Democracy or leadership? — the difference (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Regular readers of the Socialist Standard will probably be aware that the Socialist Party doesn’t have leaders. They will also hopefully be aware that the Socialist Party claims to be completely democratic, with each member having one vote.

The reason for this is that we realise that democracy and leadership are mutually exclusive. We argue that a democratic socialist society will not have leaders because if it did then it could never be fully democratic. The same applies to the organisation of a Socialist Party. 

So what’s wrong with leaders? Leaders are only necessary in a society where a minority own the means of living and the majority of the population arc exploited for profit. In a society based on free access to the means of living via common ownership, all there will be is democratic organisation. There wouldn’t be a propertied owning class or state — in other words no people with more rights than others, or leaders.

Some people confuse organisation with leadership. The Socialist Party may not have leaders, but it does have strong democratic organisation, in which the members have full control over Party office-holders. Democratic organisation is therefore completely different from leadership. If anything, a democratic party requires more organisation than a semi-democratic leadership party, because it relies more on the initiative of the membership.

This being said, the next area of confusion is the concept of “dominant personalities”. The argument here is that even if you don’t have leaders, and the organisation is democratically controlled by the membership, you will always have those people who are: more knowledgeable than others, better at arguing than others, and generally more influential and active than others. Of course, this is true, and again there isn't a problem here. The point is everyone has the same “legal” weight, so no matter how well known you are or how good you are at writing articles for the Socialist Standard, at the end of the day you only have the same “legal” power as the least able or active member of the Party.

A third point which is often raised is the assertion that any party whose aim is to change people’s ideas is de facto a leadership party. This is pure semantic quibbling. The point is, we don't propose to lead the revolution and we don't propose to exist as a party after the revolution.

Compare this with the SWP. They are an unrepentant leadership group that aims to lead the working class to a “workers’ state” that they will inevitably control. Their concept of democracy is “democratic centralism”. The basic idea here is that the membership democratically vote for their all-powerful leaders on the Central Committee. This is obviously open to abuse, but the main point is that having leaders of any kind can never be fully democratic. Having the right to vote for your superiors doesn’t make for a democratic organisation. Democratic leadership is a contradiction in terms. Leaders and leadership are therefore incompatible with democracy.

The Socialist Party is broadly organised along the lines of how socialist society will be organised. There will be those who seem more dominant and capable than others. A democracy of class-conscious workers will ensure that any leadership pretensions that any of these “strong" people might have will come to nothing. The nature of the “power structure” simply will not allow it.

When it has been proved that leaders are, have been, and always will be our enemy, do you really think a democratic socialist society will ever feel the need to reintroduce them? 

Dave Flynn

SPGB Meetings (1996)

Party News from the July 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Sadly, none of the meetings listed were recorded. Or at least the audio files - if they exist - are not readily available. I remember accompanying Binay Sarkar of the World Socialist Party of India (with Dave Flynn) to a trip into Central London where we visited the Karl Marx blue plaque at 28 Dean Street.

I didn't attend the election fundraiser at Clapham High Street, but I remember being told that Julius Merry was in attendance and gave a generous donation to election funds. Professor Merry was another one of those fascinating SPGBers from yesteryear who don't usually appear in the Party histories.

Socialist Party Meetings (1996)

Party News from the June 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Trotsky in Euroland (2002)

From the September 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have always argued that Trotskyism and Leninism is a non-revolutionary current, part of the extreme left-wing of capitalism. This was demonstrated at a fringe meeting during the SWP's annual Marxism event.

This meeting involved an internal debate between three of the organisations comprising the "Socialist Alliance", concerning the issue of the euro. Two broad viewpoints were expressed: those firmly in the "No" camp and others who took an arguably more pragmatic approach.

First up was the International Socialist Group (ISG) whose speaker argued that opposition to the euro (and the EU in general) is where class politics should start. As the EU was a "Bosses Club", socialists should naturally oppose it and given the "monetarism" of the convergence criteria/stability pact, we should realise that this will mean increasing attacks upon the working class.

This position was attacked by both the other groups, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty (AWL) and the Leninist Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB). They argued that this logically leads to "little Englandism" even if this was not the intention.

The CPGB speaker proposed an "active boycott" of any forthcoming referendum arguing that class struggle would be more effective given an integrated European working class. So for the CPGB, Euroland offers reluctant possibilities.

It was interesting watching these pseudo-revolutionaries trying to come up with the correct tactical formula and giving a "working class" spin to what is an internal capitalist class debate.

I publicly ventured an alternative: tell us workers the truth! Tell us that global capitalism is our enemy, whether one group of capitalists support the euro or not. Tell us that class struggle and democratic organisation are prerequisites for the revolution which will abolish private property, wages and money itself (including the pound and the euro). Naturally, this got the usual looks of incredulity and a pleasing nod from the AWL speaker who mistakenly thought I was echoing his earlier point about "independent working class action".

I added for the benefit of the ISG supporters that even if Britain did stay outside the eurozone, the pound would still be affected by European Central Bank decisions and any subsequent machinations on the foreign exchange markets. As for the austerity measures, these would happen anyway because of the need to reform the European "social democratic model" so as to better compete with the likes of USA and Japan.

What this all shows is that despite their militant phrase-mongering these people will lead the working class up yet another reformist dead-end — if given an opportunity. Their politics falls safely within capitalism.

Dave Flynn 

A socialist trip to Belfast (2001)

Party News from the September 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Inspired by our trip last year to Derry, we returned to the north of Ireland this year for an enjoyable and educational week in Belfast. No lounging on beaches for us — within hours of landing, we found ourselves at a meeting of trotskyists from Militant, where we took the opportunity to both listen and learn from their perspective and to explain our own position. They were amused — and seemed pleased — to meet the SPGB, presumably because they had only heard of us through the wrangles with us over the name of their party.

Naturally, a large proportion of the meeting was concerned with the euphemistically named “troubles” and the current political situation vis a vis the “peace process”. Militant explained that, from their perspective, they hope that the new institutions will carry on working as this will enable them to “expose Sinn Fein as anti-working class in practice”. Militant obviously hope that if this period of detente continues, young radicals will join their ranks as cultural sectarianism becomes a historical anachronism.

From the point of view of orthodox trotskyism, Militant have always been considered to be quite “wet” on Ireland as their analysis has tended towards “economistic left labourism”, therefore ignoring the “national question”. That they have not been drawn into the sectarian madness that pervades Irish politics is to their credit, but as we pointed out to them, their politics do not go beyond capitalism, nor as does the whole of the trotskyist milieu. Trotskyism is objectively anti-working class — subjective intentions notwithstanding. Indeed, even after explaining this clearly, and denouncing their state- capitalist programme, we remained on cordial terms for the rest of our week. This was probably the first time that they had heard such opinion, so hopefully, we were not the only ones to learn from the meeting.

Later on in the week, we also met up with a group of anarcho-syndicalists (Syndicalist Solidarity Network), whose meeting was based upon their live experiences from frontline duty in Genoa. This, in itself, was quite interesting, and the ensuing discussion was based on “what are we to do now that the state is shooting at us?” What indeed?

The interesting thing about some of the anarcho-syndicalists present, was that, despite appearing to be non-leftist at first glance, scratch the surface and this is what you find. This became clear when the issue of the Socialist Workers Party, and its current attempts to portray itself as anarchists (in order to hoodwink and try to control the anti-capitalist movement), was raised. One person present (a member of the IWW) argued that, although political differences existed, for now we should be on the same side as the SWP as the police and the state were the real enemy. After the acrimonious practical history between leninists and anarchists was pointed out, others present nodded in agreement that the like of the SWP could not be trusted.

As an example of the SWP”s opportunism, we were shown an SWP leaflet where the circled anarchist A symbol was used! This should leave nobody in any doubt as to the nature of such organisations. But even after this, we could not get them to draw a class line in the sand. Apparently, the anti-capitalist movement needs as many people as possible, so best not to upset the applecart, some argued. We countered that such equivocation could well prove to be their own undoing.

This said, members of the World Socialist Movement are always going to feel more at home with anarcho-syndicalists than with trotskyists, and we left having enjoyed the meeting.

One cannot visit the likes of Derry and Belfast these days without sensing the relief that the conflict is now, hopefully, in its endgame. Virtually everyone we spoke to indicated that the quality of their lives had improved dramatically in recent years and dreaded the possibility of a return to “war”. From a purely capitalist point of view, places like Belfast, with its traditional industries dying, need new investment and, indeed, due to the “peace process”, this has started to happen. However, one gets a timely reminder of the “old world" over in parts of west Belfast. While we were there, we witnessed stones being thrown over the “peace line" separating the Catholic and Protestant areas (we were reliably informed that our voices must have been heard!). During the night, petrol bombs were used instead. It was so sad to see the poorest members of the working class blaming each other for their poverty. The murals definitely become brighter and louder as the social conditions got worse.

Finally, it is 20 years since the republican hunger strikers died, and, in certain parts of Belfast and Derry, you cannot seem to escape their happy, smiling faces staring at you from murals wherever you go. Too bad, we thought, that such young men should give up their lives for the capitalist dead-end of Irish Republicanism when they may have made fine militants for the socialist movement. What a tragic waste.

Dave Flynn/Stuart Watkins

Irish workers feel the pinch (2000)

From the May 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

All is not well in the “Celtic tiger”. Just after trade unions, employers and the government were passing the Partnership for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF)—a national agreement on pay and conditions—Dublin bus drivers were taking strike action in support of a 20 percent pay claim with the promise of more to come.

For the employers, government and trade union leaders, the PPF is presented as a genuine attempt to divide up Ireland’s new found wealth equitably between capitalists and workers, but in fact it is an attempt to head off the increasing likelihood of further class struggle as the Irish economy shows signs of slowing down.

The PPF which is set to run for a period of 33 months, allows basic pay to rise by 5.5 percent for each of the first 12-month periods and four percent in the final four-month period. However, linked to pay rises are agreements on productivity increases. This had led to unions such as the Teachers’ Union of Ireland rejecting the deal outright whilst others such as SIPTU (public-sector—including bus drivers) and building workers (BATU) are threatening militant action.

Dubbing Ireland the “world’s fastest growing economy” has almost become a cliché of late. Over recent years a combination of EU membership and subsidy plus massive Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from American multinationals desperate to set up inside the single market has propelled the economy forward. Last year a growth rate of 7.5 percent was recorded and this year, according to the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) a rate of 7.25 percent is expected. However, with six percent being predicted for 2001 the importance of the PPF for the employing class should be obvious. However, many Irish workers do not feel that they are fully participating in this new prosperity. They are certainly working harder—often in low paid employment—but the capitalists have been the main benefits of the boom.

Another problem for the capitalist class is that the Irish economy is facing a potential labour shortage which on its own terms threatens the growth of the economy. This has led to the government actively recruiting skilled labour from overseas (including Irish emigrants) to bridge the gap. Some economists have pointed out that such a policy is likely to put intolerable pressure on public and private housing in terms of provision and surging house prices (especially around Dublin). However, a labour shortage puts the working class in a strong position and clearly the employers wish to counteract this.

The labour shortage problem was foreseen by the government as early as 1995 when it passed immigration legislation deliberately widening the definition of “refugee” in order to recruit skilled labour. This, however, has not prevented anti-asylum seeker outbursts from leading politicians and headlines in Irish newspapers talking of “floods” in much the same way as tabloid newspapers do in Britain. Asylum-seekers have been blamed for the shortage of public housing, but a cursory look at the government’s own figures reveal that this problem already existed. The Labour Party leader Rory Quinn has even suggested that asylum-seekers with skills should be integrated into Irish society for everyone’s benefit, which is reassuring for everyone but especially the capitalists who can smell profit from asylum-seeker labour power.

As boom turns to recession, which under capitalism is as inevitable as night following day, expect to hear more from the Emerald Isle as workers begin to fight for a bigger slice of the pie and the capitalists remind everyone of “social partnership” and the PPF, not to mention the asylum-seekers—the usual scapegoats.

Dave Flynn

Is the Pound worth saving? (1999)

From the June 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some said it would never happen, yet on 1 January of this year the Single European Currency became a reality. Five months on, we have seen the fall of Oskar Lafontaine, the German Finance Minister, the resignation of the entire European Commission and the Euro steadily fall in value.

Despite all of this, New Labour has started to come off the fence and demonstrate that they are preparing to recommend Britain’s entry to the project, subject to a referendum of course. This policy shift (especially after publishing the National Changeover Plan), has only intensified debate across the country, spawning a plethora of ad hoc organisations, dedicated to both sides of the argument.

Without equivocation, we in the Socialist Party say that the introduction is a capitalist question which has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the working class. Our class interests can only be furthered by the abolition of the capitalist wages system and all money no matter which name our masters wish to give it.

The “pro” and “anti” positions span the political spectrum from right to left. Some of the Eurosceptics to be found on the extremes of the Conservative and Labour parties are actually in favour of EU withdrawal, whilst the majority are just hostile to the Single European Currency. In the case of the Europhiles, they can be found anywhere from the Tory left, the Liberal Democrats through to New Labour. It is interesting to note that the vast bulk of the pseudo-revolutionary Trotskyite sects are defending their own variation of the Eurosceptic position.

Ever-increasing concentration

The Euro project is just the latest (but by no means the last) phase of European capitalism’s attempts to compete as an effective unit on the world stage (especially against the US and Japan). This is not just a political project, as the capitalist media likes to make out, but is rooted in the ever-increasing concentration, centralisation and integration of European capital. Indeed, the prelude to the launch of the Euro was littered with take-over activity. This process itself is part of capitalism’s attempt to restructure itself to the needs of the modern globalised economy.

Perhaps, not surprisingly, we find that the most powerful section of the capitalist class (big manufacturing and finance) are generally the ones pushing for Britain’s entry into the Euro. There are the capitalists who have a big stake in Europe either via importing/exporting or providing finance for take-overs.

It does not follow that businesses with extensive European interests who have supported the development of Europe vis-à-vis the EEC and single market EU, necessarily believe the Euro is a good idea in itself. The CBI, which represents big manufacturing capital, is actually quite divided on this issue despite its leadership being in favour. For many members, it’s not the principle of the Euro which is the problem—it is the economics of it. However, some pro-European capitalists take the view that although the single currency is not perfect, they cannot be left out of it. In fact some argue that early membership would have allowed the British government to influence the shape of the Euro project in their favour.

Bearing in mind that the majority of the British public are not Euro enthusiasts, we should expect to see a big propaganda drive over the next year or two from the powerful pro-Euro lobby (which is likely to involve the government). The most popular argument trotted out by the Europhiles is that an integrated Europe will reduce the risk of another European war because Germany will be kept in check. This is a feeble argument which totally misunderstands the causes of war. The fact that superficially Europe’s capitalists are coming together does not alter the fact that they remain competitors and this is only a marriage of convenience. If, due to capitalist logic, the arrangement should break down, no amount of political organisation at a supra-national level will prevent a war. The example of the United Nations demonstrates this.

Following on from this, we are told that from this position of political stability there will be increased economic growth via increased trade and low interest rates and inflation. The logical corollary of this would be a Europe reasserting itself on the world stage, whilst capable of dealing with its own internal balance-of-power. As pro-Euro economist Christopher Johnson argues in his book In With The Euro, Out With The Pound:

“The Euro, with the UK inside it will become a world currency alongside the dollar and the yen. Britain can thus retain, or even regain, some of its status as a world economic and financial power without giving up its national identity.”

Moreover:

“Britain can avoid German domination of Europe only by joining France, Germany and other European countries as partners in an integrated Europe” (p.197).

Quite where Johnson find the facts to support such optimistic economic reasoning is anybody’s guess. It’s certainly not supported by the first five months of the Euro, which has highlighted many of its contradictions. Firstly, there has been the constant bickering between the politicians and the bankers of the European Central Bank (see January Socialist Standard) which resulted in the resignation of “Red” Oskar Lafontaine, the German Finance Minister, and of course the corruption scandal at the heart of the EU Commission which demonstrates the lack of even basic democratic accountability. And as for the Euro becoming a world reserve currency to threaten the dollar—well it hasn’t happened yet. 

Eurosceptics

However, the capitalist class is multi-faceted and some sections are openly hostile to Britain joining the Euro. These capitalists (generally small and medium size concerns) grouped around organisations such as the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses see joining the Euro as a costly adventure. The EU “social market” model is derided as an economic anachronism which will not be able to compete against the low cost, dynamic “free market” US and that Britain’s entry into the single currency will effectively spell the end of the Thatcherite revolution.

There is a certain amount of truth in this position. It is clear that if Britain did join the Euro there would be moves to harmonise taxes and costs since British capital would have an unfair advantage over its European rivals. However, it is also true to say that European capitalists have been trying to restructure their own economies for sometime now with attacks on welfare provision and working conditions. The results of this have been violent protests and demonstrations by French and German workers. In reality, Euro capital will try to restructure at home whilst demanding concessions from a British entry.

The Eurosceptics often claim that a single currency with a “one-size-fits-all” monetary policy would inevitably require a single fiscal policy. John Redwood, the Tory arch Eurosceptic, articulated this view in his 1997 book Our Currency, Our Country:

“You cannot have a single currency without a single interest rate, a single banking policy, a single budget and a single finance minister or central bank governor. You are inevitably led to a single taxation policy and a single economic policy. You are close to creating a single government” (Preface).

Although Redwood’s arguments may be more cogent and honest than Christopher Johnson’s, his views are ultimately based upon populist nationalism. Britain would cease to be an independent nation and parliament would resemble little more than a glorified county council under the jackboot of French and German bankers.

This may or may not be true. The question is what difference would this make to the working class? When people like John Redwood start talking about democracy it’s difficult not to laugh.

The main strengths of the “Eurosceptic” position rests on their critique of single currency economics. Firstly, they argue that Europe is not an “optimal currency area” which is a prerequisite for the Euro to be a long-term success. Britain’s trade cycle is synchronised more closely with that of the US and this could cause problems with a common interest rate policy (i.e. German growth may be slowing and Britain’s picking up). This could mean that the currency area was more susceptible to “asymmetric shocks” that could threaten the stability of the entire continent.

Left-wing Eurosceptics with their desire to reform British capitalism have also used “loss of control” arguments. The Campaign for an Independent Britain write in a recent pamphlet:

” . . . opting for economic self governance, rapid growth and full employment means opting out of a single currency” (Burkitt, Bainbridge and Whyman—There is An Alternative, p.65).

It is a supreme irony that left-reformists such as the aforementioned authors and Tony Benn can be on the same side as the Thatcherites, whilst denouncing the Maastricht “Convergence Criteria” and Amsterdam “Stability Pact” for being “monetarist” and “deflationary”. For these people are still labouring under the delusion that capitalist governments can control and influence the economy by using monetary and fiscal policies. They have learned nothing from history.

Clearly, the Tory Eurosceptics (currently under the leadership of William Hague) nominally support the notion of an independent Britain, but in reality represent the pro-US section of the British capitalist class. It is precisely this division between the pro-European and pro-US sections of the capitalist class that will fuel the single currency debate in the coming months.

Indeed, the EU and US seem to be in a perpetual trade war at the moment and such tensions are likely to increase rather than diminish. This makes Britain’s future role even more interesting. If Tony Blair does take Britain further into Europe, how will this affect Anglo-US relations? Perhaps Blair’s strategy will be to play one bloc off against the other?

We have seen the poverty of all the capitalist arguments for and against the Euro and located this debate in its true context. From the petty nationalists to the more “sophisticated” pro-Europeans this is not a debate for the working class. To be “pro-European” or “anti-European” is to fall for capitalist trickery. We should create our own agenda rather than just responding to our masters’ in-fighting. Is the Pound worth saving? A better question would be: Is capitalism worth saving?

Dave Flynn

A Mad Marketeer Regrets (1999)

Book Review from the April 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

“As it is presently constituted global capitalism is inherently unstable. Unless it is reformed radically, the world economy risks falling apart in a replay, at once tragic and farcical, of the trade wars, competitive devaluations, economic collapses and the political upheavals of the 1930s” writes John Gray, a disillusioned 1980s’ Thatcherite, in a recent book.

Reading anything by John Gray these days is a novel experience. Here we have a former free marketeer who now no longer believes in the neo-liberal utopian project he once advocated. Indeed, Gray appears to be in much of a hurry to atone for his previous intellectual sins by informing us that global capitalism is in deep crisis and headed for a fall of catastrophic proportions.

Undoubtedly, it is this paradox which provides a highly stimulating read when you pick up Gray’s latest book False Dawn—The Delusions of Global Capitalism. However, as in the case of George Soros, Gray does not mean the same as us when he talks about global capitalism. He is referring to the current global financial arrangements—free movement of capital around the world or neo-liberalism.

From the outset we should be clear that Gray is not critiquing capitalism per se, only the US-led neo-liberal project which started a couple of decades ago. For Gray, capitalism is assumed to be an eternal system to which there is no alternative; capitalism therefore, needs to be saved from itself. In this respect, Gray can be seen to be in the long line of reformist defenders of capitalism from Keynes right up to George Soros (who, incidentally, has endorsed Gray’s book).

The basis to Gray’s entire thesis is that the neo-liberal project has its roots in the mid-Victorian laissez-faire experiment which in turn has its roots in eighteenth century Enlightenment rationalism. Gray admirably demonstrates that far from being a natural state of affairs (as marketeers like to think) it was organised by the state centrally. The corollary of this is that regulated markets are natural—though this assumption made by Gray is demonstrably false.  

Gray goes further by arguing that Soviet “Communism” was another “false utopia” stemming from the Enlightenment period. Both projects were “universalisms”, which means they aimed at world domination (from a Western perspective) showing complete disregard for diverse cultural needs and values. Subsequently, this century has been littered with “false utopias” from the Enlightenment—the last of which is the US’s ideological drive to create a global free market. Gray says that, in the case of the Soviet Union, this attempt will end with disastrous consequences for humanity:

 “Even though a global free market cannot be reconciled with any kind of planned economy, what these utopias have in common is more fundamental than their differences. In their cult of reason and efficiency, their ignorance of history and their contempt for the ways of life they consign to poverty or extinction, they embody the same rationalist hubris and cultural imperialism that have marked the central traditions of Enlightenment thinking throughout its history” (p.3).

We shall return to this theme later.

Product of the crisis

Compared to many pro-capitalist commentators, Gray makes a refreshing change. Whereas the majority, even today, try to explain the financial storms in south-east Asia, Latin America and Russia as purely local phenomena (which may or may not add up to a global problem), Gray at least realises that the problem is inherently global.

However, Gray’s position is ultimately superficial and idealist unlike the Marxist method of historical materialism. This said, he expertly surveys the results of neo-liberalism in countries such as Britain, New Zealand and the US and recounts the all too familiar story of rising inequality, welfare cuts, social exclusion, etc. He adds to this the effects on countries such as Mexico, South Korea and Indonesia of the IMF-imposed austerity/free market measures which are presented as a political/economic panacea despite the fact that such measures are “alien” to these particular “capitalisms” and that the effects on ordinary people’s living standards are terrible.

Although he locates the origins of the neo-liberal project with the death of the post-war Keynesian era, Gray singularly fails to set it in its real theoretical context: the crisis of capitalism.

From a Marxian viewpoint, the OPEC crisis of the early 1970s was the beginning of the current crisis. In other words, world capitalism has been in crisis for nearly thirty years and the re-emergence of the New Right can only really be evaluated as a response to the crisis. This period (especially amongst the advanced economies) was characterised not only by stagflation (simultaneous rising unemployment and inflation) but also by often stagnant or falling growth and profit rates, which in the case of Britain culminated in a financial/fiscal crisis requiring an IMF bailout.

This is what really lies behind the “casino” economy or the “globalisation” process today. Since it’s increasingly hard to make sufficient profit making things, i.e. manufacturing, “speculation” has increasingly come to dominate. The crisis we see around us is in fact a crisis of the “real” economy. Gray is blind to this because he explains the crisis as a crisis of an “idea” (neo-liberalism) which could be rectified by a change of policy.

Philosophical error 

This very basic philosophical error sets the tone for the rest of Gray’s flawed economic analysis. It is precisely because capitalism is a competitive system based upon production for profit that neo-liberalism has appeal. Capitalism is in crisis and here we have a philosophy which strives to reduce wages, costs and social/welfare spending. Gray adds to his own confusion by correctly arguing that alternative capitalist models such as the European social market model will take a battering at the hands of US neo-liberalism as “bad” capitalism tends to drive out “good”:

  “In any competition that is waged with the rules of global laissez-faire, that have been designed to reflect the American free market, the social economies of Europe and Asia are at a systematic disadvantage. They have no future unless they can modernise themselves by deep and rapid reforms” (p.78).

Furthermore:

 “A mechanism of downwards harmonization of market economies is already in operation. Every type of currently existing capitalism is thrown into the melting pot. In this contest the socially dislocated American free market possesses powerful advantages” (p. 78).

Nominally Gray is right. He contradicts himself, however, by suggesting that the US should give up these “powerful advantages” and prioritise global stability instead. About the chance of this happening Gray is rightly pessimistic:

  “Yet the replacement of global laissez-faire by a managed regime for the world economy is, at present, nearly as Utopian a project as a universal free market. Such a regime could be established only by the world’s great economic powers acting in concert . . .”

He adds:

 “Without active and continuing American endorsement there can be no workable institutions of global governance” (p.200).

This demonstrates both Gray’s strengths and weaknesses, not to mention his apparent confusion. He seems to understand enough about capitalism to realise that neo-liberalism is not going to be stopped by an appeal to “reason” since it reflects the US’s attempts to dominate the world economy. One would be forgiven for thinking that such an implicit admission would be enough to transport him from subjective idealism to a more profound and coherent view of capitalism. Evidently not.

Intellectual swamp 

John Gray’s critique of neo-liberalism is rooted in what is effectively an indictment of the rationalist Enlightenment thought in which modern Socialism has its origins. This kind of “anti-rationalist” thinking is very popular today as capitalism’s intellectuals stumble around for new ideas with which to prop up this obsolete system. The most popular expression of this is probably Post-Modernism which denies the possibility of objective knowledge and saves most of its wrath for “ideologies” such as Marxism that dare to explain the real world as it really is.

Gray is not a Post-Modernist but he falls into the current swamp of confused pro-capitalist defenders who in intellectual terms appear to want to take us back several centuries. He fails to understand the true nature of capitalism which is a class-based exploitative society which produces for profit not need and is prone to war and crisis. His initial mistake is to associate the Soviet Union with the thought of Karl Marx and to therefore conclude by thinking that with all its problems capitalism has proved itself to be the only viable system for humankind: “there is no alternative to capitalism only its constantly mutating varieties” (p.195).

One should suppose that he is unaware of the case for real Socialism which is production-for-use via common ownership with democratic control. The Socialist Party stands for world-wide revolution, which according to Gray makes us guilty of the crime of “universalism”. To that charge we plead guilty—we are part of a suffering universal/global working class.

Gray’s analysis of the current crisis via False Dawn and his occasional articles in the Guardian do have some nominal resonance. His argument that a global depression could ensue complete with 1930s-style protectionism and trade wars is a possibility which we could countenance.. So although by default we may agree with some of Gray’s conclusions, his method for understanding not only the current crisis but capitalism itself is woefully inadequate.

Ultimately, Gray is a confused pessimist who argues against the pernicious effects of neo-liberalism without realising that he is really talking about the crisis of capitalism. But we should not allow his pessimism let him off the hook. When it comes to Utopianism he takes the biscuit:

  “The growth of the world economy could be a great advance for humankind. It could be the beginning of a many-centred world, in which different cultures and regimes could interact and cooperate without domination or war” (p.196).

Dave Flynn

Iraq – the continuing war (2000)

From the August 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

Competitive imperialist strategies to gain control of and/or access to oil continue to cause the murder of the workers in Iraq.

Even by the barbaric standards of contemporary capitalism, the situation in Iraq is dire. A deadly combination of routine daily bombings since December 1998 and economic sanctions imposed after the invasion of Kuwait has led to the “destruction of a society” in the words of former UN official Denis Halliday.

However, how many people realise that “their country” is still effectively at war? Moreover, how many are aware that half-a-million Iraqi children have been killed as a direct result of the sanctions? The answer to both these questions is, of course, not many but this should come as no surprise.

It would appear that the media has imposed a blanket over the sufferings in Iraq, which is only removed periodically to lambast Saddam Hussein and to justify a US/UK-led policy which is terrorising tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqi people, yet paradoxically making Saddam’s brutal Ba’thist regime even stronger

A brief history

It will be remembered that the Gulf War of 1991 was initiated by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. When Iraq refused to withdraw, the UN imposed economic sanctions and in January 1991 after the apparent failure of diplomacy, the UN-led coalition went to war which resulted in victory a few weeks later.

With the end of the conflict, uprisings took place in Kurdish northern Iraq and the Shia and Marsh Arabs in the south. These risings which were anti-Saddam were initially supported and encouraged by the West only to be betrayed and for Saddam to be allowed to crush the rebellions in blood. However, it created the veneer of legitimacy required by the UN to pose as protectors of the anti-Saddam minorities and create the infamous “no-fly zones” over northern and southern Iraq.

Of course, this only ever meant that Iraqi planes could not have access to this airspace. The UN would be allowed to patrol in these areas with the mandate to shoot down any undesirable flying objects so long as these were not Turkish fighters which routinely bomb northern Iraq as part of their continuing war against the Kurds.

Such is the cynical hypocrisy of the UN position (predominately actioned by the US and UK today) that the “no-fly zones” have formed the basis to the US/UK’s aerial bombardment of Iraq and so are of major strategic significance. It scarcely needs to be mentioned that oil is the reason for all this attention on Iraq. Iraq has the world’s second largest known oil reserves and this fact should underline any understanding of the competitive imperialist strategies to gain control and/or access to that oil.

Iran-Iraq war

Saddam Hussein was not always out of favour. In 1980 he was positively encouraged to invade Iran as the US wanted to nip the “Khomeini revolution” in the bud in order to prevent Iran becoming the regional superpower. However, they did not want Iraq to dominate either, so in the words of Henry Kissinger “The ultimate American interest in the war is that both sides should lose”—a policy of duel containment. The US got their wish. After eight years of brutality—with millions of casualties on both sides—a draw was declared and the balance of power maintained.

For Saddam’s part the Iraqi economy was severely weakened, accruing debts from various powers not least of all the Kuwaiti ruling family.

The rest is history. A combination of a disputed oil field and a row in OPEC about oil prices (Iraq wanted higher oil prices)—normally at least led to Iraq’s decision to invade Kuwait, thus setting the scene for the next decade.

Each against all

The end of the Cold War saw the demise of the bipolar East and Western blocs with the defeat of the Soviet Union and the victory of the US as the undisputed world superpower. The allied action taken over Iraq—under the auspices of the UN—was the first major event of the so-called “New World Order”. Since then the coalition of allies has effectively broken down with states such as Germany, France and Russia pursuing their own imperialist strategies often in direct contradiction to those of the US. The raison d’être of this period is ever-shifting alliances and blocs which was not possible under bipolarity.

Operation Desert Fox

In December 1998 after nearly a year of brinkmanship over the role of UNSCOM (the UN inspectors looking for Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction), Iraq was bombed by US and UK forces without reference to the UN Security Council. It was alleged that the Iraqis were preventing the inspectors doing their job so they were withdrawn to make way for the bombing.

“UNSCOM director Richard Butler removed inspectors from Iraq prior to the December 1998 bombardment of the country, contrary to what is commonly reported. According to Butler’s own records, his team of weapons inspectors made numerous unimpeded visits before the December bombing” (Iraq Under Siege, edited by Anthony Arnove, p.69).

Evidently, the US/UK were not concerned about “weapons of mass destruction” when Iraq used chemical attacks during the latter stages of the war with Iran or the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988. In any case what about other countries’ “weapons of mass destruction” such as the US and UK for example?

Oil-for-food

One way the UN has supposedly attempted to ameliorate the effects of sanctions on the civilian population has been via the oil-for-food programme. Under this programme Iraq is allowed to export a certain quota of oil so enabling it to obtain food and basic medical supplies. Things, however, are not as they seem. Thirty percent of Iraq’s revenue goes into the UN Compensation Fund and until very recently with oil prices on the floor Iraq’s export earnings would have been minimal.

There are many advantages for the UN to pursue this policy. Firstly, it keeps Iraq’s oil infrastructure in use whilst keeping the vast bulk of the oil off the market and it allows the UN to pose as “humanitarians” whilst blaming Saddam for failing to distribute the booty to the population at large.

Even this accusation has been undermined by the man who actually ran the oil-for-food programme in Baghdad: Denis Halliday. Halliday who resigned in disgust because of the effects of the sanctions has said:

  ” . . . oil-for-food was never intended to actually resolve the humanitarian crisis. It was designed to stop further deterioration. It was designed to build on what the Iraqi government was already doing and is still doing” (Iraq Under Siege, p.36).

Halliday now spends his time campaigning against the sanctions after 34 years with the UN.

In the light of this, how seriously can we take US Secretary of State Madeline Albright’s assertion that despite the carnage sanctions are a “price worth paying”?

Imperialist rivalries

The effect of the sanctions and the bombings has been “to blow Iraq back to the Stone Age” and strengthen Saddam’s brutal dictatorship. Bearing in mind that official US policy is to remove Saddam from power, one may be mistaken for thinking that ending the sanctions would have been the order of the day. The sanctions have continued unabated despite efforts from states such as France and Russia to rehabilitate and reintegrate Iraq into the world economy.

But of course, the US and the likes of France and Russia do not want democracy for Iraq. Indeed, one of the opposition groups funded by the US wants to restore the Iraqi monarchy! Only a brutal dictatorship can hold Iraq together which guarantees the integrity of Iraq’s borders and hence a semblance of stability in a strategically vital part of the world. Paradoxically, an internally strong Iraq must be counterposed by being externally weak so it too is unable to threaten the region’s equilibrium. Saddam and/or the Ba’th Party are currently fulfilling this role so to some extent share a unity of purpose with the US. In the words of Richard Haass—the former director of Middle East affairs for the National Security Council:

“Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime” (quoted in Iraq under Siege, p.11).

Slaughter of the working class – just another job under capitalism

With France and Russia first in line for contracts when Iraq oil comes back on tap it’s understandable that they are even more pro-Saddam than the US. Even a change of leadership could see them lose out to US-based majors. As Noam Chomsky explained last year:

  “At the moment there is an oil glut. That’s one good reason why it’s beneficial to the US to keep Iraqi oil off the market. The US does not want the price of oil to go too low. It’s always wanted it to stay within a range, not too high because of the harm to US manufacturers, but not too low because that’s harmful to the energy producers, which are mostly US-based and their profits would go down.”

Furthermore:

  “The other problem with Iraqi oil is that the inside track on developing Iraqi oil is held currently by France and Russia, not by the US-based majors. So, for the moment at least keeping Iraqi oil from being developed is a wise project” (Iraq Under Siege, p.53).

Another factor to consider is that the destruction of Iraqi civilian life means a much more compliant working class when Iraq’s oil returns to the open market. As Chomsky explains:

  “So, if the population of Iraq were reduced or marginalized, maybe even reduced to such a level that they are barely functional, then when the time comes to bring Iraqi production back on line, they will be less of an impediment” (quoted in Iraq Under Siege, p.53).

This may prove to be significant in the light of the IMF-style austerity measures that Saddam was attempting to bring in during the late 80s. Previously the policy had been “Guns and Butter”, but the war with Iran put paid to that. The Iraqi working class was showing resistance to cuts in its living standards then, of course, the Gulf War started.

Generally, in the period of “each against all” it can be argued that the US has been attempting to reconstitute its own hegemony over the Middle East at the expense of its main industrial rivals. And the Middle East is not the only region. The 1990s’ Balkans experience has demonstrated that nominal co-operation between the big powers does not necessarily mean that differing imperialist strategies were not actually being pursued.

With reference to Iraq, the differing policies between the likes of France, Russia, US/UK have become increasingly pronounced and as pressure builds to life the sanctions and to stop the bombing, the battle to re-control Iraq and its oil will begin again.

End of sanctions

Under which terms and conditions Iraq will be allowed to rejoin the world economy remains to be seen, but it is reasonable to assume that it will happen eventually. If it is the case that the sanctions regime (by design or not) has helped to keep Saddam in power, how will the lifting affect him and the Ba’thists? It is worth remembering that any differences between the US and its main rivals does not include democracy in Iraq. So the chances are that Saddam (or whoever is in charge) will have to be rehabilitated in the eyes of the West.

Iraq remains one of the most obvious reasons why the world’s working class has to organise to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism. We in the Socialist Party place on record our complete abhorrence with regard to the plight of our class brothers and sisters in Iraq and have no equivocation in denouncing the murderous gangsters who have blood on their hands—Saddam Hussein, Bill Clinton and Tony Blair to name but three.

Dave Flynn

A sixth form essay (2001)

Book Review from the May 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Karl Marx: Hero or Zero?’ By Professor Colin Francome. (Carla Francome publications, 2000)

It’s almost trendy to write about Karl Marx these days and Francome’s book is an example of this genre. However, quite why this particular book was written and moreover who it was written for, is anyone’s guess. It fails to break new ground, has a weak sixth-form-esque narrative and contains a number of factual errors and omissions. It truly reads like a book without any real sense of purpose or originality.

This said, Francome gives Marx a favourable reassessment and this is to his eternal credit as, unlike many seasoned ‘experts’, he does not hold Marx’s ideas as being responsible for those tyrannical so-called ‘Marxist’ regimes which:

“did not have the kind of lifestyle that Marx proposed”(p8).

and

“it is ironic that a person whose work was directed towards producing freedom became identified as the enemy of freedom”(p6)

However, some of Francome’s mistakes are quite glaring. Perhaps from our point of view, the most significant one is the quote on page 1 allegedly from this very journal – only do not get too excited, it is actually from another organisation.

Another example includes the rather pathetic discussion of contemporary British ‘socialist’ history. He cites “four distinct major Marxist groups” (Communist Party, International Socialism/Socialist Workers Party, Workers Revolutionary Party and the International Marxist Group) completely omitting Ted Grant’s Militant group.

Francome then refers to the WRP splits which one should definitely never do unless painstaking research has been undertaken. Clearly this was not the case and in the throes of confusionism, Francome manages to mix up the notorious Redgraves of the Marxist Party with the faction still producing the Newsline paper. Not the crime of the century, but even so – do your homework Professor!

At the risk of labouring the point, his account on the rise of Trotskyism in the USSR borders on the banal and in discussing the destinations of certain sixties radicals it would be more accurate to describe a one Chris Harman as the editor of Socialist Worker rather than just glibly saying that he now ‘writes books’.

Indeed, this is a very disappointing book.

Dave Flynn

Is Britain being abolished? (2000)

Book Review from the February 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘The Abolition of Britain’. By Peter Hitchens. (Quarter Books)

It certainly is according to rabid right-wing Daily Express columnist Peter Hitchens. Hitchens, who is critical of Mrs Thatcher and regards Michael Portillo as being too liberal, has set out his stall in a book which argues that the post-war period (especially since the 60s) has seen the gradual erosion of everything that once characterised Britain as a great independent Empire nation.

According to Hitchens, Britain’s political, economic and social institutions have been taken over by “cultural revolutionaries” whose clear aim has been the abolition of Britain by stealth. This has resulted in some of the following: the decline of religion, morality and family life; the ruination of a perfectly good education system with comprehensive schooling; the legalisation of homosexuality and the rise of permissive sexual practice, and the abolition of corporal and capital punishment. Underpinning all of the above has been the general decline in respect for authority and patriotism. For Hitchens, this has led to a Britain which is no longer at ease with itself and one which has closed its eyes to its own history which is held in contempt.

Needless to say, with the arrival of Tony Blair and New Labour on 1 May 1997 the final nail in Britain’s coffin was hammered home:

  “1st May 1997 really was the start of a new era. The new Prime Minister’s triumphal progress to Buckingham palace and Downing Street was filmed from the air by sycophantic broadcasters as if a dull cortege of motor cars were a rebel army finally emerging from the sierras to occupy a conquered city.”

And we are all aware of what has subsequently followed. Devolution for Wales and Scotland, House of Lords reform and of course plans to join the single European currency and merge Britain into a federal European super-state. For Hitchens, all this is tantamount to treachery.

For socialists, Hitchens’s entire concept of “Britain” is wrong. All capitalist societies are divided along class lines—capitalist and worker—therefore any talk of “nation” or patriotism is palpable nonsense. Capitalists and workers do not share a common identity nor do they share any interests in common.

Given this, it would be easy to dismiss Hitchens’s views as the ramblings of a mad reactionary “golden-age” theorist who presupposes that the 1950s represented the last bastions of a perfect society. Hitchens, however, has identified certain negative trends in society but has drawn the wrong, reactionary conclusions.

The real materialist backdrop to Hitchens’s entire argument is Britain’s comparative economic decline as a world power and the profound social and political changes that this has undoubtedly brought about. However, Britain’s decline started way before the second world war (as far back as at least the latter part of the 19th century) so there is a historical qualification to Hitchens’s argument. His basic error lies in his uncritical support for Britain’s imperial past whilst at the same time condemning Britain’s rivals for having similar ambitions. His understanding of the nature of capitalism is clearly inadequate.

Clearly there is much wrong with modern society but it is not the result of the so-called “Liberal Revolution” of the 1960s. It is due to the decline of capitalism and the subsequent social havoc which has been created. Of course, Hitchens is really on a Christian/moral crusade against homosexuality and the rise of sexual freedoms which has threatened the sanctity of the traditional nuclear family as society’s cornerstone.

It may be argued that Hitchens’s obsession with morality is a cover for the increasing gap between rich and poor with the obvious social consequences: poverty, frustration, alienation, family breakdown and violence. However, Hitchens is slightly more sophisticated than this. He decries not only both main political parties for presiding over Britain’s moral downfall but also the legacy of Thatcher:

  “The apparent rebirth of Conservatism in 1979 was a false dawn because the Thatcherite movement was not interested in morals or culture. It believed mainly in the cleansing power of the market, which has much to be said for it but which has no answers to many fundamental questions—and which cannot operate properly unless honesty and stability are enforced through both ethics and law. Worse, the Thatcher government unwittingly helped to destroy many of the things Conservatism once stood for. In eighteen years of power, an immense time, the Thatcher-Major government was unable to reverse a single part of the cultural revolution, not least because it barely tried, and did not understand it.”

There is always a certain irony when a staunch defender of capitalism starts to invoke a moral code for human behaviour but in a way it is quite refreshing. At the very least, Hitchens believes that humans are capable of behaving decently (although some of Hitchens’s views can hardly be described as decent). However, he is likely to be disappointed because a social system based upon production-for-profit instead of production-for-need is almost by definition anti-social and amoral.

Dave Flynn

Contradictions in Euroland (1999)

From the January 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Only a few weeks before the launch of the single currency in Europe and just when things should have been coming together, a public row broke out between the monetarist European central bankers of Frankfurt and the French and German governments.

Put simply, the politicians (especially the new German government under Gerhard Schröder and his Finance Minister Oscar Lafontaine, the Sun’s latest bugbear) are talking of reflating Euroland—the 11 member states who adopted the euro as their common currency on 1 January—with extra government borrowing and spending in order to deal with structural unemployment. Of course, this attempt to revive discredited Keynesianism has not gone down well with the “orthodox” central bankers who think this will threaten the strength and stability of the euro. Such a clash of opinions is highly significant, with Wim Duisenberg, the President of the new European Central Bank (ECB), publicly condemning such economic “recklessness”.

Indeed, for those who remember the Maastricht “convergence criteria” and the Amsterdam “stability pact”, the politicians would seem to be wanting a major U-turn, but a closer inspection reveals the “Euro-fudge” which has always been there.

The process of closer integration in Europe has been driven in recent years by the Franco-German axis. In monetary terms this has been characterised by the “franc fort” (strong franc) policy whereby France pegged the franc to the German mark and its satellite currencies. France has always wanted Germany to cede more on the politics of economic and monetary union and not least on the idea of an “economic government” for Europe.

Germany used to favour a “strong” euro to replace the mark. France has been less orthodox and sought to weaken monetary policy with references to growth and employment targets. With the coming to power in Bonn of the new Red-Green coalition, it would appear that Germany is coming round to the French view.

Such a policy mess does not bode well for Euroland. There is also the plan to expand the EU eastwards, which must mean structural adjustments to the Common Agricultural Policy and fiscal transfers from the richer and “Club Med” states to the new entrants. Quite how such a plan is designed to sit with the single currency is anybody’s guess.

Further, the EU and the US have locked into yet another trade row, this time about banana imports which some commentators see as one of the first moves towards protectionism as the world economy faces recession. Indeed, this is the real context—the world crisis of capitalism. Faced with ever-increasing concentration of capital, the EU plan is to forge together in order to take on the big boys, the US and Japan.

Where does this leave Blair? After nailing his colours to the European mast is it any wonder he is so worried about the new direction for Europe proposed by Lafontaine and the others? It is, after all, a bit Old Labour and Mr Murdoch will be even less pleased with New Labour for getting caught up with such corporatism.

Dave Flynn

Socialism or Trotskyism? (1995)

Party News from the December 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

A debate between the Socialist Party and the Alliance for Workers' Liberty ("Socialist Organiser") was held in the University of London Union on 25 October. Although nominally about the events in Russia in October/November of 1917, the debate widened as the evening went on to involve discussions about the nature/politics of the AWL and the Socialist Party in 1995.

Debates about the Russian Revolution have been one of the most common areas of disagreement over the years between Fake-Socialists and genuine Socialists. Fake Socialists of the Leninist-left have of course defended their "heirs apparent”—the Bolsheviks and their coup of 1917, whilst it has been the job of real Socialists to point out that Socialism can only come about when a majority of workers organise democratically for it to happen.

AWL speaker Mark Osborn began his argument by asking us to appreciate the historical conditions of Russia in 1917 and to subsequently try to understand the "real intentions" of the Bolsheviks. They didn't really want to ban opposition and shoot workers who disagreed with them—"Peace, Bread and Land”, that was their real programme. On one level Osborn is right, the historical circumstances meant that any new ruling class in that situation would be forced to act in a certain way that may appear draconian and repressive—but of course if we really understood the “real intentions" of the new "protectors” of the working class interest we would sympathise, wouldn’t we?

Well no actually. The Socialist Party speaker. Adam Buick, argued against this point by pointing out that Socialism can only come about when a majority of the working class want it. How could this come about in a society where only 10 percent of the population were working class?

The point is, that whatever the “real intentions" of the Bolsheviks were, the objective materialist reality was that a new ruling class with a state capitalist programme had come to power. Any attempt to rationalise this as being in the interests of the working class because “they said so" is to fall into idealist speculation. After one has defined a situation as being “of the workers" or “workers' party” or indeed “workers' state"—anything can be subsequently justified. This is because arguments of this sort are based around the "ends justifying the means" and this is precisely where Leninist logic comes unstuck.

However, the real rub is that the AWL propose a similar way of bringing about "Socialism" in 1995 as the Bolsheviks did in 1917. Despite the fact that the working class is now global, they still insist that workers are not capable of organising a democratic majority revolution. This idea for the AWL is "utopianism". Workers should treat these self-appointed "Saviours" with the contempt they in turn show the working class.

As this is just a report (as opposed to a full-scale critique of Leninist-Trotskyism), there only remains to briefly mention a few other aspects of the debate. Those aspects can only be described as a succession of parodies, half-truths and lies. According to the AWL the Socialist Party advocate a purely parliamentary strategy, oppose reforms that actually benefit workers and don’t organise in the trade unions. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we inform them to the contrary that they are not actually arguing against our case, they continue making straw-men out of the Socialist Party's case seemingly because with out these distortions they wouldn’t have any kind of argument at all.

There are supporters of Lenin and Trotsky who do actually know how to argue on the issues without deliberately distorting what you say (although such people are few and far between). The AWL once again showed themselves up for being poorly informed and demonstrating a poor standard of argument even by today’s standard of Leninist-Trotskyist politics. 

Dave Flynn

Changing history (1994)

From the July 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

It seems that one of the biggest obstacles Socialists come up against is the idea that things "can’t/don’t change". It is easy to understand where ideas like that come from. Capitalism seems to have been with us forever, but is only about three centuries old. Despite the reforms (more crumbs) the ruling capitalist class has given us such as the welfare state (now under attack), the basic structure of capitalism has remained the same. The vast majority of us still fulfil the role of wage-slave. So despite attempts to make capitalism more human the majority of us still have to work ourselves into an early grave in order to pay the mortgage, the rent, clothe our children, buy enough food, on wages that never seem to be enough. Those are the lucky ones. Let’s not forget the unemployed that capitalism keeps in reserve.

From the conception of the inevitability of capitalism follows the common misconceptions about the ideas of socialism. These misconceptions fall into two broad categories; the Labour Party and the old former Soviet Union.

In the case of the former, the working class has seen the Labour Party fail time and again in its attempts to give capitalism a smiling face. Its reform programmes have either been woefully inadequate or resulted in disasters such as higher unemployment. The fact that the working class elected Thatcher in 1979 to get rid of a bankrupt anti-working class Labour Party would seem to prove the point.

The case of the former Soviet Union being Socialist or Communist is the other great myth. The fact that the Soviet Union was perhaps the best example of state capitalism at its most brutal leaves shocked expressions on many people’s faces. Leninist groups such as the SWP do not help the situation by claiming that the 1917 Russian Revolution was a democratic socialist revolution which went wrong and that workers should vote Labour.

The case of Bolshevik Russia and the Labour Party are arguably the two biggest ideological obstacles many workers have about socialism.

They remain the two biggest lies about socialism of the 20th century.

However, even in capitalism’s relatively short existence there have been many attempts by the working class, albeit unsuccessfully, to overthrow existing orders. Examples such as the 1871 Paris Commune and the 1917 anti-Tsarist revolution in Russia, hijacked by the Bolsheviks, spring to mind. More recently workers have kicked down the Berlin Wall and the rest of those horrible state-capitalist tyrannies of eastern Europe. Unfortunately the result has only been to establish a "freer" form of market capitalism.

So who says things can’t change? History is indeed the history of change. This being said, it is up to our class to create the biggest and the most significant change in all history. The democratic, peaceful overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of real world-wide socialism without leaders and without states.

Dave Flynn

Too right-wing (2001)

Book Review from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reasons To Be Cheerful. By Mark Steel, Scribner, 2000.

"Shame he's a trot", was the recurring thought permeating through my mind as I read Mark Steel's otherwise pleasurable Reasons To Be Cheerful. Packed full of anecdotes and witticisms about his twenty years as a political activist, it's something any long standing Socialist Party member can relate to.

Throughout the book, Steel clearly comes across as someone who is genuinely moved by the horrors of global capitalism but unfortunately this potential socialist joined the anti-working class Socialist Workers Party which is an integral part of capitalism's left-wing.

After rejecting the Communist Party for being "too right wing", the main attraction of the SWP was that one did not have to suffer the indignation of defending the USSR as it was "state capitalist" - a theory pioneered in this country by the Socialist Party. Of course, it would be asking too much for any recognition but it is a shame that Steel's political development ended so prematurely.

From here we are taken on an amusing tour of some of the most significant political events of the last two decades of which Steel played "an extremely minor role". Highlights include getting caught up in the Brixton riot - returning to his boring office job to tell his politically uninitiated colleagues that he had got up to "nothing much" at the weekend and his recent Socialist Alliance candidature for the Greater London Assembly where he feared he would hear the words "Mark Steel - 103".

Such jollities notwithstanding, Steel continually spouts leftist poison such as equating socialism with full employment and referring to "old" labour's "socialist clause four". Not surprisingly, he does not even mention the SWP's non-existent internal democracy nor the fact that they intend to preside over a one party state. Even so, if you fancy some light political reading which gives the occasional belly laugh. you will not be disappointed.

Dave Flynn

Anti-parliamentary dogmatism (2001)

Book Review from the April 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Against Parliament. For Anarchism. Anarchist Federation.

This latest offering from the Anarchist Federation (formally known as the Anarchist Communist Federation) once again re-affirms their position that the revolutionary process towards “anarchist communism” can and must in no way involve the use of parliament. Indeed, the pamphlet itself is comprised of a discussion of the main political parties in Britain (including a chapter on the far left and right), all of whom advocate the use of parliament to advance their political programmes.

Unfortunately, the AF did not feel it necessary to mention the Socialist Party which is a shame as we are well-known to the AF and although not part of the same milieu, members of both organisations have been able to strike up cordial relations on occasion. The reason for this is that the AF's definition of “anarchist communist” society is almost indistinguishable from our view of socialism, i.e. moneyless, stateless with free access to goods and services. Perhaps, the main bone of contention is how we get there and here there are some real differences.

Whereas we emphasis mass democratic political action by a majority of the global working class (which may well involve socialist delegates being sent to parliaments) as the best means for attaining world socialism, the AF see the revolutionary process more in terms of community/worker resistance and mass action through strikes and riots and the like. However, some of their views seem remarkably similar to those of the Socialist Party's:

 “Anarchist communism would depend on mass involvement. This is both to release everyone's inventiveness and ideas and to prevent the formation of some sort of elite. Two forms of organisation are crucial in this context. The first is regular mass meetings of communities and workers, to ensure that full discussion and participation in matters affecting a locality could be achieved. The second is federation, as many issues need a broader perspective than the local. Federalism would run through successive bands—local, district, regional, international—to take decisions appropriate to that band” (p.54).

Needless to say that the AF's vision of a new society is far more edifying than the oxymoronic Trotskyist notion of a “workers' state” (state capitalist nightmare), but their anti-parliamentary dogmatism means that the question of the state in a revolutionary situation is effectively ignored.

No-one can be exactly sure which form the revolutionary process will take and it may well involve some of the things the AF point to. However, we in the Socialist Party believe that the potential use of parliament as part of a revolutionary process may prove vitally important in neutralising the ruling class's hold on state power. For us, this is the most effective way of abolishing the state and thus ushering in the revolutionary society.

The pamphlet itself is not a bad read (for a quid) and is especially interesting for budding political anoraks who wish to differentiate between the “National Democrats” and the National Front or the Scottish Socialist Party from the Socialist Workers Party. This said, it is more descriptive than analytical and the AF are wrong—even slightly disingenuous—to mix up the parliamentary reformism of the Trotskyists without reference to the revolutionary approach of the Socialist Party.

Dave Flynn

Who are the Socialist Alliance? (2001)

From the April 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Yet another set of dishonest politicians will be after your vote at the general election. However, in this case they are calling themselves 'socialist'. But they are anything but.

The Socialist Alliance intends to field up to a hundred candidates in the forthcoming election, specifically targeting disaffected Labour voters who feel 'betrayed' by Tony Blair and may want a 'socialist alternative'.

Rag bag

So who are the Socialist Alliance? They are an eclectic rag bag of Trotskyists, former Stalinists, various other groupings and assorted individuals. The main organisations involved include: Socialist Workers Party, Militant (now calling itself Socialist Party of England and Wales, or SPEW), Alliance for Workers Liberty, Communist Party of Great Britain, International Socialist Organisation and Workers Power. The SA are also supporting the 72 (former-Militant) Scottish Socialist Party candidates. Previously, the SA have stood in the 1998 Euro elections and last year's Greater London Assembly elections, with limited success. The general election will be their most ambitious adventure to date. So, unfortunately, we will undoubtedly be hearing more about them.

In any case, it is interesting to learn how such a disparate collection of former enemies could have come together in the first place. It does not seem so long ago that the AWL were accusing the SWP of 'violent thuggery' against some of their own members (see AWL pamphlet Why the SWP Beats Up Its Socialist Critics), and surely the former Stalinists of the CPGB would have balked at the prospect of talking to Trotskyists, let alone organising with them. But whatever particular ism each of these leftist sects subscribe to, they all represent the left-wing of capitalism's political apparatus, and thus are the enemy of the working class.

Left opens up

But with New Labour's victory in May 1997 and flirtations with Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour Party notwithstanding, these leftist group's orientation to Labourist policies had to be re-evaluated. Many of these groups have been hoisted with their own petard: telling workers to vote Labour only to scream 'betrayed' when they discovered Blair and Co were anti working class. We didn't vote for this! screamed Socialist Worker. Oh yes you did! is our response.

Subsequently, a rightwards shift into the area vacated by Labour has become the order of the day. Just how far this shift should be and, moreover, the very content of the cynical reform package being offered to the working class has tested the very foundations of the alliance and caused much acrimony among the groups themselves. The SA is very much a marriage of convenience.

Leninist duplicity

All Leninist/Trotskyist organisations start from the premise that workers are too stupid to understand or want socialism by their own volition. Therefore, revolutionary ideas have to be introduced from outside the working class by all-knowing 'professional revolutionaries' who will lead workers to the promised land. It's worth pointing out that the Leninists themselves do not want socialism because they do not know what it is. For Leninists and Trotskyists, socialism is what you get when they run the government and nationalise the commanding heights of the economy in a pathetic attempt to centrally plan production. This is not socialism, it is capitalism. Or, more precisely, state capitalism—whether the Leninists consciously realise it or not.

For this end, a minimum—or transitional—programme is adopted. Since workers are unlikely to be turned on to what the Leninists really stand for, a plethora of unworkable reforms is served up for the working class's edification. For instance, here are some of the SA's 'priority pledges' from their website:

• Tax the rich to pay for the welfare state
• Raise the minimum wage to £7 an hour
• Cancel third world debt
• For the right to work -- 35 hour week now
• Raise pensions and restore the link with earnings
• Fully funded comprehensive education and NHS

Commenting upon the SA's 'tax the rich and spend' budget proposals, Dave Nellist, the SA leader, said:

“If you tried to enter our budget into the Treasury computer model of the UK economy, it would reject it. It breaks all the rules.” (SA press release, 4/3/01)

As Nellist admits, the SA's capitalist reform proposals would not work as capitalism is based upon capital accumulation and production for profit. So, Mr Nellist, why the need to lie?

Within the SA, groups such as the SWP, Militant and the AWL have been 'out-lefted' by the likes of the CPGB and WP who argue that the former are 'economistic' and 'centrist'—Leninist speak for lacking revolutionary vision. The others have retorted by accusing the CPGB and WP of 'ultra-leftist posturing'. According to Weekly Worker, the journal of the CPGB, reporting on the recent National Policy Conference of the SA:

“The SWP consciously and openly argued that in order to make a real impact in the election and attract non-revolutionary workers and Labourites, we must not stand on 'too radical' [sic] a platform. The most important thing is to form a pole of attraction one step to the left of New Labour—in effect, the old Labour model is the safest and most viable.”

Furthermore:

“Amendments from the CPGB and WP called for opposition to the standing army and police and their replacement by working class militia and 'community self-defence organisation' [sic]. The SWP's Kambiz Boomla strode to the microphone to admonish the left for wanting to 'put off' [sic] people such as 'Sister Christine', a catholic nun who was on the point of being recruited into the alliance in east London.” (Weekly Worker, 15 March)

Yes, this is real revolutionary politics: do we demand a 'workers militia' or will that frighten off the nuns? It's difficult to know whether to laugh or cry.

Even our Leninist friends have been forced to admit that this charade is based upon a tissue of lies. Here's one member of the International Socialist Group:

“Do we want a revolutionary programme or a programme that challenges capitalism and can reach out to significant forces to our right? We 'don't always have to tell the truth' [sic] about our revolutionism.” (Weekly Worker, 15 March)

SWP's about turn

Our old friends in the SWP, which is infamous for changing its line, or 'bending the stick', whenever it suits them, have done exactly this in the case of the SA. For years, the SWP has proclaimed itself as the de facto revolutionary party and denigrated the efforts of other left groups that it is now in partnership with. It has always been fiercely against standing in elections, as such activity was considered tantamount to reformism. This, of course, never prevented them from telling workers to vote Labour at every election or from jumping on every reformist bandwagon in town. Indeed, its 'Where We Stand' column, printed in every issue of Socialist Worker, clearly states:

“There is no parliamentary road. At most parliamentary activity can be used to make propaganda against the present system. Only the mass action of workers themselves can destroy the system.”

Also:

“The present system cannot be patched up or reformed as the established labour and trade union leaders say. It has to be overthrown.”

Rest assured that none of the above will appear in bold print in the SA election manifesto. After all, think of the nuns! It is reasonable to assume that the core of the SWP remains the same although its auto-Labourism has been thrown into confusion since the victory of new Labour. In 1998, the SWP produced an action programme of minimalist reformist demands which signalled a rightwards shift. Despite criticisms from the more left-leaning CPGB and WP that the SWP has become too reformist, this has been the logical political trajectory of all the groups comprising the SA.

In particular, the CPGB and the AWL appear to be interested in taking the SA to its logical conclusion—the formation of a new party. Of course, a prerequisite for such a development would be an SA paper, and, as leading CPGB theoretician Jack Conrad has argued:

“such a political paper represents the starting point, the first step towards creating a genuinely socialist party in Britain . . . is the overriding goal to which everything else should be subordinated." (Weekly Worker, 25 January)

However, it is unlikely that the largest organisations in the SA—the SWP and Militant—would ever countenance such a development. As things stand, the alliance project has deeply divided Militant, leaving themselves with one foot in and one foot out with a possible split on the cards. Experience tells us that the SWP would only ever be interested in anything they could completely dominate, and such behaviour has already been implicitly noted in the pages of Weekly Worker.

Our analysis of the SA is not based upon some narrow sectarianism—it's based upon principle. We do not, nor have we ever, supported capitalist parties, especially those that dress up in revolutionary garb in order to hoodwink the workers. The SA is an expression of all the political mistakes made by the working class last century—from the Labour Party to the Soviet Union. We do not doubt that well-meaning individuals get caught up in such chicanery for no other reason than a desire to see a better world. However, sentiment can never be a substitute for the class struggle.

Dave Flynn