Fragmented and Inchoate Project
Dear Editors,
One of the greatest obstacles for me in accepting the kind of socialism advocated by the Socialist Party was its attitudes towards partial ameliorative reforms, which I found illogical, believing that any improvement in immediate conditions should be promoted vigorously and urgently. Why not fight for better workers’ rights, a better health service, transport, a right to work, freedom of association, a right to welfare, strong charitable institutions? All these seem like good causes worth defending.
However, I am changing my mind. I am beginning to see not only that the fight for partial reforms represents a fragmented and inchoate project in which the various claims to resources are actually made to clash with each other, but that the struggle for “rights” and "freedoms” as we perceive them in a capitalist society is distorted by the language of the market economy, it is invested with what Marx called the ideological superstructure— a set of ideas charged with the function of protecting the existing organism, by leading people astray into misguided, or even damaging, avenues of protest.
So it is, that, in an atomised and isolated way, individuals support various charities, pressure groups and unions. The historical precursors to these groups are what Marx called the Utopian socialists, a group of unconnected thinkers spanning the 18th and 19th centuries who railed against the emerging barbarism and inhumanity of international capitalism. These philosophers and economists, mostly either English or French, were a great influence on Marx himself. The difference is that Marx’s analysis of capitalism is on a deeper level than any of his predecessors; for his aim was not, for instance, to accept the "right” of the displaced labourer to the benefits of humane parish support, but more profoundly to reject the premise that human labour must turn to the capitalist for favours of charity, when the employer deems him surplus to the requirements of profit. Marx argued that "rights" and “freedoms" were determined by the material forces of production, and for him the point was not to assent to these forces—but to change them.
It seems to me that Marx was exactly right The way capitalist epigones appropriated the terms "freedom" and right, only admits of social justice within a narrow circle permitted by market forces. Marx’s scientific socialism amounts to a critique of the idea that social justice ensues from the proper disbursement to labour for the pain of labour; for Marx rejects the idea of the equation between labour and pain, and on the contrary shows that the expressive exertion of brain and muscle is at the centre of human beings’ existence. By absorbing the assumption that man has by nature an aversion to the exercise of his faculties, the Utopians conceded an axiomatic assumption of the capitalist system they strove to revise, and they were therefore limited to a kind of partial, extenuated reformism which was doomed to be ineffective. These palliative reforms are the basis of the fragmentary struggles we see today in the field of social justice.
In short, the Utopians (Hodgskin, Thompson, Gray and Bray) sought decent wages for workers, that is, a fair rate of exchange for the value by which the labourer enhanced the product. Marx’s analysis is far more profound; for him, the evil does not lie so much in the poor rate of exchange of labour, but in the very nature of exchange, which converts man as an active social and productive being into an instrument of profit by means of which man is not kept industrious and happy, but on the contrary unwillingly unproductive and unfulfilled.
Norman Armstrong,
Glasgow
Class struggle through ‘cyber struggle’
Dear Editors,
I disagree with Jonathan Meakin’s pessimistic conclusions regarding the global computer network known as the Internet (“Internet; Forum or Marketplace?", Socialist Standard, June 1995). My experience as an avid "net surfer” lucky enough to enjoy cheap access as a university student is that the Internet does not simply mirror the capitalist marketplace. At the moment only about one half of net “traffic” is put to commercial use. Alongside this market-driven content is an incredible diversity of non-commodified information reflecting the multiplicity of net users, most of whom seem to be hostile towards attempts at money-making and the imposition of state (or any other) censorship. The decentralised and fluid nature of this form of communication has been capitalised on by unions and grassroots organisations around the world in their attempts at preventing the erosion of gains won under capitalism in the face of the innocuous sounding “global restructuring". Unions in particular, while slow to catch on to the potentialities of "cyber-struggle”, have more recently begun to the use the Internet to coordinate strikes and boycotts, educate around labour issues, and make links around the globe with otherwise isolated union activists. One of the most successful political uses of the net came with the dissemination of information concerning the plight of Mayan Indians in the Mexican state of Chiapas, following the recent crackdown by the Mexican government. The situation was largely ignored by the mainstream media, yet the support garnered from the speedy and widespread publicising of the demands of the Zapatistas on various global computer networks was cited as one of the main reasons why the government was eventually forced to negotiate with the rebels.
There are also numerous maillists, newsgroups, and "web sites” which are of more direct interest to socialists. One particular maillists "oneunion”—involves participants drawn from the political sector which the World Socialist Movement shares an affinity with; anti-statist and non-market socialists and anarchists. Discussions on this list are wide-ranging and include debating the relative merits of "free access” versus labour vouchers. criticisms of reformism, and appropriate methods of working-class organisation. There is also an excellent web site where those who are so inclined can access most of the work of Marx and Engels at the touch of a button.
Of course, the Internet is not perfect and it cannot escape being tainted by capitalist social relations. As Meakin acknowledges. availability is obviously restricted to those with literacy and access to a computer, modem, and the relevant software— which counts out the vast majority of the world’s population— although the growth of "freenets" (computers hooked up to the Internet available free of charge usually in public libraries) is encouraging. The question of whether computer-mediated communication is desirable given the health risks associated with the production and use of this form of technology, is important to consider. And with the Clinton-backed "Information Super-Highway" just around the corner, the possibilities for Orwellian levels of surveillance and social control of people in their homes is indeed frightening.
Nevertheless, commercialisation and state interference with the Internet is not as inevitable as Meakin implies. It is unlikely that the millions who, at the moment, enjoy the accessibility, diversity, autonomy, and co-operative nature of the net will simply stand aside and concede to the crass consumerism of the invading market. In fact, if it is inevitable that every form of communication used by workers to counter capitalist ideology and exploitation will eventually succumb to the "law of the market", how on earth will socialist ideas spread? Why wait for a revolution? Used in concert with other media, the Internet has the potential to become a useful tool in the hands of a growing socialist movement and, despite the ruminations of neo-luddites, it is probably here to stay.
Julian Prior,
Vancouver, Canada (julianp@sfu.ca)
Note:
The Marx and Engels Archive is available on the World Wide Web at http:// csf.Colorado.EDU:80/psn/marx/ To join the "oneunion" maillist send a message to OneUnion- request@list.lever.com with the subject “subscribe”.
Speaking out against religious fanatics
Dear Editors,
First of all, may I congratulate you on your fine work and struggle against this capitalist regime. I have voted Labour all my life, but only recently have become more involved with proper socialist organisations as yourselves and the SWP.
I read with much interest your short article about “Socialism versus Islam" (July Socialist Standard) and may I say that I couldn’t agree with you more. Islam is a very oppressive religion depriving women, gays and other minority groups of fundamental rights. In fact it is a well known fact that Muslim countries have a record of abusing human rights.
I am Asian and, although an atheist, it does not stop people associating me with this religion. Thank goodness that organisations like yourselves have no fear in speaking out against these fanatics.
A. Ditta,
Wolverhampton
Reply:
Thanks for your support - though it must be said that Leninist organisations like the SWP are similar to fanatical religious cults and their heroes in the Bolshevik Party knew a thing or two about human rights abuse.
Editors.
No comments:
Post a Comment