Showing posts with label Ron Elbert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Elbert. Show all posts

Friday, August 1, 2025

Letter: Socialist Art (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist Art

Concerning your article on “Art and Civilization” in the March issue, I thought you might be interested in hearing the following comments by way of a corollary.

One of the effects of the domination of society by one class (whether openly by it alone or by extensions) is to concentrate subjective expression as an abstractly separated aesthetic in a small number of individuals. Necessarily, of course, they must come from the ruling class. Art as such sets itself apart from the daily experience of society because the ruling class must have an idea point of reference, an orientation, a theoretical statement in which it is emotionally represented as “the good,” the beneficial, the healthy, the desirable, etc — this, as part of its self-identification as authority. Which means that high Art presupposes a system of organized deprivation, oppression and manipulation; Socialist art, on the contrary — or rather, art under Socialism — is based on the direct universality of all persons, and so is pre-eminently a practical art, an art of practice. Under these conditions, what is artistic cannot really be separated from what is “practical,” and indeed, art must automatically be a matter of social practice — a separate pole from the thinking activity as such, but no more a separate compartment of existence. It is therefore to be concluded that, under Socialism, theoretical art would tend to disappear and to be replaced by an “art of praxis”; under conditions of classical communism (as indicated by Marx), daily existence would itself contain all the characteristics which theoretical art today corrals together in a separate and isolated function.
Ronald Elbert

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

Talking about a revolution. No apologies to Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin or Mao! (1993)

A Short Story from issue 10 of the World Socialist Review

Overheard in the lobby off a welfare hotel . . . 

Nick L: I say with a well-organized team and enough support from the general public at the right time, we can do it: we can take over the state and reorganize it from top to bottom.

Karl M: But wouldn’t that make you just another management team?

Nick L: No, no, no! Of course the team’s head would be in the right place. Once we took over, we’d make sure things moved in the right direction. OK, we’d have to plan on a complete renovation of the playing field, and sure, it probably would take quite a while before we were off and running . . . 

Karl M: I still don’t see how the “general public” fits into this. Nothing seems to change for them. You keep all the old rules—work for pay, return on investment, everybody still needs money to get what they need, and nobody sinks any capital into anything unless they’re sure they’ll at least get it back. Where’s your revolution?

Nick L: Eventually, everything will work out.

Leo T: Yeah, provided all the team members play by the rules—

Joe S: You heard him, everything works out. Period.

Nick L: Things just sort of unfold automatically: A team with its head on its shoulders, sticking together and teaching the public, step by step, how to end the game of exploitation, you know, with lots of feedback and all that crap—I mean, hey! How can we go wrong?

Karl M: You call it a revolution, but there’s nothing socialist about it—that’s what can go wrong! You can’t just expect to replace one set of managers with another. “Eventually” never comes. The only change that works is right now.

Mao Z: Oh, come on! You mean right here—in this room?

Leo T: [Sotto voce] Hey, be careful! There’s somebody over there who might be listening . . .They might be police—

Karl M: No, that isn’t what I mean: that’s closer to what you meant, in fact. What I meant was, you have to get rid of capital and wage labor everywhere as your first move. If you don’t do that, no amount of screwing around with the machinery of state is going to matter. Your “team” will only get caught up in making it work. You’re dreaming if you think you can “guide the masses” like that. The relations of exploitation you start out with—based on wage-labor and capital—won’t waste any time telling you what to do.

Mao Z: Oh, now wait a minute . . . You don’t just announce to the public that the game is over as soon as they’ve all sat down! The struggle against exploitation is like any good match: it could last forever if need be. The play is everything.

Leo T: The public needs to be led!

Nick L: There—you see? Outvoted!

Karl M: We’ll see about that.

Leo T: Listen, keep your voice down—someone could be listening!

Karl M: The point is simply to end the game. According to the rules, certain people own capital and they invest it, deciding in the process how everyone else will live and work. That just isn’t a community in any basic sense of the word. What we need is another set of rules: people in general decide what they can’t do without and make it known to whoever produces it. In the process everybody decides for themselves how they will live and work. We all take turns making sure production happens.

Nick L: Hello-o! Hello-o! I’m sure that’ll work just fine. How will you manage all of a sudden to turn people made passive or lazy and irresponsible by centuries of repression into paragons of reason? Think! Think!

Karl M: Think for yourself! Sooner or later, we’ll all have to.

Joe S: But without capital, how can you run the state? And who’s going to invest what you, sitting there in your nice easy chair, have “abolished” in your head? We’ve got to have a ruling class to struggle against—or are you just thick?

Karl M: Enough people have to abolish capital “in their heads” before any revolution can get off the ground. Without capital— you’re so right—the ruling class disappears. Like smoke from an extinguished fire. But it can’t just be in my head: it’s got to be in everyone’s head. No more goods and services for sale at a profit. The ending of the game means the starting of the real play, a game without spectators! People say they need certain items— wealth; producing and distributing those items implies only the administration of wealth. No one “rules” anyone, and everyone has control. From each according to ability and to each according to need.

Nick L: Oh, hey, look, I can see you don’t really belong in this group; you’re just too weird to be a real activist like us . . .

Karl M: You’ve just got to start out by replacing the wages system with a system of free access. I can say that here and now, in this lobby, but the only way anything’s going to happen is if a large enough majority of people come to have some idea of how they want to reorganize production the world over—

Mao Z: Will somebody please shut him up?

Karl M: No, I’m serious! Without ending the class struggle first, people will be unable to see an end to their powerless, downtrodden status and will just go on trying to make the world “a better place”; what we all really need is to replace this reality of fragments with an interconnected reality of whole people. Around the world, now . . . 

Nick L: So you’re saying history won’t be able to distinguish my team from—

Joe S: [Walking to the doorway] That does it! I’m leaving.

Mao Z: [Getting up] Yeah, I really can’t deal with this doctrinaire stuff, either. See you in St. Louie.

Leo T: [Huffily] I’m history. [The door to the stairwell slams closed]

Nick L: [Rising and turning around] Happy? You just ruined a perfectly good revolution!

Karl M: I didn’t ruin mine. Look, I really have done a lot of work on the subject. People have fought the introduction or confronted the reality of the wages system with a persistence that is positively impressive: the German Anabaptists who followed Thomas Muenzer in the Peasant Wars around 1525; the English “true Levellers” or Diggers in 1649; 19th- and 20th-century Utopian experiments too numerous to mention—among them, communities based on the writings of Robert Owen and Charles Fourier. Each of these tried, in its own way, to break with the system of wage labor and capital—and all of them failed for lack of ability to reorganize the entire system of production—

[The stairwell door slams shut] 
Ron Elbert

Thursday, February 1, 2024

Obituary: Ron Elbert (2024)

Ron and Karla Rab.
Obituary from the February 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are saddened to have to report the death in November of our comrade Ron Elbert of the World Socialist Party of the United States. He joined the WSP in the 1980s and became a regular writer for their journal The Western Socialist and its successors as well as contributing to the Socialist Standard. For a period he served as the party’s Secretary General, an administrative post in our parties. Our condolences go to his family and friends.

Sara Ellenbogen writes:

As Ron Elbert’s stepdaughter, I am deeply saddened to report his passing last July. Besides being a wonderful stepfather, Ron was a long-time dedicated member of the World Socialist Party and became one of its vital organizers along with my mother, the late Karla Rab, whom he met through the Party.

He was a gifted and passionate advocate for socialism. He lectured in public forums such as Community Church of Boston and when I taught a course on business ethics and asked him to present an evaluation of a passage in the textbook to the effect that capitalism was the most rational system, his analysis was brilliant. As a Masters student in history at the University of Massachusetts/Boston, he wrote a thesis on the history of the Socialist Party of Canada which he planned to publish, traveling to British Columbia to interview members. He could always be found at local progressive gatherings, such as the Bread and Roses festival, sitting behind a table laden with World Socialist Party literature, engaging passers-by in conversation about the movement.

Ron cared as much he did about social justice because he cared so much about people. Social change was what he wanted to dedicate his life to. I remember one time I asked him to look at a cover letter I’d written for a job in a homeless center. He added one sentence to it. He wrote ‘The poor are often only able to get services at the expense of their dignity. Our community is greatly in need of people to provide them services in a way that respects their dignity’. That was the way he treated people.

Ron always ended his email messages with a quote from the socialist writer William Morris below his signature. I think he might have liked me to conclude with that quote.
‘We who were once fools and dreamers then shall be the brave and wise
There amidst the world new builded shall our earthly deeds abide
Though our names be all forgotten and the tale of how we died.’

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Question Marx (1983)

'What did you put for question 7?'
From the January 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

The quotes below have been taken from some of the celebrated texts of the socialist movement and arranged in the form of a short multiple-choice quiz. Pit your wits against the forces of reaction and reformism, and discover in the process that not everything which labels itself (or is labelled) “Marxism”, actually is! Answers (with explanations) are found on a later page.

The first five questions all have to do with criticisms of the following passage:
The (...) workers' party, in order to pave the way to the solution of the social question, demands the establishment of producers’ co-operative societies with state aid under the democratic control of the toiling people. The producers' cooperative societies are to be called into being for industry and agriculture on such a scale that the socialist organisation of the total labour will arise from them.
1. To the ideas of which political figure does the following refer?

"In place of the existing class struggle appears a newspaper scribbler's phrase: ‘the social question , to the 'solution' of which one ‘paves the way’. Instead of arising from the revolutionary process of transformation of society, the ‘socialist organisation of the total labour’ ‘arises’ from the ‘state aid’ that the state gives to the producers’ co-operative societies and which the state, not the worker, 'calls into being'."
a) Mao Zedong
b) Joseph Stalin
c) Edouard Bernstein
d) Ferdinand Lassalle

2. To which country does this quotation make reference?

“From the remnants of a sense of shame, ‘state aid’ has been put - under the democratic control of the ‘toiling people’ [However,] the majority of the ‘toiling people* in consists of peasants, and not of proletarians."
a) Germany in 1875
b) France in 1848
c) Russia in 1917
d) China in 1950

3. The working class in which country is being indicated in the following passage?

“. . . ‘democratic’. . . means ‘by the rule of the people', but what does ‘under the control of the toiling people organised so as to rule themselves' mean? And particularly in the case of toiling people which, in making such demands on the slate, expresses its full consciousness that it neither rules nor is ripe for ruling!”
a) Russian workers before 1917
b) Russian workers after 1917
c) German workers in the third quarter of the 19th century
d) Spanish workers during the 1854 Revolution

4. What type of organisation is being indirectly criticised by the author?

“The chief offence does not lie in having inscribed this specific nostrum in the programme. but in taking, in general, a retrograde step from the standpoint of a class movement to that of a sectarian movement.”
a) Owenite communities (c. 1840)
b) National workshops (c. 1848)
c) An organisation of revolutionaries (c. 1902)
d) Workers’ soviets (c. 1917)

5. Who was the head of state in the regime referred to below?

“. . . a state which is nothing but a police-guarded military despotism, embellished with parliamentary forms, alloyed with a feudal admixture, already influenced by the bourgeoisie and bureaucratically carpentered . . . ”
a) Tsar Nicholas II
b) Kaiser Wilhelm I
d) Nikita Krushchev

6. “The indirect dependence of man on man, which is now the basic feature of conditions which are most fully developed economically, cannot be understood and explained from their own nature, but only as a somewhat transformed heritage of an earlier direct subjugation and expropriation."

Who made the above statement?
c) V. I. Lenin

7. “Recently, however, since         adopted state ownership, a certain spurious socialism has made its appearance - here and there even degenerating into a kind of flunkeyism - which declares that all taking over by the State, even the Bismarckian kind, is in itself socialistic."

To which political regime was the writer of these lines addressing himself?
a) Bismarck’s Prussia
b) Mussolini's Italy
c) The Bolshevik state
d) The Popular Front in France

8. “The publicistic (ie, public] right of an economic commune in its instruments of labour is an exclusive right of property at least as against every other economic commune and also as against society and the State. But this right is not to entitle the commune ‘to cut itself off from the outside world, for among the various communes there is freedom of movement and compulsory acceptance of new members on the basis of fixed laws and administrative regulations . . .”’

Which sort of economic organisation do you think most closely fits this description?
a) A commonly owned and democratically controlled world-wide system of wealth production and distribution
b) A system based on New Lanark-style factory communities (as in 19th- century Britain)
c) A collective farm in a proletarian state (for example Russia)
d) An advanced co-operative or people's commune during a protracted period of socialist transition (China)

9. The “equality in principle of economic rights does not exclude the voluntary addition to what justice requires, of an expression of special recognition and honor . . . Society honors itself, in distinguishing the higher types of work by a moderate additional allocation for consumption."

To whose ideas does this statement allude?
a) Deng Xiaoping
b) V. I. Lenin
c) Eugen Dühring

10. “On the world market gold and silver remain world money, a general means of purchase and payment, the absolute social embodiment of wealth. And this property of the precious metals gives the individual members of the economic communes a new motive to the accumulation of a hoard, to getting rich, to usury; the motive to act freely and independently of the commune outside its borders, and to realise on the world market the private wealth which they have accumulated."

What kind of society, in your opinion, is being discussed here?
a) A society of free access to the means of life
b) A system under the thumb of bankers and financiers
c) One variety or another or state capitalism
d) A traditional capitalist economic system

11. “Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labour employed on the products appear as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labour no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of the total labour."

How would you describe the type of social organism implied in the above passage?
a) One in which the state regulates production, pays wages to workers and turns a profit on investment
b) A society reorganised as a proletarian state, in which capital is accumulated for the benefit of the workers
c) One in which the bourgeoisie has been forcibly subdued by the proletariat and which is evolving into a communist society
d) A communist society, not as it has developed on its own basis, but as it is just issuing out of capitalist society

Answers and explanation on page 16

Answer key and explanatory notes. Since a score doesn't really prove that you understand a subject, the purpose of this quiz is not to have you tally up points but only to induce you to think a little. And since the quotations were all taken from either Marx's critique of the Gotha Programme or from the second and third sections of Engels' Anti-Dühring, it would be automatically impossible for any of the choices referring to persons living or events taking place after 1878 to be correct. Apart from this little technical (and historical) detail, however, many of the ideas which were articulated by Lenin and his followers and which have long been considered as forming part of the heritage of Marxism turn out to be the same ideas for which Marx and Engels reserved their harshest criticisms!

The answers are as follows:
1-d. (Although if you answered a, b or c, we can’t blame you.)

2-a. Russia and China were manifestly not ready for socialism at the time of their respective revolutions. However, you will note that neither the goal of merely establishing a bourgeois republic nor of overthrowing it and setting up a proletarian state in its place (both of which were successively advocated by Lenin) differs essentially from the formula put forward in the Gotha Programme, since “producers’ co-operative societies" is just a fancy term for factories, farms and other forms of socialised labour.

3-c. In German, “democratic” is volks-herrschaftlich. Marx was critical of the suggestion (here) that trade-unions are capable of ruling a capitalist state. “Rule" in economic terms means “administration of wealth"; it is the owners of the means of production who rule. Faced with such a large rival constituency as the (reformed) peasantry of Russia, the workers of Russia were in a poor position in 1917 to claim ownership of the means of production on behalf of society as a whole. Given that not even Lenin supported common ownership of the means of production for the Russian working class during his lifetime, and given also that he dismissed workers in general as being incapable of class-consciousness “by their own unaided efforts", both a and b are logically as well as historically impossible. (Spain, on the other hand, is a somewhat problematical case, with which we need not concern ourselves here.)

4-b. This refers, of course, to the 1848 Revolution in France and to Philippe Buchc in particular, a religiously oriented democrat who advocated the slogan (which Leninists have borrowed and called “socialist”) to the effect that “he who will not work shall not eat”. Marx, in other words, was raking the architects of the Gotha Programme over the coals for confusing economic with political objectives. “Sectarian" in this context means “parochial”; Marx was claiming that the Socialist Workers' Party —product of the uniting of Lassalle’s General German Workers’ Union and the Marxist Social-Democratic Workers' Party — ran a serious risk of losing its way in a labyrinth of economic projects — of becoming no more than a trade-union lobby. Robert Owen's efforts may have been amateurish, but —especially in his later years — he was certainly no glib-talking lobbyist. On the contrary, in Lenin's proletarian state, workers' soviets must necessarily serve only as a lobby for the “armed proletariat", while the “organisation of revolutionaries” (a euphemism for the Bolshevik Party) could only be promoted to a management position.

5-b. Like the Second French Republic, which could not break free of its Napoleonic, Orleanist and Legitimist inheritance, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic of Nikita Krushchev was (and remains) moulded along fundamentally Tsarist lines, so that in many respects this dictatorship of the secretariat promotes a kind of industrial neo-feudalism — as do its enthusiasts in Czechoslovakia. naturally.

6-d. If “political power springs from the barrel of a gun” (Mao Zedong), as a result of having “smashed” the “bourgeois state” (Lenin), then what have you got but a “somewhat transformed heritage” of state-administered capitalism, whether by force (Dühring) or by compromise (Berlinguer)? A revolution whose immediate effect is other than to abolish the wages system is not a socialist revolution.

7-a. All four regimes demonstrate some tendency toward state capitalism, to one degree or another. Lenin himself identified state ownership and management of the means of production with socialism, proving only that if you run a capitalist system, then you must be a capitalist — either that, or you're some kind of flunkey.

8-d. Herr Dühring’s federation of economic communes bears an uncanny resemblance (on paper) to Chairman Mao’s people's communes. Since, on the other hand, common ownership (communism, or socialism) gives you the moneyless, worldwide community of producers, it would be economically impossible for any one locality to live in isolation. By the same token, remaking capitalism in the image of Owen’s New Lanark experiment would spell ruin for production based on profit. (As for the proletarian state, see below. No. 11.)

9-c. Quoted by Engels, the statement might easily have come right out of one of the platitude-filled speeches of either Deng Xiaoping or Edward Gierek; whereas Lenin’s concession to “reality” (the New Economic Policy, state capitalism) conceals the emergence of a new class of bureaucrat-capitalists, who decidedly believe society should honour itself by honouring them.

10-b. “Free access" means exactly that: no money. You cannot get rich in a socialist society; you are already born that way. If, conversely, “economic commune” is just a glorious nickname for “city" or “town", or even for agrarian state capitalism, then we already have them (choices c and d).

11-d. The first three choices respectively describe aspects or consequences of a proletarian revolution according to Lenin. First of all, wages, prices and profits signify commodity exchange; secondly, a “proletarian state" is a chimera — capital can only be accumulated for the benefit of capitalists; and thirdly, the working class cannot “subdue” the capitalist class without by the very fact abolishing its own status and becoming itself transformed into “society as a whole". Marx and Lenin very obviously disagree on whether a communist society can simply “issue out of capitalist society" or must first “develop on its own basis”. What Lenin describes as a "higher” phase, that is, developed communist society, Marx specifically mentions as pertaining rather to its merely having come into existence. He saw it as a political decision which cannot be put off until some remote future date or made by anyone else except the working class — in contrast to Lenin, who gave this “task” to the Party as part of its "leading role" and spoke of it as requiring decades to carry out.
Ron Elbert
(World Socialist Party of the United States)


* Questions 1, 2, 4 and 5 are quoted from Selected Works. International Publishers, 1969 ed.; question 3. because of the inadequacy and awkwardness of the translation, has been here reworded so as to bring out the sense of the passage, which otherwise degenerates into a meaningless conundrum. Question 11 is taken from the same source.

** Questions 6 to 10 are taken from the 1972 ed. of the International Publisher's version.

Saturday, November 18, 2023

Socialist Scholars Conference (1989)

From issue 6 of the World Socialist Review

Held at the City University of New York at the beginning of April (which this writer attended), it was impressive enough in terms of the range of subjects it covered, the number of persons attending it and the breadth of representation of the sponsors and participants. The closest thing to it I can think of (and which I have never been to) is an annual event in France sponsored by the Trotskyist Lutte Ouvridro (Workers’Struggle), in which everyone who’s anyone on the left shows up.

It was, on the face of it, a welcome opportunity to discuss ideas and events in a relatively open atmosphere, though in practice, it frequently turned into a war of fixed positions between competing points of view. It also represented an occasion for networking (establishing contacts with other organizations) and generally a pretty good place to find source materials.

Organized by the CUNY Democratic Socialists’ Club and centered nominally on the theme, “Two Centuries of Revolution: 1789-1989," the Conference was used regularly and methodically by the DSs to get in some Marx-bashing; I couldn't be sure how well attended those workshops were, since they were all the same dreary variations on the topic, "Isn’t Marxism dead yet?" which did not help them to seem any more interesting.

Two panels which I did attend—one called “Is Capitalism Entering a New Stage?” sponsored by Monthly Review, featuring Paul Sweezy, Samir Amin and Beatrix Campbell, and the other on “Black Workers and Class Consciousness"—were at least on more provocative subjects. (Sweezy believes the answer to the question is "no”: capitalism is locked on a course of continued stagnation.) The panel on class consciousness among black workers brought forth the usual round of analyses and ended by leaving the impression that black workers are neither more nor less class conscious than any other sectors of the working class in the United States—though racism and systematic underemployment can generate extra obstacles to socialist understanding for blacks.

Had we (the Boston group) made inquiries early enough, we could at least have had adequate time to decide whether or not we wanted to pay for and man a literature booth at the Conference. We should definitely set up a booth there next year; it would give some very good exposure to socialist ideas. If we can demonstrate expertise in some field, it is even possible we could sponsor a panel or workshop of our own at future conferences, assuming there is a show of interest in it from comrades.
Ron Elbert

Wednesday, November 8, 2023

Central America: which way to capitalism? (1985-86)

From the Winter 1985-6 issue of the World Socialist

In the 50s and 60s the US moved to counter what it saw as a trend toward the establishment of left-wing "third-world" governments in its own backyard by installing military or client dictatorships (wherever the Marines could invent a pretext for landing), most notoriously in Guatemala where the Arbenz government, backed by an increasingly active popular movement, threatened to reproduce the Labor and Social Democratic backlash that had occurred in postwar Europe.

This preventive action, however, was not purely negative in scope but corresponded to a program of economic development which, it was claimed, would do for Latin America what the Marshall Plan had done for Europe. Since this involved increased regimentation generally, it was thought that creating or backing client dictatorships where necessary would guarantee a suitable environment for investing capital.

The "Marshall Plan" for Central America and the Caribbean had consisted, in consequence, of a series of timely strategic "surgical strikes", so that the unsuspecting workers (as in Guatemala in 1954 for instance, where they were otherwise too weak and isolated even to sustain their own radical reformism at that date) were bloodied up and hunted down before they knew what had hit them. Ever since then, US action in the area has been aimed at extending and developing its forcibly imposed discipline, invented for the sake of depressing the exchange-value of human life to otherwise un-maintainably low levels.

On the face of it, the local capitalists in certain parts of Latin America have become increasingly dissatisfied with what they have come to regard as the dead-end development policy of the multinationals; their position is, in effect, that the latter have "mismanaged" economic growth in somehow caused it to be mismanaged.

As the multinationals extended their investments, local industry nourished within a limited context of import substitution. This worked will enough as far as it went, but the focus of investment was not production: it was rather international exchange, and — like the old Mercantilist System — it was oriented toward increasing local foreign exchange reserves rather than generating new value.

As the heat from the reformist opposition became here and there became gradually more intense, it became necessary in the late 60s and early 70s for the US to fortify the bulwarks with a new variety of dictatorship whose legitimacy was virtually non-existent. The sunbelt investors from the US wanted to make one last effort to plunder the locals (capitalists with the support of workers in "mass organizations") before the wrath of the latter finally boiled over.

It was in fact the period of overhasty expansion in the 50s and 60s that brought on the faltering of growth in the late 60s and the financial crisis of the later 70s. The international debt crisis thus links up with the popular opposition in Central America, since it revolves precisely around the funding of the capitalization process. “Reformists”, in this context, are held to be those who favor minor or even major alterations in the way in which the multinationals should be allowed to do business, while those who seek to restrict they way in which capital is accumulated enjoy a reputation for being “revolutionaries”.

Guatemala and El Salvador: unstable Coffee Republics
Guatemalan capitalism as it emerged from the Fascist Decade in the 20s made its bed mostly on coffee beans (and somewhat on bananas), as in El Salvador. (The Central American states received the sobriquet of "banana republics" primarily through their association with the United Fruit Company, one of the "modernizers".) The greater social backwardness of Guatemala, however, caused it to miss out on the land-oriented paroxysms which savaged the workers and peasants of El Salvador in the 30s. The Arevalo and Arbenz regimes in Guatemala (1945-54) were on the other hand notable for setting a precedent of constitutional democracy in the region; just at the time when Labor and Social Democrats in Europe were capitalizing on working class weariness with wartime hardships. (The Costa Rican capitalist class struck early and thoroughly in the same period, abolishing the army altogether, earning themselves the nickname of "the Latin Switzerland".) Thus, despite its relatively backward social organization, Guatemala did experience an echo of Labor reformism in the postwar decade.

The coffee oligarchy of Guatemala took this very ill. By 1954 it was ready to kick over the traces and "to liberate the nation". With the Dulles boys in Washington masterminding a combined diplomatic, propaganda and military offensive, the reformers were easily outmaneuvred and overthrown in July of that year.

Subsequently, however, the coffee barons discovered they had called in the United States only to leap, by the end of the 60s, from the political frying pan into the economic fire: the US had lent its support, not to promote their tranquility, but the growth of industrial manufactures (thereby serving its own convenience) — an assist which could only finish by leaving coffee production further and further behind in the preoccupations of the state. To accomplish this, the US government pursued a policy of regional "self-enrichment" and diversification, "integrating" the region's economies (the self-styled "Central American Common Market"), encouraging import substitution and blocking the spontaneous upgrading of labor-power throughout the regional economy. This process the coffee barons at first mistook for an identification with their interests. Once the blood of the working-class and peasant corpses was good and congealed, however, Washington unceremoniously thrust them aside and the rightwing "National Liberation Movement" (MLN) — which had done the dirty work and built up a political machine in the eastern part of the country — found itself, by the early 70s, a humiliated opposition party within its own regime. And now Guatemala's generals have cut themselves into a very large slice of the profit pie indeed, to the intense annoyance of their fellow capitalists.

It is this general situation of pell-mell accumulation, rather than a supposed structural dependence of Guatemalan capital on an imperialist metropolis ruled by finance capitalists, that explains the endemic instability of Guatemala's ruling class.

The same thing could also be said for El Salvador. In the post-war years, a "modernizing" sector of the coffee exporters and other commercial interests pulled off a palace revolution and installed its own regime in place of the blood-soaked Martinez dictatorship. In this we have what there was of El Salvador's "social-democratic" period, which in the developed economies was characterized by a surge of working-class opinion in favor of more or less broad reforms. In this case, the initiative came from the capitalist class but was supported by the working-class organizations (tiny and persecuted as they were). The fact that circulating capital was mostly tied up in agriculture, that only an exiguous portion of it went to wages in industry, and that it was still mostly tied to fixed capital invested in agriculture, is what accounts for the focus of this initiative on the reform-minded section of the capitalist class rather than on a European-style labor movement.

In terms of social organization, El Salvador in fact came closer than Guatemala to being already "modernized", in that its capitalist class had systematically created Central America's most proletarianized economy — even if it was only for the sake of coffee.

But recently, since the 1979 coup, it has dawned on the coffee magnates that Washington did not offer to give them a hand out of altruism in their emaciated war against the specter of "communism". By the March 1982 elections, the struggle had clearly ceased to be a mere question of a coffee aristocracy clinging tenaciously to its privileged position. Washington at length had decided that condoning extreme right positions was now a liability and definitely cut the coffee oligarchy adrift to face the rigors of "modernization".

The coffee planters have thus acquired the stigma of the greater evil, from the vantage point of international capital. Big business in the US has not changed its tune and decided that what El Salvador needs is a good dose of old-fashioned moderation. It has on the contrary merely revised its criterion of what kind of economic development it thinks would deliver its investments the most effectively from the immediate threat of expropriation.

The structural instability of the capitalist class in both Guatemala and El Salvador demonstrates in microcosm a formative or transitional stage of economic development; and the opposition's allegation of corruption and mismanagement on the part of the governing section of the ruling class acts itself as a catalyst in bringing that transition about: nationalism will never be more than the handmaiden of profit.

The present crisis — which, in the tradition of all great social revolutions, has degenerated to the point where rival factions are now scrambling to get control of the government's budget and so gain the controlling share in shaping the state's economic policy — can thus be explained entirely in terms of profit. From a socialist point of view, its outcome cannot be a revolution resulting in the introduction of common ownership of the means of production, however democratic its ideology may be.

Nicaragua and the class of latent capitalists
The main capitalist opposition in Central America to corporate dominance over the local economy comes, not as we might naively expect, from the existing capitalist class — the official bourgeoisie (the one which is presently constituted and which acts out its role on the stage of world history). It comes chiefly from the concealed capitalist class — the one which favors state-managed capital accumulation on the pretext that this will actually benefit the working class and (what little may remain of) the peasantry.

This class of latent capitalists is none other than the self-styled revolutionary left, most prominently the Leninists, but not by any means those of them who have served as such excellent bull's-eyes for the Reagan administration's target practice. (Moscow-oriented "Communist" parties in Central America — since the massacres of the 30s — have shown themselves incapable, on the whole, of forming more than a loyal opposition bound hand and foot to the status quo, a sort of left-wing Christian Democracy.) There is, in any case, a very definite tendency for the left to nationalize the accumulation of capital conceptually, before any actual question of a transfer of power arises.

A revolution supposedly carried out on behalf of a working class which does not form even a substantial minority of the population, as in a substantial part of the "third world" today (though not so much in Central America), cannot possibly be anti-capitalist. If the workers (wage earners plus professionals and any others who work for someone else) do not make up the majority, then neither can industrial capitalism form the basis of the state. Since the first order of business of a revolution in a state which is still pre-capitalist is necessarily the establishment of a capitalist economy it is nothing if not a pro-capitalist revolution: in an historical context of undeveloped capitalist production, such movements appear as anti-liberal revolutions. One of the warts of Leninism is precisely its confusion of the concepts of "liberalism" and "capitalism".

Capitalism, regardless of its degree of development, is any social system in which the bulk of social wealth is produced for exchange on the market at a profit, conducted through the payment of wages. So long as it observes this basic condition, it may assume any form or character whatever. If this implies totally reorganizing the personnel roster of the accumulators, then so be it! If the state must step in and directly manage all phases and facets of the economy, then that's how it must be! Capital does not care what its administrators look like: it seeks only to reproduce itself in ever-growing measure through the well-known mechanisms of accumulation.

Who makes such revolutions but those who intend to accumulate capital themselves? A minority political party heading a minority working class is itself the nucleus of a potential stratum of accumulators. Capital is equally well served by either sort of lackey. The full transfer of state power to such jerry-built ruling classes is indeed rare — or more precisely, it is an extremely complex event which does not take place most of the time. It is an example of the fortunes of an ideology, not of revolutionary socialist class consciousness.

The revolution in Nicaragua is an interesting study in Leninist doubletalk. Comparing Nicaragua with Guatemala and El Salvador, we note its relatively lesser degree of advancement at the time of the Sandinista Revolution in 1979. That is to say, Nicaragua was still more backward than El Salvador, where a civil war is now underway, yet its neo-capitalist revolution has already been successfully begun, while in Guatemala class conflict has yet to break out into open civil war. What explains this disparity?

A major factor in favour of the Sandinistas, certainly, was the very identification of primitive accumulation — vested as it was in the coffee barons — with a concrete clique of individuals (the clan of the Somozas backed by the United States). More decisive, however, was the extreme disgruntlement of the Nicaraguan capitalist class as a whole.

The Sandinistas are attempting to displace the original crew of black sheep with a group that will be more interested in keeping surplus value within Nicaragua. However, "limiting the intervention of the bourgeoisie in the government" — which is their self-attributed objective — is nothing but a collection of buzzwords, since none of them is seriously proposing to limit the role of capital accumulation in formulating government policy. The question revolves entirely around who will accumulate capital, and for what reasons. The Sandinistas thus represent the left wing of the capitalist class, itching to get on with the business of totally converting over to pure state capitalism.

A member of the Sandinistas' National Direction is quoted as saying that, now that they have control of the banks, they have "surrounded the bourgeoisie" (quoted by Roger Burbach in "Nicaragua: El Curso de la revolución". Revista Mensuel/Monthly Review, July 1980). This is a highly ironic remark, in view of the fact that one group of capitalists (the nascent state capitalists) is saying that about the other (the official bourgeoisie). It also illustrates the Leninist belief that the concentration of finance capital is somehow different from the accumulation of capital in general. What is definitely not being encircled, however, is the function of capital accumulating itself. A society of continuing wage-slavery is the fatal economic issue of the Sandinista revolution, given that the institution of production for profit remains sacred.

If wages as the basis of capital accumulation (through the production of surplus value) are not abolished, via the introduction of common ownership of the means of production, it is utterly specious to distinguish '"reformism" and "the revolutionary process". It is all reformism until society no longer depends on the possession of money as a prerequisite for obtaining goods and services.

Throughout all the vicissitudes of the "revolutionary process", none of the "revolutionary" parties — even the most radical — apparently would would dream of abandoning commodity exchange and its inevitable consequence, production for profit. They confine themselves without exception to squabbling over the right to direct this process (as in El Salvador), with one position favoring total state capitalism — eventually and an opposite position favoring a minimal state presence in the economy (or so they say). An "authentically socialist perspective" (a widespread demand for common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production) does not figure in any of their programs.
Ron Elbert

Monday, October 14, 2019

Goodbye to the "Middle Class" (1996)

From the August 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard
Socialists are more than familiar with the old nonsense concerning a "middle class". Such people have always been nothing more than relatively better-paid wage slaves, just as susceptible to the vagaries of capitalism's boom and slump economics
A spectre is haunting America— the spectre of the middle class. Ever since Alexis de Tocqueville proclaimed the US to be a “middle-class country”, North Americans have anxiously sought to moralise and ennoble their notion of class struggle:
  “Most were regular employees of major corporations like McDonnell Douglas, Grumman and Hughes Aircraft. If they didn't go to work, they risked losing their livelihoods, their houses and their cars. They were, in fact, not middle-class at all in the Marxian sense of the word. They were working-class, but, unlike similar people in Britain or Germany, they called themselves middle- class” (‘Who Killed the Middle Class?’ John Cassidy, The New Yorker, 16 October 1995).
But by some evil design of fate, this middle class seems to have died at the hands of the Reaganauts and the Bushmen according to Cassidy: “Living standards have fallen or stagnated for the majority of Americans, while a small minority have enjoyed a bonanza. These trends appear to be intensifying regardless of which political party is in office.” The rich have of course got richer (the top one percent of families were worth 78 percent more in 1989 than they had been ten years earlier, according to the Census Bureau). No guesses out of whose hides it came: “Twenty years ago, the typical chief executive officer of a large American company earned about 40 times as much as a typical worker did. Now he cams 190 times as much, according to Graef Crystal, an expert on executive compensation.” The not-so-invisible hand of the economic system may have put on a velvet glove for college graduates but has shown a mailed fist to those who have gotten no further than high school, while it has, with a typical capitalist sense of fairness, ruthlessly put the squeeze on dropouts and recent immigrants.

Naturally, not everyone is wringing their hands over this development:
   “Many experts argue that this is just what the doctor ordered . . .  if companies are using their new-found profits to fuel a capital spending boom rather than pay artificially high wages to a workforce that views itself as entitled, what better way to keep the US competitive in a cutthroat global economy? . . . Corporate America is once again in fighting trim, able to compete with the best of the world’s producers” (‘The Wage Squeeze’, Aaron Bernstein, Business World Week, 17 July 1995).
All of this “good behaviour”, as Business World Week calls it, derives partly from capital’s shedding of assets to promote a recovery and partly from a self-serving capitalist belief that “re-engineering” promotes productivity, which in turn will (someday) push wages up:
  “Already, shareholders are enjoying a juicy stream of dividend payments and capital gains. Historically, efficiency improvements have led to real wage and income gains for the average employee. ‘In the long run, labor productivity will rise, and eventually, this will put upward pressure on wages, ’says former Federal Reserve Board Governor Wayne D. Angell. ”
Only if workers regard a given rate of profit as “natural” can they swallow the assertion that their wages are “artificially high”. “The rise of global competition may have encouraged managers to break unions and invest in computer technology,” argues John Cassidy in The New Yorker. “Similarly, the threat of corporate relocation and the growth of cheap immigrant labor may have contributed to the weakness of labor unions.” Given such interactions, however, who is kidding whom about wages following productivity up? If “cheap immigrant labor” and corporate relocation to low-wage countries are themselves all about the desirability of reducing capital’s “wages bill” for the sake of profit margins, why should managers overlook the other obvious opportunity of breaking unions that promote “artificially high” wage levels? Wages are simply supposed to stay low no matter what any sweet-talking economist may say about them.

Strangely enough, this doctrine that wages follow productivity up (like the expectation that it should have started happening already) does not seem to include anything about the “plummeting” of wages (New Yorker, 16 October 1995). Unless the elementary rules of mathematics have been revised, ordinary addition and subtraction ought to show that wages which have gone down (as they have) and then are supposed to rise again can hardly show a significant net gain (if any). Or is it that only the wages of productive workers are supposed to follow increases in productivity up the scale? In that case, the declining numbers of production workers in the United States would tend to inhibit any overall net increase in wages for workers in all sectors.

Falling wages
But when all is said and done, the concept itself is really nothing more than a propaganda device to prove that workers don’t need unions. The whole productivity-wages relation argument in effect rigorously excludes the need for the action of any “external” agencies like trade unions. Embarrassment over the failure of wages and salaries to rise as predicted seems nevertheless to have made no dent in the thinking of corporate execs. To the capitalist class it is all just a matter of “corporate restructuring” for the sake of “economic efficiency” in securing an “open economy” and “free trade”. As a spokesman for Mobil Oil acidly put it: “There’s a very intense determination in executive suites across America not to give away hard-fought improvements. It may be a long time before this shakes through and wages rise” (Business World Week, 17 July 1995). Meanwhile, “in the past three years, wages have continued to fall while productivity, profits, and stock prices have all soared”.

With inimitable Yankee aplomb, the writer of the Business World Week article assures us that “longer term, of course, the argument is that as economies grow overseas, they will buy more US-made goods, creating more jobs and demand here. Over a truly extended time frame, overseas wages will rise to meet ours”. But overseas wages will, only “rise to meet ours” if overseas workers can impose some much-needed restraint on their employers’ appetite for profits by organising effective trade unions. Businessmen can accept this during the boom phase of the business cycle; but to the extent they ultimately succeed in busting unions (as they do when the “longer-term” rate of profit threatens to sink), they will be quite happy to settle for that, too.

Historically, the changing patterns of capital investment follow an international curve, and the fortunes of the working class change with them. From Latin America to Asia new working-class populations have been integrated into a multi-nationalising world economy. ‘This is not an aberration, it’s a permanent trend,” says Dean Witter’s [Joseph G.] Carson, who believes global competition and technological change will keep the pressure on wages” (Business World Week, 17 July 1995).

Describing all this as “an unprecedented redistribution of income toward the rich” (New Yorker, 16 October 1995) shows only how narrowly—if not how nationalistically—some writers like to have their history. Capitalism is by its very nature a system for “redistributing income toward the rich”. Profit (surplus value) is the economic translation of the unpaid labour of which the working class is robbed at the point of production. What has been happening since the 70s is unprecedented only in its scale; it has been a reality since the very beginning. The early economists, speaking for their colleagues in the capitalist class, certainly understood it.

During and after the Second World War’s flood of artificially high profits, real unions turned into company unions that talked down to their own members and limited themselves to conveying management’s wishes to them. A new breed of leaders stifled whatever there was of the grassroots or the democratic in organised labour.

Management got this opportunity to expand the market only at the price of “artificially high" wages: but once the competition got tougher internationally, the Uncle Tom outfits that unions had become started looking like too much of a luxury, so capital set about “busting" them (although they were already spontaneously decaying on their own). Wages had no place to float to but back to where they had come from originally. Thus it is not so much that income is being “redistributed" as that capital is seeking to return wages and salaries to pre-Depression levels (in current values) to shore up a sagging long-term rate of profit. In this sad little world made by capital, it would appear the period of mid-century prosperity was really only a fluke after all. 
Ron Elbert
(World Socialist Party of the US)

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Bourgeois Blues: The Future of a Collusion (2017)

From the March 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard
“I’ll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I’ll get on my knees and pray
We don’t get fooled again” (— The Who)
The recent presidential election in the US has left many people around the world confused if not anxious. Yet worrying about Donald Trump This and Donald Trump That misses the point — and gives the Left altogether too much credit.

The Trump victory is symptomatic that the capitalist class has lost its revolutionary cachet. It rose to power having seduced its creature, the working class, to help it seize power in revolutions all over the world, most typically those in mid-19th century Europe. To accomplish this feat, it made a radical switch in the Romantic era, from fulminating against the menace of letting the working class govern – excoriated as ‘a great beast’ (The People) by Alexander Hamilton – to making common cause with its own class enemies, on the promise of indefinite rewards once the bourgeois middle class took power.

Overall, this new policy tended to work like a charm, though it was not without its problems. For one thing, it inadvertently legitimized long-standing grievances and demands of ‘power to the people’ that traced their roots back to the French Revolution of 1789 – in much the same way as the US would later legitimize the emerging Islamist movement of the 1970s by intervening in Afghanistan.

But the corporate revolution that set in following World War I caused the capitalist class to think better of its earlier flirtation with the forces of democracy and revolution. Increasingly conservative, many capitalists began thinking instead in terms of consolidating their power, a trend which the war had accelerated. Liberal capitalism was morphing into something more cohesive, a richer, denser plutocracy whose most pressing need was to thwart efforts to modify capitalism’s power structure in favour of the working class.

The ultimate expression of this trend today bears the ungainly names of ‘neo-liberalism’ and ‘neo-conservatism.’ Its adepts brandish a massive array of carrot-and-stick policies aimed at controlling or confounding the working class through vast networks of deception, disinformation and – where these fail – naked force. But fussing over the details of class struggle can lead to its own peculiar myopia. Today’s all-powerful Right is actually a very shaky and dysfunctional bandwagon; its factions will in all likelihood begin falling out before too long. And borrowing from Marx’s observation in The 18th Brumaire, it is not hard to imagine a follow-up pendulum swing back in the other direction, as neo-New-Dealers farcically attempt a comeback, hoping to recover what they can from the preceding wreckage.

So what does this portend, exactly? Historically, politically and economically, the working class has always been the material force underwriting the legitimacy of capitalism. In the works, under the leadership of the oil billionaires, is nothing less than Capital’s gratuitous renunciation of any acknowledgement that it ever depended on the working class – especially for political support. Our Betters no longer need us to move and shake the world, either at times of crisis or in the hurly-burly of business. We are being handed our walking papers as a class. History is over. The hubris of Capital has grown so huge the master class now figures that the bad old days of needing our help every so often are, well, history. This naturally reinforces a tendency to regress to the earlier open antagonism toward any hint of a threat to profits. And we are in fact already there.

Some of this might even seem convincingly gloomy, as the capitalist class has shown no bashfulness about converting the enormous gobs of surplus value we have given them over the past two centuries into a 1984-style totalitarian control that makes the Nazis look like stuffy Victorians. Leftists continue to build careers around posturing before the monstrous injustices, the sheer wickedness, of the capitalist class; if your head is stuck inside their box, Marx’s rhetorical portrait of the challenges faced by a proletarian revolution might well induce a suffocating pessimism.

But in reality, no one can win the class war: capitalists cannot have everything their way any more than those whom they exploit. The capitalist class can only use the class struggle to its advantage, and every so often the working class manages to score a few upper-cuts of its own. The real question is the limits to which this struggle can be pushed. At the end of the day, however, it is not anyone’s wish-dreams that make the world go round. It is what humans find in the natural world and pass on to future generations that governs the fortunes of economic classes.

We are about to find out just where these limits lie. Capital has been testing them all along (with virtually everyone’s benediction), and now it must prove that ‘dominating’ nature really can be pulled off with impunity. Science is telling us some very alarming things to the contrary. And if we are to take those reports seriously, it is clear that climate change is going to tear the guts out of Capital’s average rate of profit, as the cost of responding to ‘natural’ disasters goes through the roof. However Capital may respond, the skyrocketing cost will overwhelm the fragile defences of the profit economy; the best we can hope for will be an anaemic and erratic global economy struggling endlessly to get back out of the red.

From an ant’s perspective, this decay might appear to be different from the fate of all other empires, but the variation is only one of degree.

Politically, all of this is guaranteed to test the working class’s loyalty and its willingness to continue pocketing the insults of Capital. So if the capitalist class is now moving triumphantly to inaugurate a neo-liberal/neo-conservative dispensation, cramming its hateful counter-reforms down the throat of an unwilling majority, it is a cinch that the capitalists are naïvely setting themselves up as a pack of unloved élitists wearing Scrooge costumes – just as Mother Nature, looming over them, prepares to whack the daylights out of their profit system.

For such a fatuous forgetfulness to set in at any juncture would entail serious consequences: for it to set in now, as unprecedented systemic stresses generated by climate change start rolling down the pike, will surely prove a fatal error. In forgetting where it came from, the capitalist class courts the loss of critical support at a critical moment and looks down the same road as the destitute Absolute Monarchy that once ruled France before 1789, until an angry and frustrated middle class finally lopped off its head.

The difference is that this time, the anti-capitalist revolution will not be headed by minorities bent on carving out a new status quo for themselves. Strictly speaking, it will not be headed by anyone at all. To the capitalist class it will appear like a frightening pandemic of madness, as the whole world seriously discusses ending the rule of Capital forever. But the only way to ‘fix’ capitalism is to abolish both wages and capital, and once that gate has been opened, the road back becomes irretrievably closed. All functions of leadership collapse into the cold, hard logic of common survival, whose articulation is at the disposal of every thinking person. That is what will make it world history’s one and only socialist revolution.
Ron Elbert
World Socialist Party (US)

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Students in revolt (1987)

From the February 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nineteen sixty-eight was a year that made a deep impression on the French capitalist class. For them, its "second repetition" in 1986 must have come as a tragi-comedy (though for the Chirac government, it was decidedly a farce). Students, in the 70s and '80s, had been tagged (with relief?) as so many recycled zombies from the '50s: cynical. apolitical, self-centred, concerned solely with making it. Flattened out into a manageable crisis, in short. That the media (who either invented or borrowed the notion) were only busy making another of their identity-myths has since become all too evident.

But it was not clear on December 4 1986 (and much less so on November 27. when the first big student-organised demonstration took place in Paris). Considering how much hype was circulating about the apoliticism of the young, it comes as no surprise that the students themselves believed they were doing something apolitical. They wanted nothing to do with any of the official parties, yet they sought to affect the policy of a government.

This renunciation of theory can be explained as a resistance action (not at all distant in character from a trade-union struggle) that grew up around ruling-class efforts to cut corners on the cost of maintaining the country’s educational institutions. Students were actually lampooned (Nouvel Observateur, 5 November and 12-18 December 1986) for revolting in favour of the status quo. And it is quite true that in 1986 most of the reformist assumptions of the soixante-huitards were simply taken for granted by the lycéens and university students. They were, in effect, rising up in defence of a specific ideological configuration of capitalism, what we might call post-Gaullism. There is thus less irony than there may seem in the fact that an old Gaullist like Chirac should have spearheaded a Reagan-style. toothless-ideologue assault on the students’ position.

The issue was twofold: the Devaquet bill (which was moving toward the final stages of enactment) set out to reorganise (privatise) the university administration; the controversy centred around questions of degrees, admissions policy, tuition fees and school autonomy. The minister of national education, René Monory, sought to heighten the government's general de-nationalisation euphoria by introducing a parallel set of reform proposals (not a bill at that point) for the lycées. The most important effect of these proposals would have been to block future access to the universities for a significant percentage of lycéens. Hence, the impulse to contradict the government was a powerful and immediate one. Although the initiative was sparked by UNEF-ID. which was PS and trotskyist in its leanings, the student movement at both levels defined itself, on the whole, solely with reference to with drawing the reforms. (UNEF-ID was the coordinating committee among the university students).

And so it happened that a large body of "apolitical" opinion suddenly coalesced in opposition to the government, became transformed overnight into the Spectre of 1968. to the panic of an entire government; forced a delegate minister’s resignation (Devaquet’s); caused the Prime Minister (Chirac) to announce the withdrawal of the whole reform package; knocked the wind out of the sails of the liberal-conservative coalition's pointless efforts to turn back the clock and thus ingloriously aborted its nine-month état de grâce. And now everyone is talking about "politicisation" again.

How a paradox like this could have come about can best be explained by looking at the context in which the movement arose, which involves decisions about capital accumulation reaching all the way back to the Marshall Plan. Postwar investments in economic recovery and a policy of stimulating expansion in the "poor countries" at length bore their predictable fruit in the form of increased competition from the new accumulators in the developing countries. This generated a tendency towards capital flight into those same areas (where working-class organisations either did not yet exist, were liquidated or severely repressed so as to achieve a systematically under-valued labour-power). This was accompanied by the steady decline of reinvestment in basic heavy industry in the developed countries (with a few exceptions) throughout the 1970s, and it gave rise to an ever-increasing pressure on the developed countries' respective balances of trade.

This in turn ignited fears among the capitalist class in each of the developed countries for its own competitive standing in the world's markets, which has led to a period of relentless budget-chopping. As a result the capitalists currently raise the issue of whether the educational system they have been paying for is really serving its purpose to provide inexpensive (if not cheap) labour-power to keep their profits respectable. If not, then they must shake loose enough free capital from the educational budget (without of course having to retool industry, rethink their growth strategies or — horrors! — axe their precious military investments) to (supposedly) raise profits back up to an acceptable level — given that austerity (for everyone else) must be the order of the day. Throughout the developed world, the 1980s thus began to resound with public-spirited attacks on "outdated" educational systems.

Things were of course no different in France, even though it was a party of the left (the PS) that was commissioned to carry out the hatchet-job. Touted as the reincarnation of May 1968. the new regime of May 1981 fairly gushed with optimism and succeeded in blinding just about everybody, for a short while, to its patent inability to dictate terms to the international crisis. But the real mandate of the Mitterrand-Mauroy/Fabius team was identical (mutatis mutandis) to that of the Reagan administration, the Thatcher government and the Kohl regime. More importantly, however, nobody really seemed to care that a "socialist" party like the PS should be proposing to make a go of bringing back profits and jobs to French capitalism in the first place. The PS/PCF's état de grâce took only a year to hit the reefs, after which it rapidly disintegrated, as the realities of international competition took their remorseless revenge.

The Savary law reforming education thus came on the books in 1984; aspects of it affecting the private schools, however, caused as much of an uproar as Devaquet-Monory which presaged the PS's subsequent defeat at the polls. But the Savary law was itself only a symptom of the PS's underlying shift to the right (its abject caving in to the realities of capitalism), the premise being that the French educational system had become 'uncompetitive'. And so, après le déluge, the earlier Savary legislation still continues to apply by default.

What the "apolitical" students were therefore colliding with was none other than that dehumanising old fogey, the capitalist class itself, bent on extracting candlestick economies out of the school system merely to salvage its profits — even at the cost of flushing a large proportion of the high-school students out of the university system altogether. The students came very close indeed to realising that what were scraps for the workers are scraps for them too. They are all future workers in the end. or most of them are, and the fact that the lycéens had the support and encouragement of their parents indicates another burst of class struggle was in the making. Worry over the prospect of this was one of the principal factors which ultimately triggered the whole chain of events leading Chirac to the microphone to announce the withdrawal of the reforms.

On the other hand, any inkling that life is actually possible — and good — outside the wages system was conspicuously absent from this revolt of the students: for all their rejection of the system's catalogue of evils, their ideas nevertheless remained imprisoned within it. They may hopefully take the opportunity they have created for themselves to do some deeper and more independent thinking on the system's structural tendency to generate emergencies: they at least got off to a good start.

Failing this. 1986 will not turn out to have been so different from 1968 as they thought it was.
Ron Elbert (Paris)

Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Obituary: Karla Rab, 1940-2017 (2018)

Obituary from the March 2018 issue of the Socialist Standard

Karla Rab died on September 15th at age 77 in her Somerville, Massachusetts home.

A fifth-generation socialist, she learned ‘by osmosis’ that the most worthwhile cause to struggle for is to wake up the working class to its enlightened self-interest — the immediate abolition of capital’s anachronistic employment system.

She imbibed the influence of a socialist family upbringing from her earliest years, and went on to make it her vocation on joining the World Socialist Party founded in 1916 by her grandfather Isaac Rab and others. She was a practical visionary who took an active organizing role in party activities; after some re-organization c. 2000, she performed her role as Postal Corresponding Secretary with gusto. In 2010, fulfilling a promise she had given Rab to 'do something' with his voluminous correspondence, she published Role-Modeling Socialist Behavior: The Life and Letters of Isaac Rab, a multi-faceted undertaking at once a biography, a history and a memoir. Her natural editorial talents were appreciated by all her collaborators.

Everything of any value, she knew, starts with the human imagination, independently of reality, as long as you plug it back into the real world. Karla grew up immersed in a culture of optimism. She knew she really could make the world a better place, not just in a moral sense but as an actual historical reality.

And there was a way to achieve this goal. All you had to do was get everyone to understand that the world humans have evolved, the terrible mess we have made of human society, has a tangible and specific cause. While we have improved some aspects of our existence, we have done so at the expense of our better nature, and the 'progress' we imagine is inherent in our civilization is a process of tying society in knots. Humans have gotten themselves into a progressively knottier condition, and the end results are beginning to look pretty grim.

Karla learned as a child that the way to cut the Gordian knot is to re-imagine a society that once again returned to a need-oriented model of human nature in which people everywhere understand the stake they have in each other’s well-being. This is something we all know how to do, but which ever since agriculture was introduced we have been educating each other to forget. But it takes only a little self-enlightenment to break this momentum.

Since there can be no limits to how this reawakening takes place, our destiny as humans is to do this re-thinking of ourselves on a global scale. We all have it in us to retrace our steps and 'get back to the garden.' It is emotionally and intuitively easy, if you just listen to yourself and keep the courage of your convictions.

Like her grandfather, she was an incurable optimist who believed humanity still has a future. Pessimism is merely the long shadow of ignorance. The choice is clear.
R. E.

Thursday, July 7, 2016

The World Socialist Party of the U.S. Turns 100 (2016)

From the July 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard
It is now just a century since the WSP established itself in the USA. Other such organizations arose at about the same time in Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere, from similar circumstances: SPGB comrades became world travelers to escape conscription in The Great War, spreading knowledge and understanding of the case for socialism as they went. In the Twenties and Thirties these early parties took steps to form what we now call the World Socialist Movement.
In Detroit, Michigan, British 'slackers' Moses Baritz, Adolph Kohn and others conducted a series of classes on Marxian theory at Duffield Hall. Out of these classes, some 43 individuals, 19 of them belonging to the Michigan section of the “Socialist” Party of America (SP of A), held a conference on 7 July 1916 at which they voted to form a revolutionary socialist party based on the SPGB’s object and principles. They chose to name the organization The Workers’ Socialist Party, since the SP of A objected to 'Socialist Party of the U.S.'
Among these original founders of the WSP(US) were Bill Davenport, its first Secretary; Bill Gribble, a Canadian, its first Organizer; Isaac Rabinowich, usually called simply 'Rab,' around whom Boston Local was to form; and Walter Green, influential in establishing a Local in New York.
With the infamous Palmer 'Red raids' of 1919, the group felt it prudent to reincarnate themselves as the Socialist Education Society. Not till 1931 did the SES Locals in Detroit, New York and Boston reconstitute the Workers’ Socialist Party.
Two good sources for early WSP history are Bill Jerome’s in the Western Socialist (No 4, 1966) and more comprehensive account, Role-modeling Socialist Behavior: The Life and Letters of Isaac Rab, by his grand-daughter Karla Rab (November 2010 (Lulu.com); available on Amazon.com from which much of this present article is drawn.
Isaac Rab speaking from the WSPUS platform.
The Thirties, Forties and to some extent the Fifties were the years of greatest sustained activity for the WSP(US). During WWII, many comrades were drafted, and Party Rules prevented members of the Armed Services from being in the organization; but when draftees returned, they usually rejoined. It was a time of 'keeping the ‘social’ in ‘socialism’' as some comrades put it: party socials at Headquarters and in comrades’ homes were almost weekly events.
In 1947 the Workers’ Socialist Party became the World Socialist Party, thanks to a push from the Trotskyite 'Socialist' Workers Party. The postwar 'anti-communist' hysteria brought a McCarthyist makeover of the Palmer period; it was, if possible, still more artificially contrived — but with the same chilling effect. The WSP’s activities drew fewer newcomers as a result. There were enough comrades to keep things going, although membership was declining.
SPGB Comrade Gilbert McClatchie (Gilmac) paid his first of many visits to the USA in 1954. He got to meet East Coast comrades in Boston, and also visited California on that trip.
Out West, Jack MacDonald was propagating socialist ideas from his bookstore in San Francisco; other Canadian expatriates, like Bill Hewitson (Winnipeg) also turned up in California over the years.
In Los Angeles, W.Z. Miller, Frank Neale, Fred Evans, Walter Henderson and others had formed a Local, sometimes meeting in MacArthur Park. Bill Pritchard, one-time editor of the Western Clarion and a famous co-defendant at the Winnipeg General Strike trial who tied up the proceedings with an epic filibuster, was to become involved with Local Los Angeles as well. A member of the old Socialist Party of Canada (but who left the socialist movement when that SPC expired in 1926), Pritchard found his reputation had preceded him; he was allowed to stay in the U.S. after 1938 on a promise not to 'join any organizations.' And he kept a low profile until the Sixties, when he officially joined the WSP and began writing articles for the Western Socialist. (In 1939 the 'new' SPC had moved the WS to Boston to evade the wartime censorship.)
During Gilmac’s later visits and those of other British comrades following his example, comrades in Boston and elsewhere were always able to arrange speaking opportunities for them, often on the radio where there was good exposure. Cyril May, Jim D’Arcy, Adam Buick (who spent ten weeks with the Boston members in 1964, including an excursion up to the SPC’s Toronto and Montreal Locals) and many others came and took advantage of American propaganda opportunities during the 1950s, 60s and 70s. Tony Turner also visited, following his resignation from the SPGB.
By 1966, Johnson’s escalation in Vietnam was reaping the whirlwind in the form of a vociferous and growing anti-war movement, adding to the Civil Rights struggle already engulfing the Establishment. An ongoing debate arose within the party around how to respond to the Civil Rights movement: of course, the right of African Americans to vote was a cause that socialists must support — but was the fight for civil liberties ultimately just an attempt to make capitalism work better? Broadly speaking, Rab argued, it was not, but the drive to establish equal rights for all before the law was essentially a reform, because it did nothing for establishing real equality among all people. It was an illusion to think Black capitalists had common interests with Black workers.
Internally, the party was having a hard time finding members to carry out basic administrative tasks, but it was forging ahead again: a minor renaissance was taking place, with membership growing during the late Sixties in both numbers and enthusiasm. Promising new members like Bill Jerome and Steve Butterfield (who wrote as Stan Blake) joined the party. Both wrote for theWestern Socialist.
Enough new members joined in the Boston area to revive the LAC, or Local Administrative Committee, which consisted of five younger members (Steve Butterfield and his wife, Connie; George and Karla [Rab] Ellenbogen, and Bill Jerome) and oversaw all activities within the Boston Local, mainly indoor meetings, outdoor meetings held on Boston Common, covering protest meetings, and so on.
The older members like Rab, Harry Morrison and George Gloss, all of whom spoke often on the Common, tended to concentrate at the NAC level, but younger members like George Ellenbogen and Bill Jerome, for instance, might also find their way onto the National Committee. Jerome, elected to the NAC, was quickly co-opted onto the Editorial Committee as well to replace Len Fenton. This was symptomatic of a party in which too few members were having to wear too many hats.
Aware of this problem, the WSP(US) back in 1950 had moved its National Office from Boston to Detroit in an attempt to free up the Boston comrades to do more propaganda work by reducing their administrative tasks. For five years Detroit comrade Irving Canter served ably as National Secretary, but to no avail, and the National Office returned to Boston.
Annual conferences were sometimes rowdy; one comrade from Glasgow returned home with the alarming impression that the WSP(US) was about to implode from infighting. But these fireworks really only registered a predictable frustration among comrades who perceived that very important tasks were not yielding expected results.
By the late Sixties, most party activity was occurring in Boston. New York Local, which in the early years had been the center of activity, had lost its fire. Years went by when no new members joined. Even Sam Orner, an old Wobbly who had led the 1934 taxi drivers’ strike, could no longer inspire anyone apart from his family to join the struggle for a better world. Orner argued that New York Local was not adequately publicizing its existence, but his was a voice in the wilderness.
The mid-Seventies brought one golden moment: PBS Channel 44 offered a half-hour of prime time free on 'Catch 44' to any community group requesting it. The party jumped at the chance, producing three videotaped segments. The first two used a “talking heads” format; the third was a dramatization.
By the end of the 70s, Local New York was defunct. Local activity in Boston was dwindling, too. The World Socialist Party (US) now found itself a party of members at large, placing its organization on a tenuous national basis for the first time in its history. In fact, it was a member at large who did arguably more work for socialism than any other other American comrade during that period. Starting in 1976, Sam Leight, a real estate broker in Tucson, Arizona ran a series of radio broadcasts from which he generated two books: World Without Wages (Money, Poverty and War!) and The Futility of Reformism. (Earlier, Leight had also participated in the NAC as a member at large.)
Late in the Seventies, the Western Socialist dropped to two issues a year, ceasing publication entirely in 1980. The West Coast’s already sporadic activity grew faint. Boston was now the only active center left, yet this was precisely when things took a turn for the worse. From 1973 on, Rab suffered from Alzheimer’s Disease; on New Year’s Eve, 1986, he finally succumbed to pneumonia. The party, doubting its ability to make good use of a bequest from a member, voted to send the money to the SPGB. And in 1982 developers chased the WSP out of its fourth headquarters at 295 Huntington Avenue.
It was a bleak moment for the entire party; the NAC’s administrative functions ceased to be carried out, and the meetings (now held in a comrade’s home) became those of a correspondence committee, its Minutes an occasional 'Report to the Membership.'
Then in 1986, a young recently-joined Michigan member, collaborating with an SPC member from the Toronto area, brought out a new party publication, the World Socialist Review — a shoestring successor to the defunct Western Socialist produced on an office photocopier. After the second issue, Aaron Feldman, the new National Secretary, asked the present writer (a desktop publishing enthusiast) to see what he could do with it, and so a morphed WSR revived the SES tradition of an 'occasional' journal. Boston-area members (Fenton, Mike Philips, Ken Stewart, Karla Rab and myself) did stage a minor rally toward the end of the 80s, in tandem with a speaking tour by SPGB comrades Steve Coleman and Richard Montague; but not until nearly a decade later, in 1997, did a group of us set about re-establishing a functional NAC as a first step toward bringing the party back to life.
The new NAC has had its ups and downs, to be sure, although the continuous revolutionizing of communications and computer technologies has opened up once unimaginable opportunities. The WSM has embraced the Internet, with all the companion parties having linked Websites, blogs, social media and so on. The WSR, thanks to the good offices of Comrade Morgan Miller on the West Coast, was transformed by referendum into a 'print-on-demand' yearbook — a very workable concept that bridges the gap between print and electronic publishing. This should soon allow the WSP to make better use of its resources — although at this writing, only the first such yearbook has been produced, and a second is planned.
And so, after a century, even if the World Socialist Party is not as active as we have been, we are still working to make socialists. Still lacking, unfortunately, is a conscious, political majority of socialists eager to move society on to the next phase of social evolution.
Ron Elbert (World Socialist Party of the United States)