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

GAZA-WAR CEASE FIRE: SO WHO WON?

Posted on November 24, 2012 by stutteringsteps

a) Who won?

At a superficial level it may seem as if the Zionist-based colonialist entity called Israel won the just over a week-long war. After all with their superior weaponry and expertise funded and informed by North American and European military sources, they had incessantly pulverised Gaza from the air, from land and from sea – all in order to subdue them. The Nazis tried to do the same to London during the Second World War and also failed. It is a historical fact that you cannot easily subdue a people and their culture by aggressive and belligerent military destruction. In contrast to this latest incessant Israeli barrage only a very few of the Palestinian resistance forces rockets were able to avoid interception and do damage. For this reason, the military mentality of the Zionists and those who identify with them imagine they have won. But struggles are not always or entirely won by military means. There are other factors at work in the modern world.

One is the fact that the Palestinian David in Gaza, despite this month’s battle with the Goliath of Israel, continues to exist. For sixty years the Palestinians have resisted being entirely cleared off their land even though the Zionists have re-drawn their maps to remove the name ‘Palestine’ from the colonised territory. Through armed struggle and two Intifada’s, Palestinians have continually struggled to assert the moral and legal rights to exist and to their land. They have not been beaten into submission. Indeed, they continue to fight back in the only way they can with the only weapons they have – civil disobedience, peaceful demonstration and now rockets and guns. Of course, just to exist is to resist; but to resist with whatever weapons are available is to resist positively. In this sense the Palestinians have continued to win against the Zionist struggle to obliterate them – and this time in Gaza they have won that battle again.

But in an even greater sense the Zionist have lost! In fact they have been loosing the moral, intellectual and legal ground ever since the world awoke to what was really going on in former Palestine. When the Nakba became internationally recognised as the Zionist putsch instigating the colonialist land grab in 1948, the ‘facts on the ground‘ were matched by the ‘facts in peoples heads’ and printed in the historical records. The last two bombardments of Gaza, operation ‘Cast Lead’ in 2009 and operation ‘Pillar of Cloud’ in 2012 have demonstrated to the world the complete and utter inhumanity of the ideology of Zionism and the inhumanity of those Jewish nationalists who have failed to break decisively and completely with all it stands for. Israel is increasingly seen as a rogue nation and the majority of its people an anathema to all who do not directly benefit from its existence. As with all such elitist ideologies, humanity has nothing positive at all to learn from the example of Israel and the ideology of Zionism.

b) Who else won?

It was claimed by many commentators that Mohammed Morsi role as intermediary won him a spectacular level of respect from the world’s leaders. He was feted by Obama and his political coterie. But did he and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood really win much by this action? The best the newly elected Brotherhood leadership in Egypt could do to openly and practically support the people of Gaza, was to broker a cease fire. No other form of publicly declared practical help appeared to be given to those suffering the bombardment in Gaza. Were the borders opened to allow support to go in and non-combattants to escape destruction? And are eulogies from Obama, Clinton and any of the other European and North American political pirates of capital any form of useful endorsement for Morsi? I think not. Quite the opposite! And of course the resistance of Gaza was not only the work of Hamas, who played a considerable role, but of all non-betraying Palestinians, Christian, secular and Muslim.

If a gang of thugs were holding you down, squeezing your throat and punching you in the face you may well be glad when they stop hitting you in the face. You would nonetheless still want the thugs to stop strangling you. And you would hope that any sufficiently strong bystanders or so-called friends, would not only help you but would intervene and insist the thugs did exactly that. You would certainly not expect bystanders to urge you to stop struggling or to stand idly by and watch as did the western international community of Senior Politicians. Yet this may be exactly how many Palestinians in Gaza feel now the week-long bombardment from high-tech weaponry directed from land, air and sea by the armed Zionist state has ended. Punching Gaza in the face may have stopped for the moment, but the economic stranglehold on the lives of the people of Gaza remains as the despicable blockade initiated by Israel continues. So there still remains much to be done.

c) So who are the other losers?

It is obvious that the very many dead Palestinians in Gaza, the injured and the survivors who have lost their families and their homes are the losers in this tragic and brutal demonstration of Zionist inhumanity. In a direct physical sense this – and those blinded by Zionist loyalty and killed or injured in the struggle against the occupation of Palestinian land – is the greatest loss. Buildings can be replaced, at least if and when the Zionists allow building materials and machinery to be imported to Gaza. Human beings can not be replaced as easily. But of course deaths and missing limbs, are not the only losses in this latest battle. Further related non-physical losses have been demonstrated over this latest period of Zionist blitzkrieg. They are different from the loss of life, and have been losses we need not mourn. There has been a visible loss of respect, trust and integrity in the international political classes – of all political and religious denominations.

Apart from occasional hot-air rhetoric, and the odd visit, what have the Arab and Muslim leaders throughout the world done in a practical way to aid their co-religious counter-parts in Gaza or the West Bank? They have definitively not grabbed the chance to publicly do more during the bombing and shelling. And the recent self-elevation of Morsi to status of effective dictator in Egypt demonstrates that the ideology of Islam as with Judaism and Christianity is an ideology suitable and necessary to the respective governing classes. It is not enough for them to allow people to choose to be self-governed by the ‘book’, whether this is the Old Testament, the New Testament or the Qur’an. The people must be ruled by them and they mean to enforce their interpretation of social conformity through the coercion of the state. All the US  war-mongering presidents have been devout Christians and the vast majority of European political leaders are similarly ‘guided’ including the war criminal Tony Blair.

The best the so-called liberal-democratic elite political bystanders such as those in America, Europe and Britain, could do during the time powerful Israel was raining high explosive blows on defenceless Gaza, was to urge them (as Obama did) not to retaliate in any way. The same people who have supplied military equipment, intelligence and personnel to Israel – knowing it will be used against Palestinians – unsurprisingly stood on the sidelines and did little or nothing positive. They are definitely the losers – even if they don‘t know it yet. The same politicians are being further exposed as such as they implement austerity measures to ensure that ordinary people in Europe and North America pay for the financial crisis created by their counter-parts in the public and shadow banking sector.

Finally, in the absence of direct support and through its continued collusion with the Zionist entity, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, following the ’Palestine Papers’ revelations, are also poised to be the losers. One can hardly see how they come out of recent events with anything other than serious loss of standing in the eyes of Palestinians. So for anyone freed from one-sided partisan blindness, or sectarian prejudice – with the exception of those solidarity groups and individuals who spoke out and demonstrated, – there have been no other winners except the Palestinian people themselves. Their complete victory is not as yet assured but the justice of their cause certainly is. And if we succeed in creating a truly positive humanity out of the coming turmoil’s, their homeland will eventually be re-instated.

Roy Ratcliffe. (November 2012.)

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

GAZA: THE LITMUS TEST – AGAIN!

Posted on November 16, 2012 by stutteringsteps

Once again the brutal onslaught of the hi-tech Goliath against the Palestinian David in Gaza demonstrates the studied inhumanity of the Zionist colonial entity of Israel. As in the case of ‘Operation Cast Lead’ in 2008/9, the most advanced weapons of destruction are being poured down mercilessly on innocent citizens in Gaza by the Zionist states armed bodies of men and women. The complete inequality of the two sides in this colonialist enterprise; one side an impoverished, oppressed, colonised people and the other side one of the most militarily well equipped and wealthy nation states in the world, once again is ignored by all international capitalist elites, most of the people of Israel and the international media. This new bombardment follows quickly after further colonial expansion in the west bank settlement building and the decade long calculated starvation of Gaza.

Once again the capitalist and pro-capitalist elites in powerful positions around the world not only stay largely indifferent to the sixty plus years of human suffering in Palestine since the Nakba, but also fail to condemn the recurring blitzkrieg mentality of the Israeli Zionists. The silence of the international ‘elite’ and their lack of action against the ongoing genocide and land-grabbing perpetrated against the Palestinians can only be understood from the perspective of this elites self-interests. The primary purpose of their capitalist system is the reproduction of capital on a global scale. This reproduction relies upon a reliable global system of raw material supplies and markets, which in turn relies upon a reliable governing elite in each nation state. All else, including any concerns for the poor, the exploited and the oppressed, are secondary or even further down the priority list.

Their silence and complicity with Zionism is not a mystery of intellectual confusion. It is simply not in the political and economic interests of global elites to condemn or take economic action against Israel. Their electoral support or economic activity would suffer from such critical positioning. Similarly it is not in the interests of the global elites to bankrupt the bond-holders and banksters in the present crisis, for this would impede their economic, social and political position or advancement. However, it is in their interests to continue to sell Israel weapons with which to destroy Palestinian homes. It is also in their present and future interests to bankrupt the lives of their own citizens, through austerity. For this reason, the global elites indifference to the plight of those in Gaza, is matched by the indifference of the same global elites to the increasingly impoverished plight of their own citizens in the current crisis.

The system’s structural economic crisis is being managed by this same global economic and political elite by measures which protect the future of capital and the lives of rich and impoverish the mass of ordinary citizens. The humanity of all economic and political elites, whether Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu or Buddhist, is compromised by their connection to and complicity in the global economic system of capitalism. Hence their silence and inaction or at best mealy-mouthed statements of support and occasional rhetorical posturing for Palestine and their continued implementation of policies suggested and directed by the dominant institutions of global capital.

However, so enormous and so barbaric is the current and past treatment of those Palestinians trapped in Gaza, that it does represent a litmus test for the moral health of all people. Nothing any of the people in Gaza could possibly do would justify such treatment.  Their situation is the modern equivalent of the treatment meted out to the Native American Indians by the American colonists; the treatment meted out to the African native populations by all European colonists; and the Australian and Hobart native peoples by the British colonist elite. This was a treatment which was part of the global development of the capitalist mode of production in its scramble for raw material resources and market outlets for its production.

We can only read about those human tragedies of the past and retrospectively denounce them, but Palestine is different. It is a contemporary high-point manifestation of the brutality of the capitalist and colonialist oppression and expansion. In a world that has adopted a universal approach to human rights, Palestine reveals that for the global elite this adoption is no more than rhetoric. It demonstrates, along with the rest of the world’s problems, that the global capitalist elite and their system have no place in the future development of an egalitarian humanity. They and their system are ‘the’ barrier to be overcome. It also demonstrates the way that the domination of specific religious and cultural identities, can blind ordinary working class human beings to the plight and suffering of other human beings who do not belong to that specific cultural or religious ideology and identity.

Although the leadership of the Palestinian people only wish to establish a political state based upon the capitalist mode of production, this does not remove the necessity for anti-capitalists to support the struggle of the working and oppressed classes in Palestine. Nor does it remove our need to support the campaign for them to be freed of the Zionist onslaught against their very existence as human beings. The boycott and divestment campaign, as it was in the case of South Africa many years ago, is an important device for engaging people in this support along with other forms of solidarity activity such as the International Solidarity Movement and Palestine solidarity groups. Step up the campaign, speak out and act now when and where this is possible.

Roy Ratcliffe (November 2012.)

Posted in Critique, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

THE SUBTLE CHARACTERISTICS OF SECTARIANISM.

Posted on November 9, 2012 by stutteringsteps

In a previous article (‘Sectarianism and the question of a general strike) I identified ten characteristics of sectarianism obtained from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Despite my severe reservations concerning the Leninist and Trotskyist positions and traditions, on the question of sectarianism, they made important observations. However, my own experience during the past 50 years of anti-capitalist involvement, revealed two additional ones.  The first was the absolute denial by sectarians of being sectarian, whist not even being aware of, or considering, the full range of the characteristics of sectarianism. The second was the characteristic of being dishonest with each other and with the working class.

These are two characteristics shared by all political groupings who are in competition with each other for leadership of populations including those seeking to lead the working and oppressed.  This is because elite forms of leadership require influence over those who can be influenced and manoeuvres against any rival leadership bids. Within the anti-capitalist struggle this sectarian characteristic of dishonesty takes the following forms. Sectarians;

1. Often exaggerate or inflate the numbers (or active members) they have in their group. (In order to appear stronger and more influential than they actually are.)

2. Often exaggerate or embellish their actual influence among their chosen target audiences. (Usually for the same reasons as point one.)

3. Often claim that decisions made essentially by individuals represent the decisions of the group. (As point one, but also to give the appearance of genuine, active, democratic practices.)

4. Often hide their true intentions to other participants while offering a substitute intention and working toward their witheld intention and in the process undermine unity. (Because the true intentions may be rejected by potential participants.)

5. Often hide or deny problematic situations or dubious practices within their own ranks. (Since potential recruits would be more likely to refrain from joining or associating with them.)

6. Often violently attack those who expose, sectarianism, hypocrisy or deviousness in their group whether this exposure comes from within or without. This often takes the form of a clandestine character assasination of individual or group critics. (In order to defend their self-promoted, superior image.)

7. Often vigorously defend their own allies, irrespective of any transgressions they may have carried out. (Because they are more committed to group results than principles.)

All the above practices are  the stuff of politics in general and is the stuff of sectarian traditions within the anti-capitalist struggle. It would be difficult if not impossible to find a group on the left that hasn’t practiced one or more of the above and many of the additional characteristics in the previously noted article. However, it is obvious, that when such thinly disguised characteristics and practices come to light – as eventually they must – it causes disgust and repulsion among those who are genuinely committed to unity and trust.

Such revelations often result in a loss of individuals to the anti-capitalist struggle. For so many left groups are sectarian that many view these characteristics as fundamental to anti-capitalism in general, instead of the sectarian mentality in particular. This loss to the anti-capitalist struggle represents not just the numbers involved but the talents, skills and energy these individuals take with them.

This drain on the anti-capitalist movement has taken place over several decades and it cannot be surprising.  Solidarity and trust are essential features to develop the anti-capitalist struggle. If they are lacking, then all positive development is lost, and only suspicion and a fractured, splintered disunity remains. Which is fundamentally what I hope we – and others – are trying to overcome.

If we are to genuinely succeed in creating a different tradition within the anti-capitalist left, than that of past generations, then certain things follow. I suggest adherence to at least the following six principles would begin to create a different non-sectarian culture among anti-capitalists which could only have positive results.

1. Opposition to Capitalism in all its economic, social and economic forms.

2. Opposition to dogmatism and sectarianism.

3. Opposition to polemical distortion in disagreements.

4. Opposition to disrespect, sarcasm, and intimidation.

5. A commitment to sharing information and understanding.

6. A refusal to allow theoretical differences to impede or prevent joint action.

For the 10 characterisitics of sectarianism see Sectarianism and the question of a General Strike.

Roy Ratcliffe (November 2012)

Posted in Critique, Marx, Politics | Tagged , | 6 Comments

CRISIS! SO WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO?

Posted on October 29, 2012 by stutteringsteps

Among the anti-capitalist left there has been much debate of what is an appropriate course of action in the present circumstances of developing capitalist crisis. A great deal of conflict exists together with considerable impatience. Discussions and debates among the ‘left’ are tending to orientate around assisting and initiating class or population wide actions, and this via competing forms of organisation. Such attempts are largely by either invigorating existing ones, such as trade-unions and political parties, (eg the Labour-Party in the UK) or initiating new ones such as Occupy and Syriza in Greece.

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. And of course, simply turning out in large numbers to demonstrate (as the cases of Greece and Spain indicate) or vote will be insufficient to solve this present structural crisis. 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.

In particular, a number of ‘left’ initiatives also suffer from an overly subjective and bourgeois view of history. They tend to exaggerate the importance of leadership and talented individuals as key motive forces of changes in economic, social and political affairs. Bourgeois historical methodology predominantly focuses upon the great figures in history – kings, statesmen, military leaders – and imagines it is these characters that galvanise, stimulate or create the development of important events and historic transformations. From this elevated individualist viewpoint, the ordinary people, the microscopic incremental social changes, the day to day processes of production, the moods of the population are inevitably held in the background whilst these figure-heads, reflecting hero worship (or aspirations in that direction) are posted in sharp focus and placed upon various historic pedestals.

This same phenomena is manifest within some sections of the anti-capitalist movement as former ’leaders’ (such as Lenin and Trotsky) are treated to the same bourgeois form of elevation to hero or guru status, while the real dramatis personnel – the workers and oppressed others – are absent or appear only in blurred grey streaks across the historical record. One of the rare personalities in the anti-capitalist movement, who did not follow (or aspire) to this tradition was Karl Marx. He rarely credited any individual – including himself – with any such pivotal position of importance. Although occasionally recognising some outstanding contributions by individuals, in all his researches, he concentrated upon classes, economic categories and historical processes, as being the real motors and engines of economic, social and political developments.

Accordingly, when informed of the contents of a planned workers congress in Zurich he responded critically in a letter. He considered its organisers had their ‘heads in the clouds‘, and were contemplating ‘phantom problems’ when he wrote the following;

“What should be done at any definite moment in the future, and done immediately, depends of course entirely on the given historical conditions in which one has to act…….The doctrinaire and inevitably fantastic anticipation of the programme of action for a revolution of the future only diverts one from the struggle of the present.” (Marx to Nieuwenhuis. February 1881.)

This letter contained useful advice which still has contemporary relevance. The letter clearly warns against adopting doctrinaire positions and ‘fantastic’ anticipations of programmes of action and revolution. It also suggests formulating proposals after giving serious thought to the given historical conditions. For revolutionary anti-capitalists, those conditions involved a realistic appraisal of the economic, social and political elements of contemporary life at the time, not one or other variety of wishful thinking or anticipation of an impending revolution. [see for example ‘Uprisings and Revolutions’] If we consider these historic conditions today we cannot avoid including the following.

A) A fundamental, structural and episodic, economic and financial crisis.

B) The complete abandonment of any serious anti-capitalist positions among all the major political parties in Europe and North America along with the modern trade union movements.

C) The spectre of Stalinist sectarianism and its post-capitalist form in the Soviet Union, China and elsewhere which continues to damage and inhibit the post-capitalist project.

D) A divisive and debilitating residue of Leninist and Trotskyist sectarianism and vanguard elitism within the revolutionary anti-capitalist tradition, which further distorts the anti-capitalist and post-capitalist viewpoint.

E) The almost virtual absence of any serious anti-capitalist economic theory among the vast majority of the population, including that proportion organised within the trade union movement.

For those anti-capitalists who accept that the above five aspects of the current historical conditions are of key importance, certain things should follow. If we also accept that the capitalist mode of production is one which is destructive of the welfare of large numbers of humanity and the planet’s ecological balance, then certain responsibilities also attend that understanding. The first task, I suggest, is that of widening the understanding of the fundamental nature of the current crisis. Without this understanding only varieties of Keynesian and neo-liberal policies are likely to be proposed and pursued. I suggest that this economic understanding is best guided by the forensic economic analysis of Karl Marx, in Das Capital and other of his associated documents.

A study of the history of the anti-capitalist movement suggests that Das Capital was not well understood even by various 19th and 20th century intellectuals within the anti-capitalist movement, let alone those workers who at the time could barely read or write. Given the neglect of Marx after the sectarian distortion of anti-capitalist theory and practice, an economic vacuum of radical criticism exists. It is not surprising therefore, that Keynesian and other bourgeois doctrines persist among the organised and unorganised working class for many workers today do not understand the real and fundamental nature of the capitalist system and its current crisis. All mainstream economic, financial and political observations and suggestions are therefore dealing primarily with the symptoms rather than causes and workers are left considering and pursuing solutions to the ‘appearances‘ presented to them by those among the elite, who oppose to their interests.

This in turn is leading to workers, workers organisations and suffering interest groups only making defensive proposals to deal with one or other symptoms of the crisis, rather than the cause. A degree of that misunderstanding is inevitable, but it is logical that that degree should be reduced where possible. Only a revolutionary anti-capitalist perspective can begin to counter this form of ideological confusion and to counter it – it needs to exist in larger numbers than at present.

Although a minutely detailed economic understanding of capital is not necessary for all those involved in anti-capitalist activity, the basic principles do require a wide level of understanding among all anti-capitalists. Dissemination of such a critical understanding of economic production under the capitalist mode, is being hampered by the fact of sectarian divisions among the left. It is further hampered by the impatience of those on the left who wish to leap over this step and prioritise the immediate building of defensive organisations. It need not be a case of either/or; but both.

For the history of revolutions demonstrates that masses do not move into large-scale protest movements until their situation becomes extremely desperate. Even then the general perspective of the masses for a definite period of time is one of challenging the existing economic and political system to change its direction, modify its programme and ameliorate their worsening situations. Whilst this period exists, revolutionary transformations do not automatically occur under the impetuous of even large-scale demonstrations, general strikes or even mass uprisings.

The latter, where they occur, are merely akin to the seismic trembling of the earths crust – which may or may not result in a large-scale volcanic eruption or serious tectonic plate shift. This noted initial trend of workers and others making demands upon the existing system has been repeated in the 21st century by the examples of Tunisia, Egypt, Lybia and Syria in the middle east and North Africa, along with Greece, Spain, Italy, France, Portugal in Europe and to a lesser extent in the UK. Nowhere has this tendency been exhausted. The mis-labelling of middle-eastern uprisings and demands upon the existing system, as ‘revolutions’ indicates this confusion exist among the bourgeois as well as many left commentators.

The fact that the majority of the citizens are as yet only stirring into sectional activity and subject to at least some democratic illusions concerning the economic and political system they live under, makes it a mistake to focus predominantly or only upon agitation to organise large-scale sectional actions. When workers and others are ready, they will stir themselves and begin to act on mass. When they do so they will be better equipped for the struggle if they (or at least many among them) have absorbed an understanding of the economic essence of the capitalist mode of production and the need to champion and defend all oppressed sectors of society – not just their own!

To my mind the task of revolutionary anti-capitalists is to work alongside such workers and convince them by discussion and by the results of their defensive and reformist struggles that the capitalist system holds no future well-being for themselves, their neighbours, their offspring or the planet. That task of convincing others cannot be done unless those anti-capitalists are capable of understanding the system itself and of being able to work positively (in a non-sectarian fashion) alongside workers and non-workers.

Of course, part of that society-wide learning will be by their own direct experience, but another part should be played by being informed of the history of class struggle against capital along with the lessons learned. The responsibility for the dissemination of that history and the lessons learned during it lies at the moment with those anti-capitalists who are part of a non-sectarian, non-elitist milieu. It would be of considerable assistance to workers if a milieu developed who see their task, not as authoritarian leaders with the solutions already in their pockets, but as egalitarian facilitators of the self-activity of working people and the oppressed. In addition to the above need to understand and disseminate more fully the economic contradictions of the capitalist system, the further tasks of such individuals and groups I suggest should be;

2. To fully understand, explain and overcome in practice, the sectarian heritage of the anti-capitalist tradition.

3. To help facilitate, extend and develop an international, non-sectarian network of anti-capitalists and workers.

4. Where possible, to assist and support anti-capitalist, anti-globalisation and anti-ecological-destruction issues and campaigns.

5. To share with all those in anti-capitalist, anti-austerity,  anti-cuts, and other defensive struggles those above-noted understandings and critical re-appraisals to begin to positively reassert the humanist possibilities of a post-capitalist form of economic society which produces for need rather than greed.

That task has begun in a number of places around the world, but as yet it is sporadic and few in numbers. It would be useful over the coming months if a network of internet sites and contacts, could be created among those who share this or a similar perspective. In this way the pooling of knowledge and sharing good practice could be developed. If one already exists – all the better – please let me know! It is to be hoped that others will soon join in and assist in creating a critical-mass which will in various ways be able to make an effective contribution to clarifying the struggle against the champions of capital and resurrect the struggle for a post-capitalist society. One which fully understands how to avoid replicating the disasters of previous attempts.

Roy Ratcliffe (October 2012)

Additional points to those above are made in ‘The Revolutionary Party; Help or Hindrance‘; ‘Marxists against Marx’; and ‘The Five-fold Crisis of Capitalism‘.

Posted in Economics, Marx, Politics | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments