Return to: Home | Culture | Books

The Red Flag: Communism and the Making of the Modern World

By David Priestland

Reviewed by John Gray - 27 August 2009

Western progressives nostalgic for the Soviet Union shouldn’t get too excited by the global financial crisis, writes John Gray. A fine new history of communism shows why

Tyrannies of old

It cannot be long before progressive opinion begins to look back on communism with nostalgia. Whatever they may have been like in practice, communist states were established to embody ideas that progressives understood and to a large extent shared. The Soviet Union and Maoist China were seen as advancing the cause of humanity and many on the left judged it best not to make too much of any crimes these regimes committed along the way. However imperfectly, communism continued an authentic tradition of European radical humanism.

One of the many virtues of David Priestland's The Red Flag is that it places communism squarely in this tradition. Citing Marx's description of Prometheus as "the most eminent saint and martyr in the philosophical calendar", Priestland shows how Marx's Promethean world-view has animated communist movements and regimes throughout their history. In the preface to his dissertation, Marx wrote, in the words of Aeschylus: "In sooth all gods I hate. 'Tis better to be bound on a rock than bound to the service of Zeus." In Marx's variation on the Promethean myth, heroic humanity wages war against religion, inequality and subservience to nature.

Priestland shows that this modern mythology was propagated right up to the end of communist Russia. As a graduate student at Moscow State University in 1987-88, studying (in secret) Stalin's Terror half a century earlier, he found himself "at the centre of a curious communist civilisation: my neighbours had come from all corners of the communist world - from Cuba to Afghanistan, from East Germany to Mozambique, from Ethiopia to North Korea - to take degrees in science and history, but also to study 'scientific communism' and 'atheism', the better to propagate communist ideology at home . . . The system was unravelling and revealing its secrets, but it was still communist."

Just over 20 years later, that curious communist civilisation has all but vanished from the face of the earth. There are still states ruled by communist parties - Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos and China - and the last ruling communist party in Europe was pushed out of power only a few weeks ago in Moldova. But except for North Korea and, in a limited way, Cuba, no country anywhere is governed, even in theory, by any version of Marxism. Marxist-Leninist insurrectionist movements still exist, with remnants of the Shining Path still active in Peru and Maoists leading a coalition government in Nepal for a time. But the new civilisation that Lenin believed he had founded in 1917, which Sidney and Beatrice Webb admired in the 1930s after touring Ukraine at the height of the famine, and which for all its faults western progressives believed was unshakeable, has ceased to exist.

While radical humanism was the feature that beguiled most western intellectuals, it was just one of several elements in communism. Priestland presents a useful typology of the stories in terms of which the history of communism has been understood: the official one, derived from Marx, in which communist regimes were stages on the way to a world of harmony and abundance; a story of modernisation, in which communists were rational bureaucrats committed to developing backward countries; and a narrative of repression, in which communists imposed a totalitarian system on an un­willing population.

As he notes, the repression story comes in two different versions, one claiming that the new ruling classes were "quasi-religious fanatics, true-believers in secular garb, demanding total commitment and promising a millenarian heaven on earth" and the other maintaining that communists were "cynical political bosses who sought to re-create a version of the oppressive, obscurantist tyrannies of old under the guise of 'modern communism'".

The narrative most commonly invoked by progressives today is the second version of the repression story, and its appeal comes from placing the responsibility for communist oppression on its victims, rather than the humanist project that their rulers were struggling to implement. The universal suppression of freedom under communism is blamed on the tsarist inheritance in Russia, Confucian authoritarianism in North Korea and Maoist China, Prussian dirigisme in the former East Germany, lamaism in Mongolia, the cult of Latin machismo in Cuba, tribalism in Africa, and so on. The flaws of communism are always in the people, never in the ideology.

There is an unmistakable whiff of racism in this legend, but its chief interest may be in what it shows about the need for belief on the part of western intellectuals. There can be no reasonable doubt that during the Bolshevik period, and to a degree in the Stalin era, communism had many of the features of a religion. But in communist countries faith in a radiant future died out long ago, even among the ruling elites. Material advantages - privileged access to housing and health care and a superior education for their children - were what motivated the nomenklatura. It was sections of the western intelligentsia that kept the faith alive - Trotskyites who insisted all would have been well if only Stalin had not won, and the legions of liberal anti-anti-communists who only grudgingly acknowledged the full scale of terror and mass murder in the Soviet Union and its colonies. When all was said and done, these were, after all, progressive regimes.

The Red Flag is a comprehensive guide to the biggest political delusion of the 20th century. Starting with the origins of communist ideology in the French Revolution, it presents an interesting analysis of Marx's thinking as being shaped as much by Romanticism as by the Enlightenment. Priestland also examines communist governments and movements in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America as well as the Soviet Union, and discusses the Nazi-Soviet pact as well as Stalin's ban on anti-fascist activity in Europe, concluding with a level-headed account of the communist collapse.

Always readable, Priestland is often entertaining. Lenin, he writes, was "a model pupil at school", where his headmaster reported that the "guiding principles of his upbringing were religion and rational discipline". A Czechoslovakian rock group, arrested after the 1968 invasion and tried on charges of "extreme vulgarity" and "extolling nihilism, decadence and clericalism", were defended by their lawyer on the grounds that they were only implementing Lenin's maxim "Bureaucracy is shit". The group were sent to prison anyway, but their case led to the founding of Charter 77 and eventually helped overturn the communist regime.

Priestland gives an astute analysis of the leader who unwittingly dissolved the Soviet superstate. "Gorbachev's world-view for the first few years of his rule", he writes, "was, at root, a Romantic Marxist one." Later, Priestland notes, Gorbachev was as much attracted by neoliberal ideology. What Priestland does not tell us is that it was precisely this absurd jumble of ideas that endeared the last Soviet leader to western progressives. Gorbachev's fantasy that the Soviet Union could be reformed and turned into a gigantic reincarnation of Swedish social democracy allowed Soviet communists to indulge the conceit that they had been right after all. Even more, it gave them the feeling they were still in some way relevant.

The actual course of events has left progressives beached. Russia - for nearly three-quarters of a century supposedly the site of a new civilisation that would abolish religion and nationalism - is a Eurasian power whose prime minister, Vladimir Putin, wears around his neck a Russian Orthodox cross given to him by his pious mother. China has reinvented itself as a Confucian capitalist civilisation, while the US flounders. Rather than rejuvenating any kind of socialism, the global economic crisis is showing the strength of the varieties of capitalism that resisted neoliberal dogmaNone of these developments figures in any scenario envisioned by progressives. It will be surprising if, redundant in a world they could never have imagined, they do not rediscover lost virtues in communism. Might it not be time for a King Street Manifesto?

At the end of the first volume of his magnificent trilogy, Main Currents of Marxism, Leszek Kolakowski (who died in Oxford last month) summarised the communist debacle as follows: “And thus Prometheus awakens from his dream of power, as ignominiously as Gregor Samsa in Kafka's Metamorphosis." As a description of communism, this cannot be faulted. As a judgement on the illusions of much of the western intelligentsia, it is perfect.

The Red Flag: Communism and the Making of the Modern World
David Priestland
Allen Lane, 676pp, £35


John Gray's latest book is "Gray's Anatomy: Selected Writings" (Allen Lane, £20)

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

6 comments from readers

123andrea
27 August 2009 at 17:28

This article is blinded by its anti-communism and shows no understanding of the real world.

The reason China is prospering, despite the crisis, is precisely because it is NOT a capitalist country. It does not have to pay dividends and outrageous bonuses to capitalists and can directly control levels of investment.

While investment is tumbling in the western capitalist countries, resulting in a heady drop in GDP, China's investment is *rising* by 45%. Because of state ownership, it can simply issue orders and investment takes place. Hence it continues to grow while capitalist economies flounder and shrink like beached whales.

Reactionaries like this writer, confronted by the obvious success of the Chinese economy, are forced to pretend that it is capitalist. Well, it ain't. And it's proving a much more successful model than ours.

Mark Burton
27 August 2009 at 23:01

Oh dear, why do you persist in chirning out this kind of misinformed tosh?

Where would one start to correct all the errors?

Just ignore it and get on with the job of constructing an approach to the real problems of a capitalism that wrecks far more lives (not to mention the ecosystem) than the flawed actually existing socialism ever did. We need a socialist system, but that will neither be the same as that in Eastern Europe nor the ameliorated capitalism of the social democratic compromise. Why isn't that obvious?

dominicdr
28 August 2009 at 08:59

Reading the previous comment makes just want to cry and reminds me why I cancelled my subscription to the Newstatesman 3 years ago.

I would like the author to clarify his comment "the global economic crisis is showing the strength of the varieties of capitalism that resisted neoliberal dogma".

taghioff.info
31 August 2009 at 18:51

John Gray only really does anti-humanism.

The problem here is the word "Capitalism". Does it mean a trade-based system? Does it mean a system based on returns on investment?

Is China capitalist? Yes and no. This is not a helpful debate, it is the terminology of a historical opposition to Communism. "Capitalism" is not a word that is so very useful for today's world. For instance, is a steady state economy (one of the green proposals) based on trade and low rates of return on investment, a capitalist of communist proposal?

Similarly is humanism or anti-humanism a sensible approach? Isn't the fact that humans are inter-connected with their "anti" (the environment) what defines our emerging politics.

So the world is bleak and futureless only when you are stuck in the language of the past. But it takes not a huge amount of re-imagination of history to start to be able to address the present and the future.

S. L. Kennamer
12 September 2009 at 16:35

It is always easy to score intellectual points by creating false dichotomies and insisting that the reader pick one. A previous contributor to these comments has already noted the stark choice Gray offers us between glorious capitalism shedding wealth upon the entire world and the dismal socialism of planned economies and the gulag. This omits the vast middle: no mention of the horrific poverty that dogs even the most technologically advanced capitalist states, never mind the banana republics; and no word about the entire European Union, the most livable part of the globe today.

The false dichotomy I will mention is Gray's notion that "the repression story comes in two different versions" (and only two, of course – no trichotomies allowed). It is common to all revolutionary states of the right or left that we get both stories simultaneously: the true-believing ideologists lead the way and then give way to the cynical bureaucratic careerists. That's nothing to do with "the red flag" and everything to do with human nature and our still unsolved problem of how to govern ourselves without degenerating into either autocracy or the tyranny of the majority.

It is by now an old story that liberals of the 20th century were congenitally soft on communism, or at least on Stalinism. It is a story that must continue to be told. But Sidney and Beatrice Webb's being wrong about Stalin does not make Paul Johnson right about Calvin Coolidge. Again, I want more options, and the world, though not John Gray, affords me them.

Pencils
16 September 2009 at 06:54

'Progressives' ? That's a term that may have some meaning in the USA ( I doubt it, though), but seems to be used here to avoid being specific. It reeks of New Labour - like the 'Third Way' etc - not socialists, but still 'nice'. And the text is a jumble of dubious assertions and non-sequiturs amounting to one long sneer at... well. at who precisely? The only 'goody' I could pick out of the test seems to be (which drew the attention of a previous commenter) " .. the varieties of capitalism that resisted neoliberal dogma ". Malaysia? And so?

This is just a nonsense: " Gorbachev's fantasy that the Soviet Union could be reformed and turned into a gigantic reincarnation of Swedish social democracy allowed Soviet communists to indulge the conceit that they had been right after all. " I haven't heard of a communist who believed communism was a transitional stage to Swedish social democracy. And it wasn't just Gorbachev's fantasy; I remember every newspaper, radio and tv prog in the West promoting this fantasy, day in day out, during the glasnost years..

And this: " What Priestland does not tell us is that it was precisely this absurd jumble of ideas that endeared the last Soviet leader to western progressives." Why doesn't Priestland tell us this? Is it because he is less 'astute' than Gray? From this we could conclude that Gray doesn't think Glasnost was a good idea ( I don't myself, but I admire communism) - so, what does he think would have been a better course?

Others have already made most of the main criticisms I would make of this review, which actually didn't tell us much about Priestand's book. This is just a sloppy repetition of the same old 'There is no other way' propaganda we've been getting since '89.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker