Comments on: Commissar Karat in October 1917

By: The Commissar in his Labyrinth « Kafila

The Commissar in his Labyrinth « Kafila — Sat, 16 May 2009 10:49:13 +0000

[...] at this grey, arrogant and humourless face: The face of the Commissar, who on 22 July went into Lenin-in-October 1917 mode, predicting an uprising in the country if the Indo-US Nuclear Deal was pushed through. However much [...]

By: Aditya Nigam

Aditya Nigam — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 06:24:16 +0000

Dear Sid,
Thanks for your comment. I had actually, for the sake of brevity, simply compressed too many things into a small little comment. Now that you ask, let me clarify.
1. I do think that the ‘moment of 1917′ was a rare and liberatory moment of world-historic significance. Trotsky and others, including Rosa Luxembourg or the Council Communists – even the anarchists, Socialist Revolutionaries etc – never disowned this moment. In fact they continued to celebrate it – and their descendants do so to this day. The dream started souring right from end of the civil war and the ruthless suppression of the Kronstadt revolt (March 1921). It is useful to remember that the sailors of Kronstadt played a truly vanguard role in both the 1905 and the 1917 revolutions. Trotsky had called them the ‘pride and glory of the Russian revolution’. The sailors and inhabitants of Kronstadt had formed a vibrant and egalitarian soviet which was eventually brutally crushed despite offers of mediation by anarchists like Emma Goldman. One has to read Victor Serge’s memoirs (a Bolshevik till the end) to see how this – the ‘Kronstadt moment’ – initiated a decisive move away from the spirit of 1917. Trotsky would of course date the decline from much later – since at this time, he too in true Jacobin style participated in the suppression of the Kronstadt revolt. Most communists who have sought to extricate the Soviet system from the taint of the stalinist counter-revolution have desisted from turning a critical eye towards Lenin, who for all his greatness, was the initiator of many disastrous and anti-democratic measures.
2. You are absolutely right about the point about the phrase I use (‘the soviet people decided’) for I agree, it is never the people who decide (as in sitting and deliberating and deciding). This is all the more so because in the soviet world it was impossible for ‘the people’ to assemble anywhere to deliberate or to form institutional mechanisms to ensure such process. However, the revolt of 1990-91, after Gorbachov removed the lid, was unprecedented in its mass sweep and support. So much so that when Ligachev and his cohorts removed Gorbachov in a coup, the sheer pressure of the mass movement forced them out and in fact, ensured that the mass mood swung further to the ‘right’: It was then that they seem to have realized that Gorbachov was too mild and hesitant in dismantling the old system and thus entered Yeltsin. Remember that nobody had the guts – not even the soviet army to step in the way of that mass revolt; such was its power. Of course, nobody knows in advance what the consequences of their decision would be. Nor did the soviet people. But there comes a time in politics when people realize that irrespective of whether there is any alternative, they have to get rid of the present rulers. That was the moment at which Yeltsin stepped in and people, by and large, went in knowingly towards the destruction of the Soviet system – even if they now regret it. I am not sure how many do but yes, today there is a greater nostalgia for it than there would have been support in 1991. Just as an analogy let me bring in the case of post-Nandigram West Bengal. For many years, people have hesitated to vote against the Left Front – for there was no reasonable opposition in view. Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress was not considered an alternative better than the LF. This situation seems to have changed decisively. For the first time people can be openly heard saying: Even TMC is better than this. Recent electoral reverses of the LF clearly show this. This is to say that, once the Rubicon is crossed, there is no going back – even if decades later, some might want to nostalgically return to the period of LF rule.
I hope I have clarified my position to some extent.

By: Sid

Sid — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:14:37 +0000

I agree with what you say about Karat and the coterie of people surrounding him. It seems that power has really corrupted everything in them and they are digging their own graves. I am a little surprised by your comment on the Soviet people “deciding” that predatory capitalism was better than what 1917 had bequeathed. When did they decide? Did the people of Russia decide all the things that happened in the 90s? My limited conversation with a few Russians tells an entirely different story. According to them, most Russians (of course excluding the oligarchs) look at the Soviet times as a golden age – not perfect but much better than the current appalling conditions. It was of course their lived experience that led them to revolt against the Soviet state and rightly so. But I can hardly accept the fact that they decided or wished what happened after that. And also about Trotsky, when did he or his followers disinherit the experience of 1917? As far as I know, they are mostly admirers of Lenin, but are strong opponents of Stalin, and rightly so.
Thanks for the article.

By: Supriya

Supriya — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:50:20 +0000

The UPA won the trust vote and the left has lost…everything…which serves them right and im so glad…only wish the government had tried from the begining to create awareness among the people about how significant the deal is for the country…people were/are way too confused…to support either side….and the question of revolt!! how ludicrous!! only karat could say something like that!

By: Manash Bhattacharjee

Manash Bhattacharjee — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:12:10 +0000

A relevant conversation over the Internet –

Me: The CPI(M) is heading for a split. Should be a post-historic event for them. They have dumped their horse long back anyway. It will be like one of those famous Bengal vs Kerela, Santosh Trophy matches.

Mohinder: Great!

Me: Bidhan said, the CPI(M)’s relevance in Indian politics is over.

Mohinder: And you know why this happened? Because the CPI(M) and the communist parties generally never considered Indian Politics as relevant. They actually wanted to replace Indian politics with CPI(M)’s dictatorship

Me: Hmm. Indeed.

Mohinder: This is the Platonism of the CPI(M)’s philosopher-king mode of thought, basing politics purely on abstract, remote theory and lacking completely in practical wisdom, the phronesis of Aristotle.

Me: Yes, I was thinking how they always put doctrines over politics. Their politics was always as dirty as the others but their rhetoric was always doctrinaire. A doctrine they don’t really believe in today. So the frustrations are finally being unleashed among themselves as historical/regional animosities are coming out in the open. History has left their yellow pages behind and is now threatening to leave them behind as well.

Mohinder: They can clean their asses with the yellow pages!

A Footnote –

The difference between senility in life and senility in politics is of quantitative importance. In life, only a few around the victim of senility suffer, but in politics a larger community has to bear the effects of the disease. Somenath Chatterjee’s sudden rush of conscience bears no rhyme or reason except the disease of old age, where exaggerated infatuations suddenly take hold over one’s rational capacities and creates monstrous clouds in the mind.

The CPI (M) in West Bengal has often put their regional identity before their ideological one, testified by their chauvinistic attitude towards the Gorkhaland movement and the amazing show of Bengali solidarity regarding Saurav Ganguli’s recall to the Indian cricket team.

By: Aditya Nigam

Aditya Nigam — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:34:38 +0000

Dear Rameshwar,
First, I am sure you understand that the idea in the opening lines from Marx (with an attribution to Hegel) is meant to be a sort of literary trope whereby Marx seeks to make a point about mimesis, about imitation of earlier characters and events by those who seek to change the order of things. And it demands that it be read as such. Not literally, as you seem to be doing.
That said, however, I am sure that you are aware that there are powerful arguments – both historical and theoretical – that underline the immense tragedy of the Event of 1917. And most of these come from the Left: the council communists, Rosa Luxembourg, Leon Trotsky…and all those who in vindication of these arguments faced the firing squads. The final argument was of course made by the ‘Soviet’ people who decided that even predatory capitalism was preferable to what 1917 had bequeathed. We may disagree with their judgement by they lived their times. We did not.

By: Satya

Satya — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 23:50:08 +0000

Karat, now the eternal joker. Even Yechury kept away. Power without responsibility. I suggest bringing all the rhetorical left wing critics into the government to teach them that there is a world in which people live out there. Spewing theory is all enlightened, provide the people with things that might make their life easier, rather than spin doctor words to sound intellectual.

By: rameshwar

rameshwar — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 16:08:28 +0000

interesting, but please explain how is 1917 a tragedy?