Saturday, October 19, 2019

Against Revolution

Famous Swedish Political Leaders

Bernie Sanders likes to say that we need a "political revolution" so we can become more like the social democracies of Scandinavia. But this, I think, misjudges both the nature of revolution and the history of Scandinavia. There was no Swedish or Norwegian or Danish Revolution. I believe that they ended up with their enviably stable and equitable systems precisely because they never had a revolution, because revolutions are usually disastrous for the people and nations who experience them.

Here's a question for you: can you name a single event that happened in Scandinavia between the Napoleonic wars and World War II? I can't, or couldn't until I started working on this post, and I have a Ph.D. in European history. Yet somehow the Scandinavian countries evolved from poor societies led by reactionary aristocrats to wealthy beacons of social democracy. How did they achieve that?

Not, let me tell you, in a way that makes for exciting reading. I spent some time last night and this morning reading about the history of these countries at wikipedia and other encyclopedia sites, and I recommend those articles only as a sleep aid. It's a dreary litany of reform bill after reform bill, the gradual extension of the vote, the gradual constriction of royal power, the occasional Parliamentary dust-up. One of the sub-categories in wikipedia's piece on nineteenth-century Sweden is The Barley Question.

But that, if you ask me, is how politics ought to be. If what you want is to make life better for your fellow citizens, that is the way to proceed: One change at a time. One compromise at a time. One election at a time. One regulation at a time. "Politics," Max Weber famously wrote, "is a strong and slow boring of hard boards. It takes both passion and perspective." Political change does not happen unless people fight for it, but if you fight too hard, if you abandon perspective and start throwing bombs, then any good you do accomplish will likely be balanced by an equal or greater amount of destruction and misery.

Consider that the Social Democrats who created the modern Swedish welfare state did not think that socialism was the most important part of their program. That would be Folkhemmet, "The People's Home", which imagined the nation as a family to which everyone contributed something, and where all decisions were made collectively. This was an explicitly moderate position, more influenced by John Maynard Keynes than by Marx, and with large roles for businessmen and the church.

For a quick look at the opposite, revolutionary sort of mind, I recommend this piece on V.I. Lenin. Not the silly comparison of Lenin with the leftists of contemporary American campuses, just the description of Lenin himself, for whom violence and terror were not means to an end, but ends in themselves:
When we are reproached with cruelty, we wonder how people can forget the most elementary Marxism. . . . By the dictatorship of the proletariat we mean nothing other than power which is totally unlimited by any laws, totally unrestrained by absolutely any rules, and based directly on force. . . . The law should not limit terror, it should enshrine terror.
As for compromise with others, even other socialists,
Every solution that offers a middle path is a deception . . . or an expression of the dull-wittedness of the petty-bourgeois democrats.
These are the sort of men who make most revolutions, and the states and societies that result are just what you would expect from such thinking.

Obviously not all revolutions are like this; the word has many meanings. When a new or conquered nation casts off the rule of an empire, that is a different situation, with a better historical record. Yet many national heroes have succumbed to the temptations of violence and radicalism, which is why the independence of so many nations has been followed by Civil War rather than peaceful cooperation. Violent change is always dangerous.

I do recognize that sometimes gradual, progressive change is not an option, because those in power refuse to accept it. This happened for example in Russia, where the Tsar's men put an end to the reformist politics of 1905 and re-imposed a reactionary imperium. In such cases violent revolution is likely, because there is no other path forward. But if that happens in your country, you are, historically, screwed. The outcome is rarely good. (See Russia, China, Iran, etc.)

Sometimes compromise and slow change work, and sometimes they just don't, leading to violent explosions. But if the history of the past few centuries teaches anything, it is that gradual reformism is always better, if you can get it.

Why am I writing about this now, when there seems to be no chance that any major nation will have a revolution? What I really want to oppose is a way of thinking that I think is all too common in our time: a demand for change now, coupled with a hatred of our opponents and refusal to even consider talking to them. I think this is tactically terrible, almost certain to lead to four more years of Donald Trump. But it is even worse philosophically. We cannot get to a good world by "destroying" our enemies, either metaphorically or as Lenin would have. Whatever happens, we will end up living with them.

To build a better world, we must work together with as many as will join in.

7 comments:

  1. Consider that the Social Democrats who created the modern Swedish welfare state did not think that socialism was the most important part of their program. That would be Folkhemmet, "The People's Home", which imagined the nation as a family to which everyone contributed something, and where all decisions were made collectively. This was an explicitly moderate position, more influenced by John Maynard Keynes than by Marx, and with large roles for businessmen and the church.

    ...how is Folkhemmet NOT pure Socialism, though? Decisions made collectively? Everyone contributing to the nation, and the nation providing for everyone's needs? Politics not only profiting businessmen and the church in addition to the common people, but also demanding fair contribution and engagement in the system from all parties?

    There's a difference between Communism and Socialism. You don't have to abolish private property and collectivize the means of production to be Socialist.

    You just need to be willing to put the good above the interests of the wealthy elite. You need to be willing to force businessmen and the church to contribute a fair share, instead of letting them weasel out of it like we do here in America. You need to be willing to set tax rates at potentially unpopular levels, and then make proper and effective use of those taxes to provide for the public good.

    Scandinavia never tolerated the rich and powerful trying to rig the system in their favor to provide themselves with constant tax cuts, deregulation, and legal impugnity. Scandinavian corporations pay heavy taxes, abide by strict regulations, and are not allowed to ruthlessly exploit their workers. People are paid well, are guaranteed benefits, are guaranteed healthcare, are guaranteed an education, etc. Government funding prioritizes improvements to society, not waging endless warfare.

    The basic values of Scandinavian culture are different. Instead of everyone for themself, trying to get ahead in the rat race, trying to get rich quick, trying to find personal success at the expense of everyone else, Scandinavians have a strong historical tradition of working to benefit the entire nation. Instead of personal greed, they are fundamentally motivated by collective benevolence. Instead of people resenting paying taxes for public services, they take pride in making sure that no one in their national "family" is neglected, and everyone does their part.

    That's the very heart of Socialism. It's not an economic model - it's a moral stance. It's refusing to allow short sighted greed to rule the nation, and instead living by a code of far-seeing generosity, prudence, and justice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @John

    I'm struck that, over and over, you reserve your moral criticism and your analytical critique for American liberals. Yet, at least on the matter of violence, it seems clear to me that the preponderance of intemperate talk, fascination with weapons, and fantasies of violence are on the Right. You remind me of that strain among European intellectuals whose stance on international affairs for the last seventy years can be summed up as "Americans are horrid imperialistic hypocrites who commit war crimes. Russians? That's just them being Russians."

    You seem to see Trumpism as just a fact of American life, which the rest of us should accept as it is and tolerate while we monitor ourselves carefully and tread a narrow, irenic line. Morally, politically, historically, is that really the path to take? Or is it simply that the Left just bothers you a lot more?

    ReplyDelete
  3. @David-

    Hey, I argue all the time against fossil fuel conservatism!

    I find Trump to be a boring narcissist who already gets too much attention, and I have little to say about him. Much of the "conservatism" that troubles America right now is prejudice (racism, xenophobia) beyond rational debate; not much to say about that. Another big strain is religious, equally beyond any argument from me. What can one say to people who think god hates gays?

    I see the world like this (following Calasso): change generates reactions against it. Too much change too fast generates really violent reactions. I guess I do see this as just a fact of life, not much worth arguing against. I have pointed out several times here when I see American conservatism as simple nostalgia, dressed up in intellectual clothes.

    Therefore the burden is placed on people who want to change the world to get the changes right: to push for the right things at the right time in the right ways, and to protect people's livelihoods and psyches from change when that can be done. That, to me, is the interesting problem, the interesting challenge.

    I also have a strong belief that a properly organized liberal movement would be electorally unbeatable, since most people favor soaking the rich to pay for good schools, good healthcare, etc. The fact that the Democrats keep losing elections says to me that they are doing something very wrong. The question of how to fix that also fascinates me.

    Arguing with people who think Trump is draining the swamp does not.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I guess I see contemporary America in the Perlstein vein: two sides, alike in power and vigor and conviction and mutual hostility. Some cheer the Summer of Love, and some cheer Reagan. Each side knows what it fights for, and loves what it knows.

    You may be right that the future is the liberals' to lose. But Perlstein shows liberals have thought this for 60 years or more, and it hasn't yet come to pass, and in all that time the Right has never ceased to show a power and momentum and vitality undreamt of in liberal philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "how is Folkhemmet NOT pure Socialism, though? Decisions made collectively? Everyone contributing to the nation, and the nation providing for everyone's needs? Politics not only profiting businessmen and the church in addition to the common people, but also demanding fair contribution and engagement in the system from all parties?"

    Seems like some forms of nationalism to me. ONR in Poland (the extreme right nationalist party) probably would subscribe to most of that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @szopen

    Right. Zionism was similarly socialistic in the 1940s-60s. The Drexler-Roehm vision of Nazism was also socialistic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @szopen - it did occur to me that Folkhemmet has something in common with Nazism and other far-right movements, with intense moral pressure applied rather than violence. But I do think that is an important distinction; the Swedish leadership was very much anti-violence, and when they were voted out they stepped aside without complaint.

    ReplyDelete