A challenge to Leninism (2003)

From the July 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

It’s frustrating that the terms “Marxists” and “Socialist” seem to get bandied around far too much these days, with their real meaning lost, and that we in the Socialist Party have to contend with other parties claiming to be socialist, when they most certainly are not. These various “Marxist-Leninist” parties (SWP, Militant, Socialist Alliance, Scottish Socialist Party, etc) claim they are socialists, but their conception of socialism has nothing to do with common ownership, production for need or Marxist economics. They appear to hold to the title of “Marxist” as some kind of badge of honour, but reject the actual real views of Marx and instead align themselves with the works of Lenin.

These parties often criticise us by claiming (as, recently, on the World Socialist Movement discussion forum) that our members don’t get involved in the class struggle, as in the issues of low pay and unemployment. For members to become more visible on these issues in their unions, etc would be a plus, but the danger must be avoided of getting too caught up in such issues and losing track of the actual aim of our party, the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by a democratic association of peoples, world socialism.

Leninist groups pursue the tactic of trying to reform capitalism by concentrating on adjusting it, in order to become more popular among workers. This is a wasted effort, since the entire system is based on a minority exploiting a majority. To expend all energy in demands for a more amicable capitalism is not what socialists should aim for, as, even in the event of success, the primary evils of capitalism would still remain i.e. production for profit, extraction of surplus value and all the other unfair and sickening features of modern capitalism. The main effort of socialists should be aiming for socialism itself.

In any event, any gains made in the class struggle for better pay and conditions are still open to being eroded by the inevitable capitalist counter-attack, and without a socialist understanding, the workers will not be able to climb out of the rut of capitalism. So the cycle would continue, with workers making some gains, but then the capitalist class launches a counter offensive by either attacking the gain itself or attacking from some other direction. Workers do have to engage with the issues of pay and work conditions, but the main issue is the overthrow of capitalism, not picking away at it and then having your own gains eroded sooner or later. In thinking of the class war as an actual war, the drive for a socialist understanding in the working class and the creation of a socialist society should be the main front, demanding the most effort, while everyday issues of pay and conditions and defending the gains that have been made would be a secondary front.

It is open to speculation what many of these “socialist” groups are actually aiming for outside of immediate issues. Since they describe themselves as Leninist, it is perhaps worthwhile to take a closer look at Leninism in practice. Often little is known about Lenin by the rank and file of these groups, because he has been surrounded by an almost god-like mythic persona, but with a little research it’s easy to uncover his anti-socialist views and actions. Once the myths are dispelled from this man that these parties hold in such high regard, it can shed some light on what sort of society they themselves envisage.

Lenin was from a privileged family. His main passion seemed to be for the politics of Chernyshevsky, the author of a novel entitled What is to be done? which inspired Lenin’s work of the same title. He also admired the ways of the “Peoples Will”, an anti-Tsarist revolutionary group, known for its acts of violence against the established order, and its vanguardist ideas. So we can see here where his ideas of a vanguard party stemmed from. It is very likely that Lenin never cared for socialism in the real sense, simply desiring to harness the discontent of the masses into smashing the old social order that had rejected him and then placing him in charge of a new regime.

The very act that many of these so-called socialist groups hold up in reverence, the storming of the Winter Palace in Petrograd in November 1917, was not done by a mass of politically aware workers, but by a few hundred Bolshevik soldiers in the dead of night. While they claim that this was a spontaneous seizure of power by the workers, what can be seen is that it was timed to occur before the Soviet Congress could convene, and so guaranteeing Bolshevik supremacy in the soviets and little chance for a free democratic vote on the form any new government should take. This ties in with the Leninist notion of “democratic centralism”. It’s very plausible that if the Soviet Congress had had a free vote, the Bolsheviks would have had to share power with their arch-rivals the Mensheviks. It was also likely that Lenin himself would have been kept out of office due to the mistrust that many of the Mensheviks and other anti-Tsarist revolutionaries justly held him in. Clearly, Lenin could not allow this; to have had to share power with people who challenged and disagreed with him would have been intolerable for a man such as himself. To not even have any power in the event of other parties demanding he be left out of the new government was his nightmare.

So now, when we hear certain left wing parties praise Lenin and the USSR when he ruled it, and look with disdain upon our methods of seeking a democratic socialist understanding among the working class, let us remember the society their idol, Lenin, created, and ask ourselves “Was that Socialism? Is that what we want?” The answer is of course no. No worker should wish to relive the nightmares and mistakes of the past.

Dan Read

Class notions and social conditioning (2003)

From the September 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

In capitalist society there is a massive emphasis on the individual. It is held up that we are all individuals and in complete control of our own thoughts, feelings, and actions. The more benevolent propagators of this belief mean that everyone is a individual in a society of individuals, and that we can all work together for the benefit of all. This is closer to reality than the “individuality” that the ideologists of capitalism believe in. They propagate the world as a “dog-eat-dog” society where the strongest individual “justly” gets ahead by trampling on the others, as we see when capitalists boast of their successes. Often capitalists will put these down to their superior intellect or “strength of character”, claiming that everyone can live the lifestyle that they live if they work hard enough. That raises the question of what exactly the working class is doing if it isn’t hard work.

This kind of individuality, of getting ahead and to hell with anyone else, is in direct conflict with humans as social animals, and we can see the disastrous effect it can have. The world of miserable alienation that capitalism has created is a abomination to the irrefutable fact that humans are social creatures and function best within a form of collective community. It is often argued by socialists that this was the case far back in the mists of history, where humanity existed in a state of “primitive communism”, as in small groups of hunter-gatherers that would share the produce of their collective labour. Later, private property developed as a ruling class emerged for the first time. This new class had to defend its hold over the majority class, and in ancient society this was usually by means of a combination of superstition and violence. When the ancient world dwindled with the collapse of the Roman Empire, a new social/economic system emerged, feudalism. Feudalism is essentially a system where a feudal authority would demand payment of some form for protection against another rival authority. In time, another class – the ancestors of today’s capitalists – emerged to challenge the feudal aristocracy, and swept them away in a series of bloody revolutions, by necessity enlisting the help of the oppressed class. This led to modern capitalism. Always, the notions of the ruling class tended to become the notions of those it subjugated.

The current ruling class have cultivated such ideas as nationalism, propagating the illusion that we live in a society with a collective social interest. The more enlightened among them probably saw the effects of separating and alienating people from each other and their labour, and so stepped up the spreading of beliefs like nationalism in order to try and convince people that they were not so exploited as they really were, and that everyone had a common interest.

Nationalism is a relatively new concept for social control, since in feudal times religion was the principle method of control over the majority. The newly emerging capitalist class in Europe and later Russia had to shake the religious institutions that held sway in partnership with the aristocracy. This was sped up with the introduction of real scientific ideas, however this was not always enough to drive such ridiculous falsehoods from the minds of the people. A good example of this was just after the Russian revolution. This is generally held up as a socialist revolution, but what is clear to anyone who breaks through this misconception is that the Bolsheviks performed the role of introducing capitalist relations into Russia, and setting themselves up as a form of state bourgeoisie. Since the Russian church was a powerful ally of the Tsarist system, it had to be toppled from a position of power.

In modern capitalism, since the workers own no means of production in reality or practice, they may revolt against the unnatural separation of human from human and labour from labour, so the illusion of working collectively for the benefit of a larger community i.e. the nation, had to be propagated. To do this requires a steady flow of social conditioning and manipulation. This conditioning wouldn’t take root if people knew it was conditioning, the same way as false propaganda wouldn’t have the desired effect if people were to know they were being lied to.

It cannot be argued that the material world has no effect on the person as if every thought they have had has come from them and them alone. Human behaviour is defined by surrounding material and social conditions. Take a baby from London and raise it with a hill tribe in central Asia and it will act like one of them and follow their moral code. Take a baby from the same hill tribe and raise it in London and it will act like a Londoner, go to school, go to work, go shopping and follow the English moral code. It would be plausible to even go as far to say the idea of “individuality” cannot exist in the true sense of the word, since we are all affected by each other and the world we create, thus linked by our social nature. To be an individual in the sense that you were completely separate and define your own existence away from your species is entirely unworkable.

The representatives of the capitalist class insightful enough to understand the aspects governing human behaviour are only too eager to spread the ideas of individual “free will”, patriotism etc, as they see people coming to understand their material surroundings and the effect it has on human behaviour as a threat to the position of the ruling class. After all, if we understand each other and why people behave like they do, why would be bother with the continued existence of a minority class that conditions the majority with a worldview suited to majority exploitation?

On the whole it isn’t that calculated, because we know too well that the capitalist class have a great deal of trouble controlling the social/economic system their predecessors created. The philanthropists and reformists among them are, as always, deluding themselves by thinking that the system can somehow be turned into a society where meaning and genuine collectiveness can flourish. Often the case is that some reforms are granted, as a way of quashing worker militancy while still maintaining the capitalist class in a advantageous position. However, reforms have failed to bring comfort and meaning to most of the world’s population since the entire capitalist machine is geared towards a minority living off a majority. How can human thought and development be free to flourish when the material world that is inseparably tied to human thought is controlled by some untouchable alien power that does such horrific things as creating scarcity on purpose and making workers massacre each other for nothing but the interests of one or other ruling minority?

In our day, the capitalist class has naturally attempted to blanket the workers with its own class outlook, that of individuals and character strength determining positions of power, and that anyone who is clever enough can get to the top. While it is possible for a worker to leap up and join the capitalist class, the same way as a capitalist can be cast down into the workers, this is a extremely rare occurrence. In class society there has to be a ruling class, and a subjugated class, and since we live in capitalism, talk of “moving towards a classless society” is nothing but twaddle. The only way to truly move towards a classless society is for the subjugated majority class itself to throw off the hindering notions and ideas placed on it from its rulers, and then put a final end to the rulers, forever.

Dan Read

RESPECT: the “unity” coalition (2004)

From the April 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new political gathering on the left wing has been formed and is attracting some attention to itself of late. But what is this group and what will it mean for the working class?

R.E.S.P.E.C.T, standing for “Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environment, Community, and Trade Unionism” was formed on 25 January when over one thousand people gathered in central London for the launching of the new organisation.  The group has been initiated by ex-Labour MP George Galloway, posing as some kind of figurehead, and the Socialist Workers Party, the Stop the War Coalition, and various smatterings of other left wing groups and trade unions.

The initial declaration of this new organisation uses the language of socialism: “We want a world in which the democratic demands of the people are carried out; a world based on need not profit; a world where solidarity rather than self-interest is the spirit of the age”.

Observers will have noticed that they remain silent on how this new world is to be obtained, instead focussing on the mass discontent whipped up by the political blunderings of George Bush, Tony Blair and other spokesmen of the western capitalist class, in particular on the recent invasion of Iraq and the anti-war sentiment this provoked.

The anti-war movement was vast up to a point, and served as yet another example of how capitalism’s interests are not tied up with those of the workers. The spontaneous outburst of protest against imperialist war was an inspiring event for any socialist, but, as we know, the movement was massively ignored by the powers-that-be, and led to a feeling of let-down among those workers who thought that capitalist parties represented them. Now that the war has reached its conclusion, many people may be searching for a new “political alternative”.

Respect has stated on several occasions that it wishes to be that alternative. For instance:

  “But the yearning for a political alternative is even wider than the anti-war movement. Pensioners, students, trade unionists, Muslims and other faith groups, socialists, ethnic minorities and many others have been deeply disappointed by the authoritarian social policies and profit-centred, neo-liberal economic strategy of the government.”

However, so far they have held back from talking about how they intend to get to this new alternative or even about whether they think it will work within the present economic system. The majority of their propaganda to date consists of highlighting the recent problems of the capitalist class in Britain and elsewhere, but where they fail is that they seem to be under the impression that the current administrators of capitalism are unpleasant, lying manipulators and exploiters by choice rather than the system itself being to blame.

On some level it is perhaps unfair to judge just yet, since Respect is young and has yet to make an impact on the political scene, and on one level they are correct: there is a yearning for change. There has been a yearning for change ever since class society developed, that yearning of course is more generally known in socialist circles as the product of the class struggle. The class struggle is the irrefutable antagonism of interests in present society between the class that owns and profits from the means of production, and the class that creates the wealth but does not possess any means of producing wealth of their own. Those who “yearn for change” are certainly aware of some form of injustice or antagonism inherent in present-day society, and may be attracted to the new Respect coalition. Unfortunately, since Respect is not direct about what exactly they are aiming for, and how it is to be achieved, they run the risk of becoming caught in the quagmire of popular but ineffectual reformism.

List of Reforms

To date, Respect has provided the working class with promises for a better world, peace instead of war, riches instead of poverty, happiness instead of misery, but is quite silent on a possible future away from capitalism, and have instead stated the following aims to adjust the present economic system:

1. An end to the war and occupation of Iraq. We will not join any further imperialist wars.
2. An education system that is not dependent on the ability to pay, that is comprehensive and gives an equal chance in life to every child no matter how wealthy or poor their parents, from nursery to university.
3. A publicly owned and funded, democratically controlled NHS, free to all users.
4. Pensions that are linked to average earnings.
5. Raising the minimum wage to the European Union decency threshold of £7.40 an hour.
6. Tax the rich to fund welfare and to close the growing gap between the poor and the wealthy few.
7. The repeal of the Tory anti-union laws.
8. Opposition to all form of discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs (or lack of them), sexual orientation, disabilities, national origin or citizenship.
9. The right to self-determination of every individual in relation to their religious (or non-religious) beliefs, as well as sexual choices.
10. The defence of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Opposition to the European Union’s ‘Fortress Europe’ policies.
11. We will strongly oppose the anti-European xenophobic right wing in any Euro referendum. But we oppose the ‘stability pact’ that the European Union seeks to impose on all those who join the euro. This pact would outlaw government deficit spending and reinforce the drive to privatise and deregulate the economy and we will therefore vote ‘No’ in any referendum on this issue.
12. Support for the people of Palestine and opposition to the apartheid system that oppresses them.
13. An end to the destruction of the environment by states and corporations for whom profit is more important than sustaining the natural world on which all life depends.

So ends this rather lengthy list of reforms and promises.  It is aimed at drawing in many disillusioned people eager to see the better world promised come to realisation. The reforms won’t work though, because of a basic misunderstanding of the type of society we live in. We live in a capitalist society, a society where goods are only produced for profit. In such a society, it’s logical that the creation of profits must take precedence over everything else. Hence the Socialist Party’s policy of not advocating reforms, since attempting to attack this profit-making machine with piecemeal reforms, rather than consistently aiming for the complete abolition of capitalism itself, is doomed to failure and frustration.

There is a chance those among the SWP already know this, since it ties in with the Trotskyist approach to reforms and struggle, but as long as they hold that the working class as unable to develop a revolutionary understanding of society, they will continue to attempt to deceive us by providing us with “transitional demands” in the hope that the workers will become so enraged at capitalism being unable to work in their interests that they will want a revolution. In reality people can simply become disillusioned with the reforms put forward by the left wing and abandon any interest in politics.

It would be of interest to see just how large a hold the SWP has on the rest of the coalition, as they reportedly made up half of the delegates at the founding conference. Speculation on the chance Respect may go the way of the Socialist Alliance seems already to have entered the minds of many people, and it’s a strong possibility that infighting between the SWP and the other groups may break out just as it did in the SA.

Voices from the remnants of the Socialist Alliance

At the conference to launch Respect in Portsmouth, it was interesting to note that questions from the audience and replies from the speakers hinted that the Socialist Alliance was a spent force, and one that nobody would wish to see again. It seemed to be held by the audience of students and workers that the SA had failed miserably, and that its policies had been ineffectual and misguided from the very start.

While this would be a ray of hope to revolutionary Marxists that the working class are starting to become increasingly annoyed at Trotskyist attempts to manipulate them, it’s of interest how some of the parties who made up the SA are reacting to the Respect Coalition.

The so-called “Socialist Party” of England and Wales (SPEW, formerly known as Militant Labour) have issued a statement to the new coalition, claiming that they will support them in the European elections but feel unable to join with them for the moment. They dredged up the past where they butted heads with the SWP inside the SA, with the end result that they left the organisation and the SWP consolidated its stranglehold. They also appear to be upset that they were not invited to join with the coalition earlier, a strong indication of the antagonism between Militant and the SWP, but since they are not a part of the new coalition (something the SWP is certainly pleased about) it seems they will have little effect on the future of Respect.

Although the Communist Party of Britain (who publish the Morning Star) never was a part of the Socialist Alliance, their reasons for not joining with the Respect Coalition shed light on the SWP’s relationship with the rest of the Leninist Left. In a statement on the new group they said:

    “We reject participation in the Respect Coalition proposed by George Galloway and  others. It is a narrowly-based front for the SWP which has emerged from the remnants of the failed Socialist Alliance, and is likely to divide not only the labour movement but  the anti-war movement as well. Its main constituent organisation holds quite different views to those of our party on the role and potential of the trade union movement and its leadership,     on the national question and the nature of imperialism, and on the socialist countries past and present.”

The text is somewhat sceptical as to the ability of the non-SWP factions in Respect to resist an attempt by the SWP to overwhelm the entire organisation, but time will tell if such scepticism is well founded.

Other statements follow that the CPB believe the new coalition could be harmful to a movement that wishes to “recapture” the Labour Party and “return” it to the interests of the working class. How exactly a pro-capitalist party such as Labour, which is and always has been for the continued existence of capital, can be turned towards the interests of socialism is something that will remain a mystery.

The Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL) remained in the Socialist Alliance, and is a small but vocal group of Trotskyists, so far refusing to join Respect and heaping all manner of warnings of impending disaster on its reformist and opportunist tactics. Focussing on George Galloway, who has been set up as a “leading figure” in the coalition, they have attacked his pathetic claim that he needs “£150,000 a year to function as a leading figure” and also his shady ties to the former dictatorship in Iraq. The AWL attacks Respect’s soft approach to socialism, in so far as Respect’s only mention of the word socialism is that it makes up the “S” in the word R.E.S.P.E.C.T.  Up to now the AWL has been the most eloquent voice of protest and warning heard from the Leninist Left, but its repeated calls for the standard Trotskyist demands of nationalisation and state control do not impress the revolutionary Marxist nor any worker who does not simply wish to see the current free market regime replaced with a system based on state capital.

While the CPGB (not to be confused with the old CPGB whose name they picked up and who publish the Weekly Worker) has joined with the Respect Coalition, like other groups, it has voiced concern about overwhelming SWP involvement in the new coalition’s politics, via a leaflet that they distributed at the Portsmouth meeting, which is summed up in the following:

 “In order to keep a disparate alliance together, the Socialist Workers Party, which will surely make up the bulk of the convention, and its allies are     junking principle after principle to launch Respect.”

We are certainly hearing voices of caution from several groups, some outside of the Socialist Alliance and some within, who are wary of SWP interference in this attempted new movement in left wing politics.  This could be a simply matter of political feuding; some left groups may be jealous of the SWP’s numbers and disturbing tendency to use this to pack meetings or on some occasions intimidate and/or initiate violent attacks on its political opponents.  

However, we should not forget that a lot of these groups would not for a moment hesitate to act in the undemocratic and pushy manner that the SWP do, if they thought it would hasten their aim of introducing a state capitalist regime in Britain such as that which was started by the Bolsheviks in Russia.

Conclusion

While it may seem unfair to judge a new political movement before it has had an effective chance to prove itself, it would seem that we should not get our hopes up for Respect. As stated and proved, they have made it clear they are advocating reforms to capitalism, and while these reforms may at first seem attractive, it is certain they would always be at odds with the very nature of the economic system we live in, i.e., capitalism. Lacking an honest revolutionary stance for a new society, reformism becomes caught in a pointless and frustrating circular battle with an economic system that is based on exploitation. As long as the accumulation of capital takes precedence, either in the hands of the individual capitalist or state institutions, the primary concern of exploitation of labour and making profit will take precedence over the concerns of human need.

It may seem cynical to write off the coalition completely, but when even former allies in the Socialist Alliance are showing such doubts on its ability to create a new workers movement, it’s clear to socialists that Respect should be treated with caution if not scepticism. The fact that if and when Respect have any success, George Galloway is bound to come under attack by the media for his supposed friendly links to the old regime in Iraq. A man such as Galloway with such a dubious political background can only spell trouble for Respect’s appearance as credible left wing organisation, but for the moment they seem oblivious to this danger.

One thing is certain though, a socialist organisation will get nowhere without a firm grasp of democracy, sound Marxist principle, a disdain to conceal its socialist objective, and a membership in full possession of the facts about current society and the revolutionary alternative. Respect has none of these organisational principles, and is showing no sign of understanding or desiring to develop any of them.

Dan Read

Socialism Now (2003)

From the November 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Today, in the first years of this 21st century, we can look back on the climactic events of the 20th, and see that indeed, that was the defining century of capitalism. Capitalism as an economic system has existed in tiny segments throughout history, but it was not until the 19th and especially the 20th that it became the truly global system it is today.

With the triumph of capitalism over feudalism, many thinkers analysed the new system and saw how it could be converted from the system of continued class tyranny and exploitation into an instrument of global prosperity and progress for all. While Marx was frustrated in his yearning for communism, it was probably not a practical possibility during his time. He died with Europe firmly enthralled in capitalism, and the rest of the world soon to follow.

Now however, in the 21st century, after many years of capitalism as the definitive world system, we have seen at first hand how despicable and outdated the system is. Two massive world wars, with workers butchering each other for the interests of global capital, have caused millions upon millions of deaths. Since then it has been near endless war in some part of the world or another, all perpetuated by the endless demands of capital to accumulate more and more. Untold amounts of resources have been squandered by the rival capitalist states in new and more powerful means of suppression and destruction in order to protect their interests. It has come to the point where they possess the weaponry to destroy all life on the planet.

The Earth's atmosphere itself is becoming less and less hospitable to human life, as pollutants are released because rival capitalists desperately compete with each other to cut costs and gain greater profits. Millions of people are starving amid plenty even as food is destroyed to drive up prices on the markets to yield continued profits. People across the world endure terrible and alienating working conditions, with claims of a “classless society” spouted by the reformists a laughable and unrealisable utopia within the present system. Poverty has not been eradicated in the “developed world” and poverty in the “third world” is not a product of some unassailable trait of human nature, but a matter of the productive system that is capitalism. All this and more assaults the human race as a vast unsolvable problem, a nightmare with no end, and apathy soon sets in. In fact there is a solution; never in history has socialism been so relevant as it is now.

No matter how much it has been lied about, ridiculed and twisted from its original form, scientific socialism is now, more then ever, needed to solve the crisis humanity finds itself in.

Socialism is common ownership. Socialism is production for need. Socialism is real democracy.

Socialism is for the global working class, who can use the vast productive powers for the free development of all. We, in the 21st century, now have that potential. It is possible to house everyone. It is possible to feed everyone. It is possible for everyone to live a decent and fulfilling life as real people, and not just as objects on the labour market. The only thing stopping this is the outdated profit system that constrains production to the will of private property and privilege.

The productive powers have been increased to a vast degree, yet people are still idle, starving, poverty stricken, and homeless, while the machinery of production is misused or neglected. This must change. This will change. This, the 21st century, can be the true century of revolution, of true socialist revolution. We must abandon the faith misplaced in the leaders and apologists of capitalism and move on, ourselves, to our new global society, where the free development of each will be the condition for the free development of all. These words have never been more relevant than they are now, and we have nothing to lose but our chains, and a world to win. Workers of all countries unite!

Dan Read