THE DEATH AGONIES OF CAPITALISM

Posted on May 20, 2016 by stutteringsteps

Any mode of production which is contradictory and has reached the limits of its ability to expand, sooner or later is bound to disintegrate and then collapse. However, before the final demise, such modes of production go through periods of convulsion and struggle as those who benefit from them make repeated desperate efforts to stave off the inevitable end of ‘their’ system. In this sense there is not one ‘death agony’ but a series of agonising episodes before the final gasp. This was true of modes of production based upon ancient slavery, feudal semi-slavery and it is true of modern capitalist economic system based upon wage – slavery. For example, the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, as extensively catalogued by Edward Gibbon, did not occur over night, but went through a long period of expiring glory and convulsive degeneration. A similar pattern, but with varying distinctive features, can be identified in the decline and fall of the previous empires of Egypt, Persian and Greece. And despite surface appearances to the contrary, the capitalist mode of production has also been disintegrating for some time.

The relatively modern empire of global capitalism has been going through a protracted period of convulsive degeneration and temporary regeneration for over a century. These periodic agonies attending the episodic degeneration were motivated primarily by the uncontrollable desire of capitalist elites to expand their field of operations. The basis of this motivation to continually expand is the capitalists need to maintain and augment their capital. This need has driven capitalists and pro – capitalists periodically to extreme measures. Broadly these have taken the form of Colonial and imperial exploitation, two world wars with many millions killed and injured, continuous environmental degradation, rising global poverty, uncontrolled deforestation and more recently the continuing privatisation of practically everything except the air we breath.

These symptoms are all byproducts emanating from the needs of the capitalist class to continually expand and accumulate wealth despite the natural, social and any moral barriers to that expansion. This expansion has quite definately caused repeated large scale and small scale agonies for individuals and communities throughout the world. These degenerative agonies now also include the almost complete failure of the advanced nation – states of the world – and the complete failure of the less advanced – to ensure the safety and welfare of their citizens. Under the guidance of capitalist elite, we now witness the spectacle of millions of refugee civilians without a functioning country and in some cases countries without a functioning civilian population. How self destructive is that? States have also become willing to defame, arrest and incarcerate their own citizens in order to resist any serious pressure for radical change.

In short; under the pressure of its own internal contradictions, the capitalist mode of production is again coming apart at the seams!

In previous articles (‘Capitalism and Crisis’, and; ‘The Five – fold crisis of Capitalism ‘) I have dealt with many of the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. In this article I wish to consider the contradictions of this mode of production in a much broader context. That is to say from a framework of ideas that consider the implications of these contradictions for the human species as a whole. It is in this latter regard that it is important to recognise that the economic life of the vast bulk of humanity is now inter -connected by a global network of production and consumption. That is now the economic and social reality for the human species. This means that ideas and ideologies based upon past tribal, religious, and national identities no longer corospond to the reality of the 20th and 21st century socio-economic networks. These ideologies were created during past pre – global socio – economic circumstances of human communities and are now clearly reactionary. They threaten to tear the human species into warring tribes, religions, and nations. It is true that the current global network is distorted and continually threatened by by the needs of the capitalists and the elites who benefit from it – but it is a global system nonetheless.

Unless we are to help extend the death agonies of capital even further or return to ealier modes of production, then we need to distil new ideas from the new realities which face us in the 21st century. I suggest and hope to demonstrate that the old phalanx of warring ideas of identity need to be replaced by humanist ideas attached to a revolutionary perspective. That is to say ideas which represent the human species as a whole and which recognise that the contradictions within the capitalist mode of production cannot be corrected without going beyond the capitalist system itself. This struggle of revolutionary – humanist ideas against reactionary ones is also one of the symptoms emerging from the ongoing death agony of capitalism. The future for humanity – if there is to be a progressive one – needs to be guided by revolutionary – humanist ideas toward a post – capitalist mode of production. This is because, as we shall see, the basic needs of all human communities – eating, sleeping, making and mating – cannot be adequately met by a socio – economic system dominated by the needs of capital.

Eating, sleeping, making and mating.

It is clearly obvious that there are four fundamental necessities for life to exist in any known individual or social form. Presupposing breathable air and the existence of advanced forms of life on this planet the first necessity is the procurement or production of food and water (eating.). The second is to provide shelter ànd rest (sleeping). The third is to create and maintain the tools of production (making). The fourth is to ensure biological reproduction (mating). Although expressed rather crudely, the terms eating, sleeping, making and mating, represent the minimum requirements for the survival of any social species – including the human species. How these necessities are met determines, to a greater or lesser extent, the economic structure of the society in question. But for a species to survive and evolve, these necessities must be met by the economic structure each day, week, month or year! Otherwise, as study of nature reveals, species decline and eventually become extinct.

What may be called the total socio – economic reproduction of species or societies (ie eating, sleeping, making and mating) is therefore an absolute given necessity for any species or group. What differentiates human socio – economic reproduction, from other earthly species, is the more or less conscious evolutionary development of different modes of how this total social reproduction is organised and achieved. Hunter – gatherer, pastoralist, herders, agriculturalist and industrial modes of production have all had their distinct group formations, divisions of labour and appropriate tools, adapted to the different resources they have had at their disposal. But whatever the mode of production adopted or adapted, they have all needed to fulfill and ensure – as far as humanly possible – the basic necessities outlined above. When the social form or habitat location ceased to allow these necessities to be adequately met then the rationality and cooperative abilities of humanity brought about a radical change. If moving away (migration or emigration) was not a solution in the past, and in many cases it wasn’t, then a revolutionary change in the mode of production became necessary. Why should the present mode of production be viewed differently than past ones?

Total social reproduction under Capitalism.

As the most recent mode of production, Capitalism was able to grow out of the circulation processes of earlier modes of production. It took the form of the accumulation of money. Hoarding and speculation in order to accumulate the monetary form of wealth took place due to the activities of those involved in commerce between countries and between communities. However, these activites and the wealth accumulated from it existed for generations before money as capital came to totally dominate the production of the necessities for eating, sleeping, making and mating. However, they do now and we should consider how they do so along with the implications for humanity.

A) Economic production – 1 (food and water.)

Where it dominates, the owners of capital have by various means appropriated the main means of food and other allied forms of commodity production and distribution. They or their agents now control the amount, cost and quality of the food we eat and the water we drink. But the domination of capital over modern societies controls much more than these qualities and quantities. The capitalist mode of production also controls our access to these necessities. This control has created a further necessity for the bulk of the population. People have to obtain a wage or salary from one group of capitalists in order to purchase these necessities from another group of capitalists. Previous modes of production, bad as they were, left at least a minimal ability for individuals to obtain, food, water, shelter and rest for themselves.

Capitalist ownership and control of nearly everything means that wages and salaries are necessary to obtain sufficient food, water, clothing and housing to survive as individuals and communities. Capitalists have become the gate – keepers to access to these necessities for individual, group and species survival. The fact that unemployment is now a large-scale structural part of the capitalist mode of production means that the gate has been closed to millions. There are now literally millions who now are unable to access sufficient food and adequate water. Hence the appearance of food banks in the advanced countries, and food aid deliveries in undeveloped ones – with all the personal and social symptoms and tensions this implies.

B) Economic production – 2 (shelter, clothing and rest)

In this category also, the capitalist class by its ownership and control of land and machinery has removed the possibility of most human families and communities to provide their own supply of adequate housing, clothing and of determining their own requirements for quality rest and enjoyable leisure. For working people, white – collar and blue, a wage or salary is absolutely necessary to obtain an adequate supply of these additional fundamental requirements. And here too, the fact of mass levels of unemployment means people can become homeless, hungry, cold and listless – through no fault of their own. Even with a wage or salary – if it is a low paid one – then humanely adequate levels of these necessities are practically unobtainable. Embarrasing short-lived charity and state benefits are often provided, but these are not a long term solution to the problems facing the bulk of humanity.

C) Economic production – 3 (tools of production.)

As already noted, any mode of production will have developed the tools and machines necessary to procure he necessaries described above. Whether the tools were simple stone flakes, shards of animal bone, horn or wood, for digging, piercing, pummeling or cutting, these needed making and renewing when they became worn out, damaged or completely broken. Under the capitalist system these tools (factories, machines, methods and research facilities) have as a result of the skills and energies of generations of working people, become so extensive and complex that they are currently controlled only by the combined resources of the capitalist elite. Whilst these tools of modern production are socially created instruments of production they are utilised only for the benefit of those who now own or control them.

The owners and controller’s (and their agents) of these means of production use them not for the benefit of society as a whole but for the benefit (via profits) of a small elite group – the one percent. When profits cannot be made these resources are scrapped or left to rot whether or not they might be useful to others, and the workers made redundant with all the problems outlined in the above sections. The capitalist mode of production would be bad enough if these were the only problems emanating from the domination of capital over the socio – economic intercourse of human communities, but there is another important one.

D) Biological reproduction.

It is only too obvious that societies need to ensure the renewal of the worn out generation, by the creation of a new one to replace them. It should also be obvious that to be effective rather than defective, this biological reproduction depends upon an adequate supply of the previously noted necessities to both the parents and children. Without adequate food, water, shelter and rest, then biological reproduction is effected in a negative way. Under undernourished, malnourished, nutrient deficient or toxic food and environmental conditions new generations are less fit and strong, more prone to illness and less able to maintain adequate levels of economic and social activities. Under circumstances of air, water, and food contamination, human life itself can become deformed and lives drastically shortened.

For the vast majority of the members of the human family, the procurement and production of all these fundamental necessities is now absolutely dependent upon the profitability of capital. That existential dependence cannot be the future economic and social basis for a species which wishes to survive the many problems facing us. It is already common knowledge that pollution and environmental degradation as well as birth defects and other health problems are a result of capitalist methods of industrial production. It is also common knowledge that the productive capacity of modern means of production are so efficient (due to automation and computerisation) that fewer and fewer workers, blue collar and white, are needed to be employed in them. More and more of these workers are becoming redundant and thus will become incapable of procuring adequate necessities for a decent life. Continuing with the domination of capital can only make matters worse.

The capitalist system is in terminal melt down – again!

It was asserted earlier that the death agonies of capitalism have included two world wars between 1914 and 1945, which involved the premature deaths of millions of working people. Any serious study of the socio – economic situation in the early decades of the 20th century will reveal the profound crisis of relative over production and the mass unemployment in Europe and North America which preceded these wars. On a bourgeois ideological (and therefore superficial) level these two wars appeared to be the results of democratic governments standing up to the militarism and fascism of Germany. However, this view misses the real underlying essence of these struggles which lay in the need of rival capitalist alliances for domination of markets and sources of raw materials. Such domination was and still is, necessary in order for capitalist concerns to continue to produce for profit and thus not only preserve their capital but increase it. Under the capitalist mode of production some sections of humanity have to die in order for others to live. Some sections of humanity have to be robbed of their resources for others to consume them.

Despite these 20th century death agony sacrifices of humanity, once again the capitalist system, driven by the greed of its elites has created huge levels of poverty and environmental degradation. Once again the capitalist system by its total domination, denies direct access to adequate food, water and shelter to millions of people around the globe. Once again the capitalist mode of production is unable to profitably employ millions of people even in its most wealthy centres of capital accumulation. Yet again its elites surround themselves with armed bodies of men to keep what they consider as ‘order’ in their countries when it is clearly a serious disorder of the system when their own citizens cannot obtain or maintain an adequate standard of living. Demanding and struggling for the right to be able to provide adequate resources for satisfactory eating, sleeping, making and mating is obviously a species necessity which the capitalist elite now consider a crime. For a few (the one per cent) capitalism is the perfect mode of production, for a further group of hangers on it is an acceptable mode.

However, from the perspective of humanity as a whole capitalism is failing the first requirements for species survival – direct access to adequate eating, sleeping, making, and mating within an unpolluted environment. Capitalism has frequently, and correctly, been condemned morally, but it is own economic logic – production for profit and capital accumulation – also condemns it as a mode of production for humanities survival into the uncertain future we face.

R. Ratcliffe (May 2016)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, capitalism, co-operation, Critique, dispossession, Nationalism, Revolutionary-Humanism | Leave a comment

THE FETISHISATION OF TIME.

Posted on April 11, 2016 by stutteringsteps

This article is a departure from my usual practice of commenting on contemporary social and political issues from an anti-capitalist and revolutionary humanist perspective. Although, as the reader will see, the topic here chosen is also intrinsically connected to the functioning of the capitalist mode of production. I therefore hope that the unusual choice of subject matter which follows doesn’t disappoint too many of those who regularly visit this blog. The catalyst for my departure has been a long winter of viewing television documentaries headed up by scientists, academics and other specialists who, whatever else their expertise comprises of, have clearly not understood the applicability of at least one key concept they continually use – ‘time’.

I have elsewhere dealt with the frequent application by ‘experts’ of human values and motives to non human species, a facile habit known as anthropomorphism. For example frequent statements such as; ‘This animal is choosing the best mate in order to pass on its genes’ – as if an animal was aware of biology or the implications of DNA and any genetic possibilities. Even most humans don’t mate on that basis. The process of selective genetic breeding among humans, known as Eugenics, never really became popular – and for good reason. The reality for humans and animals is that ‘attraction and sexual activity is selective enough and can feel terrific’!! No other motive is possible for animals, and caste and class apart, the same goes for human beings. The pleasure of mutual attraction and sex is the motive which has ensured species reproduction alongside much of species evolution.

That topic aside, in this article I wish to discuss in more detail, the repeated inaccurate use and application of the concept of ‘time’. The habit of abstracting and detaching the concept of ‘time’ (as with other concepts) away from its human origins and limitations and attaching it to nature and/or the universe seems to be proliferating. In my experience, this practice is most frequently exhibited by cosmologists and astronomical theoreticians in academia and the media. Popular science based programmes on television and radio are littered with examples such as; ‘…since time began – billions of years ago . etc…’ ; ‘The history of the first stars stretches back in time to the beginning of the universe, etc.’

Stars having a ‘chronological record of events’ (ie a ‘history’) is sloppy thinking enough, but the incidence of such expressions concerning the begining of ‘time’ are just too frequent to think they are individual lapses. They appear to have become part of some firmly embedded trend, at least within the popular media. The avowed purpose of such TV programmes is to simply update the listener or viewer with the latest ‘facts’ and educate them beyond their current knowledge base. However, too often what is confidently communicated to the audience  – as fact –  is no more than speculation and imagination. Take yet another bizarre example introducing one popular commentator of a TV series entitled ‘Wonders of the Universe‘; “Discover the role of time in creating both the universe and ourselves”. ‘Time created the universe and humans’ – really!

The real ‘wonder of the universe’ is that this sort of fanciful nonsense, gets past the editorial staff. However, we should not forget, that under the capitalist mode of production, these programmes also serve a number of other functional purposes. Purposes such as facilitating or advancing the careers of individuals, justifying the funding of the institutions which produce research on these topics and promoting the image of a serious dimension to television broadcasting. They also represent a small but significant personification of the ideological hegemony required under the bourgeois mode of production.  While they pocket their substantial incomes and gaze at the heavens, not only are these professors of esoteric speculations uncritical of the dominant mode of production, which cripples the lives of millions, but they are mostly uncritical with regard to the theories and assumptions made within their own discipline.

Such media-elevated individuals are part of the capitalist systems spectrum of ‘experts’ which we lowly workers are meant to look up to, learn from and trust. They are paid to interpret the world in which we live for us and invite us to accept their conclusions as scientific and thus unbiased. Such ‘authorities’ (economic, political and scientific) are granted access to mass media outlets to publicise their views, precisely because they serve such a deferential inducing purpose. They are there primarily because they do not question the ideology and practice of system they are a part of. While we the viewers are supposed to be dazzled by the size and intricacy of their multi-million pound (or Dollar) instruments (Telescopes and Hadron Colliders [£6 billion or $9 billion.] A few hospitals could be built for that!) and are reassured by their confident assertions, they draw comfort from their present status and future pensions. However, to increase the general level of scepticism among ordinary folk, which I suggest is important, let us consider how ‘expert’ they really are with regard to their use of the concept of time.

Capitalism and time.

Undoubtedly, time is a crucially important element within the bourgeois mode of production. The business cliché ‘time is money’ openly demonstrates its roots in the capitalist production process. It is a process in which profits (or losses) are dependent upon production times, delivery dates, turnover intervals and investment periods – all measured by units (minutes, hours, days, weeks, months and years) commonly denoted as parts of time.  As the capitalist mode of production has developed so too has the importance of accurate time keeping. Clocking in and out of work, working round the clock, time and motion studies, have all become part and parcel of capitalist economic life. The concept of time and its length measured by ever smaller intervals has been predominantly shaped by the needs of the capitalist classes in pursuit of wealth and profits.

The rapid motion of machines, as with calculating the exact duration of processes, means that the measurement of motion (time) has been increasingly honed to a high degree of sophistication. Under the capitalist mode of production, revolutions per minute have been constantly increased, millisecond transfer speeds in communications have become necessarily routine. In every aspect of life, the modern capitalist world is dominated and obsessed with time. It cannot be surprising, therefore, that this centuries-old obsession with the economic importance of time has permeated all aspects of bourgeois culture, from so-called ‘common sense’ and carried into the realm of science. Time as with many other concepts needed by the current mode of production is assumed to have a natural and eternal existence.

This idea that the concept of time has an existence entirely independent of humanity and the mode of production has a long and contradictory history but as noted, this actually ahistorical perspective reaches it its most sophisticated, speculative and esoteric forms in the 20th century. It has become something of a fixation. A number of celebrated thinkers, both pre and post Einstein, have assisted in this process of detaching the concept of time from its purely human origins and purposes and envisioning time as a product of the universe itself. A more recent leading intellectual figure in the promotion of this perspective is the renowned author Stephen Hawkins. For various reasons I shall take Professor Hawkins as a suitable modern embodiment of this trend.

An even briefer history of time.

Steven Hawkins in his book ‘A brief History of Time’ quotes the centuries old St Augustine as writing ‘that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe’.  Professor Hawkins seems to agree with this assertion for he goes on to argue that; “As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe.” The first part of that sentence is interesting; “..the concept of time has no meaning before…”. No meaning before what? He seems to be half way to grasping the real ‘relativity’ of the concept of ‘time’ but then fails to draw the obvious conclusion that it did not exist before a certain stage in the evolution of humanity!

He later adds “We may say that time had a beginning at the big bang,” The concept of the ‘big bang’ itself is another imaginative speculation, resting on inferences derived from sparse inter-galactic evidence which may in future, as in the past, be differently interpreted. Yet it is here asserted as fact along with his assertion that it marks the moment when ‘time’ began! These examples illustrate the fact that even highly acclaimed scholars can fetishise the concept of time and assume it has existed almost for ever.  Despite the fact that he makes a link between the concept of time and the existence of a material universe which is moving, Professor Hawkins fails to draw conclusions which might undermine his fully absorbed bourgeois assumptions about time. Unlike Einstein for example, who actually drew attention to the fact that;

“..time-values can be regarded essentially as magnitudes (results of measurements) capable of observation.” (‘Relativity, the Special and General Theory. Chapter 3)

According to Einstein, time values are the results of measurements made by observations.  Of course they are! Only humans are capable of measurement and observation! Planets, stars and Galaxies obviously are not. I hesitate at this point to delve further into Professor Einsteins later, often contradictory, use of the concept of time (space/time continuums etc) as if it were in fact more than an imaginitive conceptual tool with the inevitable ‘relative’ limitations and inaccuracies any human concept or tool is bound to have. In passing I merely note that he too asserted the following;

“The idea of the independent existence of space and time can be expressed dramatically in this way: If matter were to disappear, space and time alone would remain behind...” (Einstein ‘Relativity, Special and General’  Appendix V. emphasis added RR)

After considering the following paragraph and the next section, the reader will draw their own conclusions from the above imaginative statement supposing what would be left after the disappearance of matter. However, rather than pursuing Mr Einsteins thoughts further in this article, I return to the assertions of Mr Hawkins. The mistake Mr Hawkins makes, and before him St Augustine, among others, is to assume that any concept could exist before the creators of concepts  (the human species) existed. The concept of time by definition could not have existed before humans conceived of it. Measured by the probable number of the planetary revolutions of the Earth, before human life evolved to the level required for any form of time reification or fetishism to take hold of the human intellect, the ‘history of time’ is indeed brief.

What did exist before humanity evolved, as far as we presently understand it, is a planetary system in which spinning objects we call now planets (instead of gods) along with other miscellaneous gallactic debris, revolve around other spinning objects (sun’s and stars) within a spiralling galaxy. Is it not obvious then, that before humans existed there were no minutes, no seconds, no days, no years, no centuries – in fact – no ideas? What existed before humanity was not time, but repetitive circular, elliptical or irregular movement of matter in motion, which we now generally describe as spinning (complete with periodic wobbles) and orbits.

A short – but real – history of time.

When humanity reached the level of intellect to recognise, articulate, investigate and record the repetitive patterns of this objective motion, it created the terms we now call in English language – days, nights and years. From that period humans began to count and record the effects of the spinning and orbital motion, which lacking suitable instruments, they for a long period inaccurately observed. Only from that stage can we say that ‘time’ as an important concept existed. Despite a lack of technical innovations, early humanity had invented the concept of time by counting (or measuring) the movement of observable matter. At first this measuring was crude and far from universal, but experience along with technological intelligence and ability added sophistication to this measuring and recording.

Sundials allowed the splitting of daylight periods into segments which became popularly known as hours – but not all communities chose to split a day into 12 or 24 hours. Earth orbits were given the title of years and divided into months and days but again – not all early human communities chose to divide each earth orbit into 12 periods or months. Some in fact calculated by lunar orbits. For a long period there was no agreement on how the concept of time should be callibrated and regularised.  Even the number of days once chosen caused the eventual creation of leap years to bring the choice into closer (but not exact) synchronisation with the real pattern of orbital  rotation. These facts alone should caution against any ahistorical use of the concept of time.

With the invention of water clocks and sand timers it became possible for the daily subdivisions to be extended to cloudy days and even nights. However as noted earlier, the obsession with time only fully matured with the full development of the capitalist mode of production and it’s complete absorption within bourgeois culture. Mechanical timepieces progressively led the way to accurate commercial navigation, close-run railway time-tables, and factory clocks. From all this actual history it emerges that time is nothing more than the human measurement of movement whether that is the movement of sun, water, planets, pendulums controlled and weight driven toothed wheels, spring driven mechanical escapements or battery induced oscillations within electronic microchips. Now in view of the above what should the reader make of Einsteins assertion that; “If matter were to disappear, space and time alone would remain behind.”

Having said all this the concept of time and the instruments developed to record it’s passing can be very useful to humanity, even though they are currently of more use to the owners of industrial, commercial and financial capital. But as with any other concept and tool it can be misused particularly when, amid global, regional, and local levels of poverty, vast quantities of human and material resources are swallowed up in non-entertainment speculation and experimentation concerning the so-called origins of time and the even more ludicrous fantasies concerning the possibilities of time travel. So back to the subject science, the cultural absorber of much wealth, and its too frequent use of so-called absolutes.

 Science and time.

In this section I feel it is worth briefly indicating another problem with the bourgeois induced assumption that the concept of time has an independent and invariable existence. If we accept that time in  the modern period is the more or less precise measurement of movement by using regulated rotating or oscillating instruments known as clocks or other forms of measuring instrument, then certain implications should logically follow. We should be constantly aware of the relative nature of anything which utilises this conceptual tool as a basis for any form of abstract speculation. Take for example the allied concept of speed. Speed is a practical based concept also referred to constantly, almost obsessively, since the 20th century, when even the speed of light was estimated and assumed absolute.

Speed is calculated by measuring a set linear distance travelled within a set amount of time. But speed calculations depend upon the measurement and relationship of these two human constructs – and another – number!. In the case of speed we have linear movement measured in one agreed concept – distance – usually reckoned in units of feet, metres,  miles or kilometres; measured against another agreed concept – time – usually reckoned in minutes or hours. And of course this is given a numerical value – which of course is another human concept. The calculation of speed – even the much vaunted speed of light – therefore depends upon these three human concepts and in addition cannot even approach being precise without ‘relatively’ accurate instruments made by humans – no two of which are exactly the same in accuracy – and none of which pre-date the 15th century, let alone humanity!

All this should be obvious, but obviously it is not! It is clear that the use of imagination in science, can lead well away from the obvious, to ideological, self-serving, stipend-achieving speculation. So travelling back in time – at whatever rate of motion – is therefore complete Holywood nonsense as most sane people realise. Even reversing the direction all the things that have moved on either by orbital movement or evolution – which of course is impossible, except in imagination – would not reverse this procession.  That is not how the natural world works. The real world works by moving or evolving and not according to imaginative counting, sophisticated equations or speculative fantasy. Yet, as in the past, some areas of modern science exist on very little other than imagination, complex abstract equations and speculative assertions.

Although there are more important immediate issues to deal with, I suggest it is important for revolutionary-humanists and anti-capitalists to learn to deal with the real world, and not be drawn into dangling even one foot into a view constructed by the imagination of numerous bourgeois professionals. In the modern bourgeois era, much of astronomical science, as with history, economics and to some extent biology and anthropology is a product of imagination, speculation and assertion. Theories are too often tested by the best argument or the most influential contender, rather than observation and experiment. Even with observation and experiment what is often proposed are unproven hypotheses presented as theoretical facts. Observations can be selected in order to fit the theoretical framework preferred by the observer – and in too many cases they are!  That is until they are exposed as nothing more than self-serving, plausible fictions.

Far too many so-called scientific assertions when seriously examined are also nothing more than functional myths. That is to say myths that conserve the ‘status quo’ and thus serve a very definate social, professional or political function. In addition, as Thomas Khun broadly observed (in ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’) most scientists absorb and conserve the paradigms and theories learned as students and maintain them despite the fact they may no longer serve the originally intended purpose due to contradictory evidence. At a certain point a revolution in thinking becomes necessary as well as a revolution in practice. But of course, as in other realms, (such as economics and politics) not all those employed in these fields are open to new evidence. So I suggest it is best that we develop a healthy scepticism and keep our ‘crap detectors’ well tuned.

Roy Ratcliffe  (April 2016)

Posted in capitalism, Critique, Revolutionary-Humanism | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

ISLAMO-FASCISM?

Posted on March 23, 2016 by stutteringsteps

It has become popular in some left circles to label Islamic movements which bomb and kill as fascist or at least fascistic in their outlook and actions. In contrast others on the left have seen Islamic fundamentalism as a chaotic and contradictory anti – imperialist movement of the oppressed. Both opinions are mistaken and dangerous. Despite some similar characteristics to past movements, such assertions are superficial, partial and therefore far from adequate. Indeed, such partial labelling is part of the current problem as well as seriously misleading.

It is true that Fascism was brutal, murderous and sought to ruthlessly gain territory by armed conflict, as do militant Islamic fundamentalists.  But so too did most capitalist states during their colonialist and imperialist stages. It is also true that fascists genocidally eliminated human communities who opposed them in occupying resources they wished to control, as many militant Islamists do. But so too did the North American governments with regard to the native Americans, the Spanish in South America, the British in various parts of Africa and more recently the Zionists in Palestine, to name but a few.

It is therefore not good enough to latch on to specific characteristics which are similar and then go on to draw general conclusions – and sweeping ones at that! To my mind those on the left who do so are demonstrating their immaturity as well as frequent sectarianism. A much more detailed  consideration of the phenomena of Fascism and religious fundamentalism, (of which Islamism is a part), is necessary. More detail and accuracy is necessary to make adequate sense of the world we presently live in and to know how best to react to these changes.  The treatment of such socio-political developments needs to be thorough.

To be thorough it also needs to include an assessment of the utter failure of the left to create an alternative pole of attraction to religious radicalism and to the new forms of right-wing radicalism.  In this regard oppression and disgust need to be viewed with peripheral vision and not narrowly focused only upon economic deprivation. Some of the most militant and aggressive are not from poor backgrounds, nor are they all those who have failed to prosper under the system. This wider viewpoint is particularly relevant, not only with reference to Islamic fundamentalism, but also to the reaction against this phenomenon and immigration both of which are assisting the appearance of neo-fascism.

The contrast between Fascism and Islamism.

Fascism is much more than simply being brutal and intolerant to those it considers the ‘other’. From the period of the Egyptian Pharaohs, Persian autocrats, through the Greek colonialist empire of Alexander, and on to the expansion of the Roman empire, practically every elite controlling societies – at one time or another – behaved in that way. Incidentally beheading, burning, crucifixion along with concentration camps, are not recent inventions of modern depraved individuals and movements. Such inhuman brutality has been in the repertoire of Catholic and Protestant establishments and government agency’s over centuries.

Fascism since its emergence in the 20th century has predominantly been, nationalist, imperialist, racist and sexist. But has also been more. Fascism, as a modern form of totalitarianism, has sought to actively structure and manage the inevitable struggle between capital and labour. Fascism in its modern form is a product of the capitalist system in crisis. Its purpose, when it first arose, was to reconcile and regulate the class struggle – within the capitalist mode of production.  This was its attraction to the capitalist class particularly during the 1920’s and 30’s periods of crisis and class conflict. And this regulatory function was also the reason that Fascism was attractive to large sections of the working class – when this class also felt existentially threatened. So the past, present and any future danger of Fascism is that it can be attractive to broad sections of the working and middle classes – when they see no radical alternative.

In contrast, one of the weakness of Islamic fundamentalism is that it is not attractive to broad sections of the working and middle classes – even in countries dominated by Islamic ideology. Islamic fundamentalism is only a beacon for a small proportion of Muslims and an even smaller proportion of converts to Islam. It is true that Islamic fundamentalism in the form of ISIL and other such groups have become expansionists (now in the forming of a territorial Caliphate) but they are clearly not nationalist, not racist and not imperialist in the normal senses of the words. For nationalism, racism and Imperialism were the means by which the dominant form of capital (which was interest bearing), controlled by the banks, sought to dominate national and international economies via industrial, merchant and interest bearing capital.

Fascism retained a commitment to capitalist manipulation and involvement of big capital in developing production and consumption across the world it sought to conquer and control. On the other hand Islamic fundamentalists seek to create, or rather recreate, a modern version of a Caliphate in which there are no national boundaries, no racist discrimination and no direct commitment to local or global integration and production. Production on a national or global scale requires cultural and religious tolerance and co-operation between peoples. These are three characteristics that fundamentalists such as ISIL abhor.

So like the Caliphates before them the ISIL elite aim to spread religion and consume the world’s wealth, rather than maintain production in order to create it.  So Islamism is not another form of Fascism even if it shares some characteristics with it. Just like Catholicism, Islam is a pre – capitalist form of religious ideology and so is not fit for purpose for the economic structure of modern capitalism, let alone a post-capitalist society. Modern Islamic fundamentalism is simply a militant version of a reactionary form of social ideology with its dualistic mode of thinking and total reliance on superstition and myth for its existence.

The roots of Islamic fundamentalism.

It needs to be remembered that modern Islamic fundamentalism began many decades ago in the Middle East and began as a response to and reaction against capitalist modernity both economically and culturally. Capitalist economics via colonialism and imperialism had dispossessed, and dislocated local economic activity and introduced different cultural values throughout the world. All of which were experienced by the majority population in many middle eastern countries as losses with very little gains to offset these losses. Resentment against this process eventually flowed into anti- colonialist and anti – imperialist movements.

However, political independence, once gained, did not bring economic security and well being. Instead, it brought more of the same but administered by a local elite (often claiming to be socialist) rather than a European imperialist one. Predictably this situation created a disaffected and frustrated working class, even though for a time it also created career pathways for the middle-classes within and without the state. It was during the post-colonial period that a return to the fundamentals of Islam was seen by some Muslims as the antidote to the exploitative practices, corruption in politics and state along with the decadent behaviour of western capitalist culture.

Egypt was a significant arena for the theoretical growth of this fundamentalist phenomena within Islam so it is worth considering some of the ideas which fuelled its growth there. The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, was one expression of disillusionment with the inaptly named Arab Socialism headed by Gamal Nasser in Egypt, but it was not aggressive enough for some Egyptian intellectuals. One such critic was Sayyid Qutb, a secular intellectual who went over to Islamic Fundamentalism. After a visit to the USA he rejected the rampant decadence of capitalism and the political support he saw there for Israel. He therefore called for the creation of a Muslim ‘vanguard’. And in the 1960’s he wrote;

“The forming of this vanguard begins with an individual who believes in the faith coming from God to  mankind; and in him begins the existence of the Islamic society.” (Quoted in ‘Fundamentalisms Observed.’ Martin and Appleby. Page 371.)

After this it cannot be surprising to read that many other such ideas emerged during that period and after. Reflecting a more fatalistic and assertive expression of Islamic aggression is the following statement;

“The Qur’an makes it clear that, whether we want it or not, war is a necessity of existence, a fact of life, so long as there exists in the world, injustice, oppression, capricious ambitions and arbitrary claims….and that is why Islam has recognised war as a lawful and justifiable course for self -defence and restoration of justice, freedom and peace.” (Hammudah Abdalati, ‘Islam in focus’, page 142.)

There is a definite ideological link between those mid-20th century ideas and practices, which runs through Islamic fundamentalism up until the 21st century emergence of ISIL. This latter extract demonstrates both the threat militant Islamism poses (ie ‘war is necessary’) which energises the Islamic extremists, but it also reflects its overall weakness in the 21st century. The Qur’an was written in a period in which a call to engage in a religious war clearly had a chance of success, so much so that  an empire was built upon this call. Islam was not alone in that regard. Indeed, much later the appeals of the Catholic elite for a war against the Muslim occupation of Jerusalem, also found a multinational audience willing to respond and risk their lives on ten such crusades.

The limits of religious fundamentalism.

However, religiously inspired causes – sooner or later – always tend to tear themselves to pieces as they did in the case of Christianity and Islam. The last example of precisely this sectarian outcome was in a 30 years war between Catholic and Protestant elites, for economic and political control of European states. In addition to being irrelevant, such is the nature of modern warfare, that only a combination of industrialised nations now have sufficient state power and resources to conduct a war on the scale necessary to win any serious territorial conflict. It needs to be added that a victory in such total wars is always decidedly Pyrrhic.

The age of religious wars has gone. ISIL’s armed contingents along with its ideology could easily be outflanked as soon a really serious effort was made. Far stronger previous Islamic incarnations, than ISIL were defeated in the past. Even if ISIL managed to cling on to a significant area of territory, Islam and its religious elites have no serious cadres which sufficiently grasp the complexity of productive activity and they also lack a serious economic analysis of capital. As we have seen, Islamic fundamentalism is critical of much of the moral and political attributes engendered by the capitalist mode of production but has nothing else to put in its place except ‘terror’. Its bankruptcy and frustration is evident in its increasing reliance upon devastating acts of terror by individual cells. Its ideology is reformist and reactionary, not revolutionary and progressive.  It cannot unite broad sections of humanity or recruit them to its sectarian cause. Islam in general is also exceptionally reactionary with regard to half the global population – women! Its time has surely past. For example;

“…..Muslim society does not socialise men to win women through love; they are badly equipped to deal with a self determined woman; hence the repulsion and fear that accompany the idea of women’s liberation…..Fathers and husbands feel horrified at their own family and sexual patterns being transformed into western patterns….(which leads to the ) mutilation of the women’s integrity, her reduction  to a few inches of nude flesh whose shapes and forms are photographed ad infinitum with no other goal than profit. While Muslim exploitation of the female is cloaked under veils and hidden behind walls, western exploitation has the bad taste of being bare and  over exposed. (Patina Melissa,  ‘Beyond the Veil’ , page 167)

I hope this brief contribution has assisted the reader to avoid confusing the issues of radical Islamism and Fascism. I suggest  it is important that revolutionary humanists are able to tell the difference and to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of both forms of potential totalitarian dictatorships. This is because both are a threat to the emancipation of all working people from further exploitation, oppression and prejudice. It is also important to recognise that although in the 21st century both Islamic fundamentalism and neo-fascism have roots in the fivefold crisis of the capitalist mode of production, one is actually more dangerous in the long run than the other.

The roots of Fascism and neo-Fascism.

So in the 21st century, there is a potential problem of fascistic developments, (as there was in the 20th). Actually in 2016 it is as yet only neo-fascism. The real threat of neo-fascism and full blown fascism arises from within nations not from within religions. In the 1920’s and 30’s, when the last profound economic and social crisis had sufficiently devastated the lives of millions of working people there arose among them a yearning for a solution to their problems and fears. In Europe other socio-political movements had failed to provide satisfactory solutions to these problems but fascism appeared to offer one. In Europe the fascists tried to give shape and focus to the dissident forces arising from this profound socio-economic crisis. In every country they attracted significant support from workers and capitalists. By offering scapegoats along with a programme of populist and socialist policies, fascists in three European countries (Italy, Germany and Spain) gained sufficient popular support that they succeeded in gaining control of state power.

In Europe and North America particularly we see a similar pattern evolving.  Radical right-wing members of the elite are funding political movements which despite the obvious causes of workers unemployment and poverty – capitalist crisis – scapegoat the immigrants. They pretend to be concerned over the contraction of public services but instead of pointing to the reduction in funding by the pro – capitalist elite they again blame immigrant workers. However, let’s not imitate the ostrich or pretend that this developing situation is entirely the fault of the neo-fascists. Humans are not born racist or fascist, they have to become so. Exactly how and why working people  become so is not a subject for this article.

However, it is a fact that many workers in the nations of Europe are increasingly anxious about being gunned-down or blown up as in Madrid, New York, London, Paris and now Brussels.  They are also concerned about increasing levels of unemployment, low wages or salaries, and suffering from reductions in the quality and availability of social services. Since there is very little believable alternative proposals being offered by the left, then some workers are supporting neo-fascist policies. This and the simplistic response by the politically correct of classifying all these workers as racists and fascists, are dangerous developments. Apart from a relatively few determined right-wingers and racists, many people are learning and choosing to be racist and neo-fascist out of a heightened sense of vulnerability and the perceived needs of self-preservation. If the real culprit for their problems is not sufficiently and convincingly pointed out to them, then it cannot be surprising if many of them orientate toward the neo-fascists and blame a scapegoat.

Is History repeating itself?

Despite the differences in technology, is not too difficult to recognise that the present economic and social crisis bears a considerable resemblance to the one in  the 1920’s and 1930’s. At the economic level it is characterised by a crisis of relative-overproduction. At the social and political level it is characterised by failing states. Once again there is a clear yearning for a solution to the existential fears of millions of people. There is also a growing anger over the continued disintegration of living standards, which will inevitably explode in violence – sooner or later. Nor is it too difficult to recognise the fact that extreme right-wing political movements are gaining acceptance in Europe North America and elsewhere as they did in that previous crisis. Sadly what also seems to be a similar pattern is the role the ‘left’ is taking with regard to these problematic developments.

The soft left is too committed to social democracy (ie democratic capitalism) to be sufficiently radical to defend the living standards of working people. This means they cannot act to focus the rising discontent in a progressive way in order to curtail even the worst excesses of the owners of productive, merchant and finance capital. This leaves the debate open for the demagogues to exploit. The situation of the so called ‘hard’ left means it is also currently unable to act in this capacity. It is so split into rival political dogmatic sects that it cannot even act as a focus for all those who recognise the need to go beyond capital. There is an urgent need for the left to engage in self-criticism with regard to its own failure and the resurgence of neo-fascism. It also needs to adopt radical attitudes and policies which attract working people rather leaving them to become the dupes and tools of the those who are intent to establish totalitarian forms of capitalism.

What is desperately needed in the present situation are non-sectarian groups of people who are capable of explaining to the wider community the difference between Islamism and Fascism. This explanation needs to include an assessment of their reactionary content and the reasons why neither can solve the economic and social problems created by the domination of the capitalist mode of production. It also needs to be made clear that western neo-liberal domination and armed interventions in the middle east, along with austerity in Europe, are not simply the result of misguided and heartless politicians and military chiefs. They are also the symptoms of the unfolding logic of the capitalist mode of production in the 21st century – the need for resources, markets and profits. These symptoms, therefore, cannot be overcome by a change in the politicians or the complexion of political parties in government. That is only tinkering with the symptoms, whilst supporting or ignoring the cause. These symptoms can only be removed by a revolutionary transformation of the mode of production to a post-capitalist form.

Roy Ratcliffe  (March 2016)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, capitalism, Critique, dispossession, Economics, Egypt, Fundamentalism, neo-liberalism, Politics, Religion, Revolutionary-Humanism, Sectarianism, The State | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

IN – OUT – SHAKE IT ALL ABOUT!

Posted on March 15, 2016 by stutteringsteps

When I was a young chap (before television, let alone the internet) there used to be at celebratory gatherings a silly collective song/dance called the Hoky Coky. Forming a circle the participants of this silly, but harmless, nonsense were encouraged to sing along with the music. The words included the following; “you put your left leg in, your left leg out; you do the Hoky Coky and shake it all about”.  All the parts of the human anatomy were progressively instructed by the compare to be moved toward the centre of the circle and taken out again in time to the music, before ‘he’ (yes usually a he) called an end to the activity or the band stopped playing. To my mind this vintage form of keeping busy by fruitless ‘entertainment’ stands as a cultural analogue to the political encouragement the working classes are now having from the elite. Working people are being encouraged to put their efforts, time and votes into deciding whether to place themselves in and out of a capitalist Europe.

A number of years ago workers were encouraged by a section of the pro-capitalist elite to vote in  – so things will get better. Now they are to be encouraged by a section of the elite to vote out – so that things will get better. Does the hollowness of that promise ring any bells? Should we be trusting any of them? To my mind its another invitation to a political game of Hoky Coky (or should that be Hocus Pocus) dressed up as a question of profound political importance – for everyone! The six-month (or more) debate on ‘IN’ or ‘OUT’ of Europe, dubbed ‘Brexit’, began in the UK in late February 2016 and doubtless will continue to dominate the media in Europe and elsewhere for some time.  Despite the steady disintegration of the capitalist dominated European Economic Community and the crumbling socio-economic collapse of the various nation-states of the world – including the most advanced – the British media, in particular has focussed public attention on the outcome of a fairly useless referendum.

Is it not a remarkable fact that the issue of in or out of the European project has never been one instigated or generated by working people or the poor? There have never been petitions or demonstrations generated initially from working class organisations demanding the joining or leaving of the EEC. The question of being in or out of the economic and political organisation of European states has always been one that the capitalist and pro-capitalist elite have initiated and in some cases sustained. The topic is also one which has divided these elites on the basis of their perceived interests. Some have calculated that they would benefit from being in the ‘club’ others that they would be worse. Each side of this elite-promoted disagreement have sought to involve others including the working classes and poor (and their organisations) as voting fodder to assist whichever outcome they prefer.

In or out of Europe, the world will still be in the grip of a fundamental economic, financial, social, ecological and moral crisis, in which the elite ‘system’ will be used to impoverish the working classes and poor. The only difference to being in or out will be which set of finance-capitalists and bureaucrats will be at the forefront of orchestrating the squeeze on the living standards and welfare of the poorest in society. For this reason ‘in or out’ of the European Economic Community, the working-classes, white collar and blue along with sections of the middle-classes will be fighting not only to prevent further deterioration of their standards of living, but in many cases for their actual lives. The working classes and the poor would do well to concentrate their time and energy in achieving solidarity with each other than solidarity with one or other sections of the pro-capitalist establishment. Because ‘in or out’ our societies will continue to be ‘shaken about’ as the rich and their representatives defend their privileges with all means possible.

Roy Ratcliffe (March 2016)

Posted in capitalism, Critique, Economics, Finance, neo-liberalism, Politics, The State | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

SECTARIANISM IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR – 2.

Posted on February 3, 2016 by stutteringsteps

Revolutionary illusions and delusions.

Despite the fact that many participants in the Spanish Civil War were convinced  they were engaged in an anti-capitalist revolution, the reality as it unfolded in the 1930’s, demonstrated something different. Events proved in 1930’s Spain that an anti-capitalist revolution was never more than an ideologically inspired illusion for some and a deliberately promoted delusion by others. In most cases  an anti-capitalist aspiration was nothing more than a politically induced fantasy!  In Spain, as elsewhere, during this entire period, the factors necessary for a post-capitalist society were not in existence. In addition, it seems clear that a basic level of understanding of revolutionary transformations was deficient if not entirely missing from much of the ‘left’ public discourse within Spain as well as internationally. To have a chance of being successful, an anti-capitalist revolution requires the following.

First the mode of production must have ceased to represent the needs and aspirations of a majority of those who are part and parcel of its economic, social and political fabric. Second, sufficient socio-economic elements of a new potential mode of production need to have already materialised. Third, any general dissatisfaction with the existing state of affairs, has to sufficiently seep into the ranks of the ruling elites to cause serious intellectual and practical splits among them. Fourth, the dissatisfaction among the general population requires the more or less rapid development of a common focus, a generally shared goal, large numbers of activists and crucially a more humane practice than those who are determined to defend the outmoded system.  None of these factors were more than partially fulfilled.

The end result of this lack and the above-noted illusions (along with the divisions yet to be discussed) was not a social revolution but a political polarisation of society and a descent into a bitter civil war.  From very early on the struggles within the Spanish Civil War quickly degenerated into a veritable holocaust of death and destruction. As we shall see, this outcome was a result which the sectarians among the anarchists, communists and socialists played an active part in promoting. It was a tragedy that has haunted the collective memory of Spain for decades and it should not be hard to understand that it still has a degree of contemporary relevance – for sectarian battles continue within the contemporary class war.

A sectarian war within a class war.

It is in the early stages of what became a civil war that the previously noted political differences on the left – including the revolutionary left – became transformed from a battle of ideas into direct physical combat. Some militia groups attached to Anarchist groups and socialist groups began to compete to implement agrarian reform by the forcible dispossession of large landowners possessions. The class war intensified. In other areas of Spain ancient hatreds against economic oppression and exploitation spilled over into assassinations of hated figures whilst other groups in other places burned churches and killed priests. In many places local self governing committees were set up to control roads and communications networks.

As noted, there were socialist groups, trade union groups, anarchist groups and non-affiliated groups who had their different agendas and modes of operation. Such diversity might have been a creative advantage offsetting the fact of no centralised control by involving ever greater numbers in becoming self-active, self motivated and organised. But sadly this was not to be. The dominant sectarian tradition within these left forces, meant that each section thought their ideas and practices were the ‘correct’ ones and should dominate proceedings. Thus began an internecine struggle for resources and domination among the forces opposed to Franco and the nationalists.

Like many other internationalists, (famous and otherwise), the writer George Orwell had joined a brigade as a fighter in the Spanish Civil War. His experiences there led him to make the following observation concerning left infighting, in the book  ‘Homage to Catalonia’ based upon his time there;

“In Barcelona there had been a series of more or less unofficial brawls in the working class suburbs. CNT and UGT members had been murdering one another for some time last; on several occasions the murders had been followed by huge, provocative funerals that were quite deliberately intended to stir up political hatred.” (Orwell. Homage…. Chapter 8.)

He observed that after only 6 months of fighting, the republican government had to resort to conscription which indicated a lack of support and the lack of a clear positive purpose which would encourage a sustained flood of volunteers. He also noted that politically conscious people were far more aware of the internecine struggle between Anarchists and Communists than of the fight against Franco. That direct experience in Spain led Orwell to gradually explore the logic of the system of political sectarianism with full control of state power. Two of his subsequent works, ‘Animal Farm’ and ‘1984’, both in different styles, in literary form, laid bare the internal structure of the Stalinist form of this schismatic aberration.

But this sectarian struggle of militant left political activists against each other was not the only debilitating problem created by political turmoil in Spain. Another dimension of the sectarianism in Spain was in relationship to those who – for whatever reason – stayed neutral or were critical of the ideas and methods of some of the extremist militia men. Paul Preston in his well researched book, ‘The Spanish Holocaust’ noted the following with regard to the make up and actions of some of the armed patrols.

“Thus the armed members of the patrols were made up of a mixture of extremists committed to the elimination of the old bourgeois order and some recently released common criminals. In the main, they acted arbitrarily, searching and often looting houses, arresting people denounced as right-wing and often killing them. As a result, by early August, over five hundred civilians had been murdered in Barcelona.” (Preston. …The Spanish Holocaust. page 228.)

Paul Preston devotes a whole chapter in the above-noted book to this ‘gratuitous’ violence on the left which although, as he points out, was much less than the right violence, was nevertheless considerable. There were also many extra-judicial assassinations by the left of other left personnel. Arbitrary searches, looting and arresting on the basis of denunciations without some kind of transparent, accountable process or proof was no better than what happened under the previous form of aristocratic authority and later under the Fascist. I suggest this behaviour was part of the ‘muck of ages’, noted by Marx!

The muck of ages.

I have elsewhere written on the comment by Marx on the need for the revolutionary class to rid itself of the muck of ages. [See Marx and the Muck of Ages.] Here I will draw attention to another remark Marx made which is relevant to this context. It is with regard to the consciousness of those who see the eventual necessity of revolution against the capitalist mode of production. He argued that;

“A class must be formed…which does not claim a particular wrong, but wrong in general…a sphere of society which claims no traditional status, but only human status…This…as a class is the proletariat. (Marx. Contribution to Critique of Hegel’ s Philosophy of Right.)

In other words the working class, or at least large sections of it, need to understand that to be successful they need to rise above their immediate own class interests. Their own freedom from oppression and exploitation can only be achieved by ending all forms of systemic oppression and exploitation. A revolution against the domination of capital means more than a struggle for their own immediate protection or improvement under the capitalist mode of production. Revolutionary workers need to see themselves as acting on behalf of all sections which suffer under capitalism.

Additionally, a post-capitalist revolution needs to be a thoroughgoing social revolution not a political revolution. In short the working classes seeking to free themselves are in effect representing the future for all humanity.  In this endeavour they must do all they can to represent and defend those unable to defend themselves. More than that they need to do their utmost to gain support not only from those already convinced and committed, but from those who are at first neutral or even for a time passively hostile.

This realisation was clearly not the case for the left in Spain during this period.  Much of the left in Spain seemed not to realise – or not to care – that anyone who they robbed, tortured or killed unfairly or unnecessarily had friends and family. Many of those family and friends were turned against those perpetrating or justifying such arbitrary violence on the left as well as the right.  Such extreme incidents, once set in motion on the left, not only acted as a barrier to some people from joining the anti-capitalist or republican struggle but such ‘dawn-squad’ groups acted as a pole of attraction for those who actually enjoyed unleashing violence.

Indeed as the civil war developed another twist was added to this downward sectarian spiral. When Franco’s side committed bombing atrocities and killed people, the extremists on the republican side wreaked violence not on the guilty, who simply flew away, but on right wing people close by who were innocent of any crime. This indiscriminate violence was mirrored by the Franco-led nationalists who also took revenge on innocent republicans when they could not easily get at the perpetrators of crimes. On the republican side as well as the nationalists side people, were increasingly detained, tortured and assassinated simply because of their political affiliation – even if they had not committed any direct injury or act of aggression.

This inhuman degeneration could not but negatively effect the chances of winning the civil war, let alone transforming the war into a revolution.  The extremists on all sides, left, right and centre saw everyone who did not agree with them as not deserving to be treated as human beings, but as pests to be eliminated. This included turning on each other for the slightest doctrinal difference. Outstanding among these sectarian thugs on the republican side were some of those affiliated to the Stalinist Communist parties, sections of the anarchists, some of the bourgeois liberals and some left socialists. Outstanding purveyors of depravity on the nationalist side were the Falange, the North African brigades,  the Foreign Legion and some Catholic clergy and of course Franco.

So it is a matter of historical record that sectarians on all side’s tortured, raped, stole, lied, cheated, murdered and betrayed. In an important sense it matters little that the side associated with Franco’s nationalists outdid by 3 to 1 the inhumanity of the republican side. The result was that millions who might have been won to a genuine revolutionary transition, stayed neutral, became critical or even in some cases swapped sides. The unfolding of this sectarian depravity and its sustained virulence was one of the important factors which destined the class struggle for a change in the mode of production in Spain to be deflected and thus defeated. The anti-capitalist struggle simply disgraced itself and was deflected away to be replaced by a war between democracy and Fascism.

As a consequence, even the transition to a open civil war was to the disadvantage of the republican side and to the advantage of Franco and the nationalists. In such circumstances and under such a combination of conditions, how could it be otherwise? And given the conditions of Spanish life at the time, most of this disastrous outcome could have been predicted, because 90 years previously Karl Marx, – who some of the sectarians claimed to follow – wrote the following;

“These conditions of life, which different generations find in existence, decide also whether or not the periodically recurring revolutionary convulsions will be strong enough to overthrow the basis of the entire existing system. And if these material elements of a complete revolution are not present (namely, on the one hand the existing productive forces, on the other the formation of a revolutionary mass, which revolts not only against separate conditions of society up until then, but against the very ‘production of life’ till then, the ‘total activity’ on which it was based), then as far as practical development is concerned, it is absolutely immaterial whether the idea of this revolution has been expressed a hundred times already…” (Marx. German Ideology.)

It needs to be recognised that the revolutionary masses in  Spain, and that includes those who self-appointed themselves to leadership positions, were not clear on the previously noted requirements. They could not go beyond or rise above trying to settle old scores, wreak arbitrary vengeance or satisfy their own particular conditions or sectarian perspectives. It is also clear that the other part of the ‘necessary material elements’, the existing productive forces, were insufficiently developed in Spain at the time to sustain a post-capitalist mode of production. However, the latter requirement might have perhaps been developed if the former (the muck of ages) had not been present. But it was.

Concluding remarks.

So in effect the underlying class struggle element within the Spanish Civil War (as it was during the Second World War) became diverted away from a social revolution against the capitalist mode of production, into its opposite. Despite a profound crisis of the capitalist mode of production working class energies were deflected and directed into a struggle between two tendencies among the national and international bourgeoisie; in fact three tendencies if we include the Stalinist state officials as among those dedicated to continuing capital (state owned) and maintaining wage-labour.

In the 20th century working people, were drawn into a global struggle between the democratically inclined bourgeois classes and the undemocratically inclined; between the State-capitalist Fascist and the State-capitalist Stalinist elite and the Liberal Democratic capitalist state elite. Workers were again drawn into killing each other – on mass – for the purpose of being exploited by one ruling class or another Their fate was to be used as cannon fodder in order to become the wage-slaves of Fascism, Stalinism or Liberalism.

Undeniably, sectarianism played an instrumental role in sowing illusions and divisions among working people. This in turn assisted the bourgeoisie in undermining and diverting of the struggle against capital.  It is a historical fact, still with contemporary relevance, that the relative small size of ruling elites requires them to be able to divide those they seek to conquer and/or rule. The cliché ‘divide and rule’ is no less relevant by being repeated add nauseum. Left sectarianism, once injected into working class struggles, created another division conveniently erected and maintained by the left itself.  The ruling elite in Spain led by Franco were thus materially helped by left sectarianism as well as by the military support provided by Hitler and Mussolini.

Finally, in any serious crisis of the capitalist mode of production, it helps the ruling elite to invent or create an existential ‘enemy of the people’ in order to invite or compel working ‘people’ to fight for the capitalist system rather than against it. The 20th century saw the rise of Fascist state-capitalism and Bolshevik state capitalism both of which served to deflect the struggle against capital into one of support. In the 21st century the evolution of militant Islamic Fundamentalism creates another potential diversion of working class energies and creativity into defending neo-liberal capitalism instead of opposing it. And of course injecting the poison of sectarianism into the working class struggle remains the default characteristic of many of those considering themselves anti-capitalist.

Roy Ratcliffe (February 2016.)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, capitalism, Critique, Marx, neo-liberalism, Politics, Reformism, Sectarianism | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

SECTARIANISM IN THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR – 1.

Posted on January 26, 2016 by stutteringsteps

In any serious struggles, particularly in the case of wars, the victors invariably have the means to ensure that their version of what took place is the one that dominates the historical record – at least for a considerable time. This is no less true of the Spanish Civil War than any other such comparable event. The victory for Franco and his military, monarchist, clerical and bourgeois allies ensured that for decades the numerous episodes of this battle between contending forces in 20th century Spain, were distorted in favour of flattering the victors. The brutality of Franco’s Nationalist forces was both played down or justified where it could not be absolutely covered up. In contrast the crimes committed by the Republican forces (and there were many) were deliberately exaggerated and frequently fabricated.

The voluminous and partisan right-wing narratives of this struggle continued to be produced until the death of Franco and changed circumstances in Spain allowed a more balanced and nuanced assessment of the upheavals of 1931 to 1936. This alternative perspective has also become considerable and further atrocities, particularly those perpetrated by Franco’s Nationalist side, continue to be uncovered and recorded well into the 21st century. However, most of this additional research and scholarship, welcome as it is, tends to focus on the detail of the many episodes and events within Spain, without sufficient reference to the serious socio-economic context previously created by a profound systemic crisis within the capitalist mode of production.

Of course, it is important to consider the sectarian motives and atrocities committed by the armed brigades and military commanders on all sides. And this article (together with the second; Part – 2) will do so. But it is also important to understand the political upheaval of the Spanish Civil War within the economic context of the 20th century structural crisis of the capitalist mode of production. One consequence of the previously noted national emphasis, (an emphasis much favoured by the pro-capitalists) is that the wider revolutionary implications and problems which this international economic crisis revealed, are also generally missing in most of the literature. The popular interpretation of this struggle as simply being between Fascism and Democracy, is conveniently misleading. This first part of this article will attempt to introduce and briefly explain this missing perspective before continuing to take into account some of the specifics which took place within Spain.

Capitalist crisis and the rise of Fascism.

The development of a civil-war struggle within Spain was part of a much wider economically driven political phenomena which to a greater of lesser extent – arose in all the advanced capitalist countries of the world during that period. Practically every country in the capitalist world witnessed huge class-struggle issues surface as the economic and political crisis deepened during the 1020’s and 30’s. Most of the countries experiencing this crisis also saw the rise of totalitarian movements (and/or political parties), even if they did not always achieve political power, as they did in the European countries of Spain, Italy and Germany. These political symptoms were reactions to the fundamental economic nature of the crisis.

When the capitalist mode of production entered its early 20th century stage of relative overproduction and consequent downturn, the lives of millions of working people reached a critically low ebb. This crisis embraced the whole of Europe and North America. Unemployment and poverty escalated exponentially in all these centres of International capitalism. A radicalisation of working class consciousness and activity proliferated, to a greater of lesser extent, in all the countries effected. This in turn gave rise to a questioning of the capitalist system along with movements aimed at either reform or revolution. However, it wasn’t only the working and oppressed classes who were radicalised by these traumatic events.  The middle-classes, (bourgeois and petite bourgeois) were also radicalised but in directions aimed at protecting the capitalist mode of production, rather than in superseding it.

The later stages of the Spanish civil war, as with the Second World War, both of which were subsequently celebrated as a struggle against Fascism, began as a struggle by workers against the capitalist mode of production. Practically everywhere in Europe and North America, during the crisis period of 1914 to the 1930’s, working people began to mobilise and organise against the capitalist system. Demonstrations, Petitions, strikes and General Strikes proliferated and galvanised workers into questioning (and acting against) the interests of capital. Revolution was  discussed openly as being a necessary method of resolving the problems faced by the employed and unemployed working classes. Indeed, revolution although attempted elsewhere came closest to being realised in Russia, only in this case to be quickly hi-jacked by the sectarian Bolshevik elite.

It became increasingly obvious to sections of the ruling elite that the anti-capitalist focus and aspirations arising among the working classes, needed dampening, extinguishing or diverting. In fact the emergence of Fascism among sections of the ruling elite and middle-classes, created a convenient pretext for all three outcomes. It was a successful diversion in which the talents, energies and lives of millions of working people were expended in defending one international section of the capitalist elite (the Allied forces) against a rival international section (the Axis forces). It was the second 20th century war in which the working classes of each country were driven or led into exterminating the working people of another country.

During this period, the class war against capital was everywhere (from the east to the west) transformed into a military war between the liberal-democratic minded capitalist elites and totalitarian-minded ones. The ensuing global war and the example of Bolshevism completed the dampening down and extinguishing of revolutionary aspirations and energies among the working classes. The added importance of the Spanish Civil War in the context of this extended international economic crisis, and its transformation into a global Armageddon, was that it became something of a dress rehearsal for those political and military actors who later unleashed the Second World War. So to return to the situation in Spain.

[A fuller discussion of this 1920’s and 1930’s economic and social crisis along with the development of Fascism is contained in the following articles;  ‘Capitalism and Fascism’; ‘1914 – 1918 Capitalisms 1st World War’; and 1938 – 1945, Capitalisms 2nd World War.’ All on this site!]

A brief historical background.

For many centuries Spain was a very wealthy feudal country. In fact it was for a time the world’s most dominant super power with a vast empire stretching across North and South America and parts of North Africa. During this period, most of its surplus wealth was created by extracting it from other economic communities across the world in the form of precious metals, minerals and produce which circulated internally and externally in Europe. The extent of this Spanish Empire funded the development of a diverse and powerful elite who invariably consumed without producing and a landowning section not entirely dependent upon peasant agriculture and efficient land use. This elite (along with the wealth) was predominantly spread among the aristocracy, the Catholic clergy and the military. This was a combination which while it remained united made it an immensely powerful social and political force.

However, the gradual loss of this external empire due to the competitive rivalry of rising capitalist and colonialist countries, such as France, Holland and Britain, weakened the international foundations of this Hispanic socio-economic elite. Initially this loss also created some internal divisions within the Spanish ruling classes, but without significantly eliminating their social and political domination. Despite these divergent interests what prompted substantial sections of them to eventually come together were challenges emanating from the accumulated rise within Spain of a bourgeoisie, a petite bourgeoisie, a proletariat and an increasingly militant peasantry. The ordinary citizens who staffed these new economic categories, increasingly spawned by capitalism, began to demand the type of reforms and resources which in effect would curtail some, if not all, of these feudal-style privileges.

It is important to understand that not all these developing bourgeois economic categories wanted the same thing. In general the relatively weak bourgeoisie in Spain wanted conditions which allowed a fuller development of industrial and commercial capital, the petite bourgeoisie wanted freedom of expression and access to careers and career progression, whilst workers and peasants wanted better pay, better conditions and shorter hours. The socialist revolutionaries among the workers (those influenced by the Soviet experiment in Russia and others) wanted to overthrow the clergy, the military, the monarchy/landed aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeois privileges and form a worker’s state. The Anarchists, and those affiliated to them, of which there were hundreds of thousands in Spain, wanted some of the above plus a stateless society of self-organising communes.

This diversity of interests was already producing a mixed cocktail of views and preferences, to which sectarianism eventually added its fatal dose of poison. Under such emerging economic conditions, an astute social and political understanding would have recognised that in order to succeed in any struggle, (reformist or otherwise) tactics would be need to be adopted which played upon divisions within the Spanish elite.  However, such an understanding was missing among most if not all of the forces actively engaged in challenging the then existing state of Spanish affairs. As already noted, the left in particular were divided into competing political groups each of which sought to implement its own agenda post-haste and treated other left groups as obstacles to be overcome.

The (Stalinist) Spanish Communist Party agenda in particular, was being directed from Moscow, and consequently viewed left socialists, Trotskyists and Anarchists as enemies rather than possible allies. The Anarchists saw anyone who supported any form of state as reactionaries holding back the communal stage of the revolution. Whilst, many trade unionists and the POUM considered the Stalinists and Anarchists as part of the obstacle to unity rather than part of the solution. In other words, the toxin of left political sectarianism was ready to flow through the body politic of working class Spain. It just needed the right conditions to allow it to be injected. These were provided by the results of a particular election which triggered the civil war.  This created the conditions which then allowed this poison to infect the subsequent struggle.

An election which triggered the civil war.

An election in 1931 saw the return of a petite-bourgeois government which viewed itself as a republican solution to the many problems faced by the majority of the Spanish people. With a limited reform programme this government and subsequent ones in 1934 and 1936, served to raise the hopes and expectations of the middle-classes and the oppressed but at the same time raised the fears of the existing clerical, military and land owning elite. The new governments passed numerous  basic reforms benefiting the professional middle-classes, the working and peasant classes. These reforms were not the prelude to a revolution, they merely intended to lead Spain belatedly into the 20th century bourgeois world. Nevertheless, this modernising intent was more than the previous elite were prepared to accept. They were so incensed that the military wing of the ruling elite ignored the democratic election results and began to consider plans for a military rebellion.

The petite-bourgeois leadership newly in government, were initially (and naively) confident in their democratic right to govern, a right ostensibly guaranteed by the election results. They viewed the subsequent right-wing military rebellion as illegal under the constitution, and of course it was. However, as all history indicates, elites do not abide by constitutional rules – even the ones they create themselves. If they feel sufficiently threatened and strong enough to resist changes they do not endorse, they do so. This was a lesson the new petite-bourgeois government and their supporters had failed to learn. Reality, as it unfolded during the civil war, was about to teach it to them – big time! It did so the hard way through loss of life, limb, careers, wealth, partners, children and even a decent and identifiable burial place after their eventual execution. Before one or other of this macabre list of punishments befell government officials, it was to fall upon millions of ordinary working people. For some workers who were so punished their crime was to do nothing other than vote for the new government.

For those workers and peasants who actually answered the new and later governments call to fight against the military uprising instigated by Franco and a hard core of right wing military generals, torture, rape and bodily dismemberment can be added to the above grossly inhumane list. And those who answered the call to oppose the military rebellion were many. Originating for the most part after the 1931 elections, numerous citizen militia groups were formed, often affiliated or attached to a political party or trade union and armed themselves as best they could.

Their initial purpose was to either resist or prevent any local or regional military rebellion from spreading to or becoming established in their own particular area. As was to be expected, such grass roots activity created a considerable diversity of aims, objectives and methods of operation. Some of the groups were cautious and moderate, whilst others were aggressive and extremist. However, as already mentioned, far too many, particularly the latter, were also rabidly sectarian.  The divisive and destructive effects of this sectarian degeneration within the civil war struggle will be considered in more detail in Part 2.

Roy Ratcliffe (January 2016)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, capitalism, Critique, Left Unity, Politics, Reformism, Religion, Sectarianism | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

WHAT IS STRIKING ABOUT STRIKING?

Posted on January 13, 2016 by stutteringsteps

In the continuous war between Capital and Labour the working classes have relatively few weapons, whilst the capitalist classes have many. Those possessed by the working classes are mostly weak whilst those of the capitalist class are immensely strong. Collectively the capitalist classes control (or disproportionately influence) the media, the state, the finance system, the legal system, the police force and the armed forces. All of these are decisive and have been constantly modernised. And any of these instruments of class control they can (and do) use individually or in flexible combinations to resist, deflect and punish any working class action against the economic and social system the capitalists benefit from.

In contrast, the modern working classes have only four or five very old and relatively weak weapons with which to defend their wages and standards of living. It is worth considering these weapons in some detail and it is even more valuable to be honest about how effective they have been or continue to be. The first is the demonstration, the second, the petition, the third is the boycott, the fourth is the strike and the fifth is the vote. The first thing that is ‘striking’ about them all is that whilst the capitalist classes have updated and modernised their weapons of class warfare, the workers have not. The latter remain in essentially the same form as when first invented. Considered dispassionately, these five tools in the working class activist toolbox are ancient, blunted or in many cases ineffective.

Petitions, demonstrations, boycotts and voting.

Petitions are effectively begging letters addressed to the powerful in the unlikely hope they might be persuaded to act against their own class interests. Consequently the essence and content of petitions are routinely ignored or sidelined – no matter how many signatures they attract! Even the 19th century Chartist petition for voting rights did not achieve its desired end. Since that time there have been thousands of petitions, millions of signatures and very little to show for them. Modern electronic petitions are similarly ineffective in most cases.

Demonstrations – even mass demonstrations, are likewise routinely ignored and have been so since their invention in the 18th century. Some peaceful demonstrations in the 19th century ended in the massacre of those who attended. In modernity demonstrations are kettled or led into traps, dispersed using water cannon, pepper spray and arrests. Global demonstrations such as those against war in the late 20th century were largely ignored by the global elites. Indeed peaceful demonstrations are in many ways just an extension of the begging letters addressed to a ruling elite in the form of petitions. Violent demonstrations are no better and indeed in many ways are worse. Violence at demonstrations frightens off many workers and gives the establishment and its armed forces the excuse to be even more brutal.

The boycott can still be given a sharp edge and be effective in certain specific and limited circumstances. However, it is rarely, if ever possible to transform it into a tool for a general struggle involving the essentials of life. Boycotting a specific product or service may or may not work if the action is popular, but all products or services cannot be boycotted without a serious case of working class self-destruction or a distinct lack of popularity. All three of these weapons of struggle have consumed much time and energy but apart from indicating the numbers interested in a particular issue have produced very little else. This brings us to the vote.

A great deal of working class hope and energy went into achieving the right to vote in national elections. This weapon was supposed to be the means by which the cruelty, indifference and domination by the capitalist class was to be ended. It soon proved to be an illusion and continues be so in the 21st century. Very few working people have any illusions that voting will radically alter their circumstances. The direct hold of the wealthy over the political system is complete and it is backed up indirectly by control of production, distribution, the state and monetary policy. The power of the latter being demonstrated recently with regard to Greece.

Strikes.

It is an undoubted fact that historically strike action has been the most successful weapon in the working class activist toolbox. The withdrawal of labour from its productive connection with capital impedes the production of surplus-product, surplus-labour, and surplus-value. Consequently this withdrawal of labour not only destroys profit but also potentially degrades the capital tied up in machinery, buildings and raw materials. This is the great strength of the strike weapon and in normal and boom times this weapon can produce good results. However, in times of crisis and overproduction it’s use becomes limited precisely because during a crisis capital in some sectors cannot be employed profitably. But there are two other glaringly obvious problems with strike action as it has been historically practised.

The first problem is that strikes are most achievable with regard to individual industries or enterprises. For this reason they are – in a social sense – a selfish form of action in which little or no regard for the effects the strike may have upon any other workers is considered. It also assumes the permanence of the capitalist mode of production and that each group of workers needs to wield its own version of the strike weapon irrespective of their actual ability to do so. Undoubtedly, this ability is severely restricted under conditions of economic downturn or slump.

The second problem is that strikes were devised and developed in a period when the level of capitalist technology dictated large numbers of workers assembled in one place and engaged in commodity production. Under the capitalist mode of production surplus-value is required to be embodied in some commodity or service which can be sold profitably. In the 21st century the economic situation has changed. In the advanced capitalist countries of Europe and North America, advances in technology and efficiency mean fewer productive workers are needed by industry and commerce. Stikes are more successful the larger the numbers of workers and the capital involved in the enterprise. Additionally, from the capitalist perspective, workers who do not create surplus-value (profits) are considered unproductive and so strikes are less effective.

Strikes for uproductive workers.

So another problem which now afflicts the use of the strike weapon in the advanced capitalist countries arises due to the relative increase in non-productive forms of labour. The large scale employment of workers in Education, Social Services, Health Services, Fire, Police and Military services mean that strikes by such workers does not hinder the production of capital and surplus-value. Strikes in these sectors do not directly effect profitability or even the incomes of those who manage these services. However, they can, and often do, directly and detrimentally effect other workers. This is renders the strike weapon in these sectors a double-edged one.

A strike in the public sector can directly or indirectly inconvenience or harm other workers and therefore has the potential to divide working class communities. In most cases this undermines the strikes intended purpose and does little or nothing to promote present or future working class solidarity. Since the capitalist mode of production has almost reached the end of its possibilities for global expansion/saturation and in doing so has ruined communities, polluted land and seas and exhausted entire eco-systems this form of economic production is well overdue for change.

The only groups which have the ability (and potentially the motivation) to create an alternative to capitalism are to be found among the working classes. Working class solidarity is therefore crucial to achieving any future post-capitalist mode of production. The contradiction facing the working classes, both white-collar and blue-collar along with anti-capitalists and revolutionary-humanists, is clear; the most effective weapon they have – the strike – is both less effective in times of crisis and frequently counter-productive in terms of class solidarity.

Thus when white-collar workers such as nurses, doctors, teachers, social workers, or public transport workers go on strike profits are not lost, but patients, pupils, claimants and commuters suffer – often seriously. Similarly when gas, water and electricity workers strike, whether privatised or not, the main sufferers of any consequent cold and deprivation are ordinary working people. A most vivid example of this contradiction in action was in the UK’ s winter of discontent (1978 – 79) when for a time working people lived in the dark, surrounded by refuse and could not even bury their loved ones as power workers, grave diggers and refuge collectors went on strike.

One of the results of this 1970’s sectionalism and dislocation of working class solidarity in the UK, was the election of a right-wing government headed by Margaret Thatcher in 1979. This in turn led directly to a full-scale attack by capital and its representatives upon the organisations of the working class – also on a section by section basis. Not only the organisations but the general living standards of working people were reduced in the period which followed. In fact the working classes in the UK are still suffering from the effects of this misuse of the strike tactic and its attendant sectional strategy.

New forms of struggle?

Whilst the methods of struggle noted above should not be abandoned, their blanket use needs to be critically examined and adjusted where possible and moderated where necessary. However, what is striking about the class struggle in the 21st century is that very few new weapons of struggle – if any – have been forged by the white-collar workers. Despite the higher education needed to gain employment in these sectors they have simply slavishly copied the centuries old strike tactic wielded by the blue-collar workers who were previously crammed by the thousands into factories, mines and docks in order to produce surplus-value.

Yet there are alternatives in existence as well as those which have as yet to be imagined. The ‘Rules for Radicals’ book by Saul D. Alinsky, was an early attempt to suggest new tactics, along with the more recent Occupy Movement, Anonymous and Hackers groups etc. However, such new thinking and new purposes have for the most part failed to take hold among most workers in struggle. Yet more than ever such new weapons of struggle which don’t penalise or detrimentally effect other workers are urgently needed. They need to be forms of struggle which point toward and also lead (however tentatively) to a future beyond capital. There is no other way forward for humanity.

R. Ratcliffe (January 2016)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, capitalism, Critique, Ecological damage., Economics, Politics, Revolutionary-Humanism | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

FLOODED HOUSE? Blame the rain!

Posted on December 13, 2015 by stutteringsteps

Once again working class families in England have experienced the destructive effects of flooding in their communities and homes. Not for the first time, communities of terraced and semi-detached houses have seen the lower portions of their homes flooded to considerable depths. Yet again their furniture, fittings and personal items have been completely ruined by debris and sewage. For the third time in a decade, serious infrastructure failures along roads, bridges and electricity supply chains have also occurred leaving people stranded, cold, wet and in considerable danger.

Where was the prevention and preparation given this latest inundation was not entirely unexpected?  Weather and climate specialist have repeatedly predicted the kind of changes in weather patterns which would cause exactly these results. But hey! Don’t blame the elected representative, the officials of the state, or the executives of the power companies for lack of preparation – do want they want us to and – blame the rain!

Blaming this or that aspect of the planet’s ‘natural’ events and climate reactions has become a hackneyed excuse for the pro-capitalist economic and political elite of Europe and America in particular. Leaves are routinely blamed for train delays, hurricanes are frequently blamed for topping levies and now ‘excessive’ rain fall is regularly blamed for spilling over river banks and into homes. Sometimes I wonder if these elites are for real and if they think we are all stupid! Sufficient  funds can be found by them for dozens of £250, 000 ‘smart’ bombs to drop on Syria but not enough can be found for more than a few lorries of ‘dumb’ sand-bags and a few miles of woefully low walling – job done!

I suggest one of the characteristics which for thousands, if not millions of years, has distinguished the human species from other species is the sophisticated ability to predict the likelihood of negative patterns reoccurring and importantly – to take measures to counter them. And indeed extreme weather events, due to the excessive industrialisation of the planet created by the capitalist mode of production has been reliably predicted for decades. So why are there not numerous counter measures in place in the form of considerably more than adequate flood defences? This extreme weather is serious stuff and should attract serious attention.

Actually the failure of the pro-capitalist elite to take measures to adequately counter these events where they effect the poor and the working classes shouldn’t be too surprising. Nor should it be surprising that it Is very rare for the rich and the elite to have their houses and workplaces flooded and still rarer for them to be stranded and left for long periods of time without electrical power and other essential services. This is something which has happened again and frequently will in future in less fortunate areas. In this case, as in many other areas of life, class differences exist. Under this current system, the wealthy are protected, and the poor are neglected.

On an increasingly regular basis across the globe, working class families and communities are suffering from climate change and many other negative side effects of the capitalist mode of production. In the eyes of the elite, working class communities are just not worth protecting, nor are they worth the considerable expense of really 21st century-proof flood barriers. And what is the ‘unnatural’ probable cause of this relatively recent weather-related development? Fortunately that is not too difficult a question to answer.

Since the invention of the steam engine, the internal combustion engine and the electric motor, the complete reliance of capitalism upon fossil fuels has undoubtedly contributed considerably to this state of affairs. Irrespective of any other factors which may be involved, this technological fact harnessed to the economic profit motive has now led to accelerated pollution, rapid resource depletion, incremental changes to global temperatures and erratic weather patterns. The entire economic, social and political life of capitalism is now structurally dependent upon burning fossil fuels for heating, lighting, commodity (and service) production and of course all – forms of transport!

The profits of companies – the economic motive of production under capitalism – are now tied inextricably to the production, and consumption of coal, oil and gas. And despite well meaning attempts to sever this historic link by reform, (including the latest bourgeois climate conference in Paris 2015) it is just too firmly – and profitably – attached to be voluntarily be broken. To maximise profits, the cheapest forms of energy and waste disposal are the default position of capitalist industry and commerce.

As the saying goes; ‘There are none so blind as those who won’t see’.  Or in this case those who choose not to see beyond their investment portfolios and bloated bank accounts.  Yet it is precisely such people who control the hierarchical nature of contemporary capitalist societies, along with the tax revenue. Consequently the multiple side effects of the capitalist mode of production, including dangerous global weather patterns, will continue to disproportionately effect the working classes and poor. That is until the mode of production itself is transcended. Yes it really is as bleak as that!

The political class along with the economic and military elites are just too firmly attached to, and reliant upon, their numerous privileges to question the domination of capital and think for the future of humanity as a whole. The perspective of seriously thinking about the future welfare of the entire planet and its varied human and non-human inhabitants will have to arise in a different class than those with already vested interests in the current mode of production. In the meantime don’t be surprised when flooding occurs again – and it will – that they won’t blame the system but continue to – blame the rain!

R. Ratcliffe (December 2015)

Posted in capitalism, Critique, Ecological damage., Economics, Politics, Reformism, The State | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

OPIUM OF THE PEOPLE.

Posted on November 28, 2015 by stutteringsteps

The title of this article is an extremely well-known extract from a criticism of religion by  Karl Marx. On the basis of much of the left confusion and error with regard to a contemporary problem of considerable magnitude, I think this criticism is insufficiently considered. I am referring to the problem of the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. The widespread and justified horror with which the brutal targeting and killing of those who do not conform to the ideology of any of the militant Islamic sects, has led to a serious questioning of the fundamental principles of Islam. This has also led in some places to an increasing blanket suspicion of all Muslims on the supposed basis of not knowing which among them will be the next to commit an atrocity or assist in perpetrating one. The stiffling of criticism and the past demonstrations by Muslims who were sufficiently offended by criticism of Islam to burn books, flags, effigies and issue fatwas has added to this conclusion if not the suspicion. So to has the efforts of many Muslims to infiltrate schools and ensure a curriculum dominated by Islamic religious ideology.

The right-wing racists in Europe and elsewhere have jumped upon these facts and in many places directed their hatred and violence against any Muslim they happen to come across or choose to target. As a further consequence of this ‘reaction’ some on the left in a dualistic knee-jerk response to this situation have chosen to defend Islam and coined the term Islamophobia to label all criticism. They are mistaken if they think this is a solution. The term is used to lump all those who criticise Islam intellectually or from a secular or humanist position into one homogenous group along with the racists. This will not do. The contradictions within this latest phase of the capitalist mode of production deserve to be understood on a much more sophisticated level than such crass reductionism allows.

Defending Islam is not actually defending Muslims human rights because Islam in numerous ways oppresses and exploits those of the Muslim Faith. As with believers in Christianity and Judaism, many Muslims are the victims of their religious belief system as well as of western racism. In this case also, not only are their thought patterns interfered with from childhood in order to indoctrinate them into accepting Islamic ideology, but their very bodies are operated upon in the most grotesquely inhumane ways. It is a religious crime to leave Islam, homosexuality is viewed as a crime and atheism is an offence. Women and children in particular are the most oppressed. Female genetal mutilation, (FGM), child marriages with damaging births, honour killings and facial mutilation whether sanctioned by the Qur’an, Sunna, or not are common occurrences within Islamic communities. And not just those under the jurisdiction of ISIL or similar sects.

Furthermore I suggest that for the left to defend Islam is a betrayal of all those who went before us, socialists, communists, humanists and secularists who struggled and suffered to free people from the tyranny of organised religion and the stultifying intellectual hold it had over ordinary people, particularly the working class. It is also a betrayal of the revolutionary traditions associated with the struggle against the capitalist mode of production. Marx, perhaps more than anyone, contributed intellectually to the working class struggle against capital and he had a good deal to say about religion. So it is at this point I think it worth considering more fully his thoughts on this issue along with the role of anti-capitalists and revolutionary-humanists with regard to it.

Marx on religion.

From very early on Marx confronted the issue of the inversion of reality which permeates religion and makes his humanist position clear; man makes religion; religion does not make man. Religion from this humanist point of view is entirely a man-made ideological construction. It represents an inverted consciousness precisely because the economic and social world of human communities has been inverted. Religious ideology serves the purpose of being a consolation and justification for the existing state of affairs because that state of affairs is in conflict with the essence of humanity. In view of this Marx suggests that;

“The criticism. of religion is the premise of all criticism….Religion is indeed man’s self-consciousness and self-awareness so long as he has not found himself or has lost himself again…..The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly a struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of men, is a demand for their real happiness….The criticism of religion is, therefore, the embryonic criticism of this vale of tears of which religion is the  halo.” (Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’ s Philosophy of Right.)

Hence his famous phrase that religion is “the opium of the people” and its compliment; ‘Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature’. Some people need or become reliant upon religion for the same reason that some people need or become reliant upon drugs. It allows them a temporary escape from the unpleasant realities of the existing world into another paradigm – either an imaginary future or drug induced present. Of course religious ideology of the Abrahamic variety also serves an elite purpose. It simultaneously justifies the existence of a hierarchical form of society and replicates that hierarchy within its own institutions, a state of affairs which is conveniently attributed to the wishes of an imaginary male super-being. Of course the continued existence of divided, exploitive societies, of which capitalism is one, will continue to generate the need for such conciliatory and justifying ideologies.

However that does not mean anti-capitalists and revolutionary-humanists refrain from rigorously criticising religion on the basis that it simply exists, may offend some ardent believers, or could lose them some votes in an election. Such opportunist accommodation to hurt feeling or election results is entirely self-serving and ignores the fact some of those expressing hurt feelings may well be advocating real physical hurt or turning a blind eye when it happens within their communities. On the contrary the statement for a rigorous criticism of everything applies here also. In a series of comments upon the Gotha programme Marx also made the following comment regarding the inclusion of a reference to religious freedom of conscience.

“..the workers party ought at any rate in this connection to have expressed its awareness of the fact that…for its part it endeavours rather to liberate the conscience from the witchery of religion.” (Critique of the Gotha Programme.)

Religion is a serious problem.

For humanity, religion is a serious social problem. That is obvious from direct experience. Within each religion, particularly the patriarchal Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, oppressive male practices are given a supposedly supernatural authorisation. That is bad enough. But in addition each of these religions asserts that it is the only true religion and their respective scriptural texts authorise killing in the name of their God. These religions were the human designed products of an ancient period of tribal social organisation when the world was not fully linked economically. This is no longer the case. Capitalism has created a world market and whilst it has done so to extremes and with calculated violence, any attempt to go beyond capital must have a fully humanist perspective in which all peoples are treated without prejudice. International human rights will need to be really put into practice not left as rhetorical aspirations on some tablet or scroll. For this to occur religion will have to be given a back seat and not be given the centre stage in human affairs.

Those adopting such a revolutionary and humanist position need to criticise all religions whilst defending all individuals against racist, sexist or other forms of prejudice and violence. Solidarity is with regard to their human rights not solidarity with any prejudiced views they may hold. It is certainly not our task to defend any ideology based upon ancient myths (for which there is scant or zero evidence) nor to encourage believers to become comfortable with accepting patriarchal practices of domination, discrimination and oppression. On the contrary the revolutionary-humanist criticism of religion in its content and form aims to expose all those conditions in which humanity is debased, exploited, oppressed by the economic system of capital and the ideas it’s elites use to reconcile and justify that system. Revolutionary-humanist criticism points ahead to a future for humanity beyond capital by denouncing the system and exposing all ideas and illusions which stand in the way of such progress. Religion along with nationalist ideologies are precisely those illusory abstractions which do so.

[See also ‘Totalitarianism; ‘Religious and Political’. And; ‘Religion – is – Politics’]

Roy Ratcliffe (November 2015)

 

Posted in Critique, Fundamentalism, Patriarchy, Politics, Reformism, Religion, Revolutionary-Humanism, Revolutionary-Humanist theory | 2 Comments

SPLITS IN THE BRITISH LABOUR PARTY.

Posted on September 25, 2015 by stutteringsteps

Only minutes after the announcement that Jeremy Corby had overwhelmingly won the leadership contest within the British Labour Party, the divisions within it were quickly exposed. The first snub by a Labour MP to the winner took place almost immediately the results were made public. Mr Corbyn almost as quickly made a speech appealing for unity within the party which, as many before, him he characterised as a ‘broad church’. This term is a useful one for the inclusion of ‘church’ hints at the level of ‘belief’ which is necessary in order to have ‘faith’ in the bourgeois political cathedral of self-deception (Parliament) of which the Labour Party is an integral part. In turn the word ‘broad’ adequately describes the range of bourgeois views contained within the Parliamentary section of the Labour Party – if not the ordinary membership. So it wasn’t too surprising that other shadow cabinet resignations predictably followed. Does this rapid exit by the right-wing mean a space will open up for the left? Not necessarily, but even if it ultimately could we need to be clear on what kind of left.

So before going further, the following general points should be remembered. The parliamentary section of the Labour Party has always had three main tendencies with regard to active participation in and support for the capitalist mode of production. Historically within the Labour Party there have always been left-wing, right-wing and centre groupings competing for policy and organisational domination. This spectrum has served to confuse the fact that these tendencies have all been bourgeois in outlook and dedicated to maintaining the capitalist mode of production, albeit with differing tactical modifications. The spectrum in essence is no different today. In modern times the Blairites have represented the right wing bourgeois elements, who for all economic and social purposes are practically indistinguishable from many in the Conservative and Liberal parties. The left-wing bourgeois elements inside the Labour Party are now represented by Jeremy Corbyn, whilst the modern centre ground of bourgeois thinking is probably best represented by Andy Burnham and his supporters.

Not one of these tendencies within the Labour Party has even bothered to critique the capitalist mode of production, let alone seriously considered the full implications of the destructive domination of finance-capital; a domination which led to the 2008 financial crisis. Whilst, condemning the politics of ‘austerity’ (just one of the symptoms of the current crisis) the parliamentary left of the Labour Party have shown no understanding of the economic and financial origins of this bourgeois policy imposition. The promise of ending austerity is therefore a hollow one and like the one promised by Syrza  leadership in Greece earlier this year, it will amount to very little – or possibly nothing at all! The same fate lies in wait for Mr Corbyn’s well-meaning words about more equality, more democracy and no poverty during his acceptance speech. There has not been one example of these abstract rhetorical principles being implemented beyond a privileged minority in the whole history of the capitalist mode of production.

In an interview during the period of the leadership contest in the Labour Party, one member declared that a rejuvenated Labour Party was necessary because it was ‘the last defence of the working class’. It is interesting that in this member’s mind, the real position of the Labour Party in relationship to the capitalist mode of production is reversed. It only appears to be this if it is assumed that there is no other possible mode of production. In actual fact the reverse is historically accurate. The Labour Party is the last defence of the capitalist class and it’s mode of production. Indeed, this expected role for Labour is hinted at positively by establishment approval for Blairism and negatively by the histrionic outpourings by Conservative and right-wing Labourites, who worry that a Corbyn leadership threatens the safety and security of 21st century British and European capitalism.  This follows similar bourgeois establishment concerns over the demise of Labour in Scotland and the threat posed by the Scottish Nationalist Party to dissolve the union with England and declare independence.  However none of these or other proposed or supposed micro changes by Labour threaten the system of capitalism for the following reasons.

The British Labour Party is seen by practically everyone within it as a ‘loyal’ opposition and the loyalty is universally understood to be to the bourgeois constitutional system and the capitalist mode of production. The almost ubiquitous furore over the lack of singing of the national anthem by Mr Corbyn further illustrates the core concerns of middle England. God save the Queen, for this middle-ground being synonymous with servile deference to the royalist minded wing of the bourgeois/capitalist establishment. Not even a republican minded petite bourgeois politician is supposed to stay true to his or her anti-royalist principles. It remains to be seen how quickly many more ‘positions’ (including the kneeling position in front of the queen) that Mr Corbyn has previously frowned upon will be abandoned. For he will be under sustained pressure from those establishment figures around him who disapprove of even rhetorical criticism of neo-liberal capitalism or its bourgeois affectations. A recent article in People and Nature on the Corbyn election sums up (correctly in my view) the role of the Labour Party as a bourgeois social democratic safety valve for political protest. The author suggested;

“One way to see the defeat of Labour in Scotland and Corbyn’s election a leader,  is as a chapter in the crisis of social democracy  as a method of ruling and controlling the  working class,  a means of locking it into,  and tying it to, the political system that administers and protects capitalism.“ (People and Nature https://peopleandnature.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/jeremy-corbyn-delivers-a-blow-to-blair-ism-and-now-what/)

Once this role of the Labour Party (as part of a bourgeois social democratic trend) is understood then it becomes clear why so much mainstream attention is being focused upon bringing Mr Corbyn, the imagined rebel, to heel. Hence the extreme establishment tetchiness at even his rhetorical departure from the current neo-liberal consensus and also why he is being censured by much of the media. However, as noted, the right wing and centre-ground representatives of capital within the Labour Party need have no fear, because Mr Corbyn has indicated by numerous statements and appointments, that he wishes to include as many other grades of pro-capitalist opinion and policy as possible. Only the unwillingness of some right wing Blairites has prevented their inclusion in the shadow cabinet.  This said, the divisions within the Labour Party, will not be papered over by potentially lucrative appointments or by appeals to party unity. This is because, as with political parties in general, it remains a party divided by personal ambition, greed and factional loyalty on how to manage capitalism and to individually prosper whilst doing so.

These divisions may or may not be on public display during the coming Labour Party Conference, but they will certainly be there. Meanwhile there is another role that the middle class supporters of social democracy have played which needs to be seriously considered by those opposed to capitalism. During previous crises of the capitalist mode of production politicians from this group has actually assisted capitalism’s survival. When the bourgeois system has been in its weakest and most crisis-riddled stages they have assisted in splitting the opposition to the system and undoubtedly many will play this role again. It is a political role that involves creating illusions, raising expectations, draining energies, dashing hopes, causing despondency and introducing authoritarian measures to combat any revolutionary developments.

In any serious crisis new activists enter the political arena and many are channelled into support for left sounding bourgeois politicians. Their expectations are raised (along with a large section of the public,) their energies are exploited and drained, before sooner or later their hopes are finally dashed by the compromises and half-hearted efforts of the social democratic politicians. This in turn creates despondency among the new activists (and public) eventually leading to inactivity and cynicism among some and more radical ideas and practices by others. It is at this stage that the true bourgeois nature of the bourgeois socialist posers is revealed. In the name of social stability and order (and supported by openly right wing politicians) a section of them invariably introduce authoritarian measures to quell any grassroots solutions which threaten the bourgeois political order and the capitalist mode of production.

In the past this pattern has revealed itself, most clearly and demonstrably in pre-Hitlerite Germany (see ‘Nazi’s: a Double warning from History) and most recently in Greece where a number of these stages have already been reached. In the case of Britain the first stages of this process have already been reached. Already expectations are rising among some of the left, as a recent statement by Left Unity makes clear.

“This a victory for the movement as a whole. It is a victory for all those opposing the welfare cuts, for all those campaigning against war and racism, for all those fighting to defend our NEW and a host of other issues. “ (Left Unity statement. September 12 as published in ‘Links’)

In the previous campaigning activity in support of Mr Corbyn’s election, expectations were already considerably raised and as this Left Unity extract illustrates, his success in becoming leader has raised them even further. This election of a dedicated reformist bourgeois politician as leader of a parliamentary group – who by and large are much less dedicated than him – is hailed as ‘a victory for the movement as a whole’! What a crass piece of wishful thinking that assertion amounts to! Of course just who the movement as a whole is, is not stated. However, if it is meant to include all those who are just opposing welfare cuts, war and racism (ie those sincerely wishing to reform the capitalist mode of production in a positive direction) I doubt whether even a majority would agree that this election represents a real victory for them. If it is meant to include those of us who are opposed to the capitalist mode of production, and wish to seriously go beyond it, then this Left Unity assessment of the value of Mr Corbyn’s election is laughable.

But such wishful thinking can serve a purpose that is perhaps not intended. If the effective role of the social democratic middle classes in government is to create illusions, raise expectations, drain energies and dash hopes, (whether intended or not) then certain things follow. Given the historically warranted disillusionment in politics, these ‘official’ political elements will need allies who will at least sustain and perhaps amplify the early stages. Some people outside the parliamentary fold will be needed to also create illusions, further raise expectations and energise – as many activists as possible – all to support those promising things through parliament. This support at the minimum will require electioneering, canvassing, leafletting, attending public and party meetings all of which will drain energies and almost certainly will result in dashed hopes and cause future despondency. Anti-capitalist activists would be advised to make themselves aware of this possibility and treat critically those outside of the parliamentary fold who choose to amplify the messages emanating from the social democratic supporters of the capitalist mode of production. And that is not the only reason to be critically aware of this possibility.

Encouraging activists to become the dogs bodies of the reformists will almost certainly also have the effect of diverting them away from alternative activities. That is to say away from activities that will be crucial in order to strengthen grass roots organisations. This along with supporting the understanding of ordinary working people and local communities to develop critically is I suggest, a vital part of the work of activists. If successful this reformist political tactic of diverting activism away from grass roots self organisation of working people and their communities will leave these communities more vulnerable to the eventual introduction of authoritarian measures. As mentioned previously when the crisis deepens, authoritarian measures by politicians and state officials, will become necessary in order to prevent non-parliamentary solutions by ordinary citizens becoming a permanent feature of social and economic life.

Roy Ratcliffe  (September 2015)

Posted in Anti-Capitalism, capitalism, Critique, Left Unity, neo-liberalism, Politics, Reformism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment