political ideology was directly inspired by Marx's Communist Manifesto specifically which meant that he may have been perceiving socialist/communist ideology as an ultimate goal rather than a means to an end. This was highly problematic because the history of the Soviet Union was then pushed forward at an unnatural pace by Marxist leaders (like Lenin and Stalin) who were eager to achieve this "end goal". The Soviet Union began selling their main resource (grain) to pay for the technology and machinery that could potentially lead to industrialization (rather than allowing industry to develop naturally) which led to millions of deaths due to famine (which was largely the result of forced collectivization). Even worse, the misinterpreted Marx inspired "goal" to overthrow capitalism was applied to a region that didn't even have true capitalists because it had not reached that stage in its first socio-economic evolution. As a result, hundreds of thousands of landowners, the wealthy, intellectuals, rebels etc. were targeted as "enemies" because they posed a potential risk to the new communist regime they lived under. And since rule of law was not established to the same extent that it was in industrialized nations, unjust executions were carried out at a dangerously high rate.


If you read Marxism-Leninism in the right way, you will be an “anti-socialist” says Reagan (who was a Republican), however, this does not mean that you must situate yourself furthest to the right on the political spectrum just because you are highly opposed to socialist ideology, it simply means that there is a linear scale when measuring politics and socialism is positioned furthest to the left on this scale. Reagan is implying that anyone who understands Marxism-Leninism will (reactively) want to position themselves as far away from this ideology as possible (so as not to be associated with communist ideals) which will automatically place them furthest to the right on this line. This can result in very dangerous political extremes of course because this line is basically limitless in both directions. Let me give you an example to illustrate this limitlessness.


Hegelianism and Italian Fascism would be positioned far right on this political scale whereas Marxism and Communism would be positioned far left. Hegelianism and Italian Fascism influenced German idealism/nationalism which led to the rise of Hitler’s far-right Nazi Party of Germany which led to the Holocaust in the 1940s. Marxism influenced Russian communism which led to the rise of Lenin's far-left Bolshevik Party which eventually became Stalin's All-Union Communist Party (after the founding of the USSR and Lenin's death) which led to the Soviet Famine in the1930s and the “Great” Terror of 1937. These are two examples of extreme right and extreme left leadership which both led to millions of deaths because leaders of these regimes went WAY too far in one direction largely because there is nowhere else to go on a linear political scale.


So, when you hear political rhetoric that makes you feel uneasy, trust your instincts because your instincts are telling you that you are in dangerous political territory. With that said, right and left (linear) politics only appeals to linear thinkers and since linear thinkers only account for a portion of the population (this will vary in different regions of the world), linear thinking/politics cannot satisfy the needs of the whole (political body) because there is only back and forth motion happening in this case. Now back and forth motion may feel best and most logical for linear thinkers but this is just not the case for circular thinkers (like myself) who respond best to circular motion. Circular motion can take the political body to a level of completion that is both safe and satisfying for citizens because circles have no left and right, there is only middle. Middle is moderate and moderate is good in both pressure and politics. Remember that.


Sincerely,


Heather


Note: This post was inspired by my brilliant LBST215/315 class this semester and our exhilarating discussions about freedom, alienation, economics, politics and liberty. It was also inspired by Uncommon Knowledge Part 1 & 2 with Stephen Kotkin who discusses Joseph Stalin with Peter Robinson.

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Heroines on High

And in one thousand million years, I’ma still be everywhere, you won’t forget me… - Sia “Immortal Queen” (feat. Chaka Khan and Debbie...

 
 
 

Comentarios


    bottom of page