Letter: Capitalist power: economic or political? (1986)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Capitalist power: economic or political?

Dear Editors.

The lead editorial in your April 1986 issue. "Lessons of the fall of Marcos” indicates that it is the SPGB that has not learned the lesson from this event.

You state that you "have always argued that it is possible to establish socialism by peaceful democratic means, through the working class organizing into a mass political movement and using existing elective institutions, imperfect as they are from the standpoint of pure democracy" You further state that your "attitude has often been criticized by people who argue that 'no ruling class has ever given up power peacefully' and that the capitalist class will never let the workers use elections to dislodge them but would refuse to accept a socialist electoral victory ".

You state that "recent events in the Philippines which led to the downfall of President Marcos have confirmed this analysis of what is likely to happen when a government enjoying only minority support tries to defy a majority movement". Obviously you draw the lesson from this event that the capitalist class will relinquish power whenever the socialists attain an electoral majority.

Turning the pages of your April issue we find a lengthy article, title "People power", dealing with the fall of Marcos. A photo shows a picture of a huge demonstration with a large sign stating "We won" and your writer s comment "But not for socialism"! This article proves that the ruling class did not give up power! So what is really the lesson to draw from this event? Certainly not the lesson that you drew from it. Your "People's power' article shows that Aquino had the support of the most conservative elements of the immensely Catholic hierarchy, that the US sent Philip Habib to discover what they might expect from Aquino and having got a satisfactory response, decided to cut their losses and run. They advised Marcos to leave with $240,000 in cash and crates containing $1.179.000 in cash. The writer states that Aquino promised more than she can deliver, that much of Philippine industry is owned by American multi-nationals, which have been only too happy to exploit cheap domestic labor. That Marcos supporters still hold crucial positions in the judiciary, civil service and local governments. That two-thirds of Marcos' supporters are in power until 1990 That Generals Entile and Ramos were architects of Marcos martial law but have been incorporated in the new administration. That the Aquino family own one of the world's largest sugar plantations, that her cabinet contains not one single representative of "the people" they are all businessmen and members of the political elite.

Does this indicate that the ruling class gave up power?

Those who argued that no ruling class ever gave up power peacefully simply because the majority voted against them is true. What happened to Allende in Chile? Did the ruling class accept the decision at the ballot box? What lesson did the SPGB draw from that episode?

It was Daniel De Leon who warned that the ruling class will not allow the revolutionary socialist majority to take political power unless the working class were organised with an economic power (Socialist Industrial Unions) that could enforce their decision at the ballot box by taking possession of the industrial establishments of the land and assuming the conduct of the nation's production thereby locking out the capitalist class.

The motivating force in society is economic. The Capitalist class maintains its dominance of society because it owns and controls the industrial facilities of modern society. The only force that can unseat them is a superior economic power. Today the working class runs and operates the industrial facilities of society but are not conscious of their latent power. If the working class is made class conscious and organizes into an economic organization that has as its goal the taking over of the industries they operate, they will have organized a superior economic power to that of the capitalists. If they then constitute a majority at the ballot box they would be organized to take, hold and operate the industries whether or not the ruling class recognizes their political victory.

The "Lessons of the fall of Marcos" confirms that the ruling class did not give up power and that De Leon's warning was correct. The lesson the SPGB must learn from the Fall of Marcos and the fall of Allende is that the socialist ballot must be backed up by an economic force capable of enforcing it.

Fraternally.

Sam Brandon

Riverdale, New York

Reply:

Our correspondent is labouring under a misapprehension. We never said that the change of President in the Philippines was an example of a ruling class giving up power peacefully, and certainly not that it was a "socialist electoral victory" (any more than Allende‘s was). We merely said that it represented a case of, as we put it in a passage Sam Brandon himself quotes, "what is likely to happen when a government enjoying only minority support tries to defy a majority movement".

Such a government cannot hold on to power for any length of time because, to function, any government has to have a minimum of support and acquiescence among the population. When this support turns into active opposition then the government in question cannot continue. This has some relevance to the establishment of socialism to the extent that, faced with the majority wage and salary-earning class organised into a socialist movement, the last government of capitalism will have no choice but to bow out. gracefully or otherwise.

Oddly enough, as far as we can tell. Sam Brandon agrees with us on this point since he. like us. envisages the possibility of an essentially peaceful abolition of capitalism and for the same sort of reason: that if the socialist-minded working class is sufficiently determined and organised (he says at the point of production) then they can force the capitalist class to respect any socialist election victory We didn't say anything different in our editorial on the fall of Marcos when we stated that "what is decisive is not so much the socialist electoral victory as the understanding and the determination to achieve socialism which this would reflect". It is absurd to imagine that all the workers need to do to achieve socialism is to vote for it. Certainly this is not. and never has been, our position. The workers must play an active part in the establishment of socialism for the simple reason that, socialism being a society based on voluntary co-operation, it can only work with majority understanding and participation. 

In other words, it is not the socialist victory at the polls as such that would lead to the last capitalist government relinquishing power but the fact that this victory would be a reflection of the understanding, determination and. naturally, organisation of the vast majority of workers. This organisation for socialism will also extend to the places of work (the existing trade unions will obviously be completely transformed when a majority of their members are conscious, determined socialists) but it will be essentially political.

Sam Brandon cites the example of Allende in Chile. Here he is on very dangerous ground since if he really thinks that Allende was a socialist and that his election as President of Chile in 1970 was a socialist electoral victory, then we would be forced to challenge the extent to which he himself has grasped the meaning of socialism. Allende and his so-called socialist party stood for the establishment of a state capitalist regime in Chile (and did not even have majority support since he only polled 36 per cent of the votes). But we will give Sam Brandon a chance and allow him to withdraw the absurd implication that the coming to power of Allende was an example of a socialist electoral victory not backed up by the "superior economic power" of workers organised in "socialist industrial unions" that he advocates.

Certainly the capitalist class do possess immense economic power which they use to force the working class to work for them on their terms but the question at issue is the source of this power, not its existence or non-existence. In the last days of feudalism and the early days of capitalism this power did derive in large part from the fact that the capitalist entrepreneur did play a key role in the process of production. Organising and trading skills were essential to the economic process and it was this that gave the rising capitalist class a base from which to challenge, on the political field, the power and privileges of the then land-based ruling class.

But once they had won political power it was this, not their economic power, that enabled them to dominate society and reshape social institutions in their interest. The subsequent evolution of capitalism led to the disappearance of the original economic power of the capitalist as an essential element in the process of production. Now, and for a long time, it is paid workers who can and do run industry from top to bottom. The capitalists do indeed still possess immense economic power but this is now entirely a result of the fact that they possess political power.

Capitalist ownership of the means of production no longer rests on the personal role of the capitalist in the productive process, but purely on the fact that (in the West) they possess legal property deeds entitling them to draw a legal property income from the exploitation of the working class. As these legal titles are enforced by the state, capitalist ownership of the means of production is "political" in the sense that it depends entirely on their control of political power (as is immediately obvious in the case of the state capitalist class in Russia and other such countries). Their property titles are merely a licence to exploit wage-labour granted, and enforced, by the state.

That the economic power of the capitalist class now entirely depends on the fact that they control political power has of course important implications for socialist tactics. For it means that the struggle to overthrow the capitalist class must be political, not economic. The "economic power' of the capitalist class cannot be overthrown by organising a general strike to take and hold the means of production because the source of this power is political not economic. In any event, in any trial of economic strength the capitalist class will always be able to win as long as they control political power.

So the working class must aim at gaining control of political power. Once they have done this then the "economic power” of the capitalist class will burst like a bubble. All the revolutionary socialist majority on the political field will have to do to achieve this is to declare all property titles null and void — to revoke the state licences to exploit wage-labour — and that will be that. Of course, at the same time, workers will also need to be organised in their places of work ready to take over and run industry when capitalist ownership has been abolished. So we are talking about the socialist-minded working class being organised both politically and industrially to achieve socialism, but it will be the political organisation and action, not the industrial, that will abolish capitalist power

Daniel De Leon and Sam Brandon have simply got it the wrong way round: the capitalists' economic power depends on their control of political power rather than vice-versa. This is why we have always advocated that, to achieve socialism, the working class should organise itself into a vast political movement whose aim will be to destroy the capitalists' economic power by depriving this of the political backing without which it is today unable to exist.

Editors.