LEADERS OR FACILITATORS?

Posted on March 15, 2013 by stutteringsteps

The concept of a leadership ‘vanguard’ runs through a section of the anti-capitalist left like a solid strand of DNA. This concept keeps replicating itself across generations and despite trying to evolve to fit into the changed environment it now finds itself in, its advocates are steadily shrinking. After an early 20th century rapid growth and domination, this ‘vanguard’ concept now increasingly finds itself facing a slow extinction. Of the originators and promoters of this concept on the anti-capitalist left, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin stand out as the most celebrated advocates. They were the middle-class giants of the early 20th century anti-capitalist left who passed on this concept to future generations. Since their deaths, numerous modified variations of this species have appeared, but none have proved viable in the modern socio-political environment.

However, an alternative, species of anti-capitalism, previously crowded out of the anti-capitalist socio-economic environment, by this once dominant ‘vanguard’ leadership concept, has now an opportunity to develop. The human embodiments of this alternative are best described as ‘facilitators’. The intellectual giants of this alternative species of anti-capitalist activism are none other than Fredrick Engels and Karl Marx. In the Communist Manifesto of 1849 appears, the following perspective, stated negatively. Anti-Capitalist activists do not;

“..form a separate party opposed to other working class parties….They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.” (Manifesto page 49 Peking Edition.)

The whole point of the Leninist/Trotskyist/Stalinist leadership model of the anti-capitalist left is to form a separate party and to shape and mould those working class and oppressed forces which its advocates seek to lead. Over a decade after the above noted extract, the rules of the 1st International commence with..“..the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves.” This assertion by Marx and Engels, was no isolated example for in responding to an alternative manifesto promoted by three members of a Zurich commission in 1879, Marx and Engels wrote;

“The emancipation of the working classes must be achieved by the working classes themselves. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic persons from the upper and lower middle classes.” (Circular Letter. September 1879.)

These repeated assertions over thirty years clearly refute the concept and consequential ideology of a vanguard leadership. Elsewhere I have produced evidence of the distortions introduced into the anti-capitalist struggle and post-capitalist construction in Russia by the adoption of this Bolshevik vanguardist model. [see ‘The Revolutionary Party’], Here I will argue that the activist model suggested by Marx and which is still the relevant one for the present and in the future, is one of facilitator. For Marx then, no separate ‘Political Parties’, no ‘sectarian principles’ and no patronising leadership help needed from the upper and lower middle classes. So if this is the case, how should anti-capitalist activists who have rejected the Bolshevik leadership model relate to the working classes and their struggles? Marx again;

“…we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle; here is the truth kneel down before it. …We do not say to the world: cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it doesn’t want to…..” (Marx/Engels Collected Works. Vol 3 page 144.

The paragraph from which the above is taken continues by advocating that anti-capitalist activists explain to those around them – if this is needed – the “meaning of their own actions.” In other words anti-capitalists following this model ‘facilitate’ the understanding and actions of those they support in their struggles. They do so in three practical ways. First by offering to share their knowledge and understanding alongside and with those in struggle. Second by stressing the importance of the existing collective knowledge of the group or community. Third, by assisting in practical ways the fulfilment of the tasks identified by the collective. This means seriously listening to workers in struggle, recognising and acknowledging what they wish to achieve and bringing to that struggle any knowledge and skills which appear to be missing. Such a role includes pointing out any reactionary or sectional potentials which the aims of the struggle may involve.

Some practical contrasts between the concepts of ‘Leader’ and ‘Facilitator’.

Leaders mostly use their knowledge in order to tell people what to think, what they should do to change things and what the implications are.

Facilitators use their knowledge to ask people what they think, suggest how they could change things and also discuss the implications of such change.

A group or movement based upon leadership principles usually have members come together to listen to their own leaders knowledge and experience before returning to activity.

A group or movement based upon facilitators will usually have members come together to collectively discuss and learn from each others knowledge and experiences before returning to activity.

Leaders want and need followers.

Facilitators do not want or need followers.

Leaders seldom really try to empower ordinary members or people.

Facilitators always try to really empower ordinary members or people.

Leaders frequently are/or become part of an elite. They are potential or actual Captains of whatever ship they manage to board.

Facilitators are (and stay) part of the group. They join as, and stay as, part of the crew when they get on board.

Leaders desire and often demand that others should follow their particular viewpoint.

Facilitators explain but never demand that others should follow their particular viewpoint.

Leaders try to make themselves indispensable.

Facilitators try to make themselves dispensable.

Leaders are inconsistent collectivists within their own groups – they often pull rank.

Facilitators are consistent collectivists within their groups – they never pull rank.

Leaders frequently mislead and then try to rationalise this rather than apologise.

Facilitators rarely mislead and openly apologise if on rare occasions their input proves wrong or counter-productive.

Leaders rarely seriously or openly evaluate the results of their suggestions or actions.

Facilitators always seriously and openly evaluate the results of their suggestions or actions.

So anti-capitalist ‘facilitators’ are also active and not passive. They seek out those whose struggles they identify with, ally themselves with them, studiously listen and ask questions. Only then do they offer information and assistance. A group of facilitators wishing to support a struggle would meet after listening to workers and others to discuss how they can help. They would not meet before to get their group line sorted out and then try to impose it upon the workers either individually or at their meetings. There will be times when decisive initiative needs to be taken within a struggle, but this will not be the rule for facilitators and where it occurs and the activist facilitator is involved, the action would be quickly explained to the others and presented for ratification, alteration or rejection.

To sum up.

The vanguard leadership model of Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not – and never could have – assisted the complete self-activity of the working class. Indeed, the leadership model in general assumes the working and oppressed classes cannot ’emancipate themselves and must be freed from above’ by those who have beforehand declared their own candidature and appointed themselves for this position. Even ‘leaders’ drawn from within the working class will want to do the thinking for the working class and lead them – as so many have already done in the Trade Union Movement and Political Parties. In this way they help maintain the dependency of working people which is part of the ‘muck of ages’. In the coming struggles, the independence and self-activity of the working and oppressed classes is something anti-capitalists need to facilitate not inhibit.

Finally! The task of facilitating is no less demanding than that of ‘leadership’ and indeed it is perhaps more demanding in that it requires a blend of subject knowledge, patience, self-criticism and humility. To me the concept and practice of facilitating therefore also holds to two allied principles taken from philosophy and science. The first is that guideline of all rational thought ‘whenever you are sure of something; maintain it with doubt‘: for new evidence may surface which may alter the certainty you previously supposed. The second is derived from really accepting the collective nature of all knowledge and reasons that in a disagreement; ‘others may be right and I may be wrong or vice versa, or we both may be wrong; but only in respectful discussion and reflection on practice will we be likely to really enhance our collective knowledge.

R. Ratcliffe (March 2013.)

Posted in Critique, Marx, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 13 Comments

ZOMBIES AND VAMPIRES.

Posted on March 2, 2013 by stutteringsteps

Although they are not real economic categories, the first of the above two words, has surfaced in recent economic and financial discussions. Given this attempt to popularise complex economic phenomena, I think there is enough room to include the second. Originally popularised in books and films and emanating from myth and fiction, the two terms characterise satanic forces of a distorted human origin. They are ‘dark’, parasitic forces that ‘haunt’ and periodically plague humanity. It is for this reason that the shadow-banking and speculative financial sector of the capitalist mode of production, has been judged to have such fictional parallels.

In myth, the Zombie is a form which after death is animated by constant infusions of a sub-prime (derivative) power. This gives the Zombie a semblance of animated activity but it no longer functions as a positive part of the community. A Vampire in this mythical world is very much alive, hard to kill off and needs regular infusions of life-sustaining liquidity drained from the people around its zone of operations. Vampires in fiction also contribute nothing to the well-being of the community but suck the life out of the people they encounter. So as an alternative conceptual format to view the current economic and financial situation, let us see how well the terms can be applied to the real world of banks and bond-holders.

a) Zombie banks and businesses.

Zombie banks and businesses have been given these ‘titles’ because for all normal capitalist intents and purposes they are economically dead – but still appear to be alive. In the case of banks they have borrowed, speculated and loaned out to other speculators, all the assets made available to them from depositors – and lost huge amounts of them! In the case of businesses, in many cases they too have speculated either in terms of their cash balances or in speculating how much of something they could profitable sell – and got it wrong! Both these type of near-dead entities should have been long ago declared bankrupt, wound up and their failure certificates buried in the relevant ministerial archives. That is how capitalism is supposed to work. The successful ones exploit people and resources when and wherever they can and in the process reap the bloated rewards. On the other hand the failures are allowed to peacefully (or forcefully) expire. Apparently not any more! These all but terminated capitalist entities are being kept semi-alive by regular infusions of cash liquidity.

The current version of capitalism, stewarded by left, centre and right political parties, is designed to allow these ghoulish entities to continue exploiting their workers and at the same time prey on ordinary citizens. By the actions of governments feeding them cheap credit, they continue to exist in this near-dead state and in doing so continue to absorb and manipulate money and the pension funds of ordinary people. Supposedly cash-strapped governments, whilst they are tightening austerity, squeezing the white and blue-collar working class and poor, are pump-priming infusions of cash into these shrivelled-up banks and businesses. At the same time, in some cases, these Zombie banks and businesses have had their self-inflicted wounds patched up by governments taking on their accumulated debt. If this sounds sensible then ask yourself where does the government get its money from to bail out the banks etc.? The answer is of course, you the consumer and tax-payer. In other words, these Zombies are indeed feeding off our communities! Meanwhile there is also;

“..the vampire thirst for the living blood of labour.” (Marx. Capital Volume 1 page 256.)

b) Vampire bond-holders and speculators.

There are another mixed group of financiers and speculators who hover around the stock-markets, futures markets and corporations. Cloaked in obscurity, these Vampires of the financial world are constantly on the lookout for potential victims to sink their fangs into and drain out the life-blood. One group of such Vampires, often using large amounts of borrowed money, speculate on the rise and fall of asset and currency prices and even create such rises and falls by their speculative trade. These parasites have devised complex computer-driven trades which ensures in most cases that they gain wealth whatever the outcome for others. Another group of hedge-fund, blood suckers, circles struggling businesses and again using large amounts of borrowed money, buys them out, sucks out the healthy assets, culls the workforce by sacking many workers, parcels portions of the business activity up and sells these off. After a sustained period satiating their greed for money, they re-sell what is left and look for another victim. These Vampires are also feeding off our communities!

Yet another part of this international coven of financial Vampires speculate on the future prices of essential raw materials and often buys up almost monopoly futures options or positions for foodstuffs and raw materials. As they compete with each other to gain the most, they can push up the cost of living for workers and the poor, to such high levels that at a minimum, malnutrition and hardship ensues. At the maximum level, premature death of the young, old and the weak will follow, their nefarious activities. One more group of this Vampire class have cleverly positioned themselves in such a way that they need not directly drain the life-blood out of their victims. They have special agents who do it for them. These bond-holding Vampires have over the years trained government agents (politicians) to extract huge amounts of their necessary nourishment from their citizens and deliver it directly to their bond-holding blood-banks. This continual nourishment keeps the Vampires bond-holders alive and ensures they do not have to risk being caught in the act of directly attacking their victims. These latter are the aristocracy of the Vampire class and in the process have helped create their own group of part-dead institutions.

c) Zombie governments.

Such is the collusion between the political and governing class throughout the world and the elite bond-holding Vampires that governments themselves have become Zombie institutions. Governments around the world are now being kept functioning by thinning out the life-blood (quantitive easing) of their currencies and by demanding further wealth transfusions (via austerity) from their citizens. Capitalist states are no longer kept even partly functional by current levels of taxation. In economic terms, they are in effect totally bankrupt. Having squandered all the human and material assets of their respective countries on themselves, their families and their cronies, the political classes are failing to deliver on their promised amounts of life-blood essence (wealth extraction) to their Vampire masters. This particular group of high-class blood-suckers, are not best pleased by this current state of affairs. They are demanding that the political classes internationally squeeze even more out of their citizens. Austerity is the name given to this policy of forced transfusions and the bond-Vampires are insisting it be done as quickly as possible.

In fiction the Zombie and Vampire slayers are the mass of ordinary citizens galvanised into action by some charismatic hero. Prior to the emergence of the charismatic, selfless leader, the citizens have just had to suffer from the age-old attentions of the depraved Zombies or Vampires. However, the clean-cut fictional champion does the thinking for the crowd, provides the intellectual ‘solution’ organises, leads and directs the massed citizens in searching out and destroying the individual Zombies or nests of Vampires. They eventually take back control of their work-places, towns and communities. In fiction, the finale usually involves a titanic struggle between the individual hero and the individual villain or coven. In doing so he (!) is justly rewarded by the adulation of the masses. Amazingly, this fictional scenario is not a million miles from the outlook of some of the left political groups who consider a vanguard with a charismatic leader, (Lenin, Trotsky in the past, or a modern equivalent in the future) is necessary to intellectually and organisationally lead the suffering masses toward a new dawn of exploitation-free existence.

d) Saying NO! To capitalism. (Vampires and Zombies included.)

However, leaving fictional analogy behind and returning to the real world, hero’s turn out to be villains and leaders turn out to be either benign or malign dictators. [See for example ‘Totalitarianism‘ Religious and Political‘ and ‘The Revolutionary Party’] The real world financial exploiters and their political agents can only be satisfactorily dealt with by the collective efforts of the blue and white-collar workers, the poor and their supporters, who in this case also need to take back control of their own production, work-places, towns and communities. But alas we are still some way from that. Nevertheless, at the moment a movement against austerity is gathering strength in Europe, North America, and the Middle East. As yet this embryonic citizen alliance is leading toward an increasingly collective – NO! For historic and practical reasons this movement – as yet – only collectively knows what it doesn’t want – austerity and corrupt political governance! There are considerable historic reasons why there is no coherent vision of what is wanted. There is – as yet – no collective – YES!

This cannot be surprising. The positive vision of what a post-capitalist society might look like has been distorted by the post-capitalist efforts of the Bolsheviks in the former Soviet Union. If, due to the unique fortuitous conditions of crisis in 20th century Russia, there had only been a short-lived example of a humane worker-led society, then there would be a much shorter path to collectively identifying what is needed and wanted in face of the present crisis. Sadly, as matters stand, there is very little clarity among the anti-capitalist left on what went wrong in the Soviet Union and how the mode of production can be revolutionised in the future. As I frequently suggest, the current task for non-sectarian anti-capitalists is to work together toward evaluating the past shortcomings and disasters of the anti-capitalist struggle. A corollary of this collective task, is to positively re-assert the potential of a post-capitalist humanist perspective alongside and within the developing anti-austerity, anti-cuts movements.

Roy Ratcliffe (March 2013.)

[See also ‘Crisis: so what else can we do?’ and ‘Defending Public Services’.]

Posted in Critique, Economics, Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

THE GENERAL STRIKE: Myth and Misconception.

Posted on February 20, 2013 by stutteringsteps

It is perhaps not surprising in the present circumstances, that the idea of a General Strike is being discussed by many on the left. Indeed some such actions have already taken place in Greece and Spain. However, it is important to understand that a great deal of myth and misconception surrounds this form of struggle. The concept is often promoted initially as a top-down ‘call’ from either a small group of impatient activists or threatened trade union bureaucrats. In this form it represents an idealised projection in which it is only necessary to formulate a) who it is to involve, b) what preparations are necessary, c) who is to co-ordinate it, and d) what it is intended to achieve. When these have been decided by the ‘leaders’ then it is only necessary to ‘spread the word’ and fix the date.

It is this idealised form which Rosa Luxemburg argued against in her pamphlet ‘The Mass Strike..etc.’ She suggested that;

“If anyone were to undertake to make the mass strike generally as a form of proletarian action the object of methodical agitation,,…..it would be as idle and profitless and absurd an occupation as it would to seek to make the idea of the revolution…..the object of a special agitation.” (The Mass Strike etc.)

She was countering the idea that even a large political party such as the German Social Democratic Party, at the time with mass membership should attempt such a call. This is because after her study of large-scale strike actions, both successful and failed in Russia and elsewhere she concluded they cannot be called at will. She noted that where they were attempted – in this top-down form – they invariable failed to materialise and on the few occasions they did so partially – they did not achieve their objective and sometimes the opposite. This was the case whether the purpose of the General Strike was to get a government to change its mind, bring an unpopular one down or in support of a preferred one.

A general strike cannot be manufactured, called into being, or orchestrated by a small group, or a political vanguard or even powerful trade union movement. Such proposals are, as she put it ’the fantasy of revolutionary romanticism‘. Where they do occur such mass strikes, both successful and otherwise, arise out of large-scale changing moods of masses of people, (organised and not) who have exhausted all other forms of struggle and see no other way forward. The majority of examples of authentic mass strikes reveal that they commence as organic worker-led initiatives that under certain economic and social conditions, manage to spark support from other workers and escalate in a kind of chain reaction which becomes more and more organised.

Anyone seriously discussing the idea of a general strike should at least have read Rosa on this issue. Anyone who hasn’t read her pamphlet before discussing it should be viewed with caution if not downright suspicion. In terms of Europe, North America and the United Kingdom, the past experience of large-scale strike action on these continents should be considered and the lessons learned. With regards, the UK the general strike of 1926 should be an important object of study. The misuse of the tactic in 1926 divided and exhausted the workers, alienated potential supporters and strengthened reaction, setting back the workers struggle considerably. However, for the moment I suggest considering the following main outlines of how the much better prepared and planned strike events of 1918 to 1921 known as the ‘Triple Alliance’ managed to be thwarted and wrecked.

The Triple Alliance.

This was a formal alliance of unionised miners, dockworkers, railway and transport workers, which had its roots in 1913. The idea was that an attack upon the working wages and conditions of any one section of the members of these powerful unions, would result in all three sections withdrawing their labour – ‘immediate sympathetic action’ was the formulation used in the joint resolution. Given the early 20th century reliance on the magnitude of labour involved on docks, railways and road transport, such strike and widespread sympathetic action would paralyse energy sources, food imports, transport of food and essential materials to every part of the UK. However, the 1914 – 18 war intervened and the alliance was only resurrected toward the end of it – during a period of large-scale unrest.

i) UK unrest in 1917- 20.

In June 1917 a conference of 1,100 delegates in Leeds discussed the setting up of workers and soldiers councils for the UK. In 1918 the army service Corp demonstrated in London and almost the entire UK police force also went on strike. In 1919 a large-scale strike of Lancashire cotton workers took place and elsewhere the Coldstream guards, refused to embark for Russia. The same year every workshop on the Clydeside stopped work, troops were brought in, martial law was declared and machine gun posts were deployed in Glasgow. At Folkstone 10,000 soldiers mutinied and held the town for a week. On the Isle of Wight 4,000 soldiers clashed with police and the port of Calais was in the control of rioting British soldiers for a time as they refused to obey orders.

That was not all. The sailors of the cruiser ‘Glory’ revolted and this ship and four others had to be sent back to port when they steadfastly refused to fight. Sailors also refused to leave Edinburgh, Invagorden, Davenport and Portsmouth, whilst mutinies occurred in Murmansk and Baku. During this period, much of the British industrial working class was also assertively active which is indicated by the number of strike days lost. 1918 saw 5.8 million working days lost; 1919 witnessed 35 million days lost; 1920 26.5 million; 1921 85 million and 20 million in 1922. And during 1919 the leaders of the Miners and Rail worker’s unions pursued wage increases the workers confident that with the Triple Alliance behind them they would achieve their aims.

ii) A first attempt at mass strike.

In a manoeuvre intended to split the 400,000 rail workers the government and employers response came in the form of granting the claim for Locomotive Drivers and Firemen but announcing 20% wage cuts for all other grades. The union leaders were caught unprepared by this with no clear strike plan or available strike funds. Nevertheless the strike went ahead and chaos, hardship and failure was only avoided by the initiative of the Co-operative bank which printed special cheques and food vouchers for strikers. The government on the other hand was well prepared and set in motion emergency transport, posted troops at every railway station, set up armed citizen guards and published a special propaganda newspaper. The government seemed set to defeat the railway workers and starve them into submission.

But that was not the final act of the unfolding drama. Postmen blacked all work normally done by rail workers and the miners and transport workers lobbied their leaders to enact sympathy strikes. A conference of the Triple Alliance was called but instead of ‘immediate sympathetic action’ being the outcome, a committee was elected to negotiate with the government. In view of the massive amount of support among the working class and public, the government backed down and the cuts did not take place. 1919 closed with the Triple Alliance having only partially functioned and with the wages and conditions of the other two unions still to be decided.

iii) A second attempt at a mass strike.

In 1920 the Dockers succeeded in winning higher wages and reduced hours. In London the dock workers then discovered that a ship they were loading, called the Jolly George, was carrying munitions intended to be used against the new workers soviets in Russia. They went on strike and ‘councils of action’ were formed in many towns and cities. Meanwhile the British government was sending warships to the Baltic to oppose the new soviet government. In a further response an emergency conference was called on the 13th August attended by 1,004 delegates from trade unions and labour organisations. The conference called for ‘any and every form of labour withdrawal’ which ‘circumstances may require’. So again the government altered its tactics.

1920 also saw the miners conference press for higher wages and a reduction of coal prices for domestic users. The government refused. The NUM balloted their members who voted for strike by a 2/3 majority. They immediately activated the Triple Alliance Agreement. However, the leaders of the respective unions when they got together, could not agree who should control the action. In exchange for their support, the leaders of the Railway men and Transport workers wanted to determine what the miners should accept as a satisfactory settlement. The miners rejected this and the rail worker representative, JH Thomas then announced that the NUR would not support the miners. Shortly after, H. Gosling, Transport workers leader, announced the same.

The miners strike action commenced on October 16th 1920. A few days later, a special delegate conference of the NUR decided to back the miners with sympathy action. No doubt bearing in mind the popular unrest over the last few years, at this threat, the government once again backed down and conceded a temporary wage rise. The miners returned to work on November 3rd and their leaders continued to have meetings with the employers and government. The government announced that the previous wartime controls of mining would end from March 1921. Immediately the employers announced an ending of existing wage contracts and introduced re-employment conditions – which reduced wages by up to 50%.

The miners refused to accept the new terms and were locked out of the pits. The government on the same day declared a ‘state of emergency’. Troops were brought back from Ireland, all army leave cancelled, reservists were called up, parks in London and provincial cities were turned into military camps and a ‘civilian defence force‘ was organised. At this all the mine safety workers left their pits to join the locked out miners – putting more pressure on the employers to negotiate. On April 8th the Triple Alliance announced that its members would strike in sympathy if the mine workers demands were not met. Meanwhile other unions such as the Electricians, Post Workers and the Co-op movement offered ‘all support necessary’ to the miners.

iv) A third attempt at a mass strike.

The National Council of Labour and the TUC also declared support for the miners and the Distributive Workers Union submitted plans for the distribution of food during the coming mass strike. All was set for a decisive showdown. The then Prime Minister, Lloyd George invited the miners leaders to meet with the employers in his presence. Knowing the government and employers were of the same mind, the miners refused. That refusal was all it took for the NUR leader to order the withdrawal of the strike notices for rail workers. Again the Transport Workers leader did the same. The rank and file belief in a union top-down ‘organised’ Triple Alliance – Mass Strike – was now revealed as a myth – a misconception! April the 15th, instead of being a day of concerted working class action, became a day of betrayal, subsequently known as Black Friday. All the pieces were in place for a successful campaign, but the union leaderships were simply able to de-rail it at will.

The miners struggled on alone for two months of arrests and intimidation before they finally succumbed and returned to work on the employers terms. In the words of historian AJ Taylor; “To the rejoicing of the educated, prosperous classes, the miners worked once more on terms which seem…as remote and barbaric as serfdom.” (English History 1914 – 45.) Once the miners had been defeated wages were subsequently reduced for building workers, seamen, agricultural workers, dock workers and the following year engineering workers were locked out and suffered wage reductions. The later 1926 tragic misuse of a General Strike tactic – with even less support – also failed. This was followed by the deprivations of ’Hungry 30’s and the barbarity of the Second World War.

v) A few observations.

Even with all the turmoil, unrest and increased class consciousness of the period; even with the large numbers of workers willing to fight; even with many of the important organisational pieces in place, (alternative money, vouchers and cheques), alternative transport and distribution, a General or Mass Strike still proved elusive. Missing were the crucial ingredients outlined by Luxemburg; – workers self determination and activity, refusal to rely on leaderships, well developed rank and file communication networks outside of union officialdom, successful fraternisation with other non-unionised members of the population and too much unchecked over-confidence among some wishful thinking activists. The myth around the General Strike and the consequent misuse of the concept and practice needs to be fully understood before embarking upon such adventures.

Roy Ratcliffe. (February 2013.)

[See also ‘Sectarianism and calls for a General Strike‘; ‘Uprisings and Revolutions‘; and ‘Crisis: so what else can we do?’ all on this blog.]

Posted in Critique, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 4 Comments

EGYPT and TUNISIA.

Posted on February 11, 2013 by stutteringsteps

A) Politics is still the problem.

The current situation in Egypt and Tunisia demonstrates the utter failure of reformist measures (as elsewhere) to solve the problems facing the mass of the people of these two countries. The fundamental aspirations of the mass of people involved in the uprisings in both Egypt and Tunisia can be summed up in the phrase ‘bread, freedom and justice’ which was articulated by the youth around the time of the uprisings of two years ago. These are the very minimum of basic demands for any form of humane society. Yet they have still not been even partially granted by the newly empowered politicians in these two countries.

The majority of the participants involved in the North African mass protests and civil disobedience actions of 2011, became convinced that these three basic human requirements could be achieved by a reform of the political leadership. And they were increasingly encouraged by elites everywhere to think this was the best way forward. So it was out with the dictators – and – in with the politicians! Two years later and the people there still have insufficient bread, not a lot of freedom and certainly no justice. Experience in Egypt and Tunisia, as elsewhere, has now demonstrated again that changes in the personnel of the present pro-capitalist political systems cannot radically change the economic reality of those living within and under the present system.

The underlying problem for the working classes (both blue-collar and white) along with the poor in Egypt and Tunisia is that – as we shall see – the capitalist mode of production can no longer offer improvements in the economic conditions for the vast majority of them. And this situation is not simply the result of the financial crisis. The system of capitalist production – independently of the current banking crisis – has reached a structural impasse. Yet it is the capitalist mode of production which the political tendencies now in power in Egypt and Tunisia wish to administer, uphold and promote. The commitment of the new Islamic forces now in political power to global capital is clear and unequivocal.

When for example, the Egyptian central bank (with political approval) declared it was committed to honouring external debt payments, this was a pledge to honour the capitalist inspired debts incurred by Mubarak’s corrupt regime. The debts were the result of money previously supplied by the capitalist international bond and money markets to the now ousted dictator. With its people so desperate for better conditions that they rose up against Mubarak, the new Mursi regime has rewarded their exertions by paying $13 billion to foreign investors. With many of its people starving the Islamic government of Egypt has at the same time set aside $8 billion to service external debt! These early policy actions amount to nothing more than refusing bread to the Egyptian poor, whilst enriching the already bloated financial markets dominated by investors in Europe and North America.

Not satisfied with the level of debt Mubarak had got the Egyptian people into, the new Muslim government, headed by Mursi has also entered into negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for a further $4.8 billion loan. It is a loan – once finalised – which will come with numerous strings attached. So when President Mursi publicly declared “It is now time for us to work toward the advancement of the Egyptian people as whole,” he actually means the following. The ‘whole people’ are in a long queue in which the international capitalist class are at the front, greedily banking further billions in even more interest payments.

Next in line are the Egyptian capitalist class and their political and military elite supporters with their pockets already bulging. And to obtain a part of what is left at the back of the queue, the millions of workers and poor will be encouraged to squabble and fight it out amongst themselves. The classic policy of divide and rule this time using religious denominations is already splitting people into warring factions. Change the financial amounts somewhat and change the names of the political figureheads and this is essentially the same capitalist template for Tunisia. The replacement government for Ben Ali in Tunisia was working toward ‘honouring’ the debts and obligations to European and North American capitalism. Both these new regimes, supported by European and North American political elites, are intent on maintaining the capitalist system as it stands.

For this reason, stability, order and profit-making production are the essential policies being pursued by these new political forces, not bread, freedom and justice. The Islamic perspective on economics and governance is essentially the same as the neo-liberal secular perspective – accept domination by the ‘markets’ – and rule with an iron fist. In the case of Tunisia we need to ask what has motivated the attacks on secular political representatives in Kebili province, the arson attacks on the Nidaa Tounes opposition party and the assassination of Chukrie Beleid? Is it a coincidence that these actions came after a video by a Salafi cleric was circulated effectively saying that Beleid’s head was ‘wanted’? Why was it wanted? Is this religious assault on secular forces a pre-emptive strike to prevent a class-based perspective emerging? One which might oppose such blatant accommodation to capital.

These have been very public threats by Muslim extremists who at the same time threatened another champion of secular governance, Ahmed Najib Chebbi. We need to consider in what direction are such assaults pressing. The political and sectarian divide in Tunisia (as in Egypt) has resulted in two or more large poor communities at loggerheads and close to civil war instead of united to achieve their own particular versions of bread, peace and justice. That is the direct effect if not the direct intention. The initial sacrifices of the Tunisian and Egyptian workers and youth who faced down the police thugs of Mubarak and Ben Ali and started the uprisings, have as yet been for nothing. For in Tunisia, as in Egypt, youth unemployment remains high, with no policy or apology for this state of affairs, tourism has collapsed, the finances have been left in a mess by the Ben Ali regime and economic assistance (more debt burden for the workers) is being sought from the world’s money markets.

This is essentially the same pattern as Egypt; but can this be surprising? Well not really: because under the domination of the capitalist system there can realistically be no other model. This is why on a different scale it is being used to draw up the austerity plans for delivery to the workers of Europe, North and South America, Japan and the middle east. Everywhere the basics of the pro-capitalist mantra has the same three policy elements. 1. Stabilise the banking system by giving them as much money as they need to overcome their bad (criminal) decisions. 2. Encourage increased production and compete with other countries to have the most lowest paid workers in employment, and; each country sell more products than it buys. 3. Maintain current forms of political and economic elite power.

B) More capitalism is not the solution.

The whole international representatives of the capitalist system are in various stages of denial concerning the nature and depth of the crisis facing the capitalist system and consequently facing humanity. As the saying goes ‘there are none so blind as those who won’t see‘. And for the super-rich and their supporters what blinds them is the billions they accumulate from the system. Yet for more than a century, it has been clear that the capitalist mode of production has been unable to employ all the citizens of each country – even at low levels of sustenance. This has been the case ever since capitalism became the dominant mode of production. An unemployed reserve army of labour is a constant feature of this mode of production since before the time of Marx in the 19th century.

In the 20th and 21st centuries with automation and computerisation, the situation has become considerably worse. The technical developments of industry, agriculture and commerce have become ever more efficient. Now every year technical developments in capitalist industry, agriculture and commerce, require less and less workers to maintain global production at saturation levels. Levels which under the present mode, create more products than can be profitably consumed. From cars, TV’s, computers, to super tankers and aircraft, surplus products and surplus capacity currently exists in all major sectors of profitable production and distribution. This is the underlying structural crisis of the current system.

This basic 21st century capitalist economic reality is the underlying condition which determines and limits what can be done in Egypt and Tunisia as long as the present economic system is not really revolutionised. For this reason, no participants in the current political milieu or state superstructure are equipped, either intellectually, emotionally or practically to effect changes in this economic foundation. The political system in Europe and North America lacks the mechanisms to even regulate the volatile financial sector adequately. The global financial system continues to totter on the edge of collapse despite regular liquidity infusions of more and more printed money. When it comes to the economic level of production and distribution the political elite is even more incapable of effecting the necessary and substantial change required.

At a global level under the present system, the immediate and mid-term prospect is for further financial insolvency and further sovereign debt collapses. This is the very real prospect for the highly industrialised economies of Europe, North America, Japan and even China. This in turn will engender further global economic downturns in which production levels fail to rise or even decrease, whilst prices rise and austerity persists. All other countries, including those in the middle east and Africa, which are dependent upon exports and imports (money and commodities) from and between the ’advanced’ countries, will also be negatively effected. Therefore, no reformist changes in the political complexion of Egypt and Tunisia’s governance – even the most optimistic – can or will produce bread, freedom and justice.

As noted above, the only changes the global pro-capitalist representatives are contemplating are slight and will allow the banking and bond fraternities to continue their speculative activities. The two other measures already noted are actually in direct contradiction to each other. The first – persisting with austerity and job reductions, and the second – stimulating competitive production. It should be obvious that increased production under the capitalist mode depends upon sufficiently numerous well-paid workers (and others) globally to soak up this increased production. Global austerity and job losses merely exacerbate the contradiction between what is produced and what can be purchased. Fewer employed workers also means less tax income for governments and this increases the already insolvent (bankruptcy) levels of governmental debt – in all countries.

C) The need for a revolutionary transformation.

The Arab street needs to return to its original inspiration and aspiration. Bread, freedom and justice are the fundamental rights of all human beings. They were the original basis for a united struggle by the citizens of Egypt and Tunisia, before this struggle was deflected and directed into sterile sectarian competition for political or religious control of formal seats of power. The frequent sterile ‘adult’ demand for the youth in Egypt and Tunisia to come up with an acceptable alternative ‘political solution’ to the ones currently being practiced is to demand the impossible. There are no political solutions to the present crisis. There are only economic and social ones. The right to produce needs to lie with the workers and ordinary citizens not some fat-cat individuals or their international board-room representatives. At the very least, the means of production need to be taken out of the hands of the capitalist representatives and reside with the workers.

For this reason there is still need to assemble, discuss and protest. In this regard, the ‘black bloc ‘ youth of Egypt have made an important first step in announcing their intention to protect protestors. It was such physical protection which enabled the original peaceful uprising to assemble, discuss, defend itself and prevail. It is such protection which will continue to allow protest to flourish – this time on the basis of evaluating the last two years experience. If those currently at the back of the resources queue in Egypt and Tunisia are sensible, they will reject the invitation to fight amongst themselves for what is left after the finance capitalists have bagged the lion‘s share. It would be an advance – something to work for – if they campaigned for unity to fight for a system which provides equally for all those in the queue. Given the 21st century systemic impasse for capitalism this makes the aspiration for bread, freedom and justice – for all citizens – a truly revolutionary demand, for it cannot be met – for all citizens – from within the capitalist mode of production. To achieve it requires going beyond capital.

The alternative logic of the capitalist mode of production and the ideology of its upholders, whether in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere, is clear. It is toward increased competition between workers. Competition for available jobs and resources, and between countries for raw materials and favourable markets. That way leads incrementally to ideas of nationalism, racism, ethnic strife, religious intolerance and fascist-type totalitarianism. These divisive ideologies have more than once been used by desperate ruling classes and have proved to be historical dead ends for humanity. A radical alternative is both desirable and necessary. Working toward a revolutionary transformation of the mode of production needs putting on the workplace and community activist agenda. In this task the Youth of Egypt and Tunisia (as elsewhere) can play a decisive role. Since the system denies them practically everything – even hope – they have nothing to lose.

So even apart from the ecological and environmental concerns created by the profit-focussed capitalist mode of production, a change in the global economic system is necessary for the mass of people to obtain a decent standard of living in terms of food, shelter, education, health and entertainment. In the first half of the 21st century, humanity faces a stark choice; increased competition between capitalist countries or improved citizen co-operation between peoples. To choose competition with all that entails – austerity, poverty, environmental degradation and wars – it is not necessary to do anything. The leaders of current system will blindly lead us down that particular path. They have done so before – and will do so again.

To realise bread, freedom and justice for all by choosing co-operation between peoples, however, will require a great deal of sustained work and activity. It will take time, experience, knowledge and sufficient numbers of people. In advance of the formation of such large-scale critical masses, it will require national and international co-operation between those who have already accepted the need for such a historical transformation. If the latter in Egypt and Tunisia (and the same goes for other countries) can learn to overcome their differences and create an organisational form and future anti-capitalist purpose which is inclusive and egalitarian in terms of gender, ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation and class, then this will facilitate both the actual as well as the potential movement for real substantive change.

Whether some like it or not the perspective of a revolutionary transformation of the mode of producing the world’s goods and services is one which faces the majority of humanity. The youth is the section of the global population which will suffer most in a future dominated by the capitalist mode of production. But it is also this section of the population which is least encumbered by previous – outmoded – forms of conducting the anti-capitalist struggle. They are unlikely to adopt the top-down, patriarchal, elitist, vanguardist model of anti-capitalist struggle, which went so tragically wrong in the Soviet Union, China and wherever else it was exported to. And this model – where it is artificially kept alive – still haunts and disfigures the international struggle against the capitalist mode of production.

Roy Ratcliffe. (February 2013.)

[See also ‘Austerity: its another word for War’; ‘Form and Essence in the anti-capitalist struggle’; and ‘Uprisings and Revolutions.’ all at http://www.critical-mass.net.

Posted in Arab Spring, Critique, Economics, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CLINGING ONTO PATRIARCHY.

Posted on January 25, 2013 by stutteringsteps

A) The global reach of Patriarchy.

The title of this article came to me after watching several seemingly unrelated news items. These were followed by reading several anti-capitalist discussion documents concerning the importance of Lenin to the anti-capitalist struggle. Then came an additional flurry of revelations from within the SWP. The link between all these items was the unconcealed determination of men – past and present – to dominate physically, politically and intellectually. The first news item involved the killing of several female health workers in Pakistan by the Taliban. They were continuing to defend the right to continue strict patriarchal religious rule among their respective communities. The news of these executions came shortly after the shooting of Malala Yousafzia – by the same ‘brand’ of Islamic fundamentalists. And then there was the report on the rape of an Indian woman by a group of men,

These sources and the later bulletin on the Saudi beheading of Rizana Nafeek, a young female housemaid, demonstrated how strongly the patriarchal mentality was still variously embedded in human societies throughout the world. But that wasn’t all. Yet another revealing news item striking a similar chord, had been the show of sheer anguish by numerous citizens of Venezuela at the plight of Hugo Chavez. During televised interviews, almost existential despair was manifest by some poor urban citizen’s of Venezuela, at the thought that the current support coming via the state headed by Hugo, might disappear. The anxiety in their words and faces was palpable.

Now I am not against expressing sympathy or even support for someone suffering from cancer and fighting for their lives. It is a common enough daily situation, among many, for thousands of men and women throughout the world, for whom such sympathy is a natural expression. However, what struck me most about this emotional display was that once again, as previously with Lenin, millions of people, men and women, had come to view a particular kind of male ‘socialist’ politician as absolutely essential to their continued wellbeing.

Such are the conditions that after 12 years of power by the United Socialist Party, led by Chavez, working people in Venezuela cannot successfully provide for themselves. Instead they have become visibly and vocally dependent upon the benevolence of a ‘left’ political party led by a well-meaning charismatic male leader. The economic system which dominates their country is still such that despite there being a ‘socialist’ party in power for over a decade, they are still alienated, not only from active participation in frequent decision-making but are also alienated from control of their collective means of production.

As with Cuba and Castro, it demonstrated the continued absence of economic self-activity of workers and their almost absolute dependence upon a party dominated by males and led by a single male leader. What else is this addiction to ‘left’ male leaders but another form of patriarchy, albeit of a non-religious type? Patriarchy is constructed around a father figure, (benign or not) who guides and provides for his people and who they cannot and should not be without. Is this whole ideology not a corruption of the idea and practice of equality and self-activity? Are the above examples not merely the ’left-wing’ softer political sides of the patriarchal coin to the more authoritarian ‘right-wing’ leader? And this is where the recent documents leaning on Lenin, came most forcefully to mind.

But before that; an obvious question arises. When did patriarchy come to dominate societies? The equally obvious answer of course is when women were subordinated! For this has not always been the case. There were periods in ancient and relatively modern history, when societies were matrifocal and matrilineal. In such societies women’s position was at least equal to that of men. In the early 19th century Kung San and Hazda women in central Africa still produced up to 80% of the communal food supply and were certainly not under the control of men. In ancient Greece women deities were as common as male gods.

And when did formal politics emerge? Answer: After women were subordinated. I am not necessarily proposing a causal link here but does this relegation of women to a subordinate position not explain why for thousands of years politics as well as governance has been an exclusive male preserve? And does it not go some way to explain why politics in general is characterised by a competitive, discriminatory, abusive, aggressive, deceitful, and one-sided culture – even on the left? Is it not true that it is impossible to find a form of economics, finance and politics at any point in time or in any part of the globe – which is devoid of numerous levels of deviousness and corruption?

B) The mainstream sources of patriarchy.

It is clearly the case that the gender basis of the three Abrahamic religions, is a male God, as father-figure, who Muslims, Jews and Christians should submit to. Male Rabbi’s, Priests and Imams as exclusive intermediaries, complete the patriarchal line up. Is it not striking that this ancient cultural habit continually reappears in modern secular forms of society? Venezuela is clearly not the first example in history, where people have been trained to abandon collective self-reliance and follow (even revere) a male leader on whom they consequently came to depend.

Indeed, I suggest, such social programming is hard wired into the cultural DNA of all societies in which patriarchy, in one form or another, has existed and continues unchallenged – or only partially challenged. And does this not explain why after two thousand years, this pattern of deference to male-stream thinking and leadership is reflected in the education of 20th century children and young adults? In researching the teaching of girls, one UK female school teacher summed up this problem as follows;

“The very knowledge transmitted to schoolchildren is essentially male knowledge, and of necessity, one-sided and distorted…… If women’s education is ever to become truly subversive, as Dale Spender recommends, it would inevitably assume a revolutionary form and content…..it would challenge the male study of male society; it would critically analyse male interpretations of history, literature, language and anthropology, which are at present unchallenged.” (Elaine Cross. ‘Swimming against the tide of male mythology’. In ‘School Organisation Volume 5 Number 1.)

With a few exceptions, not only are most of the senior positions in every sector of global society, government, finance, industry, health, education, military still dominated by men, but so too is politics. In the modern, capitalist dominated world, women continue to be marginalised, objectified, trivialised, exploited, oppressed, beaten, sexually harassed, raped, and brutally murdered – as statistics and the examples noted above indicate. What about Savits Halappanavar? Did patriarchal Catholic ideology in Ireland not play a role in her death when she was denied a possible life-saving abortion?

Taking a more extreme example, did not the 19th century example of Fascism, not recreate this very dependence and reverence for the a male leader (Fuehrer in Germany) as well as secure the total domination of men over women? And for that matter, what motivates the Zionists in Israel if not a patriarchal form of ideology in its pursuit of secular and religious governance – at the expense of the Palestinians? Parallel to this what drives the fundamentalists and Islamists in Iran and now Egypt if not their own version of a patriarchal form of governance?

C) Patriarchal tendencies on the revolutionary left.

Back to Lenin. It is also a fact that millions of 20th century Soviet Citizens, filed past the figure of embalmed Lenin in reverential awe and worship, grieving the loss of ‘the’ male guide and inspiration of all of suffering humanity in Soviet Russia! And in such cases, is not the cultural indoctrination and dependence on male leadership so strong that often if one such leader dies, the system needs to quickly find another to replace them? Or if that is not immediately possible do not the guardians of the system of patriarchy point to the inspiration of his words – and/or erect a statue as avatar substitute?

In the case of Russia, all three in fact occurred. After Lenin died, Stalin was given the mantle of the good father of mankind (Uncle Joe) and he too – despite the most brutal atrocities – was mourned when he eventually died. Both had their avatar statues and iconic portraits installed in squares, offices and homes. Their ‘complete works’ diligently published to be poured over by future adoring patri-phile acolytes, who more often than not just uncritically ‘borrowed‘ their ideas.

So despite the inhumanity emanating from this patriarchal ideology and the historic need for its eradication, in a modified form it has been systemically replicated amongst the European and North American 20th and 21st century revolutionary left. Despite rare exceptions, every revolutionary left group in existence is primarily ‘led’ by men. In addition to male members dominating the numbers of all left groups including all anti-capitalist groups. Certain of them assume it is ‘natural’ that they routinely dominate all the time allocated for discussion at meetings.

However, the virulence of patriarchal symptoms within the left, doesn’t just end with membership numbers and the gender bias of figureheads. As we know it extends to the use and abuse of females where they do exist within the movement. For too long the left has clung onto the patriarchal form of politics and the consequent exploitative treatment of ‘members’, particularly females. Ask yourself: How revolutionary can the left really be if it does not do everything possible to overthrow this outmoded, deformed ideology parked up in its own backyard?

The women’s movement which developed out of the left movement in the 1960’s and 70’s, in the USA, analysed and mapped out in considerable detail how ‘left’ men used women as dogs-bodies and for sexual satisfaction/conquest, within left movements and groups. However, because the Women’s Liberation Movement at the time comprised of many strands (conservative, liberal, radical, lesbian, socialist, Marxist) it was easy for ’left’ men to disparage (as bourgeois), many of the ideas emanating from the movement. Worse still, there was also the almost universal failure to recognise that without a resolute struggle against patriarchy and patrifocality any formal or informal support for women’s liberation (well-meaning or not) would be little more than hot air, and dissipate just as fast.

The scandal of sexual exploitation, of female members emanating from within the Socialist Labour League/WRP indicated that this cancerous and parasitic symptom was alive and endemic among this group of anti-capitalists in the mid to late 20th century. But its alleged emergence within the SWP in the 21st century indicates that some left activists are still perhaps clinging onto the advantages accruing from the continuance of patriarchal cultural and organisational forms. Which begs the question; where else has it been covered up and/or is still lurking? Even the extremely rare cases of ‘allowing’ women’s caucuses, often merely avoids male responsibility to confront patriarchy themselves within and without their organisations.

D) Letting go of Patriarchy.

But exactly what is it that the left needs to let go of? Of course, the cruder forms of this patriarchal culture, such as sexual harassment, abuse of power for sexual favours, using female labour for mundane office work, paper sales, making the tea etc., should have been expunged from the repertoire of left organisation, long ago. Sadly, this inherited, stock-piled inventory still needs to be written off. But so too does letting go of patrifocality (ie male opinion and protected ‘leader’ status being the default organisational position). This practice forms an integral sub-section of the patriarchal mode of production, circulation and distribution among the left. It manifests itself in an automatic assumption that what the leading male/s say and write is more important than anyone else’s opinion or evidence, not because its content is better, but simply because it comes from this source.

Another belated thought! Was this not one of the difficulties Rosa Luxemburg encountered in the late 19th century in her tussles with the male leadership of the German SPD, who suggested she stick to women‘s affairs? This leader and led attitude, then, now (and in between), breeds an uncritical acceptance of ideas and practices which may not be as ‘sound’ as they are made to sound. This assumption of male superiority and a consequent required deference is a particularly virulent form of the patriarchal tendencies within the anti-capitalist left. It manifests itself also with regard to the frequent uncritical regard for revolutionary ‘men’ who went before. For there is among some on the left an almost semi-religious status reserved for Lenin and Trotsky, two middle-class men, who were undoubtedly talented, but also undoubtedly seriously flawed.

It took substantial evidence of brutality and bloodshed to depose the ‘left’ patriarch Stalin from a universally exalted position, but the comrade who promoted and protected him (Lenin) and the comrade who agreed with many of his ideas and actions, (Trotsky) are still protected, by an almost mystical reverence. Which brings me back to the recent documents on Lenin. Some on the left just seem to regurgitate what Lenin (and Trotsky) said in various writings without seriously examining any negative aspects of their intellectual output and practical actions. Anyone within the revolutionary left who challenges the superstitious regard for these two men or any aspect of the inherited interpretation of their role is written off as a heretic and treated as such. And heresy in this sense is the correct classification, because much of it represents that tradition of direct critical challenges to the orthodoxy of patriarchal assumptions.

Further, patrifocality and patriarchy is so embedded in the cultural practices of the left that the general meetings, conferences, aggregates, of groups are based upon a platform dominated by male ’authority’ figures, who deliver their thoughts and observations to the overwhelmingly passive listener members, (ie the workers), who – if they are lucky – get to compete with others so assembled – to ask a short question or make a brief comment. The knowledge and experience, let alone the needs of the overwhelming number of those assembled, does not get an airing, let alone a verification or validation – apart from perhaps a patronising nod of thanks for their dutiful attendance.

E) Patriarchy and leadership.

The concept of ‘leadership’ in such cases is more often than not a transmuted expression of mainstream patriarchal ideology, and within this vanguardist model of organisation there is a strong connective tissue between the exercise of ‘leadership’ and that of organisational ‘command’ – particularly in crisis moments. The facets displayed by leadership roles are many; ‘visionary’; ‘democratic’; ‘demagogic’ ‘authoritative’ but the final one turned to face the rank and file if all else fails is – command! And there is often another rarely mentioned factor at play. Can we avoid the suspicion that some people on the left, as they do outside of the left, just get off on being a leader?

Is there an undisclosed secret pleasure at being admired and looked up to that helps perpetuate patrifocality and patriarchal ideology and the aspiration to be, or become, the recognised leader of a party and a class? And of course forms of corruption – other than morally based corruption – flow directly from the hierarchical leadership model of organisation. As a consequence the bourgeois world at all levels is awash with corrupt leadership – a symptom from which the left is certainly not immune.

And of course leaders must have followers. In this model, the latter are thus spared the task of thinking too much for themselves. So instead of collective education, we have at best biased, party-training; instead of self-critical reflection and evaluation we get self-serving regurgitation and congratulation. Instead of collegiate collaboration we arrive at a division between organisers and dogsbodies; instead of equality becoming actualised, inequality becomes institutionalised. A permanent division of labour opens up in which the leadership sees itself as the ‘true’ embodiment of the ’cause’ and group loyalty is used to trump allegiance to egalitarian principles.

And revealingly – because it has been a consistent pattern on the left over the last 100 years – if such leaderships are challenged (for whatever reason) by any of the rank and file, the leader/s invariably close ranks and silence, expel, or otherwise try to destroy this opposition. In other words, they automatically swing into the ‘command’ mode as a result of their ideological commitment and leadership position. As one recent commentator remarked with regard to the recent SWP implosion;

“And if any reader who’s a member of another far left group is feeling particularly smug about this, ask yourself. Would your own revolutionary leadership submit to being bumped down to rank-and-file status after an open and democratic political struggle?” ((Phil at; http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/where-now-for-swp.html)

Make no mistake! This particular public debacle will badly effect, not just the SWP, but all those who are committed to this form of organisation. Male domination and sectarianism will be seen by working people, correctly in my view, as general characteristics of vanguardism, not an obnoxious failing specific to just one particular group. If patriarchy in all its manifestations, was not seriously challenged and superseded, by either the Mensheviks or Bolsheviks, in the 20th century, then is it surprising that they ended up with a hierarchical, male-dominated political organisation and a male-led bureaucracy? In this regard, did soviet economics not mirror soviet politics with a division between those who were forced to work the ’means of production’ and those with special privileges (!) who bureaucratically organised and controlled them? And crucially; wasn’t it Bolshevik male leaders who went on to kill rival male leaders, their wives and their children, even before Stalin took power?

Finally! If it isn’t seriously challenged and superseded in the 21st century, then the exploitation of male and female membership labour by the ‘leadership’ within the anti-capitalist movement will continue – with all that entails with regard to the females within it. Patronising agreement to a few ‘feminist’ inspired ‘reforms’ will therefore be woefully insufficient. It will be impossible for anti-capitalism to represent the whole of the oppressed and exploited members of society if it does not reject – in its own forms of organisation – this one-sided, elitist, distorted form of male authority. Male-centeredness and hierarchy is so systemically entwined within the concept of (and mythical view of) the vanguardist leadership party that the whole form of anti-capitalist organisation needs to be radically re-considered. I suggest it is time for anti-capitalists to become consistently revolutionary and do all they can to be rid of this ’muck of ages’.[See ‘Marx and Revolutionary-Humanism’   at this site]

[For an example of the experience of women in a lesser known part of the Arab Spring Uprisings, see the new blog by Yemenstars at http://yemenstars.wordpress.com]

Roy Ratcliffe (January 2013.

See also the following article at People and Nature.

We need Zizek’s ‘Thatcher of the left’ like a fish needs a bicycle

Posted in Critique, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE LEFT?

Posted on January 17, 2013 by stutteringsteps

There is currently much debate among those who wish to overcome the splintered condition of the anti-capitalist left, about how to evaluate the legacy of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The recent initiative by Anti-Capitalist Initiative (ACI) claims it seeks a positive regroupment of the left on the basis of a discussion on contentious issues. One of the organisers of this initiative, Simon Hardy made a contribution to that discussion entitled ‘Forgotten Legacies of Bolshevism’ (link below). This week and next ‘critical-mass.net’ will contain two further contributions which are directly critical of the Leninist and Bolshevik traditions. This weeks contribution is by Barry Biddulp who writes for the Commune blog (for link scroll down on left side bar). Next week an article entitled ‘Clinging on to Patriarchy’ by Roy Ratcliffe will appear.

________________________

THE FORGOTTEN CRITICISM OF BOLSHEVISM. 

Barry Biddulph contributes to the debate in the ACI on the Forgotten Legacies of Bolshevism by Simon Hardy

In “Left Wing” Communism an Infantile Disorder, Lenin could not have made his core organisational values more explicit: centralism and iron discipline. From putting the lid on the opposition in 1921, with a ban on factions, all the way back to bureaucratic centralism in One Step Forward Two Steps Back, and Letter to a Comrade, in 1904, there was a consistent approach in which democratic methods were not considered to be essential, but regarded as dispensable in circumstances the leader considered to be appropriate for top down authority to be loyally followed.

Simon quite rightly disagrees with a factional approach, which aims for splits, and regards disunity as normal, based on a conviction of an absolutely correct programme and policies. But this was the Iskra culture from which Bolshevism arose. It was factional through and through: the faction acting as the Party. Polemics were meant to destroy the persons credibility, not seek the truth. This included false accusations. As Vladimir Akimov remembers, in Dilemma’s of  Russian Marxism,  Lenin dishonestly claimed  Rebochee Delo and himself were  economists.(1) Leaders of other tendencies of the Russian Social Democratic Labour  Party, were seen in factional terms, as rivals.  In contrast, in the introduction to Simon’s piece, it is asserted that ‘Bolshevism emerged out of an attempt to build broad parties which allowed a diverse number of tendencies to coexist within a common political project’.  It’s not clear how this understanding emerged.

Bolshevism, as a tendency, came to light following the 1903 congress and in effect as a party in 1912. In neither instance could the ‘project’ be remotely described as a broad church. On the contrary it could not have been more narrow and factional. Lenin was virtually alone with a few followers following 1903. The congress was an émigré  squabble; cats fighting in a sack. Lenin admitted he spent the entire congress in a frenzy. There were no programmatic differences. Trotsky the future leader of the revolution in 1905 and 1917 was against Lenin. Plekhanov, who was against both revolutions, was on Lenin’s side. The faction fighting and name calling created an atmosphere in which there was no respect for personalities or decisions. Lenin’s majority on the editorial board election which triggered the split in the RSDLP was due to anti Iskra comrades leaving the congress and had an accidental character. The formal majority quickly became the minority after the Congress. In Prague in 1912, Lenin in effect captured the RSDLP for the Bolsheviks, excluding many future leaders of the October Revolution.

Simon Hardy regards Rosa Luxemburg’s critique of Lenin’s organisational methods misplaced; but the misunderstanding seems to be Simon’s. Simon warns against the dangers of inflexible forms of organisation, deduced in an unproblematic way from theory. But this is precisely the point made by Rosa Luxemburg and Trotsky in their critique of Lenin in 1904, in Organisational Questions of the Russian Social Democracy [Leninism or Marxism] and Our Political Tasks. Lenin not only advocated bureaucracy against democracy, and centralism against local autonomy, but identified revolutionary principle with this top down approach which extended the rights and powers of the centre over the parts ignoring organisational democracy. He regarded a grass-roots approach from the rank and file up, as a form of opportunism.(2)

This organisational dogma is often justified and glossed over by use of the phrase, ‘bending the stick’. Lenin used an organisational trick of exaggeration to overemphasize the key task. But a bent stick is distorted and distortion leads to a dissociation from reality and a false tradition. Another defence of Lenin is to argue that a powerful party centre was essential for effectiveness in an autocratic regime. But the problem with this is, if it is penetrated by a state agent, (Malinovsky) all the information about the organisation is shared by the state . No organisational form is spy proof. In any case, even if bureaucratic centralism was somehow necessary, due to specific circumstances, why make a virtue of necessity? Why not stand for as much democracy and local autonomy as possible? Police repression in Russia existed in 1896, but it did not stop the decentralised mass work of the so-called economists.

Simon seems to share Luxemburg’s and Trotsky’s rejection of making a fetish of  discipline. Lenin invoked factory discipline for the Bolsheviks, conflating capitalist technology and authority with socialist collectivism and even dragging in military discipline and the soldiers mentality, as a model for the party member, literally the rank and file, in One Step Forward Two Steps back. (3) Luxemburg and Trotsky stressed arousing the spirit of rebellion against mind numbing capitalist industrial work and discipline, rather than the sterile spirit of the overseer. (4) Any discipline had meaning only in the sense of self-discipline of the individual and the class for a just cause, not in unthinking loyalty to a leadership. After the October Revolution, Lenin returned to  value factory discipline, one man management and respect for capitalist technology and the division of labour that flowed from it. Most of the factions banned by Lenin in 1921 made the same points, any organisation should be rooted in working class initiative, energy and creativity.  Instead of anchoring  the organisation in the self-activity of working class, Lenin located the party in a stable leadership team who could somehow be the custodians for the socialist future.

In part, Simon’s view of Bolshevism is not so much a critical appraisal as an echo of the Lenin cult.  So according to Simon, ‘Lenin himself knew how to make hard decisions about when to work with people and when to break with them, he was single-minded in his determination to build a revolutionary party’.  But Lenin preferred to work with practical committee men, such as Stalin, who could not challenge his leadership. Stalin was one of the core of loyal Bolshevik Leninists. Lenin promoted him to numerous positions over the years, with disastrous consequences, due to his ability to apply pressure to enforce the Leninist line. The other implication of Simon’s statement implies that Lenin and Bolshevism were always the revolutionary current and all others were reformists or centrists.  This is the myth of the party of a new type. But Bolshevism was not free of opportunism as Zinoviev, Kamenev, and Stalin demonstrated with their support for the provisional government in February 1917.

Simon provides a justification for a homogenous Leninist faction in the RSDLP on the grounds of ‘the equivocations of the Mensheviks and floaters (!) like Trotsky’. But what about Lenin’s programmatic equivocations? The perspective of Bourgeois democratic revolution proved reformist and wrong in 1905 and 1917. Lenin viewed Trotsky’s and Martov’s promotion of permanent revolution in 1905 as ultra left. In Our Differences (1905) Trotsky mocked Lenin’s Jacobinism. The perspectives of Bolshevism called for a working class aestheticism. The working class would limit itself to democratic demands and trust the party to deliver socialism in the future, while the capitalists would  say to themselves everything is fine, because there is no threat to property as the working class has agreed to discipline itself by accepting the constraints imposed by the party. In 1917 a debolshevised (Trotsky’s words on joining)  Bolshevik party left behind the minimum programme to catch up with masses and trampled on the main Leninist programmatic demand, of the  Constitutional Assembly.

A Leninism without expulsion’s and exclusions, which seems to be Simon’s position, would simply not be Leninism. His view that ‘it (Bolshevik) was a party that succeeded in managing differences internally and striking the right balance between democracy and united action’ is not a recognisable description of ‘the party or the tendency’. The factional nature of the Bolsheviks prior to 1917 resulted mainly in exclusions rather than expulsions.  During the period of reaction following the defeat of the 1905 revolution, the membership of the RSDLP factions was  reduced to tiny numbers. Lenin then insisted the Bolshevik faction had to have a single mind: his own. Even tactical differences were ruled out. Bolshevism became monolithic, and party patriotism and the party line became the norm, establishing a heritage for the party dictatorship over the class 1919/23 and Stalinism that followed.(5)

The expulsion of Alexander Bogdanov from the Bolshevik faction showed the undemocratic and unscrupulous manner in with Lenin could deal with effective critics. The difference with Bogdanov was tactical. The third Duma had an even more restricted franchise than the previous two and the Bolsheviks did not have the membership for a mass electoral intervention, so the dispute that followed was largely theoretical and given its tactical nature, unnecessary. Lenin had previously favoured boycott, but now broke the rules of democratic centralism and voted against the Bolshevik faction and against a boycott at a joint RSDLP meeting, in 1907, with the Mensheviks. Lenin was in a minority of one in his faction. Later in 1909 Bogdanov, was in effect, expelled  at an extended Proletarii editorial meeting of Leninist loyalists. Lenin could not risk being outvoted at a Bolshevik conference. While Lenin could not work with Bogdanov or Trotsky, he could work with Stalin and Plekhanov, who had already opposed the revolution in 1905. Did he really always know who to work with in the interests of the broader movement and the revolution? (6)

During the period of reaction the difficulties of maintaining the organisation and some kind of resistance led naturally to intense tactical disagreements within the Bolshevik faction. Lenin’s approach, like his pedantic response to Rosa Luxemburg (7) seemed to be about efficiency. The leader or leadership makes the decisions: get used to it. There was no toleration of tactical differences or rights for minorities. The Bolshevik critics of Lenin were deemed to be heretics or deviationist’s of one kind or another. In the tradition of Iskra, labels were pinned on sinners: recallists, ultimatists, god builders and so on. There are no positive lessons to be learned from any of this.

Simon refers to a model of democratic centralism adopted by the Bolsheviks after the  the unity conference of the RSDLP in 1906. But the Mensheviks were a majority on the leading committee. The Bolsheviks were a party within a party with their own central committee and discipline. Who decides when the unity of a definite party action begins and ends or when criticism is to end and members must toe the line or else: the central committee or leadership. But which leadership? Lenin insisted that any controversy on action and criticism would be decided by a RSDLP conference. This allowed the Bolsheviks a blank cheque to criticise the Menshevik leadership. It was a kind of entryist policy. In the revolutionary year 1917 democratic centralism broke down at a leadership level with Lenin pursuing his own line in public against the entire central committee and the masses overwhelmed the party centre and were not taking orders from anyone.

Lenin’s enduring model of Democratic Centralism, given his bureaucratic view of organisational efficiency, was his explanation to the Democratic Centrists who called for the restoration of the democratic side of the concept at the ninth congress following the October Revolution. Members elect an executive  and the leadership get on with administration; the congress elects a leadership and so get on with it. (8)  Lenin returned to intolerance of discussion and debate shortly after 1917. Enough of the chatter. The workers  opposition and other critics  were seen as unhealthy deviations from the correct line. It was not a question of legitimate debate and discussion, since the opponents of the leader were dishonestly deemed to be anarchists Syndicalist’s, petty bourgeois or simply childish. This was the cult of the leader with the correct line. Organisational measures were used to remove critics from their supporters and pressure put on oppositional papers to be closed down.

Democratic Centralism is not democratic; leaders decide on how much democracy there should be, depending on their interpretation of the circumstances.  The concept has been compatible with authoritarian personalities and top down undemocratic parties. Simon wants to fill an undemocratic form with a democratic content, but the usual undemocratic content was demonstrated recently in a scandal in the British SWP.  The content is tied to the form of a small central leadership mimicking the centralization of state decision-making.  A post capitalist society can only be established by the self emancipation of the working class, not a handful of leaders invoking the values of so-called democratic centralism and substituting for the class.

Endnotes

1 Vladimir Akimov, The dilemmas Of Russian Marxism, p 322  Edited by Jonathan Frank 1967. Lenin dishonestly claimed he did not see any need for a revolutionary organisation.

2 Vladimir Lenin, One step Forward,Two steps back. (1977) CW V7p394

3 As above p392

4 Leon Trotsky, Our Political Tasks, p 104, undated, New Park Publications.

5  Marcel Liebman, Leninism under Lenin, 1980,Merlin Press p282

6  For years Lenin had left philosophy on one side in his alliance with Bogdanov. In any case there were serious differences between the materialism of Plekhanov and indeed Lenin, compared with the philosophy of Marx.

7 Lenin, Revolution  Democracy and Socialism, selected writings, Edited by Paul Le blanc, p 151, Pluto Press 2008.

8 Michael Waller, Democratic Centralism, p 28 Manchester University press 1981.

Posted in Critique, Politics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

AUSTERITY: IT’S ANOTHER WORD FOR WAR.

Posted on January 10, 2013 by stutteringsteps

1) The attack is already under way.

Globally, the troops have been prepared, the weapons sharpened, the strategic headquarters of capitalism have been readied, the national command centres have been briefed and the local field marshals are on the alert. In 2013 the previous heavy skirmishes conducted by the financial, economic and political agents of capital, will be intensified into a veritable war against the working classes and the poor.

As usual it’s the bondholders and banksters among the 1% plus who will order an increase in the intensity of the war against the rest of society. Their colleagues in the strategic, decentralised headquarters of IMF, World Bank, Central and national banks, along with their paid mercenaries in national governments and states are planning the tactics and strategy. Their field agents in local governments and law courts are on stand-by – ready to wield the life-threatening armaments – and do their bidding.

The missiles this elite group of exploiters and spoilers of the planet, will deploy have already been successfully trialled in the past few years. They are bankruptcies, redundancies, price rises, tax increases, house repossessions, wage and salary reductions, monetary devaluation, welfare reductions, resource contractions and loss of civil liberties. Each weapon has been carefully fashioned and designed to take out a specific section of society. In addition to these hard physical weapons of civilian destruction, soft weapons of media propaganda will also be utilised.

The hard weapons, already loaded and awaiting to be fired in sustained volleys, will indeed destroy countless families and individual lives, throughout Europe, the UK and North America in 2013. They will do so by delivering poverty, ill health, homelessness, cold, malnutrition, crime, drug addiction and even suicide. For this reason the propaganda weapons will play an important role in the austerity war. As in all wars media propaganda will be deployed to make all the death and destruction seem regrettable, but inevitable and unavoidable.

The current economic and financial crisis has ramped up the economic and social war between capital and labour by a considerable degree. In 2013 it will be further intensified against the working classes and the poor in most countries. The casualties are now found not only among the long-term unemployed, a group which has been increasing everywhere since the 1970’s, but also among those who once felt safe. Even small and medium capitalist concerns will be sacrificed to the needs of the system and its bankers and bondholders.

It is a war in which the enemy is not only outside the territorial limits of each country, but also within it. The capitalists and their pro-capitalist supporters are ensconced in positions of political, economic and financial power in each country, from the Middle East, through Europe and on to North and South America. The local agents of this austerity assault on communities will offer the classic Nuremburg defence; ’We are only following orders’. They will display all the hallmarks of bureaucratic banality which clings onto ‘position ‘and attaches its own self-interest to that of maintaining the ’system’. The capitalist induced austerity war is therefore a global war in which the battle fields will be fought out primarily, but not exclusively, within nation states.

2) A first line of defence?

In times of all out war – in which innocent civilians will be randomly attacked – it is sensible for societies to prepare lines of civil defence. Unfortunately, very few people have recognised that this really is an all-out war and so defensive preparations are not very well advanced. Many people simply think that a rogue battalion of mixed conservative and liberal troops with too much authoritarian testosterone have conquered political power here and there. Consequently they just need to be told to stop what they are doing by sufficiently large demonstrations, petitions and frequent one-day strikes. The ultimately penalty envisaged being to send these ‘rogues’ back to their barracks by voting them out of office. If only it were so simple.

Yet this perspective and these very tactics have already been tried and found wanting in the Middle East, Greece and Spain. Undoubtedly, more of these tactics (and similar) will be, and should be, tried as the crisis continues to unfold. However, it is becoming obvious that no amount of verbal abuse, eloquent persuasion or mass demonstrations is going to shift these representatives of a global system of exploitation, from the hostilities they are bent upon. So where does that leave us? If, for example, there were political parties in each country with sufficient strength and determination to champion the policies such as the following;

a) refuse to pay the sovereign debts; b) refuse to bail out the banksters; c) turnover the zombie firms to their workers; d) fully nationalise the high street banks; e) close down all the futures and speculation avenues; f) institute a low maximum salary and a high minimum wage; g) introduce a maximum amount of currency which could be taken out of the country; h) confiscate the property of those who leave; i) end foreign interventions by our troops; j) abandon nuclear deterrent; k) limit the amount of land an individual could own and control; l) turn over all unused local resources to local citizens community groups.

Then an initial complimentary part of our civil defence would be support for such a party. However, with the exception of Syriza in Greece, no such parties exist and even Syriza does not – as yet – have a fully radical programme, which would do more than stabilise capitalism in the short-term and reintroduce it with all the same problems in the longer. Elsewhere the moderate left is not even substantially collaborating to maximise the effects of demonstrations, meetings and potential strike actions. The anti-capitalist left, despite a general recognition that austerity is an intensification of class war, has not shrugged off its sectarian competitive divisions based upon the desire to be the exclusive ‘leaders’ of any present and future significant events.

The obscene extent of the global inequalities, the international spread of injustices, the planetary scope of ecological destruction, caused by the capitalist mode of production, requires a general emancipation of humanity from this system. But such emancipation can only come from a section of society which is large enough, dynamic enough and generous enough to be prepared to champion, not just its own needs, but those of humanity in general. In the 20th and 21st centuries, no class has as yet arrived at that position and hardly any sub-group of the classes, including sections of the working classes, has articulated the need to become such representatives. Each class and each political tendency within each class are as yet primarily concerned with their own class and narrow political interests. And these are far from sufficient to found society anew.

3) A second line of defence.

In the absence of such an organisational development, and not being paralysed whilst awaiting its possible (and contradictory) creation, then working people and the oppressed should fall back on their own resources. Indeed, as the ordinary people of Greece and Spain (and elsewhere) have already demonstrated, these are many and varied and some are well established. Pressing need has re-instated the humanitarian deed. Defence against the intensification of the austerity war as it effects the working and non-working classes and poor in all countries subject to austerity war citizen bombardment, will need to include the following:

a) Local community defence groups to prevent damage and looting in disturbances.

b) Community action to prevent house evictions.

c) Community action to re-connect essential services cut off for none payment.

d) Community resource sharing (transport, tools, food, communications etc.)

e) Community trading. (L.E.T.S schemes, Credit Unions.)

f) Keeping open essential services. (education, health, fire, libraries.)

Such levels of local self-activity by working people will put communities on a defensive war footing as the government attacks increase in number and intensity. It is out of such activities that the presently missing – consistent – human solidarity can be created and the ’muck of ages’ be washed away. It is out of such activities, that the basis of a new form of citizen self-activity and reliance can develop. It is out of such activity that other sections of society can be drawn in and recognise – in practice – that another world is possible. It is out of such experiences that a deeper recognition of politics as being the problem and all forms of politics is merely a perpetuation of elite exploitation. It is out of such inclusive activities and the defence of non-profit-making forms of social production which will really point the way beyond capital. [see Defending Public Services’.]

Roy Ratcliffe (January 2013.)

[For an example of how subsidies are given to businesses whilst cutting back on welfare see http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/05/15/the-hidden-welfare-state-that-the-u-k-government-dares-not-speak-of/. For more more on how the economic and political elite organise at a global level see  http://www.aworldtowin.net/blog/davos-elites-warn-of-perfect-global.html   [For more on the propaganda war against the victims of the capitalist mode of production see: http://stevedrant.wordpress.com/%5D

Posted in Economics, Finance, Politics | Tagged , , | 5 Comments

DEFENDING PUBLIC SERVICES.

Posted on December 28, 2012 by stutteringsteps

It is true that many of the public services in Europe, America, the UK and elsewhere are badly managed, some are corrupt, and others divisive. It is also true they were set up by bourgeois governments committed to the capitalist mode of production. In addition, many have been neglected in some places to the point of dysfunction and disintegration by a political class, that has seen only its own wealth creation and military status as the essential prerequisites of 21st century modernity.

It is also easy for those workers employed in the ruthless private sector to begrudge the often better working conditions and pay applicable in many public services. In addition, the once dreamed of inclusive ambition to level all workers up to the highest conditions, has been replaced by the neo-liberal nightmare of levelling these down to the lowest. So why should trade unionists and non-trade unionists not employed in them continue to defend public services if the recent track record is so dismal?

a) The historic function of non-profit-making organisations.

The ‘New Deal, ‘Fair Labor Standards Act’ in the US, the Beveridge ’Social Insurance and Allied Services developments in the UK, were part of a raft of alternative methods of economic and social organisation introduced in the west, before and after the Second World War. These initiatives were set up by the bourgeois elite for two main reasons. One was to grant reforms to working conditions which would distract workers away from militant action and thoughts of revolution. Another was that the massive loss of infrastructure and fixed assets, caused by the two world wars, was too great and insufficiently profitable to be replaced quickly by normal capitalist forms of investment.

From different causes, these two motivations are once again exercising the minds of the political, financial and economic elites. The state bailouts of banks and other capitalist concerns, such as General Motors in the US, and other state sponsored and funded re-structuring, indicate that from the right-wing perspective, the state is once again being used to stabilise the private enterprise system now it has started to implode. In this crisis context, nationalisations and public sector service development could also be again used by the left reformist (‘bourgeois socialist’) wing of capital to unwittingly save capitalism.

At the same time there are also those among the conservative bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois who like the state to ameliorate the conditions of workers, without changing the system. In times of crisis both these constituents are able to share a common goal – the stabilisation and resuscitation of the system – from different motives. The program of Syriza in Greece, needs to be considered with this distinct possibility in mind. Nevertheless, this possibility does not mean these calls should be automatically opposed. For it is important to recognise that this massive and necessary development of the public sector in Europe and elsewhere, after the war, represented a considerably modified economic form to that of 19th century capitalism.

b) Distinguishing the ‘essence’ from the ‘form‘.

Despite their introduction by the pro-capitalist elite, these mid-20th century developments represented a distinct, series of non-profit making forms of organising social production. In this case, as in many others, we need to carefully distinguish between the ‘essence’ of something and the particular form it takes. All of these projects successfully operated without a profit motive being the functioning incentive. They were socio-economic models of production and distribution based upon perceived (sometimes misperceived) social need as distinct from models based upon greed for surplus-value and private wealth accumulation. They had their (often severe) problems, particularly their hierarchical structures and their subservience to the bourgeois economic and political system

For some people among the working class and enlightened middle-class of the time, these forms, particularly ‘nationalisation’ were in fact viewed as completely alternative forms to capital, within and outside the capitalist system. Yet viewed more soberly, they were clearly not alternatives – as they then existed – and in the political and economic context of the time could never have been. The most large-scale examples of this mistaken concept and practice, that a potentially transitional form is actually an alternative form, was in regard to Russia and China. In such cases, whole-scale nationalisation of the ‘means of production’ placed the production of use-values in the hands of a political party oligarchy, who continued to appropriate the surplus-value, for their own use and purposes.

The ‘mode’ of production, under Bolshevik and other vanguardist forms of ‘leadership’ was one in which workers became wage and salary-working employees of the state instead of employees of large capitalists. The extraction and appropriation of workers’ surplus-value by an elite section of society continued. The elite exploiters had merely changed their social identity (their personifications of capital) from members of an economic class to those of a political class. Some of these nationalised and public service forms of organisation and production could have attained more for workers if they had been viewed as transitional vehicles in a movement that was intent upon fully abolishing all forms of wage-labour and capital – including state-capitalist forms. But they were not.

Yet if a post-capitalist mode of production based upon production for social need, rather than private greed, is a necessary development for future societies, then the ‘essence’ of these large-scale public service industries has in many ways represented something valuable. Indeed, some are well worthy of preserving whatever the mode of production – free (at the point of use) non-profit based education, (lower and higher), along with health provision – for instance. All of which are now under attack.

c) Production for need versus production for greed.

As noted, the form imposed upon these non-profit-making organisations was a top-down, bourgeois model of management and control. As such these services were always severely compromised and deformed by this structure. Nevertheless, for a time they demonstrated two important results. First, decent products, efficient services, improved wages and salaries as well as sick leave, pension and other enhanced in-service working rights. Second, a practical sustained example, that large-scale organisations can function and develop without the need for a profit motive.

So I suggest that in the 20th century, three broad non-profit based economic structures had been successfully tried – co-operative societies developed from the 19th century and nationalised industries and public service agencies from the 20th. A fourth has been developed further than these 3 in the Parecon movement. All these models have proved their initial and mid-term viability despite some being shackled by management who became progressively elitist, self-interested, parasitic and ideologically opposed to this particular form.

However, it should be obvious that any form capable of being transitional, by definition, is capable of being transitioned in more than one direction. In the absence of revolutionary changes in economic and political power and lacking democratic workers and citizen control, that direction (in the ‘communist’ East as well as the capitalist West) was not forward – but backward into degeneration  – and now privatisation!

The pro-capitalist government agents of the Labour Party, Conservative Party, Democrats and Republicans, (and their equivalents elsewhere) with an ideological fixation on profitability, saw the public sector as inefficient, and costly. In other words nationalisations and public services, were increasingly seen as ‘alien’ economic forms to profit-maximising, surplus-value extracting, capitalism. And of course production costs (and therefore prices) in a method of production which provides good wages, conditions and welfare under the domination of, and competition from, the capitalist mode could not be kept as low as the private sector. However, this does not mean they were not cost effective or innovative.

So I suggest when public sector workers and others are defending the welfare state, education and local government provisions, they are not only defending their own jobs and the services upon which other people rely, they are wittingly or unwittingly defending a potentially valid transitional method of producing goods and services, and should be supported. In this sense, a future post-capitalist mode of production has already been partly revealed or revealed in embryo; by the unintended actions of pro-capitalist governments during the period of late 20th century capitalist post-war reconstruction.

d) Can capitalism really give birth to its opposite?

To those who dualistically condemn everything that is produced or developed, under the capitalist mode of production and created during its existence, I would therefore suggest caution and recommend a dialectical approach to consider. The following 19th century observation by Karl Marx on the capitalist mode of production indicates one such approach:

“At a certain stage of development it brings forth the material agencies for its own dissolution. From that moment new forces and new passions spring up in the bosom of society…. ..capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a law of nature, its own negation.” (Marx Capital Volume 1. Chapter 32.)

The new forces, emerging out of the old, are the ‘means of production’ (machinery, raw materials, labour and the organisational methods of production) these ‘forces’ (including the waged and salaried workers) are the off-spring of, and reaction against, the domination of profit-seeking production, from within that mode. In normal times, we workers are alienated from our own production and in the regular crises of capital (financial and economic) we are further alienated from being allowed to earn and learn freely. To the capitalist and pro-capitalist elite, workers and their campaigns to protect and advance their living standards and the conditions they produce in, are viewed as an alien force resisting their pursuit of austerity for us and bank bailouts and profits for them.

Under the capitalist mode of production the processes and methods of production have been developed (over-developed in the 20th and 21st centuries), beyond the individual and narrow, localised dependency on skills and raw materials during feudal times. However, it has at the same time created a two-fold nature to the production process – one positive and one negative. The capitalist mode has developed the technical and social production process for producing use-values as a large-scale collective activity, but at the same time has created a despotic form of this process which is primarily concerned with surplus-value extraction.

So the effective socialised production of use-values is the other side of the coin – so to speak – to socialised production for the purpose of creating profits. Whilst anti-capitalists would want to end production for profit, for the few, I doubt whether most of us would think it desirable or even possible to end the socialised production of use-values. Our social reliance upon each other, (now globally) for our necessities and leisure is nonetheless a fundamental essence which will undoubtedly be carried forward beyond the present domination of capital. Marx recognised the further development of this socialised ‘essence’ and its continuous development with regard to joint-stock companies and to 19th century co-operation. He noted for example:

“The value of these great social experiments cannot be over-rated. By deed, instead of argument, they have shown that production on a large-scale, and in accord with the behests of modern science, may be carried on without the existence of a class of masters employing a class of hands…the means of labour need not be monopolised as a means of domination over and extortion against, ..the labouring man.” (Marx. Address to the Working Man’s International.)

Correct the gender specific term and replace it with ‘population’ and this undoubtedly still stands with regard to co-operative methods of production and importantly, as noted, this model has been further developed by the Parecon movement. But the above assessment applies also to other previously noted non-profit-making forms of social organisation in the production of use-values. The nationalised industries, the health services, education institutions etc., even in their deformed and distorted manifestations, have demonstrated in practice – not in theoretical propositions or fantastic left utopian imaginings – that high quality goods and services are possible without the organisational motivation being the acquisition of personal or collective profit.

e) For the defence and democratisation of public services.

If in discussions with workers and others, now and in the future, what other models than these are we going to suggest point the way to a future post-capitalist society? Are we to point to; the ’Soviet Union’; China; Yugoslavia; North Korea; Cuba? Do we really want to influence workers into preferring to resurrect capitalist domination rather than such forms of oligarchic domination, which went (and are still going) nowhere positive?

We need to not only defend these current forms, because in the current crisis, they are the source of jobs and pensions of up to 60% of current workers, and the services other citizens presently rely upon and need – that is indeed important. But we should also be arguing for much more as we raise the issue of the need for abolishing production for profit which self-destructively accumulates in the hands of a privileged class. True such nascent forms need to be democratised, extended across all service and productive industries and placed under the direct democratic control of workers and citizen committees for their potential to become a transitional basis toward a post-capitalist form of society.

Alongside petty-bourgeois socialist demands for further nationalisations to stabilise capital, we should be placing revolutionary, transitional demands such as placing these potential transitional forms under the direct control of workers and citizens democratic committees. According to this view a post-capitalist form of society does not have to look like the Soviet Union or China, under the iron fist of political oligarchies etc. It could look more like the best parts of the twentieth-century Europe, North and South America and elsewhere, without the pollution, without the poverty, without corrupt politics, without the obscene levels of ostentatious wealth, without hierarchical domination and without wars to forcibly extract raw materials and provide markets for capitalist profit making.

Roy Ratcliffe (December 2012.)

Posted in Economics, Marx, Politics | Tagged , , , , | 10 Comments

UPRISINGS AND REVOLUTIONS (Introduction).

Posted on December 13, 2012 by stutteringsteps

In a previous article [Crisis! So what else can we do?‘] I argued that among the anti-capitalist left there was much discussion of ’revolution’ and what initiatives given the developing crisis, might galvanise the masses into struggle. I asserted the following;

“However, some of these initiatives stem from a mistaken view, that small groups, with the correct orientation and ideas can stimulate  significant and sustained actions, involving large numbers of people – before the vast majority of the population are ready to do so. In this case, such attempts are bound to fail….. A parallel problem is that promoters of these initiatives generally appear to have insufficient understand of the dynamics and evolution of protest, uprisings and revolutions.”

This article itself gave rise to some criticism and discussion, particularly after its further posting on the Commune blog. Because that particular article was suggesting what could be done, much of the reasoning behind the last sentence of the above extract was not included. However, there is now a further article posted in above pages, entitled ‘Uprisings and Revolutions’ which attempts to make good that deficiency and make clear my own reasoning behind the original assertion.

The article outlines three economic and social circumstances which form the historical context for uprisings, civil wars and revolutions along with the general sequence of stages which serve to distinguish between the unfolding of these various social upheavals. It suggests that while such processes are complex, fluid, contradictory, and interconnected, recognising the outlined general stages and phases can be useful in helping to understand what is and what is not happening in the various struggles around the world. Popular uprisings are the collective – NO! Popular revolutions are the collective – YES! For those interested the full article can be read by clicking on the following; ‘Uprisings and Revolutions’.

Roy Ratcliffe (December 2012.)

Posted in Critique, Politics | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

THE SHOOTING OF MALALA YOUSAFZAI

Posted on November 30, 2012 by stutteringsteps

1. Yet another recent victim of religious ideology.

Malala Yousafzai is a fourteen year old Pakistani girl from the township of Swat in Islamabad. At the time of her interview on Aljazeera during the summer of 2012, she was a bright, intelligent, gentle girl who loved going to school and learning. She was very mature for her age and knew her own mind. During the interview, she gently disagreed with her father’s opinion on some issues, but showed her respect and love for him. She was clearly a young woman who sought information, weighed up situations for herself and then without rancour, arrived at her own opinions. On October 9th 2012 she was shot in a deliberate attempted execution and she barely survived the two bullets aimed at her. Yet in the case of Malala Yousafzai, and others, we need to look beyond the immediate horror and outrage and look at what motivated it and what reasons were used by the perpetrators to justify it.

The attempted execution was carried out by adult members of a fundamentalist religious group (the Taliban) on October 9th 2012. Armed with at least one gun they intercepted the vehicle in which the defenceless fourteen year old was travelling. Then these religiously motivated cowards attempted to end her life by directing two bullets at short range into the young girls head. She survived the brutal ordeal and was rushed to hospital and later flown to the UK for further surgical work to save her life. At the time of writing she is recovering. This cold and calculated execution effort failed as the bullet travelled along the left side of her jaw, narrowly missing her brain and thus failed to kill her. But what was her terrible transgression to deserve such a savage attempt on her young life?

The crime she had been found guilty of, asserted by her Taliban judges, was introducing western values into her community. The charge was not in anyway substantiated and perhaps for very good reasons. During the TV interview all she was insisting upon for herself and advocating for other females was the right for women to be educated. But that was apparently enough. Or was it? Was that really the full extent of her crime? In fact I suggest her transgression – in the eyes of her religious judges and those tasked with her execution – went far deeper than simply desiring to learn to read and write. Her full crime was to openly advocate “peace, education, freedom of thought and freedom of expression“. The latter two elements are the ones which religious authority of all denominations try to resist and the fundamentalists among them – most fiercely.

I suggest there were two further problems the patriarchal fundamentalists who planned her demise had identified. First of all she was a girl on the way to being a woman who could reason for herself and could not be cowed by words of a man – not even her father. Second; she was a living example to other young Muslim women that women are capable of being independently minded and could assert their rights against any religious assertions to the contrary. This from the standpoint of a patriarchal religion – that proposes a male supernatural being and advocates male domination in all affairs – is an anathema. And it is the resurrection and conservation of patriarchy which all the modern militant members of the three Abrahamic religions are intent upon achieving.

Given that the Taliban admitted its members carried out the judgement, authorised the execution and carried out the attempt, it is not difficult to work out that this was a religiously inspired attempted murder. It cannot be dismissed as a ubiquitous terrorist attack by anti-imperialists. It was not aimed at North American or European Imperialists and ex-Colonialists – it was aimed at one of their own. For this reason, there must have been a religious-backed discussion between members of the Taliban. No doubt after consulting with their religious elders, a decision was sooner or later made to punish the 14 year old girl for not adhering to the religious norms which the Taliban religious mentality think appropriate and insist upon. But just what are these norms, and where are they derived from?

The Taliban represents a certain segment of the religion of Islam. However, it is important to recognise that Islam is itself a branch of the above mentioned Abrahamic family of religions. All three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are patriarchal institutions based upon imagined and sanctified patriarchal ideologies. In theory and practice all three religions consistently and persistently elevate men’s authority above women and religious authority above all members of the religion. In particular, the ‘holy’ scriptures of all three religions repeatedly and stridently advocate and emphasise, the subordination of women to men. Below are some examples.

2. Religious justifications for the subjection of women.

Lest people try to use this article as a pretext for singling out Islam, let us begin with the Judaic Torah or Old Testament, before going forward to the New Testament and concluding with the Qur‘an;

“And the Lord God said;…in labour you shall bear children. You shall be eager for your husband and he shall be your master.” (Genesis 3 v 16.)

“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection….For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and she transgressed the law.” (1 Timothy 2 v 11, 13 and 14.)

“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others,….Good women are obedient….As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” (‘Women’ Surah 4: 34.)

So here is a scriptural basis (one of many) of the denial of women’s full and equal rights in all three of the Abrahamic religions and this includes young women like Malala. These examples, along with many others, in their scriptures, make clear the patriarchal foundations of these ancient religions in the world of male hierarchical and authoritarian societies. For thousands of years the hierarchy of all three Abrahamic religions persecuted women and heretics in various ways. It is only in the last few hundred years that those living in European Christian and Judaic communities have been free of such barbaric tortures, burning at the stake, and summary executions for disobeying the religious elite and their supporters. Yet even in the 21st century, women, world-wide, are still not treated as equal to men. And Malala along with young women like her, born into Muslim communities, are increasingly not accepting ‘mastery’ from a husband, nor are they learning in ‘silence and subjection’, or happy to be ‘beaten’ and sent to bed.

Before a degree of European and Western arrogance steps in, we should recognise that in most western societies made up of Judaic and Christian religious communities, women are also not treated equally to men, despite generations of campaigning for equal rights. Societies in which one or other of the Abrahamic religions plays an important part are still male dominated and women continue to be treated as second class citizens. And in many cases women in Judaic and Christian societies are still expected to be subjected to men. Even in Western societies with secularised and equalised legal systems, rape and sexual harassment of women within and outside of marriage, are still common. These are the unsavoury cultural vestiges of that Abrahamic patriarchal domination tradition. So it is not all ancient history and enlightenment over here. As recently as November 2012 the English Church denied the right of women to serve as Bishops. The Abrahamic ideology clearly still maintains a stranglehold on the intellect and humanity of its adherents.

For this reason alone (and there are others) revolutionary-humanists are opposed to all religious power and control over people. And that opposition includes not excusing, glossing over or defending the ideologies associated with them. Whilst the defence of religious members from racist or sectarian assault and discrimination is something we should actively promote and engage in, this does not extend to supporting the ideologies which assist in their continued subjection. Let us be clear on this. It means not furthering the practical subjection of these individuals to religious authority by remaining selectively uncritical of that ideology and its implications. Silence and complicity on this issue and justifying this position in the name of accepting cultural diversity is a reactionary position. We can see what so-called enlightened religious thinking can accept as God-given with respect to women‘s employment rights, so how bad can it get when this patriarchal mentality really aggressively asserts itself? We have a glimpse with the shooting of Malala and its justification comes from the same source.

3. Religious justifications for killing in the name of God.

“Now go and smite the Amalekites, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both men and women, young people and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.” (1 Sam. 15 v 3)

That is an extract from the Jewish Bible which Christians refer to as the ‘Old Testament’. Think about last months ‘fire and brimstone’ rained down on Gaza! And is not slaying men, women and children, exactly what the Zionists in Israel did to the inhabitants of Gaza and did in 2009? Will the Israeli Army Rabbi’s or others have not read this or any of the other such extracts before the Israeli Offence Force went into battle against the Palestinians? From the Christian New Testament we read;

“And out of his mouth came a two-edged sword, that with it he should smite the nations; and he will rule them with a rod of iron;” (Revelation 19 v 15.)

Although Christian economic and political rulers, such as IMF chiefs, Bankers, Obama, Cameron etc., now control nations mainly through economic and financial means, they nevertheless still wield the sword and rods of iron (now laser guided) in Iraq, Afghanistan and they did so in Libya. And of course the last thousand year history of Christianity is littered with corpses killed and tortured in the name of Jesus. So what about the Qur’an?

“He whom Allah has led astray cannot be guided. They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have done, so you may all be alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of Allah. If they desert you, seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. (Qur’an Surah 4. 88/89. Women.)

Sincere belief in this portion of Islamic ideology, as devout Taliban members will undoubtedly have, would suggest that the all-powerful Allah has led young Malala Yousafzai astray and she is no longer guided. The sentence following this proposition suggests that such followers can ‘seize and put to death’ any such deserter. And isn’t that exactly what was attempted on Malala in October 2012? Whilst not all members of these three religions would choose to follow such barbaric suggestions, (there are many more in these three religious documents) the fact is they remain as solid, accepted – even revered – parts of this ideology and so can be used by those who choose to do so. This possibility – motivated and justified directly by religious ideology – means there is a clear difference between support for a human beings rights and support for an ideology and practice which denies those rights in numerous other ways. The deliberate conflation of religion, culture and identity by those supportive of or immersed in religion, raises an important issue for solidarity among the oppressed.

4. Solidarity with the oppressed.

So solidarity yes! But as human-beings and workers not as Muslims, Jews or Christians. From the perspective I suggest we adopt, we should not fail to distinguish between a) ideologies which enslave the intellect and practices of the oppressed and b) the rights of human-beings not to be the target of racist intolerance. This is particularly important where this racism is thinly disguised as intolerance against a religion. In any case, racists and neo-fascists are not against religion, many are religious themselves. We should expose this subterfuge, refuse to accept it’s validity and thus ourselves distinguish between religion and the person. To my mind, simply or crudely to defend people as Muslims, Christians or Jews, against racist attacks is to defacto support their ideological subservience to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and their potential or actual subordination to the Rabbis, Priests and Imams. We should defend them as human beings. Yet this failure to distinguish between the person and the ideas they have been subjected to since childhood has been repeatedly manifest among the left, including those who class themselves as revolutionary left – particularly with regard to Islam.

To my way of thinking, this uncritical position also fails to recognise the existing tensions within Islam and those between secular tendencies against religious governance – particularly from women and youth. It is the latter two categories who bear most of the weight of this oppressive form of hierarchical governance. This false dualism may also omit to recognise that not all those oppressed workers and students in the middle-east and elsewhere, are Muslims. Some identify with Christianity or Judaism, and many are secularists. For the most part in the many anti-west riots and disturbances there is a tenuous and fragile alliance between political Islam tendencies and others, which – as in Egypt is already breaking down. We should not be party to effectively allying with only the political Islamists by blanketing them all together and defending them on the basis of their religious ideology. For it is an ideology which intends to reintroduce patriarchal, anti-female, anti-gay norms alongside modern forms of capitalist exploitation. Religion is part of the problem for humanity, not part of the solution. [See also ‘Religion versus Women’s Rights’]

Roy Ratcliffe. (November 2012.)

Posted in Critique, Politics | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments