Though Cowards Flinch

Quite some time ago, a film was released entitled “V for Vendetta.” This was a film I and my friends enjoyed immensely. What wasn’t to like? A knife wielding super man in a Guy Fawkes mask makes a fascistic government look foolish then unites all the people of London by blowing up the Houses of Parliament.

Some curious comments by right wing commentators surround the film. The most strange, so far as I am concerned, is the accusation that the film in some way represents a Marxist viewpoint. These accusations can be run to earth by anyone who wishes to go over to the Wikipedia entry on  the film version of “V for Vendetta.”

It occurred to me whilst walking home tonight that rather than attacking the people who labelled the film Marxism, one should more properly attack the film for not being Marxist. It is in fact an Anarchist film. The central plot is based around the concept of “propaganda of the deed.” Bakhunin amongst others is noted for his support of propaganda of the deed.

The concept basically suggests that by political assassination or acts of terrorism, one can inspire revolution amongst the toiling masses. The ordinary, oppressed people rise up when they see that the possibilities of opposition are not lost, that freedom is not dead and so forth. For a Marxist, propaganda of the deed can in many respects mean the opposite in reality to what the Anarchist posits in theory.

As with the Narodniks and Socialist Revolutionaries in Russia, acts of terrorism were not products of a wide base amongst the organised proletariat but were respectively the work of rigidly organised and secretive cadres or of the backward peasantry, airing its impotence on the stage of social reform. Bolsheviks and Mensheviks each spoke against such tactics.

They believed that propaganda of the deed lessened the political consciousness of the worker by leading to expectations of revolution ‘from above’ – where a skilled and principled selection of people would take control of the state and lead it back to righteousness. Anarchists would agree that this is a bad thing, though many of them would dispute that it is the historical reality provoked by propaganda of the deed.

In the context of this film, the eponymous character “V” is a terrorist who informs London of his plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament a year hence. This he does, after a huge crowd storm the barricades of the British fascist government and arrive in Parliament Square, to watch the display. No doubt the reference to the Fifth of November is well met by the historians among you; and the invocations of Guy Fawkes are explicit throughout the film.

The point is that the film ends with the destruction of Parliament, yet at that point no mass movement exists that could topple the government. The destruction of Parliament is really a false crescendo. Without strikes, councils of soldiers and worker’s deputies or basically any organ by which to carry through an insurrection, the fascist government is unlikely to relinquish power.

In true Anarchist form, the film concentrates upon the anti-heroic character of “V” and upon his relationship with a woman thrown into his world, Evey. To paraphrase an old socialist, Anarchism is basically bourgeois individualism turned inside out. The film is not Marxist; it does not advance a real solution nor offer even a basic analysis of society except through a liberal guise.

Being a Hollywood movie, this much is probably self evident to most people. Yet it is still worth pointing out where the critics on the right miss their target.