Here is an excerpt from a very critical review of The Communist Horizon by Jeffrey Isaac in Dissent. One aspect is very interesting. He quotes my (definitely dismissive) lumping together of liberals, democrats, capitalists, and conservatives as united in their view of politics as premised on the rejection of communism. Yet, he invokes (at least twice) the Cold War propaganda piece, The God That Failed, insisting himself on the absolute failure of communism. And, even as he is completely pessimistic regarding any potential for democracy now (he says under conditions of neoliberal hegemony, I'd say under the assumption that capitalism is the only game in town), he nevertheless continues to insist on it in. His defense seems to be that, well, we know that social democracy has no program, and no chance of doing anything against the reign of capital, nonetheless we have to stick to it. What kind of politics is that? Sticking to a rule of the people that one has already says is hopeless? I would call it a melancholic attachment to failure.
Nevertheless, Dean’s book has been warmly received by many on the academic Left. Dean speaks at campuses across the country, and many of these talks are posted on YouTube and discussed in the left blogosphere. For at least some left activists, The Communist Horizon’s rhetorical posturing seems to strike a chord. Dean’s discussion of proletarianization appeals to the many students and young academics who face a future of indebtedness and economic insecurity. Indeed, there is a strong generational dimension to Dean’s argument that the networks of digital communication are the new “commons,” and most people’s continuous connection to this veritable “Matrix” constitutes the source of both oppression and freedom. Communism as the socialization of social networks is not Dean’s political platform. But the call for a reappropriation of the digital commons is something with which many young people can at least vaguely identify. And if it resonates with their experiences of academic and economic superfluity, and is easily digested by them in paperback form and through the blogosphere, then it is something that many will want to know more about. There is a connection, no doubt complicated, between Dean’s style of theorizing and many forms of campus radicalism associated with Strike Debt and the broader Occupy movement.
But more than style is in play here, for Dean is surely right that we are living through a real crisis of capitalism, one that causes great hardship to many and tests established forms of domestic and supranational governance. And although many liberal and social democratic journalists, policy intellectuals, and politicians advocate a vigorous and innovative Keynesian response, European and American elites promise only greater austerity, hardship, inequality, and discontent. Whether or not “class struggle” suffices to describe this discontent, much of the resistance to austerity, especially in Europe and parts of Latin America, clearly takes the form of class conflict. And while there is no reason to interpret these struggles for justice as signs that communism is “the horizon that conditions our experience,” there is also no reason to celebrate the resourcefulness or ability of liberal or social democratic reformism to ameliorate, much less resolve, the current crisis. Indeed, Perry Anderson’s comment on Magri, quoted above, could easily be turned on contemporary social democrats: “Programmatic ideas without popular forces behind them…are vain…without an army, there can be no meaningful strategy.”
It is no longer clear that social democracy possesses a coherent and compelling political identity. But it is clear that social democracy—and the broader traditions of democratic socialism and critical Marxism with which it is associated—has one important thing going for it: the serious commitment to democracy. The year 1989 did not herald an “end of history.” But it did herald the end of Communism (and communism) as a serious political movement. Communism failed for many reasons. One was that it disparaged liberal democratic politics but had no plausible vision of a non-tyrannical alternative. The communist parties that defined the landscape of twentieth-century politics are gone, and vague exhortations to embrace “the party” will not prompt their revival. Yet social democratic parties endure, and their commitment to Max Weber’s “slow boring of hard boards” through the liberal democratic political process constitutes a strength both ethical and political. Social democracy hardly exhausts the range of democratic contestation. Alternative political parties, such as the Greens or the Greek Syriza party, are an important part of the democratic political landscape, along with insurgent social movements and political initiatives such as Occupy, Los Indignados, Kínima Aganaktisménon Politón, and the more prosaic labor and social struggles to which they are often linked. There is no single way of narrating or linking these diverse forces except to say that together they constitute the political promise of the democratic Left. I remain pessimistic about the likelihood that these forces will effectively organize an alternative to the current neoliberal hegemony. Contrary to Marx’s famous quip, mankind does not always set for itself only problems it is able to solve. And it is likely that the range of problems currently before us will persist and even grow, and that an effective political response will not be forthcoming. This is a reason to refrain from celebrating a post-historical dispensation or from mythologizing the power of the democratic Left. But it is also a reason to refrain from mythologizing communism or fantasizing about a “communist horizon.” Communism was a god that failed. And the communist horizon is a fantasy of salvation.
Yes. It's time to let people like Isaac go their own way, and let new cadres fill their places.
Posted by: Ben | July 03, 2013 at 10:40 PM
His critique seems to come down to the fact you do not engage with the elements of the Marxist tradition that he finds compelling. These also tend to be the elements that were most critical of actually existing communism in eastern Europe. But you raise what is a key area of contention - the status of democracy. Over the last several years you have insisted that democracy (at least as we currently understand and experience it) is inextricably linked to capitalism. From this you draw the conclusion that it cannot be the path forward for an emancipatory politics.
But people like Isaac (and myself) are devoted to this political form despite its failures. I respect your consistency on this issue and find it challenging. But if not democracy then what? I have not read your communist book yet (it is on my list though)but from the review it sounds like you flesh out a bit more about the formation of a Party, vangardist or otherwise. I look forward to reading it.
Posted by: Alain | July 05, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Hi Jodi, I've just started following your work. You refer to "The God That Failed" as a cold war propaganda piece. Have you read it? As it happens, I've been reading it and find some of it quite compelling. Is there anybody's account of engaging-and-then-being-disillusioned-with communism that you feel has anything to offer those of us who think about these issues, any account that has something we might could learn from? Thanks, Jennifer
Posted by: Jennifer Ruth | July 10, 2013 at 04:25 PM
Yes, I've read it. The Richard Wright section is the best -- but it works better in its original context, as part of Black Boy.
An account to learn from: Vivian Gornick, "The Romance of American Communism."
Posted by: Jodi Dean | July 10, 2013 at 10:40 PM