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.

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