The left’s history of foolishness

They always make the mistake of thinking the enemy is within their own ranks

At the start of the 21st century, no one felt the need to reach for studies of ‘third-period’ communism to understand British and American politics. By 2016, I would say that they have become essential.

Admittedly, connoisseurs of the communist movement’s crimes have always thought that 1928 was a vintage year. The Soviet Union had decided that the first period after the glorious Russian revolution of 1917 had been succeeded by a second period, when the West fought back. But now, comrades, yes, now in the historic year of 1928, Stalin had ruled that we were entering a ‘third period’ when capitalism would die in its final crisis. As the Wall Street crash was only months away, this was not as fanciful as it seemed.

  • andycanuck

    And a number that continues to grow (see Venezuela) and all of that in less than 100 years if you start from October 1917.

  • Whether the author is aware of it or not, his observations delineate the differences between classic Marxism and Leninism. With classic Marxism the revolution was supposed to occur as a result of the natural forces of history — Marxists didn’t have to do anything to propel the revolution forward, capitalism was to supposed to naturally self-destruct. But after waiting decades for it to happen and it never happened, that’s when Lenin came up with the role of the Communist State — the State could “pre-empt” that historical process and make it happen immediately by imposing an all-encompassing dictatorship ruled by exclusive elites. Thus occurred the marriage between Marxism and Leninism. And Marxism-Leninism is pretty much the brand that prevails today, albeit with varying approaches to implementing it, whether through violent revolution or subversion or both, and the timelines necessary to achieve its goal (e.g. the “slow” approach versus the “fast” approach, et cetera).