Letter: Parliament and socialism (1986)

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

Parliament and socialism

Dear Editors.

I am unhappy about the phrasing of principle 6 which argues that the state machine can be "converted" into an agent of emancipation. 1 feel that this wording introduces ambiguities into your Declaration of Principles which permit a reformist interpretation. For the Marxists the state is regarded as an organ of class power, the capitalist state as an organ of capitalist power and oppression, which cannot be used to build socialism. Even if reformists admit that the state can sometimes be very biased, they say this is something that can be changed in some way or other. Reformism leads to electoralism. and to a legalistic approach — treating illegal activities with abhorrence. This leads to my second point of concern about the SPGB.

In past issues of the Socialist Standard, you have advocated winning a socialist majority in Parliament because "Parliament is the centre of political authority" and "Parliament controls the state machine." This would appear to make the social democratic error of equating governmental office with political power. But more recently (e.g. commenting on the overthrow of Marcos in the Philippines) you adopt a more mature Marxist position by saying "what is decisive is not so much the socialist electoral victory as the understanding and the determination to achieve socialism which this would reflect" Have you changed your position regarding the role of bourgeois parliaments? Could you please clarify your analysis?

With best wishes.

Andrew Northall

Norfolk

Reply

We have not changed our position on the role of parliaments, nor is our Declaration of Principles ambiguous, as Clause 6 deals with the establishment of socialism, not the reform of capitalism. We hold that socialism cannot be established until an overwhelming majority of workers understand and support the socialist case. Without this socialist understanding, a socialist society could simply not function. Given this socialist majority, it will be easy enough to send socialist delegates to Parliament and thereby gain control of the power of the state. Besides demonstrating the existence of the socialist majority, this will prevent any of the machinery of the state from being used to obstruct the establishment of socialism. The coercive power of the state will be immediately abolished, and there is no question of the state being "used to build socialism".

Editors.

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

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

Capitalist power: economic or political?

Dear Editors.

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

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

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

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

Does this indicate that the ruling class gave up power?

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

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

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

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

Fraternally.

Sam Brandon

Riverdale, New York

Reply:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors.

Sting in the Tail: Virgin Gives Up Sex (1990)

The Sting in the Tail column from the August 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard

Virgin Gives Up Sex

Saw on Teletext that the Communist Party (CPGB) is to consider winding-up and will discuss a paper which argues that "Marxism is no longer a credible philosophy".

This is rich because these "communists" never accepted Marxism anyway, embracing instead the anti-Marxist theories of Lenin.

For the CPGB to now consider ditching something it rejected nearly 70 years ago is entirely consistent with its history of theoretical ignorance and confusion.

Nature or Nurture

At a recent Socialist Party outdoor meeting in Glasgow a young man in the audience insisted that it is human nature for people to be competitive.

If this is true then why all those takeover bids aimed at getting rid of competition? For example, in Edinburgh the chairman of Hearts FC tried to remove rivals Hibernian in this way.

The USA has its anti-trust laws and Britain has has Mergers and Monopolies Commission. Don't they know about human nature?

And if people were naturally competitive then organisations like the National Front would be unable to play on fears that immigrants are competing for "British jobs".

People are certainly competitive sometimes but that is entirely due to social conditioning and not so-called "human nature".

Impossible Dream

British Steel's plan to close Ravenscraig strip-mill in Scotland has produced the inevitable demand from the steel workers that their jobs be saved.

But since they accept that the means of life be privately instead of socially owned then what do they expect? A capitalism in which nobody loses his or her job and where the owners allow their enterprises to be run for the benefit of the workers?

Workers all over the world share the illusion that security can go hand in hand with private (or state) ownership. Until they get rid of that notion then capitalism remains secure.

God and Mammon (1)

Dr. Johnson may have been correct when he said in 1775 "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", but to judge by the events of 1990 it would seem that Religion is a fairly popular refuge for scoundrels too.

Imelda Marcos, widow of the late unlamented dictator of the Philippines, President Marcos, was recently acquitted by a jury in New York on fraud charges.

Mr. Francisco Tatad, who was a spokesman for her husband says she is, "a woman transformed by suffering, in quality and substance. God in his infinite mercy has blessed her."

(The Economist 7 July)

Considering she was charged with stealing $200M from the Philippines and using the money to buy jewellery, paintings and Manhattan skyscrapers, God has certainly blessed her.

God and Mammon (2)

In the same issue of The Economist we find more evidence of the religious refuge for scoundrels in the story about the disaster in Saudi Arabia, where more than 1,400 people died during the Haj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca.

Answering critics about his organisation of the Haj, which resulted in these people being crushed in a tunnel (according to some eye-witnesses caused by a panic setting in after the failure of the air-conditioning), King Fahd of Saudi Arabia was extremely philosophical about the disaster.

"It was God's will, which is above everything. It was fate. Had they not died there, they would have died elsewhere, and at the same predestined moment."

Blessing the dictator's widow who has just ripped-off $200M and condemning 1,400 devout believers to death in an underground tunnel truly the ways of the Lord are mysterious.

"Fair" Competition

One of the myths about privatisation is that it leads to more competition. One of the examples of this is British Airways.

The reality is somewhat different from the myth. For a start BA took over their chief domestic rival British Caledonian and now they are complaining about the government decision to allow American Airlines landing rights at Manchester with an onward connection to Frankfurt.

BA could, of course, be accused of trying to prevent more competition but chief executive Sir Colin Marshall insists that all they want is fair play. Otherwise there is a danger that the huge American carriers with their big protected domestic market behind them could, in time, swamp the smaller European airlines.

(Glasgow Herald 11 July) 

The appeal for fair play in the market place is a pathetic falsehood when you realise that BA have already entered into agreements (currently being investigated by the European Commission) to protect themselves from competition in Europe.

BA is also put out by the official response to its proposed tie up with Sabena and KLM to form hub-and-spoke operations based on Brussels which it says would be to the advantage of consumers in the UK regions. The hub-and-spoke idea came from the USA where short-haul routes feed into a central hub which handle the onward long-distance flights.

The BA claim that such an arrangement would be of benefit to UK consumers would appear to be very altruistic until you realise what the hub-and-spoke arrangement has led to in the US.

The BA plan would mean more continental destinations being available for regional airports, but the American experience does suggest it could reduce competition. De-regularisation in the US has not, in fact, stimulated as much competition as its proponents thought because individual airlines have come to dominate traffic at their hub.

The Life of Brian

The Scorpion's Nest

1st August

To Brian Walden, 

TV Presenter, 

ex Labour MP 

now rabid Tory

Dear Mr. Walden,

We read in The Sun (3 July) your confession that you "never believed in Socialism". That was very honest of you but we wonder if you were ever as honest with the Labour Party dupes who chose you as their candidate.

Anyway, we were hardly surprised by your admission, or your claim that most Labour MPs you had known didn't believe in socialism either. The truth is that none of you know anything about socialism and think it merely means Labour administration of capitalism.

There is a long line of self-seeking, job hunters, from Ramsay MacDonald down to the Gang of Four, who used the Labour Party for their own sordid ends and ditched it when it no longer had anything to offer them.

Your place of honour among them is assured.

Letter: More About Marcos (1987)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

Your reply to my criticism of your Editorial in your April 1986 issue, “Lessons of the Fall of Marcos”, is in fact an admission that my criticism was on the target, despite your seeming defense of the Editorial.

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

Now, you contradict yourself again. Your Editorial stated that, "You have always argued that it is possible to establish socialism by peaceful, democratic means, through the working class organising into a mass political movement and using existing elective institutions, imperfect as they are from the standpoint of pure democracy". I agree that you have always argued this thesis. Your Declaration of Principles confirms this. However, you now hedge on this programme when you say, "It is absurd to imagine that all the workers need to do to achieve socialism, is to vote for it. Certainly this is not and never has been our position". However, that is not the statement that you made in your Editorial which I criticised and which you say is a position you always argued. Now, you are amending it. Your Statement of Principles does not include your amendment.

You say I am labouring under a misapprehension because you did not say Marcos' downfall was a "socialist electoral victory". That is true. You did state that it was an example of "What is likely to happen when a government enjoying minority support, tries to defy a majority movement". You did not refute my charge that the ruling class did not give up power despite the majority movement. Actually, they did defy the majority because only the figure heads were changed!

I did not imply that Allende was a socialist or that he won by a majority vote. Why quibble? I stated that the ruling class did not accept the decision at the ballot box!

You are moving toward the DeLeonist position when you say, "It is not the socialist victory at the polls as such that would lead to the last capitalist government relinquishing power, but the fact that this victory would be a reflection of the determination and, naturally, organisation of a vast majority of workers. This organisation for socialism will also extend to the places of work (the existing trade unions will obviously be completely transformed when a majority of their members are conscious, determined socialists) but it will be essentially political". (My emphasis.) An organisation of class conscious socialists in their places of work and the transformation of the existing trade unions as you state, implies the organisation of the workers' economic power that you criticise the DeLeonists for advocating.

You admit that the capitalist class possesses immense economic power that enabled it to attain political power. Now, you say that evolution led to the disappearance of their original economic power entirely as a result of the fact that they possess political power! Your argument that the substance (economic power) reflected the shadow (political power) you now reverse. You say the shadow now reflects the substance! This is an impossibility!

You say, "DeLeon and Sam Brandon have simply got it the wrong way around: the capitalists' economic power depends on their control of political power rather than vice-versa". Your thesis was demolished years ago by Frederick Engels in Anti-Duhring in the chapter dealing with the "Force Theory". It is also in conflict with the Materialist Conception of History.

You seem convinced that the ruling class will abide by a majority at the ballot box and allow the socialist majority to take power. Suppose they will not abide by this legal and peaceful process? What does the SPGB propose that the workers do?

I am not continuing this discussion in order to win points. I sincerely believe the questions I raise are important to our movement. I trust that you agree that they are.

Sincerely,

Sam Brandon

Riverdale, 

New York. USA

Reply:

1. The Materialist Conception of History does not regard political power as a mere "shadow" of economic power which must faithfully reflect, at every moment and any given time, economic (productive) conditions. It merely says that economic factors are in the end decisive. It is people that make history as the members of different social classes strive to protect and promote their class interests and. as Engels points out in the chapter of Anti-Duhring to which Sam Brandon refers, political power can be used to work either with or against the trend of economic development:

  . . . after the political force has made itself independent in relation to society, and has transformed itself from its servant into its master, it can work in two different directions. Either it works in the sense and in the direction of the natural economic development, in which case no conflict arises between them, the economic development being accelerated. Or it works against economic development, in which case, as a rule, with but few exceptions, force succumbs to it.

In other words, although economic factors win out in the end. political power can accelerate or retard this. This is why, as Marx and Engels noted in the Communist Manifesto, "every class struggle is a political struggle". Who controls political power is important for the actual course of any class struggle because such control can allow a class whose social position has been increased as a result of a change in productive conditions to speed up the reshaping of society in its interest — but, equally, it can allow a class that has become economically weak or redundant to prolong, for a longer or shorter period, its privileged position in society. In this latter case it can be legitimately said, as we did in our reply to Sam Brandon's last letter in the September 1986 Socialist Standard, that the ruling class in question only dominates society because it controls political power, even if it originally came into possession of this power through having played a key role in an earlier stage of economic development. Incidentally, we never said, as Sam Brandon claims, that the capitalist class had lost "their original economic power entirely as a result of the fact that they possess political power". What we said was that they now have economic power, despite the disappearance of their original economic role in production, entirely because they possess political power. Which is not at all the same thing.

Far from such a situation being in conflict with the Materialist Conception of History as Sam Brandon suggests, it is one which the MCH, with its theory of class struggles as the motor of history, implies must inevitably occur from time to time:

  While it is true that in the long run the social system is determined by the stage of development of the means of producing wealth, the social system and this stage of development may, nevertheless, at a given period be totally out of harmony. Indeed, at recurring periods it must be, at least so long as society is divided into classes. The reason is that while the development of the means of production is not under control, the social system, within certain limits, is. The industrial development, which men cannot arrest, is ever shifting the social centre of gravity. Thus, at one time, whoever controlled the land controlled society. As industry developed, however, the implements and machinery became of greater importance. This change of values brought another class to the surface — the owners of the factories, machinery and raw materials. But the industrial development which brought to light this new class did not arrange a social system under which they could reach their highest pinnacle of power. It gave them strength by altering the relative importance of the sources of wealth; it prepared the way for a social change by making the stage of development of industry out of harmony with the social base, but the actual work of bringing the social base into line with the method of production was left to the initiative of the factory owning class whose interest demanded it. And at the same time the old ruling class, whose interest lay in maintaining the system under which they were paramount, opposed the attack on that system to the utmost” (The Socialist Party. Its Principles and Policy, 1956 reprint; pp24-5).

Our contention is that society is now again in such a period where the development of industry is out of harmony with the social base. As we explained in our last reply, the development of the means of production has made the capitalist class economically redundant and socially useless. It is now only their control of political power, reflecting the absence of socialist political consciousness on the part of the workers who now run society from top to bottom, that enables them to continue to control production. It is therefore vitally necessary that, before attempting to reorganise society on a new social base corresponding to the changed productive conditions, the working class should organise into a political party with a view to depriving the capitalist class of their political, and so economic and social, control. At the same time they should also organise themselves with a view to keeping production going when once the capitalist class has been deprived of political control.

2. That the working class should organise economically as well as politically for socialism has always been our position:

  . . . the Socialist Party never asserted that Socialist society would result from the actions of parliamentary delegates alone. It is completely illogical to imagine that Socialist understanding could grow to the point of political victory without simultaneously resulting in a growth of understanding and hence organisation to prepare for the taking over of industry. The Socialist Party in fact knows well that organisation is necessary for the running of industry in the new-born Socialist society. It holds also that a sizeable spread of political clear-sightedness will lead to the growth of such organisations, for when many workers want socialism they will begin to organise and plan for the rebuilding of society prior to the capture of political power (Socialist Standard, May 1966). 

. . . the trade unions must inevitably accept the Socialist theory as the logical outcome of their own existence, and as such will provide the basis of the economic organisation of the working class to manipulate the means and instruments of wealth production when the capitalist class have first been dislodged from political power. The essential conditions for obtaining Socialism must never be underestimated. At the very moment that the workers have gained control of the State machine provision must be made simultaneously for the economic requirements of the community (Socialist Standard, November 1937).

Our disagreement with Daniel De Leon (an American socialist who had some influence on those who founded the Socialist Party in Britain, taking up the same basic position as we do on the ballot box and reforms, for instance) was not over his advocacy of both political and economic organisation for socialism but over other aspects of this question. He was in favour of the immediate setting up of a socialist economic organisation to rival the existing "pure and simple” trade unions. We saw no point in this since such an organisation would either be as small as the socialist political organisation and so ineffective against employers or, to be effective, would have to accept non-socialists and so come to be no different from ordinary unions; in which case why not join the existing unions and work within them? These will inevitably become socialist when more and more workers come to embrace the socialist position.

We also rejected De Leon's blueprint for "socialist industrial government'. Making the industrial union the basic unit of future society would be to carry over into socialism the sectional divisions imposed on workers under capitalism. Nor did we consider the word government as appropriate to describe the administrative machinery of socialist society (De Leon meant in fact administration, so why cause confusion by using a word associated with political coercion and class rule?). Finally, as can be seen from the way Sam Brandon expresses himself in the second paragraph of his letter, this was essentially a plan for establishing socialism in one country.

3. We do not see how saying that "it is absurd to imagine that all the workers need to do to achieve socialism is to vote for it" constitutes an amendment to the statement that socialism should be established 'through the working class organising into a mass political movement and using existing elective institutions". The two statements are not contradictory. Far from it. Organising into a political movement itself involves much more than simply putting a cross on a ballot paper and then expecting the person you voted for to act on your behalf. Given the nature of socialism as a democratic society based on voluntary co-operation, workers must play an active role in its establishment; they must participate in the mass socialist political party, both to mandate and control its delegates and because unity is strength on the political as well as on the industrial field This active participation in the struggle for socialism is precisely what we mean in our Declaration of Principles when we talk about workers organising "consciously and politically". Socialism cannot be established by workers merely voting for political delegates and then leaving them to get on with the job; it can only be established by workers themselves consciously participating in the political movement for socialism.

4. Finally, how should the workers react if the capitalist minority refuse to accept the democratically-expressed will for socialism? This would be up to them to decide, through their political and economic organisations, in the light of the exact circumstances. A number of possibilities would be open to them. If the capitalist minority were to resort to violence and sabotage to try to impede the establishment of socialism then the socialist majority, through its political control of the state could use force if necessary to deal with them. If, on the other hand, the last capitalist government were to attempt a coup d'Etat and refuse to release the reins of power, they would rapidly discover that they had taken the shadow for the substance. The armed forces, being composed of workers who would also have been affected by socialist ideas, would refuse to obey them and might even turn on them. Mass demonstrations and strikes (including perhaps of the kind Sam Brandon envisages) would break out. In the end the capitalist class, or those acting in its name, would be compelled to surrender since, as we have been saying all along, no government enjoying only minority support (and the last capitalist government would enjoy only minimal support) can survive in the face of the active opposition of the majority (which, in the case of the establishment of socialism, would be the immense majority) of the population.

Editors

Grief and Cory (1986)

From the May 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

If ever a politician came to power on the basis of who they were rather than what they stood for, it was Corazon (Cory) Aquino. The new president of the Philippines has no political experience at all, beyond having been married to an exiled political leader who was assassinated on his return to the country

Many commentators have seen Aquino as a People's President', coming to power on a wave of popular support. Clearly there was widespread opposition to the corrupt and vicious Marcos regime  — from the impoverished Philippine workers and peasants, from the Catholic church (the Philippines contains 50 million Catholics, more than any other country in Asia) and from the capitalist class (who were unhappy with the state of the economy and Marcos' own extortions). But while it was clear what these groups were against — Marcos — it is not at all clear what they are for. Aquino certainly has no political or economic programme beyond a few platitudes which are even vaguer than those most capitalist politicians go in for.

It is idle to expect Aquino to be able to solve the problems of the Philippine economy or to benefit the vast majority of the population. Apart from the general uncontrollability of capitalism, she will have to cope with the country's relationship with America. Much Philippine industry is in the hands of American multi-nationals, and the Philippines house the largest overseas American air force and navy bases. Any action that might interfere with the interests of the American ruling class would be likely to bring swift retaliation, economic if not military.

In addition. Aquino is herself a member of the Philippine capitalist class. As a member of the Cojuangco family, she is co-owner of the Hacienda Luisita, a fifteen-thousand acre sugar plantation. This employs 2,300 workers, who earn £1.50 a day (and that only during the milling and planting season). The workers live in delipidated palm and bamboo huts, while the Cojuangco clan live in luxurious villas with swimming pools and servants. The "People's President" is not an ordinary Filipino. Nor are the other members of her cabinet, which includes capitalists who have made their millions from exploiting workers in mines, flour mills and so on.

The new government, then, is filled with members and representatives of the capitalist class. It is the interests of this class that it will defend, whether by anti-working class economic policies or by outright use of force. The Philippine capitalists eventually decided that the Marcos regime was not defending these interests adequately. Quite apart from the personal fortune siphoned off by Marcos and his family, corruption was so rife that efficient economic management was impossible and a massive foreign debt had been contracted. Such considerations led Juan Enrile, Minister for National Defence, himself a multi-millionaire, to launch the military rebellion that precipitated Marcos' fall.

Aquino may not have much experience of political manoeuvring, but she has certainly been learning fast. Within a month of taking over, she has abolished the National Assembly and given herself sweeping powers, said by some to be more far-ranging than those enjoyed by Marcos. No court can question her authority or the validity of any law she decrees. Her personal popularity may mean that for a while she can carry off such measures, but it will not be long before ordinary Filipinos and their masters become impatient with the lack of any economic or political progress. Then Aquino will have to learn the ins and outs of political shenanigans with a vengeance.

Among the problems faced by the new regime will be guerrilla warfare on two fronts. One is against the New People's Army of the illegal "Communist" Party. The other is against the Moro National Liberation Front on the southern island of Mindanao, who are fighting for "autonomy” for Muslim areas. Again, after an initial honeymoon, there will come a time of reckoning when the supporters of these movements will expect major concessions from the government and the ruling class will want the expensive and draining guerrilla wars to be brought to an end.

The Philippines shows that no ruler who has lost support can survive in office for long. In the same way, no government trying to impose its will on a population containing an overwhelming majority of socialists could carry on for long either. But meanwhile the important thing to realise about the Philippines is that it is in no way a popular revolution that has replaced a hated and despotic tyrant with a progressive and reforming champion of the common people. Clearly Marcos' departure is regretted by few outside the beneficiaries of his bribery and corruption. But Marcos and Aquino belong to the same class — the capitalist class — and represent the same interests. The slum-dwellers and child prostitutes of Manila, the impoverished workers on the huge plantations — in other words, all but a tiny handful of the Philippines' population — these may just about notice the change of regime but their poverty and oppression will continue.

Paul Bennett

Editorial: Lessons of the fall of Marcos (1986)

Editorial from the April 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have always argued that it is possible to establish socialism by peaceful, democratic means, through the working class organising into a mass political movement and using existing elective institutions, imperfect as they are from the standpoint of pure democracy.

Our attitude has often been criticised by people who argue that "no ruling class has ever given up power peacefully" and that "the capitalist class will never let the workers use elections to dislodge them but would refuse to accept a socialist electoral victory".

To these criticisms we have replied that once the vast majority of wage and salary workers want socialism the game is up for the capitalist class and that, even if they refused to accept a socialist victory at the polls, this would not save them. Once a majority want socialism, nothing can stop them getting it since capitalism just could not continue in the face of a population which refused to accept the right of a minority to own and control the means of production and to exploit the rest of society. In other words, what is decisive is not so much the socialist electoral victory as the understanding and the determination to achieve socialism which this would reflect.

The recent event in the Philippines which led to the downfall of President Marcos have confirmed this analysis of what is likely to happen when a government enjoying only a minority support tries to defy a majority movement. Here was a dictator who falsified the election results and tried to use his apparent control of the machinery of the government and the armed forces to stay in power. But in the end, however, he had to surrender power because the ideas of the mass opposition movement had penetrated the armed forces and so rendered them unusable as an instrument of oppression.

Of course the issue at stake in the Philippines was not socialism or capitalism, but what happened there was nevertheless still an example of a confrontation involving a government trying to hang on to power in the face of a hostile population. In fact, a capitalist government faced with a mass majority socialist movement will be in an even weaker position than Marcos was, for not only will the tiny handful of capitalists enjoy less support but the socialist movement will be even more organised and determined than was the Philippines opposition.

In these circumstances the capitalist class would be compelled to surrender straightaway. If they were so foolish as to try to resist the clearly expressed will of the vast majority of the population they would find that their armed forces, composed of workers and inevitably penetrated by socialist ideas and so sympathetic to the movement for socialism, a broken reed in their hands. They would simply be swept aside.

People's power? (1986)

From the April 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is tempting in politics to see things in stark black and white terms: if a regime is obviously "bad" then those who oppose it are necessarily "good". This tendency to reduce complex situations to simplistic terms has nowhere been more evident in recent times than in the Philippines. Marcos was so evidently "bad" that Aquino must be "good". 

The Philippines is a cluster of islands in the Pacific Ocean with a total population of 54 million. Formerly an American colony, it achieved independence in 1946 although the United States maintained strong economic and military ties with the new state. Immediately after independence the Philippines was ruled by a coterie of the landed aristocracy. Ferdinand Marcos was elected in the mid '60s when he was seen as a radical, reforming politician, especially by progressive industrialists and businessmen. He received considerable support from the Americans, who were at this time extending their war in Vietnam and therefore concerned to maintain a strategically important foothold in the area. Although Marcos did not keep his election promises he secured re-election in 1969 and began to develop what came to be known as "crony capitalism", members of his own family, business associates and political supporters were granted favours and allowed to build up monopolies at the expense of economic efficiency. At the same time Marcos installed his own supporters at all levels of government and administration. 

Under the terms of the constitution Marcos was ineligible for a third term as President, and so he decided to abandon any pretence of democratic government. In 1972 martial law was imposed and justified by the need to deal with armed rebellion by the "communist" New People's Army (NPA). Marcos continued to rule in this way for a further nine years, during which time opposition politicians (including Benigno Aquino) were arrested and imprisoned. Torture and inhumane treatment of those deemed subversive became common. In 1981 martial law was lifted and Marcos secured re-election for a further six year term.

By this time, however, his failure to implement the promised reforms, the evidence of economic and political corruption and mismanagement and the inhumane treatment of political opponents had lost him the support of many industrialists and professionals who had backed him in the 1960s. Increasingly he was forced to turn to the Americans, who were willing to ignore his corruption and human rights violations so long as their bases in the Philippines were secure. However, as opposition increased and the NPA began to attract popular support, American backing began to weaken. 

This year, Marcos called a snap election in the hope that he could demonstrate to the Americans that he still commanded popular support. He had, however, under-estimated the degree to which the previously fragmented opposition groups had united after the assassination of Benigno Aquino on his return from exile in the United States, and the subsequent acquittal of leading members of the army elite who, it was widely assumed, were guilty of his murder. The opposition united behind Corazon Aquino, widow of Benigno Aquino, whose lack of political experience and aspiration was viewed as positively advantageous. A devout Catholic, she also had the support of at least the most conservative elements of the immensely powerful Catholic hierarchy, who deplored what they saw as the moral degeneracy of Marcos and his wife, Imelda. 

While Cardinal Sin, the leader of the Catholic church, called for divine intervention to ensure a free and fair election, Marcos relied on the physical activities of his political henchmen: ballot boxes were stolen, voters intimidated, Aquino supporters subjected to physical violence and, finally, attempts were made to "cook" the voting figures. It was becoming obvious that Marcos' final political gamble had not paid off, but the American government was still unwilling to give him the "kiss of death''. Clearly concerned over the fate of their bases and unsure to what extent Aquino would protect their interests, they were unwilling to declare the election fraudulent. In fact Reagan pathetically asserted to a press conference that there had probably been an element of fraud on both sides. 

By now sections of the army had staged a rebellion and Aquino returned to Manila and called for a campaign of civil disobedience. The Americans sent an envoy, Philip Habib, to discover what they might expect from Aquino and, having got a satisfactory response, decided to cut their losses and run. Marcos and his family were "advised" to leave, which they did with gold worth $240,000 and crates containing $1,179,000 in cash. 

As the new President, Cory Aquino is unlikely to have an easy task. Although the opposition was united against Marcos it is doubtful whether Aquino has a political programme which can hold together all the different factions. Indeed, the mere announcement of her cabinet was sufficient to threaten the political marriage of convenience between herself and her Vice-President, Prime Minister designate and Foreign Minister, Salvador Laurel. Laurel had originally stood as a presidential candidate for his Unido party, but was persuaded to join forces with Aquino so as not to split the anti-Marcos opposition. However, in the post-election carve-up of political jobs it was felt that Unido was not being given sufficient recognition. 

Laurel is by no means the only problem that Aquino faces from within her own ranks. She came to power on the back of what was called "People Power" — a populist desire for changes not dissimilar to those pledged by Marcos in the '60s. She promised land reform — the majority of Filipinos are poor, landless peasants who work for subsistence wages on large plantations, provision of agricultural support schemes to permit small-scale peasant farms to be developed, an end to "crony capitalism", and to seek more favourable terms for the Philippines' $26-30 million international debt. 

The problem for Aquino is that she has promised what she almost certainly cannot "deliver". She will need to negotiate loans from the lMF, who will probably demand curbs on public expenditure in return, thus restricting her ability to offer much in the way of support for peasant farms. Her ability to control the direction of economic reconstruction is also likely to be hampered by the fact that much of Philippine industry is owned by American multi-nationals, which have been only too happy to exploit cheap domestic labour. If Aquino fulfills her promise to free the trade unions from the draconian controls imposed in the Marcos years, then there is also the likelihood that cheap labour will become organised labour engaged in industrial action against low wages and poor working conditions. If that occurs the multinationals may decide that Filipino labour power is no longer such a bargain and move their operations elsewhere. 

Politically, Aquino faces opposition not only from Laurel's Unido faction but also from the New People's Army, which has been waging a guerrilla war in an attempt to bring about a state-capitalist, anti-American regime. So far she has sought to placate them (to the alarm of the Americans who fear that Aquino may turn out to be "soft" on communism) by releasing those held as political prisoners. But if Aquino does not move fast enough in the direction of land reform and the removal of the American bases, they may step up their activity once more. 

The American bases — Clark airfield and Subic Bay — are crucial to an understanding of contemporary Filipino politics. At a time when the Russians are thought to be developing their bases in Vietnam — at Cam Ranh bay (ironically a former US base) and in North Korea at Wosan — the Americans are anxious to retain their strategic foothold in the Philippines. This has become even more pressing given that their other allies in the area are beginning to look less secure there is increasing opposition to the authoritarian, American-backed dictatorship in South Korea; tension exists between America and Japan over trade (in any case, there is no way that Japan would permit strategic, offensive US bases in the country); and controversy with Australia and New Zealand over harbour rights for American ships carrying nuclear weapons. Aquino could placate the NPA by not renewing the lease for the American bases which expires in 1991, but this is unlikely given the strength of the opposition and the economic sanctions that this would inevitably provoke from the Americans. 

Aquino's government is also likely to be pulled in opposite directions by the National Democratic Front — an illegal confederation of radical clergy, left-wing trade unions, students and single issue groups, and reformist businessmen and church moderates like Cardinal Sin who played an important part in bringing Aquino to power. 

Finally, Aquino faces opposition from the rump of loyal Marcos supporters who still hold crucial positions in the judiciary, civil service and local government. It will not be easy to replace such officials quickly and in the meantime they are weIl-placed to sabotage attempts to introduce reforms. It should also be remembered that the Philippines parliament contains two-thirds Marcos supporters who are in power until 1990. The army, too, remains a problem for the new President: the "rebels" — Enrile and Ramos — were both architects of martial law. Enrile worked for Marcos for twenty years, and although Ramos is depicted as the new "professional" soldier who finally lost patience with corrupt political appointees in the army (notably Marcos' right-hand man, General Ver), in fact he was head of the Philippines constabulary — notorious for atrocities like the shooting of 18 sugar cane workers on a plantation in Negros last September. Both men have nevertheless been incorporated into the new administration. 

The Aquino family owns one of the world's largest sugar cane plantations and is part of the landed aristocracy that has dominated Filipino politics since independence. While the new President enthuses about "People's Power", it is significant that her cabinet contains not one single representative of "the people" — they are all businessmen and members of the political elite. Her regime may be more humane but, given her commitment to capitalism, the free market and private property, any hopes that the lot of the majority will improve should soon prove to be misplaced. And if, having flexed their political muscle once, "the people" realise that Aquino cannot deliver the reforms and decide to flex it again, it will be interesting to see how long she retains her political innocence. Among capitalist politicians "Peoples Power" is supported so long as it is tending in their direction; if it is not, it is just as likely to be condemned as subversion.

Janie Percy-Smith