Workers' Liberty

I think there were problems with Marias argument, but by and large I think her argument was more sound than Sean’s. Surely, it is possible that Blair’s position reflects more than just politics or organisation. Changes in organisation have no doubt made Blair’s position stronger, but those organisational changes were the result of politics. Not necessarily Blairite politics, but a reaction against Militant. Changes put in place by people that wanted to deal with Entryism but which had unforeseen – at least by those on the soft left that at least went along with them – consequences. Nor do you have to accept the idea that because Blair’s position is based on politics that this means that Blairite politics has a majority of support. The Labour party is an electoralist party, and always has been. If Blair offers the possibility of winning that is – and unquestionably has been – a big incentive for many to hold heir noses. Even had Blair not been a vote winner then the Blairites only need division amongst their opponents in order to hold a commanding position.

But in both I fail to see anything particularly new that should lead Marxists to abandon the only mass party of the working class. Hugh Gaitskell was probably as right-wing as Blair. Ramsey MacDonald certainly was. Witchunts against the left are nothing new either. The Attlee Government nearly bankrupted the country and thereby derailed its economic policy by its support for the Korean War and support for an independent nuclear deterrent in order to try to maintain the fiction of Britain’s Imperial role. That Government also attacked workers. Blair has maintained Thatcher’s anti-union laws, but it was Wilson’s Government that first wanted to introduce them.

I don’t know how Sean can say that the Labour Party has no direct working class links. The Party remains in the large majority made up of workers. My Branch LP is made up of workers entirely, and it is linked to the working class through some of those workers that have used their positions as Councillors for example to establish Tenants Associations on the Miners estate where they live to campaign for improved conditions.

I’m not at all convinced by the argument that the position of the Leader has in fact changed that much either. I remember when I first started studying British Constitution in 1970 that one of the essay questions was “Is Britain an Elective Dictatorship?” The question came from a quote asserting that that was the case a decade or so earlier by Winston Churchill. The power and patronage of the Prime Minister to choose a Cabinet, to blackmail MP’s or to cajole them with promises of Government office etc. is nothing new at all. If anything it is just a question of degree.

As for Labour Party Conference it could be argued that appearance and reality have merely been brought into line. Rarely does the Conference now get to vote down the Leadership, but in the past when it did what was the result? No different. The leadership simply ignored Conference.

As for Local Parties having a thriving life of their own, I think Sean must have been in a different Labour party to me for the last 30 odd years. For a brief time in the early 1980’s there was a thriving life in Local Parties prior to that they were pretty indistinguishable from those of today.

I have given elsewhere an account of when I first joined the Labour Party in 1974, and what it was like.

Pits and Pongs and the Labour Party

The local Labour Parties may be half dead, but unlike small revolutionary groups they are made up of real workers, and are connected to the working class in a way that small revolutionary groups never can be. Even now the LP has 200,000 members. If even just a quarter of them are active, and they will be concentrated in the main centres they represent a lever in the working class hundreds of times bigger than all the revolutionary groups put together. The question is if or how that lever will be used. Yes work in the Trade Unions is important, but as we used to point out to the SWP when they argued for support for Benn, how can you argue for that support in the Trade Unions when you are not in the Labour Party yourself. How can you ask workers in a Trade Union branch to take forward the political lessons that the McDonnell Campaign is trying to draw out into the political sphere unless you are prepared to accompany those workers into the political sphere where that battle will be carried out?

But there are other important areas of work for Marxists too, such as in working class communities. And the political fights there too need to be undertaken on the appropriate terrain. As I point out in the post linked to above the work that I and others did in the community in the early 1980’s was the basis for us transforming our Branch labour party, because we were able to encourage people to join precisely on the basis of the need for a fight. And having won that fight we were then able to use the resources of the Branch to turn outwards even more effectively to the Community. Tiny revolutionary groups do not and never will have the resources to do that. Nor do they have the potential to take the fight directly into the Council Chambers, and to expose the limitations of bourgeois democracy.

Summing things up as they really are is indeed a basic requirement. The way things really are is that the Labour party remains the party of the working class, and revolutionary groups are smaller and more irrelevant to the class struggle than they ever have been. The revolutionary class is the working class. It is the force which will transform society not a few people in some vanguard organisation. The task of Marxists is to remain embedded in the organisations of the working class to work with ordinary workers day in, day out in routine activity living and breathing with them, and educating them in the process, however, backward they may appear to be. Only a sectarian will turn his back on workers because they do not already have the same level of class consciousness as he does. When Marx and Engels didn’t have a workers party in Germany to join, they joined the Democrats because it was the party that the majority of workers adhered to. They were not concerned with anything more than being able to find an ear for their ideas amongst the workers. Marxists today could do worse than follow their example.

Arthur Bough

I found the reply, by Mark Osborn, to Eric Lee, on the question of the invasion of Georgia, in 1921, interesting. Apparently, according to Mark in 1921 after the invasion Lenin was incapacitated and dying. His speeches at the Tenth Congress of the RCP(B) in 1921, and even more so his speeches at the Eleventh Congress in 1922 have to be seen as truly heroic efforts, therefore.

Apparently, the real reason for the invasion was that it was all down to those evil people of the new bureaucratic collectivist class. In 1921 Mark tells us this class was “emerging”, yet if they were in a position to use the state apparatus to launch something as serious as an invasion one would have thought that they must have done a little more than merely “emerge”. No doubt, at some point, we will find out that, in fact, every act, perpetrated by the Bolsheviks after the February Revolution, that does not coincide with a picture of the Bolsheviks as a body of pure, good, wholesome individuals committed to the ideals of socialism and democracy, was in fact not really perpetrated by the Bolsheviks at all, but by this “emerging” new ruling class.

But what of this emerging new ruling class. Apparently, in just 3 short years from the time of the revolution at the end of 1917 it had already “emerged” sufficiently by 1921 to be able to use the state apparatus to launch a war over the heads of Lenin as Head of State and Trotsky as head of the Red Army, two of the greatest revolutionary tacticians of the twentieth century. In fact, not just over their heads, but also over the heads of the rest of the Bolshevik party, a party which in Leninist mythology was the most revolutionary, most ideologically pure, most disciplined revolutionary organisation the world has ever seen. That is one hell of a feat for a class that just 3 short years before did not even exist.

The bourgeoisie was four hundred years in the making as a class. Despite all of its advantages as a class with wealth, access to education etc. it still took the bourgeoisie those four hundred years to reach the stage where it was powerful enough, socially cohesive enough, and ideologically sound enough to transform itself from being a subservient class to a ruling class. The working class has been more than two hundred years in the making, is brought together in huge collectives, and for the last 150 years has been armed by the most powerful scientific tool any class in history has possessed. Yet it has not been able to obtain political power for itself. But this new ruling class that emerged from out of the ether was able in three short years to accomplish what every other ruling class in history has taken centuries to achieve!!!

Marxists would normally look at that and conclude that this new class must be truly remarkable. It must be one of the most dynamic, most cohesive, most ideologically clear, most socially stable classes the world has ever seen to achieve such a feat. But apparently not.

Dynamic? Certainly not. Cohesive? No, not that either. On the contrary on any analysis of it that makes any sense from the limited description of who this class is given by its proponents it was riven with conflicts of interest, and rivalries, and during Stalin’s time, its members continually looking over their shoulder to see if they were about to be sent off to the Gulag. Ideologically clear? No it continually swung from one position to another, following one hare brained scheme after another. Socially stable then? Well no. Where every other ruling class in history has reproduced itself by transferring ownership of the means of production to its children this class did not own any means of production to pass on. It did not even pass on its “control”, such as it was, to its children. Instead unlike every other ruling class in history every generation of this class had to be recruited, and it turns out, in the main recruited from the lowest ranks of society, from the lowest of the class it exploited.

See:

Who Were The Soviet Ruling Class

In fact, this class is so unlike anything ever seen before in history, so much incompatible with Marx’s theory of how classes are formed and reproduce themselves that we can only conclude that the appearance of this class thoroughly undermines Marx’s theory of class, and with it his theory of history. The appearance of this new class turns out to show that Marx was wrong all along, and the bourgeois sociologists were right. Class, it turns out, is nothing to do with relationship to the means of production, but is, as the bourgeois sociologists argue, purely a subjective thing dependent upon, status, income and educational background.

There is no need to own means of production or to be able to pass on such ownership or even control, the criteria for this new ruling class is merely that you are well educated, and get a well paid, high status job.

So, it turns out that Marx was wrong and the bourgeois theorists were right. We are left with a socialism, then, which can no longer be grounded on a scientific view of history, but merely a moral objection to the vicissitudes of capitalism or Stalinism. Perhaps, that’s why many of those that discovered this new class have become such advocates of the progressive nature of bourgeois democracy, or indeed of capitalism itself. Perhaps, it’s the reason why, with such a Fabian approach, we find the proposed solution to the problems of the NHS and Welfare State, the distributive socialist answer of “Tax the Rich”, which turns out to be not a demand to tax the profits of the capitalist companies, but a demand for an increase in income tax, including on better paid sections of the working class, and on the middle class. In relation to the NHS, we find no criticism of its bureaucratic, inefficient, state capitalist nature, but uncritical demands to defend it as it is, rather than a Marxist approach of demanding that it be brought under workers and patients control prior to being brought under local direct workers ownership and control, alongside a demand that the pharmaceutical and other companies that bleed it dry also be brought under workers control as a necessary prelude to them being brought under workers direct ownership.

On the other hand perhaps Marx was right. Perhaps, instead the idea that this was a new class is really just a fairy tale told to assuage the fears and sensibilities of those that cannot come to terms with the idea that a workers state can come into existence that does not meet all of the dreams and wishes for perfection, that in real history the heroes do not always wear white hats, and baddies black ones. The fact is that a democratic workers state need not necessarily meet all of our ideals and aspirations as socialists. The two things – Workers State and Socialism – are not the same thing. There is in practice no reason why a democratic workers state need not be home to all kinds of reactionary ideas. There is no reason why workers in such a state need not for instance continue to hold say anti-semitic or other xenophobic attitudes towards small minorities in its midst. It is less likely that similar attitudes to women could prevail given that women make up 50% of the population, but it is not inconceivable that sexism would continue, and possibly in a virulent form. Similarly, there is absolutely no reason why a democratic workers state would not seize on the opportunity to invade some smaller and/or weaker neighbour, say to access valuable resources if workers in this state thought it would be to their advantage. The only reason that Leninists consider that workers state equals socialism, that none of the above would be compatible with a democratic workers state is because they cannot conceive of a workers state, where in fact it is not they as opposed to the real working class which is in control. Whatever the repetition of mantras about seeing socialism only coming about from the bottom up, Leninists continue in reality to view it as something only they can deliver through some form of repetition of 1917, with them controlling the state. Fairy tales are fine in the right context, but for Marxists telling the truth is the first priority, even when that truth is very unpalatable.

Arthur Bough

In this letter of Trotsky to Max Schactman of November 6th 1939, Trotsky addresses some important issues in relation to the defence of workers states. In addition he deals with his attitude to the invasion of Poland and Georgia. Trotsky position was clear. The USSR was a workers state defined by the property relations that had been established. The dominant social class was the working class following the liquidation of the bourgeoisie, and landlord classes. The working class did not hold political power, but there was nothing new in history in that. Political power was held by a Bonapartist dictatorship that leached off the working class, was ultimately tied to it, and depended for its existence on the economic and social relations that had been established.

One of Trotsky’s main criticisms of the Opposition in the US SWP led by Burnham and Schactman was that in order to understand the contradictory nature of the Stalinist bureaucracy it was necessary to understand and apply the Marxist method. Trotsky refers to this as dialectical materialism, an unfortunate phrase never used by Marx or Engels. But the essence of his criticism is valid. That method based both upon the historical materialist method of searching out the objective material bases of social phenomena combined with the dialectical method of understanding how these objective material conditions form a process was fundamental to understanding the contradictory nature of the Stalinist bureaucracy – progressive vis a vis its necessary defence of the existing property relations, reactionary vis a vis the world revolution. Burnham who was the leading theoretician of the Opposition rejected Dialectics outright. Schactman did not reject dialectics, but did not see that such a rejection was important, that you did not need the Marxist method in order to arrive at the correct solution to practical problems, that it was sufficient to rely upon “common sense”. But as Trotsky points out such a reliance necessarily leads to a superficial, subjective perspective. It leads to the adoption of phrases that are bereft of class content such as “democracy”. Moreover, it leads away from Marxism. Trotsky was proved correct. Burnham wrote a letter soon after he left the SWP rejecting Marxism, and became an extreme right-wing advocate against Marxism and socialism. The work he developed arguing for the idea of Bureuacratic Collectivism was codified in his book “The Managerial Revolution” arguing that all societies were merging on the same path of Bureuacratic Collectivism because the working class was incapable of transforming society, only the bureaucrats and technocrats were able to do so. Schactman himself moved increasingly to the right supporting the US in Vietnam. As Trotsky had pointed out some years earlier the natural course of events for those “snobs” that turned their backs on defence of the USSR was to provide cover for imperialism.

Using his analysis and rejecting all moralism, Trotsky argued that if the Stalinists transformed property relations in those countries they occupied at the outbreak of the war then such an act would be reactionary vis a vis the transformation of those property relations by a revolutionary working class. It would further strengthen the idea that world revolution could be accomplished bureaucratically by the diplomatic manoeuvres of the bureaucracy, and would thereby weaken the idea of world revolution based upon independent working class action. However, he also argued that if such a transformation were to occur Marxists should not throw their hands in the air and reject defence of those property relations. The transformation itself would be progressive, the means of the transformation reactionary. Only a pedant, utopian or idealist i.e. some species of petit-bourgeois socialist would throw the baby out with the bath water and argue, “this transformation didn’t occur in accordance with our preconceived schema so we won’t defend it!” Yet there are many that claim to be Marxists that adopt precisely that moralistic approach in relation to the workers states. Amazingly, the same people adopt a diametrically opposite approach when it comes to defending such nationalised property forms where they have been transformed by bourgeois governments e.g. defence of the NHS.

In the process of this refutation of Schactman’s ideas Trostsky explains why he believed that the invasion of Poland and Georgia by a healthy workers state was progressive, whilst the invasion of states by the sick Stalinist state was not. It was all a matter of dialectics. But given the original thread here it is interesting to note Trotsky’s position in relation to Georgia. No mention in his answer that it was all down to the evil “emerging” bureaucratic collectivist” class.

“You quote the march of the Red Army in 1920 into Poland and into Georgia and you continue: “Now, if there is nothing new in the situation, why does not the majority propose to hail the advance of the Red Army into Poland, into the Baltic countries, into Finland (Page 20.) In this decisive part of your speech you establish that something is “new in the situation” between 1920 and 1939. Of course! This newness in the situation is the bankruptcy of the Third International, the degeneracy of the Soviet state, the development of the Left Opposition, and the creation of the Fourth International.

You insist especially on the necessity of abandoning the slogan for the unconditional defense of the USSR, whereupon you interpret this slogan in the past as our unconditional support of every diplomatic and military action of the Kremlin; i.e., of Stalin’s policy. No, my dear Shachtman, this presentation doesn’t correspond to the “concreteness of events.” Already in 1927 we proclaimed in the Central Committee: “For the socialist fatherland? Yes! For the Stalinist course? No!” (The Stalin School of Falsification, p. 177.) Then you seem to forget the so-called “thesis on Clemenceau” which signified that in the interests of the genuine defense of the USSR, the proletarian vanguard can be obliged to eliminate the Stalin government and replace it with its own. This was proclaimed in 1927! Five years later we explained to the workers that this change of government can be effectuated only by political revolution. Thus we separated fundamentally our defense of the USSR as a workers’ state from the bureaucracy’s defense of the USSR. Whereupon you interpret our past policy as unconditional support of the diplomatic and military activities of Stalin! Permit me to say that this is a horrible deformation of our whole position not only since the creation of the Fourth International but since the very beginning of the Left Opposition.”

Arthur Bough

In this article Trotsky once more sets out his attitude to the invasion of Georgia.

“Georgia and Finland

Along with the striking similarity between these two instances of military intervention there is, however, a profound difference—the present USSR is far from being the Soviet Republic of 1921. The 1934 theses of the Fourth International on war declare: “The monstrous development of Soviet bureaucratism and the wretched living conditions of the toilers have extremely reduced the attractive power of the USSR for the world working class.” The Soviet-Finnish War revealed graphically and completely that within gunshot of Leningrad, the cradle of the October Revolution, the present regime of the USSR is incapable of exercising an attractive force. Yet it does not follow from this that the USSR must be surrendered to the imperialists but only that the USSR must be torn Out of the hands of the bureaucracy.

The problem as Trotsky sets out in his other writings against the petit-bourgeois moralists of the Schactman variety is that Marxism and the demands of revolutionary practice frequently mean that Marxists are required to act in ways that offend against the morals of the petit-bourgeois. Where the petit-bourgeois recognises that, and decides openly that they belong in that pre-Marxian camp of moral-socialists, and not in the Marxist camp that is fine they release themselves to at least argue their position honestly. The problem for those that attempt to square the circle of their collapse into moralistic socialism, whilst trying to pretend that they remain good Marxists, let alone Leninists, is that their morals keep coming into contradiction with actual revolutionary practice. The only way to square the circle is to deny reality, or to put down this or that act as being an aberration or really the act of the “emerging”, “bad”, new ruling class rather than the “good” Leninists.

As with the approach to questions such as “democracy” or “rights” what is lacking, and what must be lacking for socialists that base themselves on superficial appearance, subjectivity and morals is the Marxist focus on class. So the distinction between bourgeois democracy and workers democracy, between bourgeois rights and socialist rights is at best blurred, and at worst extinguished leaving them as cheerleaders for bourgeois ideas, or adopting the reformist outlook that rights only achievable under socialism can somehow become rights under capitalism.

Balance Sheet of the Finnish Events

See also.

Marxists and Bourgeois democracy and Rights

Arthur Bough