Writer, Philosopher, Thinker, Musician, Artist
The Anonymous Revolutionary – Max Edwards, our son – died on 26th March 2016, age 16.
He loved writing this blog and sharing his ideas with you. In the later months of his life in particular it was a great source of comfort to him.
Thank you all for your support.
Thank you all for making a young revolutionary very happy.
Dan & Jenny x
This post is part discussion, part confession. We’ll get the confession part out the way first: last Tuesday, I went for a flight in a private jet.
Specifically, I took off from Leeds Bradford International Airport and flew for about half an hour in an aircraft that would have set the buyer back by £3.6M. I didn’t pay for it: it was a very generous (and amazing) gift from GlobeAir, but one that meant I could get a glimpse of a multi-millionaire’s lifestyle, and certainly made me feel just one degree more removed from the kinds of people my politics serves to do justice to.
So, whilst eating complimentary snacks and admiring the idyllic views over the Yorkshire countryside, I was well aware that the reality of my circumstances didn’t match up to the ideological self-portrait I’m putting up for others to see. In fact, the irony is so great it’s almost blatant hypocrisy. Sorry if it ruins any puritan image you had of me.
But then again, if this makes me a hypocrite, then I’ve always been a hypocrite. I’m spreading the word about equality and justice by writing on an iPhone 5S that was most likely built in a sweatshop. I firmly believe in redistribution of wealth, yet live a very comfortable life within the confines of my centrally-heated home. It’s easy for me to raise issues I have no experience with, yet I do it anyway. Does that make me a hypocrite? Possibly…
But I’m going to at least acknowledge this irony. If I live in a capitalist country, I lead a capitalist lifestyle, and as a beneficiary of this system, that means I lead a very privileged one. I’m not saying that there’s nothing I can do about it, I’m saying that I’m too lazy/ignorant/selfish/all of the above to break out of the mould that’s been cast around me. So I think that this acceptance is at least something; I’m not pretending I’m exploited; I’m not claiming to be a victim of capitalism; I know very well that I don’t represent the revolutionary cause, but I’ll continue to serve it in this way all the same.
The same can be said for many in my position, and I think just ‘talking the talk’ is a common strategy among those who recognise that the world they live in is wrong, but have spent all their life enjoying it’s privileges. Karl Marx was a journalist and the son of an affluent family. Friedrich Engels, a man with a direct insight into exploitation, came from a family of factory owners. Lenin was a lawyer. Trotsky was the son of one the wealthiest farmers in southern Ukraine. Even Stalin, son of a cobbler and something of a working class-oddity among the Bolsheviks, trained as a theologian. It’s a trend I’m copying, not one I set, but I’ll nonetheless admit to this dishonesty. Without giving up the kind of the live I live, that seems the most decent thing to do.
At risk of making myself look like Donald Trump, here’s a photo:
The philosophies of socialism and feminism have made several collaborative efforts throughout history, to the extent that feminism has become accepted generally as a left-of-centre doctrine, despite being embraced by individuals on all sides of the political spectrum. It seems that the plight of women has consistently rested hand-in-hand with the plight of the working class, as both groups have struggled for equality, economic or otherwise. This is why, to mark International Women’s Day this year (the occasion that sparked Russia’s February Revolution), I thought I’d write about how and where feminism ties into the Marxist movement.
As early as the late 1800s, Friedrich Engels laid down several key arguments as to why the societal oppression of women existed, ultimately arguing that such oppression was rooted not in a woman’s biological disadvantages, but the possessive nature of modern economic systems. The significance of such a proposition was not that it simply drew parallels between the struggle of women and that of workers, but that, in identifying the cause of such oppression to be economic, it unites the feminist and socialist struggle against a common enemy.
When communism was first attempted, in the early twentieth century, this theoretical marriage between the two groups can be exemplified by the incredibly progressive policies and ideas of the Soviet government. In Lenin on the Women’s Question, German Marxist theorist Clara Zetkin recalls ‘Comrade Lenin frequently spoke to me about the women’s question. Social equality for women was, of course, a principle needing no discussion for communists.’ She proceeds to talk about Lenin’s ideas as to how social equality could be achieved, and his intention to ‘build a powerful international women’s movement, on a clear theoretical basis’. From this, we can see that the feminist motives of VI Lenin and the government he represented were not simply leftist ideals, but were rooted in Marxist ideas and doctrine, which is brought to light by his insistence that a theoretical grounding to this proposed international movement is essential.
Over the following years, in a range of different socialist countries, the issues of equality were highlighted and resolved through multiple means. In the early Soviet Union, the crèche system – a dominant feature of War Communism – helped to relieve women of traditional family duties. The same can be said for the principles behind the Soviet Kolkhozes (collective farms), on which, as Alexander Vucinich writes in Soviet Economic Institutions: The Social Structure of Production Units, Issue 1, granted female worker on the farm ‘the full rights as a kolkhoz member’, meaning that ‘The peasant woman, according to the official theory, has ceased to work for her father or mother’, but rather works for a collective benefit.
A Soviet stamp depicting a union between a male and female worker
Of course, the practical reality did not always live up to the hypothetical ideal, but it’s examples like these that demonstrate the eagerness of the communist world to advance gender equality, both at home and abroad. True, attitudes of individual communists did vary from person to person, but the trend is clear; from the theoretical ideas of the original Marxist thinkers to the concrete achievements of the socialist world, we can clearly see that the historic ties between feminism and Marxism are not simply coincidental. Rather, the interests of women and workers worldwide have the same interests, and it is the same oppressive system that is thwarting the goals of both.
This post is to say thank you to everyone who attended the two book launches in London and York. I had two great evenings and a lot of copies were sold.
I think York Waterstones still have some copies left, and you can search for it on the shop’s website, or on Amazon, where, after a reprint (including the publishing of a paperback edition) it will soon be available.
Thank you to Waterstones for hosting the launch in York, and The Society Club for doing the same in London. Thank you also to Short Books Ltd for publishing my blog!
One thing I’ve noticed among non-Marxists is the tendency to fall into a certain trap regarding Marx’s teachings. This is a trap I’ve also fallen into, meaning that, for a long while, my perception of what communism would actually look like was flawed; I believed that under a communist system, the abolition of private property would mean the abolition of individual ownership altogether.
The concept of private property is one easily mistaken, but actually refers to ownership of something that can generate capital, such as a workforce. This means that nobody would be permitted to own a source of profit, rendering both profit and exploitation obsolete concepts.
Personal property, on the other hand, refers to items for individual use, such as a house, a phone or a musical instrument. None of these, according to Karl Marx would be abolished by the revolutionary movement, as they do not contribute to exploitation, capitalism, or the accumulation of profit.
Are you a little more sympathetic yet?
Thanks,
AR
The Anonymous Revolutionary 