Notes on Discourse - Whittakers Ear

I've been active in radical politics of various kinds online and offline for about 10 years now, and I've noticed some patterns in discussion that really aren't very good, I'd go so far as to say quite a bit of its counter productive and harmful to even the participants.

I'm just going to stress that I support and encourage reading, hell I'm actually an advocate of education and learning in all its many forms. I think the best way to support and teach ourselves and others is to cultivate a plurality of information sources, books, audio books, extracts, translations, films, lectures, discussions, practicals, music, games, even the much maligned powerpoint presentation. I think the source is usually best but an useful and faithful adaption can work wonders. I'm beginning to sense a bit of snobbery regarding methods and mediums of information, particular comics, movies and games.

In addition I've come to think that much of the discourse on the reading honestly has become a bit too ritualised and a substitute for other aspirations.

Read Blank, you have? well then obviously you haven't read Blank enough

One curious thing I've noticed is the prevalence of an attitude that honestly is a hang over liberal enlightenment. I know liberal is a loaded term to throw around in theses parts put its the same idea and strategy. Liberalism believed in a linear form of progress and the supremacy of reason so opposition must stem from ignorance, and the solution to ignorance is the consumption of more scriptures from the cult of reason.

Of course it didn't work out like that, two of Voltaire's biggest admirers were the Autocrats Frederick the Great of Prussia and Catherine the Great of Russia. And in general the popularity of enlightenment books and pamphlets lead to the creation of "benevolent" despotism of the Kings and Emperors of Europe.

So I really don't understand why so many people think it will work know.

To give just one example of this mindset I bring up the website readmarx.ml its a website set up to mock Marxist Leninists, Maoists, Third Worldists etc, and advocating reading from Marx instead. I personally don't like any of those tendencies either and prefer Marx to most alternatives from their schools of thought, but I don't think the author of the site has thought this through very much.

The selection of recommended reading throws up some issues, the popularity of Marx's writings is owed largely to the Soviet Union. I know that makes some people uncomfortable but its undeniable. Not only did the Soviet publishing houses keep his texts constantly in print in the 20th century, not only did they translate them into nearly every language they also published texts that Marx had never published before.

Gundrisse was first published in 1939 and the Economic and Philosophical manuscripts in 1932. And the Complete Works of Marx and Engels came to over 50 volumes. Indeed several of the texts Readmarx recommends link to translations by our friends Progress Publishers. Presumably this mammoth task did involve some reading and discussion. And yet, curiously the Soviet Union remained the Soviet Union, if it took any serious steps away from Marxism-Leninism it was towards European social democracy in the 1980s.

In addition one of the recommended works is Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, which was written by Engels who is not Karl Marx. This is an issue because its an admission that other people can have important contributions to Marxism, so why not others like Lenin who referred to Marx extensively in his writing. Or say someone who like to refer to Lenin a lot in his writing, like say Stalin?

Also if you'll permit me a bit of a tangent Engels Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is where dialectical materialism comes from. Anecdotally speaking Dialectical Materialism is a concept I heavily associate with the `immortal science of Marxism-Leninism` indeed I see it referenced so often that the cadres have developed a short hand version Diamat. And one of Stalin's most well known work is Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Which in addition to reciting quite a bit of Engels also extensively cites the works of Karl Marx. Now personally speaking I prefer Engels to Stalin, though I think Pannekoek's Historical Materialism was more compelling than both. But again if MLs published Marx's work and can even use it (misuse if you prefer) for their own purposes its obviously not the key to the problem.

The promotion of Karl Marx's stuff will probably help some people move away from the ML et al crowd, the Soviet Union was often the engine of communist and anarchist opposition to the Comintern and Trotskyism had a small resurgence in the ex USSR when people could read him instead of the official caricature. But that method works both ways, just as their are people who develop out of the official communist movement in ways that were more emancipatory and beneficial, but it can also work the other way around. The liberals were wrong when they argued that progress is linier, their are many examples of people with fairly solid politics finding more reactionary lines appealing. Fredy Pherlman and Cammatte became primitivists, Wildcat (I forget which one) also went in for primitivism. as well. The UK Class War have jumped all over in their history, Alex Schmidt became a racist, Christopher Hitchens went from a sort of Trotskyist to a Neocon culture warrior, I can keep going on but I think the point has been made.

The truth of the matter is that their are many variables for why someone finds something convincing or doesn't. A lot of people have turned the Manifesto into a sort of bible, I found it underwhelming. The Conquest of Bread is also enjoying popularity as an intro to anarchism, I liked it but I don't think it be enough to "convert" me. Quite a few MLs swear by State and Revolution and I think I've made my lack of enthusiasm on that one clear. It honestly worries me just how many people make this assumption, that someone who is not in agreement with you can't possibly have any clue what they're talking about. It exposes a rather unhealthy and to be frank snobbish world view and gives the impression of a stunted almost religious order style of education. Funnily enough given my chosen example its another thing the worst type of ML and Maoist parties actively cultivate within their organisations. 

In the UK the Ragged Trousered  Philanthropists is cited as being the moment of revelation for many British leftists of various persuasions, and I count myself as one of them. I also remember Lenin crediting Maxim Gorki's Mother for the popularity of socialism in the Russian underground*, Marx's Capital made such an impact on Bakunin that he started translating it into Russian, Hyndman a Conservative was inspired by the manifesto and a novel about the life and death of  Lassalle to found the Social Democratic Federation, described as the first Marxist political party in Britain. He would then go onto lead the ominously named National Socialist Party and then affiliate it with the Labour party.

My personal favourite example of political inspiration is the Communist Party USA member and former Soviet Spy Whittaker Chambers, who became a committed anti communist because he looked into his daughters ear. That seems ridiculous and maybe it is but the reasoning is honestly hard to argue with if you accept its main premise. 

 Whittaker Chambers in his seismic book Witness recounts the first moment when he abandoned historical materialism, mentally deserted the Communist cause, and embarked on the career which would undo Stalinism in America. It was on the morning when he glimpsed the ear of his baby daughter. The pretty whorls and folds of this external organ persuaded him in a flash of revelation that no coincidence could have created it. A fleshly flap of such utter beauty must be divine.

To break it down,

• The complexity of the human ear is convincing for the proof of God
• The party taught that God does not exist, so the Party is wrong
• If it is wrong about that, than it could be wrong about many things, potentially everything
• If it is wrong than the sacrifices made in its name are unjust
• If it is unjust than it must be opposed 

Its easy to laugh at the power of an ear, but Whittaker was a successful spy and then a successful journalist so he wasn't a fool. And to be honest the faith Whittaker put into that ear is the same many of us put into our key texts. When we say `read _____` we're often just saying `come get a look at this ear` and hoping for a similar result. Its a bit of a crutch.




___________________________________________________________________________
*Unfortunately I've not been able to find the reference since. I remember it because that was how I discover the novel Mother