Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Truthdig.com Chris Hedges and
Cold War Dwight MacDonald:
Anti‐Communists
By: WC O’Casey
September 11, 2010
www.FocusOnSocialism.ca
Anti‐communist and anti‐Marxist theories are fully back in fashion and peddled amongst
sections of the Canadian revolutionary left with a frequency and zeal not alien to the most
ardent philistine. Within the liberal‐left, social democrats and ideological social and political
eclecticism of radical academia anti‐communism is now passed off as highbrow enlightened
polemic on the failures of Soviet socialism. These forces meet regularly through the trading
and dissemination of a various forms of hard core anti‐communist theories all now couched
in “vicious attacks” on imperialism. Such is the new enlightened socialism.
Those on the left that possess and distribute these “new” theories converge with all sorts of
unsavoury practitioners of anti‐worker, anti‐communist ideologies over a common thread –
anti‐communism. When challenged, on the company these peddlers of anti‐communist
theories find themselves in, passionate protests are mounted defending the “freedom of
criticism” as a holy sanctum of scholarly endeavour needed in the defence of the working
class. It is defended so as to bring a new liberal socialism to the masses free of the defects
and distortions of old socialism.
These theories all attempt in one form or another to absolve imperialism of its crimes,
equate communists with fascists and reconcile the “needs of the market and human
beings”. As well these theories attempt to strip Marxism of its revolutionary content
attacking philosophical and historical materialism as a misguided theory attempting to lay
down a “new third line” in philosophy. Such is the garbage that is peddled by the
opportunistic Chris Hedges at Truthdig.com in his article, “The Greeks Get It”.
Hedges slips his anti‐communist, anti‐Marxist views in riding the coattails of Greek workers
as the teaser, hooking unsuspecting readers into going along for the ride. It would not be so
offensive and may have been passed off and overlooked as just another social reactionary
literary parasite capitalising on the struggles of workers if it were not for the fact that the
Greek Communists are the ones who are leading the Greek working class in the fight against
EU and the World Bank blackmail of workers’ wages. PAME is leading the largest strikes and
challenging the social‐democratic labour unions to mobilize their workers in concert against
the draconian measures. And in all of this the reactionary Hedges attacks the Greek
communists with his virulent anti‐communist outbursts. Such are the musings of anarchist
individualists.
Hedges goes on to defend his pap but quoting at length the stridently anti‐Soviet and anti‐
communist Dwight MacDonald. MacDonald, it is reported, had a close association with the
CIA sponsored Cold War anti‐communist front “Congress for Cultural Freedom”. This is now
www.FocusOnSocialism.ca Page 2 of 9
the ideologically company that the enlightened socialists associate with in the 21st century –
cold war architects of the 20th century. And this is passed off as new enlightened 21st
century socialism.
For those who are not squeamish about publically challenging anti‐communist, anti‐Marxist
theories and those on the so‐called revolutionary left who promote such theories in the
name of “rational and balanced analysis”, the Hedges article amounts to nothing more then
19th century idealism. Lenin demolished such theories in “Materialism and Empirio‐Criticism”.
Yet these theories remain and are dragged out from under the dust bin of history, yet again,
dusted off, a new coat of paint is slapped on them and then presented by the enlightened
socialists as new “critical” analyses of imperialism. What complete nonsense. This is the
“new” 21st Century Socialism; quoting 20th century cold war anti‐communists and 19th
century anti‐Marxists.
The new revisionists begin their theories with the now customary and fashionable attack on
the predatory corporations, international bankers and power elites and Goldman Sachs and
George Bush for added emphasis.
Hedges points out early in his article that the Greeks “know what to do”, in his terms call a
general strike and riot. This is the first stealthy anti‐worker attack equating general strikes
to workers rioting – anarchists find that form of struggle particularly appealing and so do
CSIS as seen in Toronto with the marauding black hooded protesters garnering the majority
of the attention from the corrupt and complicit media. The KKE in fact issued several
statements appealing to the young workers to not fall into the tricks and hands of the police
and provocateurs by engaging in undisciplined rioting and instead march with the workers in
tight ranks.
Hedges then recites the now accepted, standard and pedestrian social‐democratic and
bourgeois economic analysis of the Greek and European economic crisis. He then goes onto
suggest that we are witnessing the “end of globalization”. If Hedges contends that
globalization is imperialism in its latest form then we are no where near that point although
the foundations are being strained by the weight of its own unbalanced and anarchic
development.
The contradictions within monopoly capital are becoming so fierce and contradictory that
we are moving into an era of greater antagonistic relations between the great imperialist
www.FocusOnSocialism.ca Page 3 of 9
powers which will be characterized by inter‐imperialist wars or wars of proxy. The danger of
nuclear war is growing.
If this is what Hedges contends the end of globalization means, less inter‐imperialist
contradictions then he is dead wrong. In fact the integration of finance, military and
resource capital is so fused within the state and interconnected globally that it is the
complete opposite.
If Hedges contends that the end of globalization is the end of neo‐liberal trade dominated by
the US imperialism then there is nothing particularly new in that analysis. It is generally
accepted within liberal bourgeois economists and political analysts that US domination is
waning and being challenged from a number of finance capital centres. However US
imperialism still remains the greatest threat to human survival and peace. This is where
Hedges first attempts to lay the basis for his theory and exonerate US imperialism as the
main threat to peace and human progress.
Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism characterized by finance capital and inter
imperialist rivalries over resources, of which there are no further “rungs on the ladder”, only
socialism. Lenin pointed this out nearly 100 years ago in “Imperialism the Highest Stage of
Capitalism” and where the ICWPs on this basis are laying out the ground work for going on
the offensive. The struggles of the Greek workers are part of that new strategy lead by the
communists; the KKE and PAME.
The real point of Hedges’ article is to attack Marx and materialism. Citing MacDonald,
Hedges asserts that the “concept of perpetual war eluded the theorists” of the 19th and 20th
century, “including Marx”. He goes on citing MacDonald saying that the “theorists” were
unable to produce “an adequate theory of the political significance of war” as they suffered
from limiting their focus to “internal class struggle”. It is clear from this drivel that Hedges
and MacDonald either have never read Marx or deliberately choose to avoid that discussion.
It would seem that the latter is most likely the case.
MacDonald the “socialist” attempts to discredit Marx and Marxists for attention to the
“class struggle” above developing a theory of the “political significance of war”.
MacDonald “despairs” that the “marriage between capitalism and permanent war” will not
be challenged until an effective resistance can be found to defeat the permanent war
economy and the war “mentality”. What a muddle!
www.FocusOnSocialism.ca Page 4 of 9
The marriage that MacDonald refers to is the fusion of finance capital, military capital and
the state. Such a marriage is imperialism. MacDonald’s clever tricks of phraseology return
him to plead with the imperialists to be “more human”. MacDonald rejects revolutionary
struggle and instead appeals to “defeating” the mentality of the imperialists. And how does
MacDonald propose to do this? Hedges writes:
“Macdonald argued that democratic states had to dismantle the permanent war
economy and the propaganda that came with it. They had to act and govern according
to the non‐historical and more esoteric values of truth, justice, equality and empathy.”
This is MacDonald’s view on imperialism – pleading for compassionate governance based on
the “esoteric values of truth, justice and empathy.” This base idealism is firmly grounded in
the reactionary ideology of primitive mystics that attempt to conger up liberal
enlightenment amongst the imperialists by being the intermediaries who act on behalf of
the oppressed masses going cap‐in‐hand to centres of power with reasonable requests for
less harsh terms of employment and conditions of work for workers.
Here is what Marx had to say on the same subject:
“As soon as such an enemy has to be fought directly, the interests of both parties will
coincide for the moment and an association of momentary expedience will arise
spontaneously in the future, as it has in the past. It goes without saying that in the
bloody conflicts to come, as in all others, it will be the workers, with their courage,
resolution and self‐sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. As in
the past, so in the coming struggle also, the petty bourgeoisie, to a man, will hesitate as
long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive; but when victory is certain it
will claim it for itself and will call upon the workers to behave in an orderly fashion, to
return to work and to prevent so‐called excesses, and it will exclude the proletariat
from the fruits of victory. It does not lie within the power of the workers to prevent the
petty‐bourgeois democrats from doing this; but it does lie within their power to make it
as difficult as possible for the petty bourgeoisie to use its power against the armed
proletariat, and to dictate such conditions to them that the rule of the bourgeois
democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and
its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier. Above
all, during and immediately after the struggle the workers, as far as it is at all possible,
must oppose bourgeois attempts at pacification and force the democrats to carry out
their terroristic phrases… To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party,
www.FocusOnSocialism.ca Page 5 of 9
whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers
must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with
muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old‐style citizens’ militia,
directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia
cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a
proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they
must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the
revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by
the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected
leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and
ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by
force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the
workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of
bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as
possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League
must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.” 1
Marx and Engels were clear on the “political significance of war”. The dictatorship of the
proletariat is used in ruthless suppression of the bourgeois elements and remains in effect
until all elements have been destroyed. This is the basis of workers’ state power.
Hedges continues with primitive base anti‐communism, now fully exposed in the new guise
of equating communism and fascism. Hedges drags out the old “two super powers” theory
when he says, “the state, whether in the capitalist United States or the communist Soviet
Union, eventually devoured its children.” Hedges suggests that the “endless war” was a
product of both powers, when in fact all progressives understand that the arms race was a
product of US imperialism. It should be pointed out that the arms race continues to this day
with its sole participant – the USA. Not only does it continue but US imperialism continues
with the modernization and expansion of the most barbaric of weaponry and the
modernization of its nuclear arsenal.
Without citing any facts next Hedges attempts to place in front of the reader a basis for his
anti‐Marxist assault which follows at the end of the article where Hedges stakes a claim in
the 3rd Line of above class doctrine. Hedges states, “The war state provides a constant
1
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League”, Marx, Engels
Selected Works Volume 1, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1962, page 111‐113
www.FocusOnSocialism.ca Page 6 of 9
stream of enemies, whether the German Hun, the Bolshevik, the Nazi, the Soviet agent or
the Islamic terrorist”, where he attempts to emasculate the role of Hitler fascism to just
another run of the mill ideology used by the ruling class as an excuse to produce weapons.
In fact this line is used to hide the fact that an alliance was formed between imperialism and
fascism before WWII in an attempt to strangle the Soviet Union. The imperialists only
entered on the side of the USSR after they were compelled to by the stunning military
victories that they were being scored against the German Nazi’s by the Red Army. Hedges in
effect continues in the camp that distorts the historical record of the Red Army and the
historic victory by the Soviet People lead by the Communist Party.
Hedges then cites MacDonald as warning that “modern” totalitarianism integrates the
masses completely into the political structure whereby the working class unwittingly
engineer their own enslavement. In typical liberal fashion Hedges defines none of his
colleague’s phraseology.
The Communist Party of Canada has this to say about “totalitarianism”:
“Here in Canada, anti‐communist reactionaries with close ties to the Harper Tories are
preparing to build a so‐called “monument to the victims of totalitarianism” in the
National Capital Region of Ottawa. The real purpose of this “monument” is to serve as a
rallying point for those who seek to restrict and ultimately ban the activity of the
Communists in Canada.” 2
By slight of hand Hedges suggests that “old” totalitarianism differed from “modern”
totalitarianism in that old totalitarianism insisted that human beings be “sacrificed” at the
sacred idol of the “utopian workers paradise”. This is the crowd that Hedges and
MacDonald are in ideological convergence with – Tribute to Liberty.
Modern totalitarianism is imperialism and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which does
nothing to integrate the masses in the political structure – the state – and in fact bars
workers from any role in the state except the cursory representation by social democratic
parliamentary representatives and bourgeois labour unions.
But the crux of the warning is really saved for workers where MacDonald says,
“Bureaucratic collectivism, not capitalism, is the most dangerous future enemy of
socialism.” MacDonald blatantly attempts to suggest by dragging out base anti‐communist
2
Communist Party of Canada, “Poland’s Anti‐Communist Law Turns History on its Head”, June 7, 2010
www.FocusOnSocialism.ca Page 7 of 9
phraseology that the working class is better off with a “flawed” capitalism then
“bureaucratic socialism”. MacDonald is so in the service of the imperialists that his
“criticisms” of imperialism if they weren’t spread by revolutionary intellectuals would be
laughable.
The line is typical of the vacillating petty bourgeois opportunists when they begin to shake
at the advance of the working class. The liberal classes become frightened of the power of
the advancing revolutionary working class because it spells their doom. They are fearful of
“bureaucratic collectivism” because that means the dictatorship of the workers’ state over
all productive, political and economic forces. It means the end of their parasitical
collaboration with the imperialists.
In fact what Hedges is doing is using MacDonald to warn the ruling class of the danger of the
Greek workers ascending power lead by the KKE and to split the Greek workers from the
Greek communists. This whole article has nothing to do with a “criticism” of imperialism
and everything to do with attempting to drive a wedge between the revolutionary
leadership of the KKE and the Greek workers.
Aleka Papariga, General Secretary of the CC of KKE in her intervention during the
parliament’s session on the anti‐worker measures passed in the Greek parliament made this
assessment:
“I would also like to clarify the following: we are more experienced than ever and we
continue drawing lessons from our contribution, our shortcomings and our mistakes.
There is one thing that you will never manage to do: to drive us to the wall; to hinder
our action. Do not even think about it. It will be a boomerang. Be sure about it. Because
after 92 years we know very well whom we are fighting against”. 3
Yet Hedges cites the struggles of the Greek workers as a pretext to attack Communists
while it is the Communists who stand in defiant partisan solidarity with the Greek working
class and not the anti‐communist anti‐Marxist Hedges and MacDonald.
But the real attack by Hedges is on Marxism itself. The “socialist” MacDonald is enlisted by
Hedges to mount an offensive against the materialist conception of history. This attack is
thinly veiled in academic phraseology. Hedges’ “way with words” gives way to his pedantic
3
Aleka Papariga, General Secretary of the CC of KKE, “New demonstrations of PAME against the slaughter of
people's gains, on May 6”, Solidnet
www.FocusOnSocialism.ca Page 8 of 9
enthusiasm for base anti‐Marxist theories that were destroyed by the communist over a
century before and are now again finding a home in the insular world of academia.
Hedges laments that the liberal class has lost its “moral voice”. His attempted
deconstruction of materialism begins by equating liberal morality with the “non‐historical”
values of truth, justice, equality and empathy as the cornerstone for MacDonald’s vision of a
reformed kinder, gentler capitalism.
Hedges attempts to bind the material progress of science and technology to a “blind
acceptance of the dictates of globalization.” This requires that the objective nature of the
development of the productive forces is subordinated to the subjective forces within the
constructs of capitalism. Hedges repeats his now clear mantra that there need not be a
choice between labour and capital as the dictatorial force governing societal organization.
In fact Hedges pleads with the imperialists for reconciliation between the two; “The choice
is not between the needs of the market and human beings. There should be no choice.”
This then is the real thesis of the anti‐Marxist MacDonald where he unloads the positivism of
Ernst Mach on the unsuspecting reader. The reactionary philosophy of Machism was
dismantled and lay bare for all to see in Lenin’s “Materialism and Empiro‐Criticism”.
MacDonald attempts to claim the “high ground” by suggesting that the “progressives”
(Marxists) “optimism” of human nature and science is flawed, whereby MacDonald’s
rational although radical theory places “man” at the centre of his world.
A lesson in historical materialism is beyond the scope of this short and hastily prepared
article, but the differences between the reactionary MacDonald and Marx are fully exposed
in the last paragraph of Hedges’ article it is a good study for all Marxists. MacDonald states
his anti‐materialist doctrine in the following declaration, “The Progressive starts off from
what is actually happening; the Radical starts off from what he wants to happen” ‐ in other
words the material versus the ideal.
Such are the musings of the reactionary anti‐communists of the 21st century. They are no
different between Hedges and those anti‐communists of the past. Passing this material off
as anything more than anti‐worker rubbish is a mistaken belief in freedom of criticism and an
immaturity in understanding the enemy and what forms it takes on.
www.FocusOnSocialism.ca Page 9 of 9