Marxism: Past and Present – pt.1 (1955)

Book Review from the August 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marxism: Past and Present by R. N. Carew Hunt. (Published by Geoffrey Bles)

This book is a mine of reference on Marxism. While the author may have diligently quarried for his treasure, precious little has been brought to the surface that materially adds to existing stocks of knowledge on the subject. The book in fact is not so much a solo as a sound track for a massed anti-Marxist choir: so much so, that the author’s voice seems but the sotto voce of a “whispering baritone.” In addition, he attempts to decant the whole quart of Marxism into the half-pint bottle of 175 pages, thus making impossible any systematic treatment of the many issues raised.

The author essays to show that the totalitarian empire of Russia is the melancholy sequel to Marx’s doctrine of “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” Presumably, had there been no Marx there would have been no Lenin, no October Revolution. The sequence of events in Russia might then have told a happier story. Once again, then, Marx takes on the legendary role of history’s “wicked uncle,”

One of the author’s contentions, then—the one we shall deal with—is that both Leninism and Stalinism are rooted in Marx’s doctrine of “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” The author adopts, however, the dubious procedure of interpretation rather than testimony, of inference in lieu of evidence. He selects passages from Marx and Engels compares them with statements of Lenin and stress similarities. He never selects passages which reveal differences.

Yet those differences are of an order to show not a crucial connection but antithetical relations between Marxism and Leninism. While Marx and Engels were never specific as to what they meant by “the dictatorship of the proletariat,” they were always consistent with the generally accepted notion of democracy. Lenin’s political doctrine did not characterize democracy but only caricatured it in a debased Soviet form. Marx’s political theory carried no suggestion of a one-party device for the capture of political power. On the contrary, it presupposed “free elections” via the polling-booth. That was the method of the Paris Commune—and that, said Engels in his most vigorous statement on the subject, was “the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Engels, in the Critique of the Erfurt Programme, declared : “Our party and the working class can only gain political supremacy under the political regime of a democratic republic. This is even the specific form the dictatorship of the proletariat as the great French revolution has already shown.” (Marx Engels Correspondence, p.486)

For Lenin the organizational form of the proletarian dictatorship was political centralism, with its military dictatorship and denial of any right of appeal from decisions made by the ruling body. The sinister sequel to this was dramatically summed-up by Lenin himself when he stated:

“The Soviet Socialist Democracy is in no way incompatible with the rule and dictatorship of one person . . . this was explained to and accepted by the Central Executive Committee a long time ago ” (Socialist Party of Canada Pamphlet The Russian Revolution, p. 14).

Mr. Carew Hunt’s arrangement of quotations serves to conceal, not reveal, the antithetical views of Marx and Lenin. Thus, Lenin is quoted: “The transformation of the proletariat into the ruling class is identical with democracy,” While this in the letter agrees with the Communist Manifesto’s statement “The constitution of the proletariat into the ruling class is the conquest of democracy,” in the spirit it is utterly at variance.

In fact, Lenin’s notion of the conquest of political power by a class-conscious proletariat was perfectly consistent with his anti-democratic outlook. By giving the term “proletarian” an ideological twist, Lenin was able to include in the term his own Bolsheviks, who by and large had no working-class origin but had sprung from the Russian bourgeois intelligentsia. These for Lenin were not only “proletarians” but formed in the main his “class-conscious proletarians.” That is why Lenin made a decisive distinction between “the class-conscious proletarians” and “the masses.” While he often adroitly manipulated the term “proletarian” for demagogic purposes, he always made the capture of political power by the class-conscious proletariat synonymous with the supremacy of an élite.

Yet Mr. Carew Hunt blandly informs us that this is all perfectly in line with Engels’s statement in the preface to Class Struggles in France “that in a complete social transformation the masses themselves have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for body and soul. The history of the last 50 years has taught us that.” The author is able to say that because he never informs us as to the real content of Bolshevik doctrine. He only misinforms us of its relation with Marxism. Because the author’s proofs of most of his assertions are so constricted, he stretches his imagination to the point of rupture.

The Bolshevik seizure of power is paralleled also with Engels’s statement in his article On Authority, February, 1873, that “a revolution is an act where one part of the population imposes its will on the other part by rifles, bayonets and cannon.” (Selected Works, p.578) But in this particular instance Engels specifically cites, as an example of the armed authority of the people, the Paris Commune, which was no Leninist usurping of power by a minority but authority democratically conceived and arrived at.

Also the Communist Manifesto’s statement, “The Communists are the most resolute section which pushes on all other sections,” the author suggests, is the originating idea of Lenin’s professional élite. Undoubtedly his penchant for reading between the lines of Marxist literature has given him a bad squint.

The authority of the Communist League (1850) is cited as good Marxist paternity for Leninism. Marx then advised workers to agitate on behalf of the Democrats, who represented the German lower-middle class; and, in the event of their forming a government, to foist on them “revolutionary demands,” thus weakening the power of the upper bourgeoisie and strengthening the revolutionary potential of the workers. This political immaturity of Marx was never repeated. Afterwards, he made working class political maturity the measure of working-class development. All the essential features of Leninism, however, were missing from the Communist League. There was no separation of intellectuals from workers, no proscribing of working-class activity, no envisaging seizure of power by a political Junta.

Ted Wilmott

(To be concluded)

Notes by the Way: Religion in Russia. (1955)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Religion in Russia.

One of the heads of the Russian Church, the Metropolitan Pitirim of Minsk, addressed a Press conference at Lambeth Palace on the position of the Church in Russia.

His figure of “over 20,000 churches” shows little change from the figure for 1945. (Statesmen’s Year Book, 1952, p. 1413.) 

He claimed that there are eight seminaries and two academies, at which over 2,000 young men were in training for the priesthood. “He said that 85 per cent, of Russians had remained faithful to their Church.” (Manchester Guardian, 12 July, 1955.) 

He had rather a lot to say about the funds of the Church and must have made some of his English audiences envious.

“Questioned about church finance, the Metropolitan said that it was all provided by the gifts of the faithful. Fingering a diamond-set medallion of die Virgin Mary, he added that he had several of these treasures, as well as two fine cars which had been given to him. 'By this you can judge our material position,' he said; 'it is all given by the people, who love their priests.' ”

(Manchester Guardian, 12 July, 1955.) 

The Daily Mail reported him as saying also that every clergyman in Russia is provided by the faithful with a car. 

The “Socialism” of the I.L.P.

The Socialist Leader, organ of the I.L.P., in its issue of 16 July, comes out with its proposal for the coal mines. It asks “ Why not stop paying the former coalowners?” This, it thinks, would enable the Coal Board to avoid increasing the price of coal.

It is typical of the I.L.P., now as in all the years of its history, that whenever a problem of capitalism comes up, it thinks of all sorts of solutions except the one to which it is nominally committed—Socialism. It is also typical of the I.L.P. when it makes its proposals to help the capitalists run capitalism that it thinks it knows better than they do how it should be done. Past experience gives no support even to this. When the two Labour Governments, of 1924 and 1929, were running capitalism, composed as they were predominantly of members of the I.L.P., there was nothing in their record to encourage such belief.

It is also characteristic of the naive attitude of the I.L.P. that its article on the coal situation should discover, as if it is a matter for surprise, that the Government has not put up coal prices in the interests of the mineworkers. Why should it and if it accepted the new I.L.P. proposal the same would be true. When will the I.L.P. wake up to the fact that nationalisation is State capitalism and is not in the interest of the workers, and has nothing to do with Socialism?

How High are Co-operative Society Profits?

The co-operators insist that their dividends on purchases are profit, not a reduction of prices. They do so on principle, but they also have a particular reason in that some manufacturers of proprietary articles will only supply them to Co-operative societies on condition that no dividend is paid to purchasers in respect of these articles. Co-operative News (9th July) writes:—‘The manufacturers regard the payment of dividend as a cut in price, which is pure nonsense.”

But apart from this, some Co-operators are keen to show that their stores make just as large profits as do private Capitalists. Co-operative News (14th May, 1955), published some facts about Co-operative profits. The writer showed that the Co-operative Wholesale Society last year paid out £6,174,067 as dividend; which on a capital of £27,431,064, is a rate of 25.25 per cent. He compared this with the Imperial Chemical’s distribution of a 10 per cent. dividend (but did not deal with the further profit, not distributed, which would have enabled I.C.I. to pay 30 per cent).

The writer showed, too, that on the retail co-operatives’ capital of £220,500,000 their dividend of £38,000,000 is 15.2 per cent. It looks like good Capitalist business.

Can the Workers Understand?

In the Socialist Standard of 50 years ago (August, 1905) was an article with quite up-to-date applications. It derided a furious agitation then being carried on by Labourites as being for a farcical object of no value to the workers. It went on to examine the reason given by Labourites who claimed to want Socialism, for wasting time on such trivial issues. Their explanation was one we still hear. They said that, desirable as Socialism is, you cannot expect the ordinary worker to understand it but must gain his interest by putting to him other simple immediate issues that he can understand, and thus lead him on step by step.

The writer of the article in the Socialist Standard argued that the case for Socialism was in truth simpler than the tortuous case for reforms and that these sidetracking proposals could only serve to confuse the workers and take them away from the real issue, that of establishing Socialism.

From 1905 we may jump 50 years to the recent Blackpool Conference of the Transport Workers Union. On 12th July, 1955, the delegates accepted the lead of their new general secretary Mr. A. E. Tiffin, and rejected resolutions for widespread new nationalization measures. Mr. Tiffin reminded delegates that the Labour Party had just fought an election on Nationalization and lost it, and the reason was, he said, that the workers don’t understand what Nationalization is all about.

“. . . We have to face the fact that nationalization at the present time has not yet been sufficiently explained to our fellow citizens as to convince them that further nationalization is in the interests of the whole nation."

“. . . even our own people in the industries we nationalized do not really understand what was the basic motive for nationalizing them." (Times, 13 July, 1955.)

The leaders also did not understand what they were doing and had, said Mr. Tiffin, relied on trial and error methods. “We should know precisely what we are going to do before we engaged on more Nationalization and not leave it to trial and error.” (Daily Herald, 13 July.)

So after half a century they can’t understand their own programme though Nationalization was, 50 years ago, just one of the side-tracking, time-wasting reforms advocated by Labourites on the plea that it was more easily understood than Socialism and would help us on the way.

Now let us return to another of these useless agitations, the one dealt with in the Socialist Standard of August, 1905. The article in question pointed out that this agitation had already been going on for 25 years and had never mattered. What, then was it? It was the demand for the abolition of the House of Lords! Three years later at the 1908 conference of the Labour Party a resolution demanding its abolition was passed unanimously (Report, p. 68) and this demand was reaffirmed at later conferences.

And here is an extract from a speech about it:—

"The first thing the Tories should understand is that if they tinker about any further with the British Constitution they must be informed that if we get a majority we will put an end to the House of Lords . . ."

Who made this speech and when? It was none other than the ebullient clown of the Labour circus, in one of his profound, statesmanlike moods, Mr. Aneurin Bevan. (Times, 24 May, 1955.) And it was made in 1955 after three Labour Governments had been in office and done nothing about it; showing, incidentally, how little it matters even for their purposes. All they have ever done is to fill a lot of the plush seats of the House of Lords with superannuated Labour M.P.s.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Revolutionary Proposition (1955)

From the August 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Modern Society is made up of the working class, the great majority, who produce but do not own and a small section (barely 10%) who own but do not produce. For the protection of the latter’s wealth and privileges against the have-nots at home and against covetous and greedy competitors abroad, the possessing class needs coercive machinery, police and armed forces, and so it is that every technical improvement in the tools of production finds its primary application to arms production. The discovery of nuclear energy is only the most recent case in point, though unique in so far as it has “revolutionized the entire, foundation of human affairs and placed mankind in a situation both measureless and laden with doom.” Churchill, who spoke these words, “had no solution for permanent peace between the nations, although,” he said, “we pray for it.” He also said that “it would be folly to suppose hydrogen-weapons would not be used in case of war.” Apparently Churchill knows his men and also his God.

Now, there is a solution, and if it is not for avowed defenders of capitalism like Churchill and the other avowed anti-Socialists to advocate that solution, honesty and consistency would require of those calling themselves Socialists to urge that solution especially since it is the only way out of the present appalling dilemma.

Though an exposé of the genuine Socialist case, i.e., the abolition of Capitalism, lock, stock and band, in other words: a fundamental' change in the constitution of present-day society, from production for profit to production of the means of life for use, on the principle: From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs, though such a proposition would fall on deaf ears in Parliaments and be promptly derided as a Utopia.

Yet, though “we are all Socialists now,” there has not been to the writer’s knowledge, any reference to Socialism as the only solution of society’s problems from any “Socialist” quarters. One is bound to conclude that actually all of them—save that of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the companion parties overseas—look upon the conversion of the means of wealth production and distribution from private or State control to COMMON OWNERSHIP and democratic control by the people as a whole, as a Utopia, just as do the Capitalists themselves. There is, for example, Attlee, saying in the debate on Defence: “There is sometimes a need for something more dramatic if a H-bomb-war and the destruction of civilisation was to be avoided. He believed that it was felt by the rulers of Russia, as well as by the President of the U.S.A., and by the rulers of France, but somehow the thing did not get moving. We were looking for an initiative.” Just as 40 years ago, at the outbreak of World-War I, another pseudo-Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party, confessed officially that they had been taken by a storm and “were waiting for a lead.” Attlee said he had had talks with Malenkov, for he was “a very important factor.” (That this “important factor” became only a few days afterwards a mere factotum, shows the political foresight and intellect of these Western Capitalist factotums). What a Socialist indeed, who received the praise of H.M. Government for getting the atom-bomb for Britain and who is now “looking for an initiative” to avoid the destruction of civilisation—as if he had never heard of Socialism!

Others of Attlee’s ilk talked about the “tremendous catastrophe of another war, and that a superior ideology to put over to the people had to be found.” Any ideology will apparently do for these Socialists, as long as it does not end Capitalism and the good old “transition- period" on which these leaders and job-hunters prosper and thrive.  

R.

(To be concluded next month)