Marx and peaceful revolution
- This topic has 19 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Something to add to our customary citations that i have not read before…(related to the pro-slavery rebellion quote Engels uses)
62. The following passage from 1878, which emphasizes that such a transition may not stay peaceful, is a good example of Marx mentioning the winning of a parliamentary majority:
Quote:“An historical development can remain ‘peaceful’ only so long as no forcible hindrances are put in its way by the existing rulers of a society. If, for example, in England or the United States, the working class were to win a majority in Parliament or Congress, it could legally put an end to laws and institutions standing in the way of its development, although even here only so far as societal development permitted. For the ‘peaceful’ movement could still be turned into a ‘violent’ one by the revolt of those whose interests were bound up with the old order. If such people were then put down by force (as in the American Civil War and the French Revolution), it would be rebels against the ‘lawful’ power.”Notice that the role of the parliamentary majority is not to legislate socialism into existence, but to help clear away obstacles for the working class movement as a whole.
The text in which those lines appear is apparently not available in English, and Richard N. Hunt is citing the German (Werke, 34:498-99). He describes the text as notes for an intended article on Bismarck's outlawing of the German Social Democratic Party.
It seems it is available online, if you read German: http://www.dearchiv.de/php/dok.php?archiv=mew&brett=MEW034&fn=487-500.34&menu=mewinh
https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state
Perhaps someone with knowledge of German can confirm the translation and source.
The main article is also related to the other thread on anarchism and an interesting account of Marx and the State
Pity we hadn't come across this expression of Marx's view before the World Socialist Party (India) published this 100-page pamphlet which, besides being what it says on the cover, brings together most of the other quotes from Marx and Engels on the subject..Copies arrived from India last week. Can be ordered for £4 (including packaging) from: The Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN. Cheques should be made out to "The Socialist Party of Great Britain". You can also pay by Paypal (the address is the same as our email address).
I have had a look at the German, a PDF of which can be found at http://ciml.250x.com/sections/german_section/sozialdemokratie/bebel/bebel_reichstagsrede_zum_sozialistengesetz_1878.pdfMarx is commenting on a speech by Count Eulenburg, Minister of the Interior, in the Reichstag. The text is very confusing, as it's at times hard to distinguish quotation from commentary, and I didn't have much time to spend on this.However, the translation is accurate, though the statement in question is part of a much wider discussion. That said, there is no doubt that it raises the possibility of the working class winning a parliamentary majority.AlexanderP.S: The German reads"Friedlich" kann eine historische Entwicklung nur so lange bleiben, als ihr keine gewaltsamen Hindernisse seitens der jedesmaligen gesellschaftlichen Machthaber in den Weg treten. Gewinnt z.B. in England oder in [den] Vereinigten Staaten die Arbeiterklasse die Majorität im Parlament oder Kongreß, so könnte sie auf gesetzlichem Weg die ihrer Entwicklung im Weg stehenden Gesetze und Einrichtungen beseitigen, und zwar auch nur, soweit die gesellschaftliche Entwicklung dies erfordre. Dennoch könnte die "friedliche" Bewegung in eine "gewaltsame" umschlagen durch Auflehnung der im alten Zustand Interessierten; werden sie (wie der Amerikanische Bürgerkrieg und [die] Französische Revolution) durch Gewalt niedergeschlagen, so als Rebellen gegen die "gesetzliche" Gewalt. (empasis added)
i There is also this material? The International Workingmen's Association, 1871Political action and the working classSpeech by Marx the London Conference of the International, September, 1871 These are notes taken (in French) from two speeches Marx made at the London Conference; Protocols of the Sessions of September 20, 21, 1871. In virtually all countries, certain members of the International, invoking the mutilated conception of the Statutes adopted at the Geneva Congress, have made propaganda in favor of abstention from politics; and the governments have been quite careful not to impede this restraint. In Germany, Schweitzer and others in the pay of Bismarck even attempted to harness the cart to government policy. In France, this criminal abstention allowed Favre, Picard, and others, to seize power on September 4; this abstention made it possible, on March 18, to set up a dictatorial committee composed largely of Bonapartists and intrigants, who, in the first days, lost the Revolution by inactivity, days which they should have devoted to strengthening the Revolution. In America, a recently held workers' congress [National Labor Union, August 7-10, 1871, Baltimore] resolved to occupy itself with political questions and to replace professional politicians with workers like themselves, who were authorized to defend the interests of their class. In England, it is not so easy for a worker to get to Parliament. Since members of Parliament do not receive any compensation, and the worker has to work to support himself, Parliament becomes unattainable for him, and the bourgeoisie knows very well that its stubborn refusal to allow salaries for members of Parliament is a means of preventing the working class from being represented in it. One should never believe that it is of small significance to have workers in Parliament. If one stifles their voices, as in the case of De Potter and Castian, or if one ejects them, as in the case of Manuel — the reprisals and oppressions exercise a deep effect on the people. If, on the other hand, they can speak from the parliamentary tribune, as do Bebel and Liebknecht, the whole world listens to them. In the one case or the other, great publicity is provided for our principles. To give but one examples: when during the [Franco-Prussian] war, which was fought in France, Bebel and Liebknecht undertook to point out the responsibility of the working class in the face of those events, all of Germany was shaken; and even in Munich, the city where revolutions take place only over the price of beet, great demonstrations took place demanding an end to the war. The governments are hostile to us, one must respond to them with all the means at out disposal. To get workers into Parliament is synonymous with a victory over the governments, but one must choose the right men, not Tolains. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-speech.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1878/03/03.htm Karl MarxThe Class Struggles In FranceIntroduction by Frederick Engels And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in the number of votes it increased in equal measure the workers' certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us concerning our own strength and that of all hostile parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion for our actions second to none, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness—if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, then it would still have been more than enough. But it has done much more than this. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm there is other material
alanjjohnstone wrote:https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state.The main article is also related to the other thread on anarchism and an interesting account of Marx and the State.This article is more than interesting. It's a vindication of our interpretation as set out in our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament?, e.g. when the auhor David Adam says
Quote:Some critics may look at a focus on the Paris Commune as bound to make Marx and Engels look very hostile to the bourgeois state, when in fact their politics were much more ambiguous. Did they not advocate participation in bourgeois elections, and the election of workers’ candidates into parliament? In fact, in certain countries, they even thought that a working class parliamentary majority could be used for a peaceful transition to socialism. For many anarchists, this is the defining aspect of Marx’s political thought, and his supposed authoritarianism is considered proven on this evidence. Leaving aside the question of the relative value of electoral politics, it is worth asking whether there is necessarily any contradiction in advocating the use of bourgeois parliaments while hoping for their eventual replacement by Communal-type organization, in other words whether one can insist on the fullest possible democratization while participating in governmental forms that are less than ideal. The anarchist assumption, of course, is that participation in bourgeois governmental forms can only help sustain such institutions. But the error comes when it is assumed that since Marx advocated such participation, he also believed in keeping the governmental forms of the bourgeois state for the period of proletarian rule.Of course today the "period of proletaran rule", i.e the use of the state by the socialist-minded, democratically-organised workng class majority to abolish class society by dispossesing the capitalist class, could be passed through fairly rapidly. But of course it has to exist for however short a period as that's what political action to establsh socialism involves.
ALB wrote:alanjjohnstone wrote:https://libcom.org/library/karl-marx-state.The main article is also related to the other thread on anarchism and an interesting account of Marx and the State.This article is more than interesting. It's a vindication of our interpretation as set out in our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament?, e.g. when the auhor David Adam says
Quote:Some critics may look at a focus on the Paris Commune as bound to make Marx and Engels look very hostile to the bourgeois state, when in fact their politics were much more ambiguous. Did they not advocate participation in bourgeois elections, and the election of workers’ candidates into parliament? In fact, in certain countries, they even thought that a working class parliamentary majority could be used for a peaceful transition to socialism. For many anarchists, this is the defining aspect of Marx’s political thought, and his supposed authoritarianism is considered proven on this evidence. Leaving aside the question of the relative value of electoral politics, it is worth asking whether there is necessarily any contradiction in advocating the use of bourgeois parliaments while hoping for their eventual replacement by Communal-type organization, in other words whether one can insist on the fullest possible democratization while participating in governmental forms that are less than ideal. The anarchist assumption, of course, is that participation in bourgeois governmental forms can only help sustain such institutions. But the error comes when it is assumed that since Marx advocated such participation, he also believed in keeping the governmental forms of the bourgeois state for the period of proletarian rule.Of course today the "period of proletaran rule", i.e the use of the state by the socialist-minded, democratically-organised workng class majority to abolish class society by dispossesing the capitalist class, could be passed through fairly rapidly. But of course it has to exist for however short a period as that's what political action to establsh socialism involves.
If parliament didn't have any use or power, then why would capital spend so much money ensuring that its lackeys are elected to parliaments and national assemblies the world over. Capitalisits don't generally spend money of they don't have to!
And Engels, from very early on:
Elberfeld wrote:People ask how this theory is to be translated into reality, what measures we propose to prepare its introduction.[…]Both these measures require money. In order to raise it and at the same time replace all the present, unjustly distributed taxes, the present reform plan proposes a general, progressive tax on capital, at a rate increasing with the size of the capital. In this way, the burden of public administration would be shared by everyone according to his ability and would no longer fall mainly on the shoulders of those least able to bear it, as has hitherto been the case in all countries. For the principle of taxation is, after all, a purely communist one, since the right to levy taxes is derived in all countries from so-called national property. For either private property is sacrosanct, in which case there is no such thing as national property and the state has no right to levy taxes, or the state has this right, in which case private property is not sacrosanct, national property stands above private property, and the state is the true owner. This latter principle is the one generally accepted — well then, gentlemen; for the present we demand only that this principle be taken seriously, that the state proclaim itself the common owner and, as such, administer public property for the public good, and that as the first step, it introduce a system of taxation based solely on each individual’s ability to pay taxes and on the real public good.So you see, gentlemen, that it is not intended to introduce common ownership [G�tergemeinschaft] overnight and against the will of the nation, but that it is only a matter of establishing the aim and the ways and means of advancing towards it. But that the communist principle will be that of the future is attested by the course of development of all civilised nations, it is attested by the swiftly advancing dissolution of all hitherto existing social institutions; it is attested by common sense and, above all, by the human heart.And:
Elberfeld wrote:If, gentlemen, these conclusions are correct, if the social revolution and practical communism are the necessary result of our existing conditions — then we will have to concern ourselves above all with the measures by which we can avoid a violent and bloody overthrow of the social conditions. And there is only one means, namely, the peaceful introduction or at least preparation of communism. If we do not want the bloody solution of the social problem, if we do not want to permit the daily growing contradiction between the education and the condition of our proletarians to come to a head, which, according to all our experience of human nature, will mean that this contradiction will be solved by brute force, desperation and thirst for revenge, then, gentlemen, we must apply ourselves seriously and without prejudice to the social problem; then we must make it our business to contribute our share towards humanising the condition of the modern helots. And if it should perhaps appear to some of you that the raising of the hitherto abased classes will not be possible without an abasement of your own condition, then you ought to bear in mind that what is involved is to create for all people such a condition that everyone can freely develop his human nature and live in a human relationship with his neighbours, and has no need to fear any violent shattering of his condition; it must be borne in mind that what some individuals have to sacrifice is not their real human enjoyment of life, but only the semblance of this enjoyment produced by our bad conditions, something which conflicts with the reason and the heart of those who now enjoy these apparent advantages. Far from wishing to destroy real human life with all its requirements and needs, we wish on the contrary really to bring it into being. And if, even apart from this, you will only seriously consider for a moment what the consequences of our present situation are bound to be, into what labyrinths of contradictions and disorders it is leading us — then, gentlemen, you will certainly find it worth the trouble to study the social question seriously and thoroughly. And if I can induce you to do this, I shall have achieved the purpose of my talk.http://www.connexions.org/CxArchive/MIA/marx/works/1845/02/15.htm
ALB wrote:Of course today the "period of proletaran rule", i.e the use of the state by the socialist-minded, democratically-organised workng class majority to abolish class society by dispossesing the capitalist class, could be passed through fairly rapidly. But of course it has to exist for however short a period as that's what political action to establsh socialism involves.Y'see, that's what worries me about the SPGB and the use of Parliament. You're actually admitting here, quite reasonably, that there will be a "Transitional Period". What prevents this from becoming prolonged indefinitely? Perhaps the 'economic circumstances' aren't 'right for socialism'? Will they ever be until we have Star Trek type replicators (ie. never)? What about that 49.9 reoccuring % who didn't "vote for socialism"? Not just the capitalists but their whole brain dead crew. Are they just going to disperse quietly and return to their homes? And more to the point, what about the 50%+1? Are they really going to be fit to take over running their lives? With all the emphais on the electoral won't they still be, as Lenin said, "people as they are now, people who cannot dispense with subordination and control, and foremen and accountants"?
Bijou Drains wrote:If Parliament didn't have any use or power, then why would capital spend so much money ensuring that its lackeys are elected to parliaments and national assemblies the world over. Capitalisits don't generally spend money of they don't have to!Legitimation. Persuades people they actually have a voice in running things. Less fuss if the slaves think they're free. The faith in 'actually existing democracy' is a really massive impediment to achieving socialism.
KAZ wrote:Y'see, that's what worries me about the SPGB and the use of Parliament. You're actually admitting here, quite reasonably, that there will be a "Transitional Period". What prevents this from becoming prolonged indefinitely? Perhaps the 'economic circumstances' aren't 'right for socialism'? Will they ever be until we have Star Trek type replicators (ie. never)? What about that 49.9 reoccuring % who didn't "vote for socialism"? Not just the capitalists but their whole brain dead crew. Are they just going to disperse quietly and return to their homes? And more to the point, what about the 50%+1? Are they really going to be fit to take over running their lives? With all the emphais on the electoral won't they still be, as Lenin said, "people as they are now, people who cannot dispense with subordination and control, and foremen and accountants"?Were you ever in the SPGB?
KAZ wrote:ALB wrote:Of course today the "period of proletaran rule", i.e the use of the state by the socialist-minded, democratically-organised workng class majority to abolish class society by dispossesing the capitalist class, could be passed through fairly rapidly. But of course it has to exist for however short a period as that's what political action to establsh socialism involves.Y'see, that's what worries me about the SPGB and the use of Parliament. You're actually admitting here, quite reasonably, that there will be a "Transitional Period". What prevents this from becoming prolonged indefinitely? Perhaps the 'economic circumstances' aren't 'right for socialism'? Will they ever be until we have Star Trek type replicators (ie. never)? What about that 49.9 reoccuring % who didn't "vote for socialism"? Not just the capitalists but their whole brain dead crew. Are they just going to disperse quietly and return to their homes? And more to the point, what about the 50%+1? Are they really going to be fit to take over running their lives? With all the emphais on the electoral won't they still be, as Lenin said, "people as they are now, people who cannot dispense with subordination and control, and foremen and accountants"?
I think you have to look at this from the perspective of a dynamic process. By the time you have 51 percent unambiguosly supporting socialism, the bulk of the remaining 49 percent are not likely to be that far off from a socialist standpoint. The growth of a socialist movement, if it happens, is likely to have a profoundly selective influence on the opposition to socialism itself, dragging it in the direction of socialism and altering the entire social climate in which socialist ideas are being put and in a way that would make people much more receptive to these ideas. Even opponents. I think the so called problem of the "recalcitrant minority" is greatly overstated. Relax. By the time the writing is on the wall for capitalism it will be far too late for any of these folk to do much about it. The great majority of them will see sense in my view and simply go along with the change
KAZ wrote:Bijou Drains wrote:If Parliament didn't have any use or power, then why would capital spend so much money ensuring that its lackeys are elected to parliaments and national assemblies the world over. Capitalisits don't generally spend money of they don't have to!Legitimation. Persuades people they actually have a voice in running things. Less fuss if the slaves think they're free. The faith in 'actually existing democracy' is a really massive impediment to achieving socialism.
Your very answer implies that legitimacy matters, if it isn't apparent then its absence will be used against any social movement that seeks to create change. The fact that the slaves think they're free also implies that the slaves have a view of what freedom might look like. The job of socialists is to expand and develop that vista, not to crush it.
robbo203 wrote:KAZ wrote:ALB wrote:Of course today the "period of proletaran rule", i.e the use of the state by the socialist-minded, democratically-organised workng class majority to abolish class society by dispossesing the capitalist class, could be passed through fairly rapidly. But of course it has to exist for however short a period as that's what political action to establsh socialism involves.Y'see, that's what worries me about the SPGB and the use of Parliament. You're actually admitting here, quite reasonably, that there will be a "Transitional Period". What prevents this from becoming prolonged indefinitely? Perhaps the 'economic circumstances' aren't 'right for socialism'? Will they ever be until we have Star Trek type replicators (ie. never)? What about that 49.9 reoccuring % who didn't "vote for socialism"? Not just the capitalists but their whole brain dead crew. Are they just going to disperse quietly and return to their homes? And more to the point, what about the 50%+1? Are they really going to be fit to take over running their lives? With all the emphais on the electoral won't they still be, as Lenin said, "people as they are now, people who cannot dispense with subordination and control, and foremen and accountants"?
I think you have to look at this from the perspective of a dynamic process. By the time you have 51 percent unambiguosly supporting socialism, the bulk of the remaining 49 percent are not likely to be that far off from a socialist standpoint. The growth of a socialist movement, if it happens, is likely to have a profoundly selective influence on the opposition to socialism itself, dragging it in the direction of socialism and altering the entire social climate in which socialist ideas are being put and in a way that would make people much more receptive to these ideas. Even opponents. I think the so-called problem of the "recalcitrant minority" is greatly overstated. Relax. By the time the writing is on the wall for capitalism it will be far too late for any of these folk to do much about it. The great majority of them will see sense in my view and simply go along with the change
At the present time, there is a so-called recalcitrant minority that is supporting fascism and extreme nationalism and the majority of the workers is not supporting those views.
robbo203 wrote:By the time you have 51 percent unambiguosly supporting socialism, the bulk of the remaining 49 percent are not likely to be that far off from a socialist standpoint. The growth of a socialist movement, if it happens, is likely to have a profoundly selective influence on the opposition to socialism itself, dragging it in the direction of socialism and altering the entire social climate in which socialist ideas are being put and in a way that would make people much more receptive to these ideas.But we won't get even get to those 51% if those socialists who are elected to an assembly aren't prepared to vote for or support anything other than socialism. Presumably they will have to be seen do something in the interest of the working class, even in the run up to socialists gaining a majority. This is of course where our party's programme is non-existent. We have nothing to offer but full blown socialism.
AHS wrote:robbo203 wrote:By the time you have 51 percent unambiguosly supporting socialism, the bulk of the remaining 49 percent are not likely to be that far off from a socialist standpoint. The growth of a socialist movement, if it happens, is likely to have a profoundly selective influence on the opposition to socialism itself, dragging it in the direction of socialism and altering the entire social climate in which socialist ideas are being put and in a way that would make people much more receptive to these ideas.But we won't get even get to those 51% if those socialists who are elected to an assembly aren't prepared to vote for or support anything other than socialism. Presumably they will have to be seen do something in the interest of the working class, even in the run up to socialists gaining a majority. This is of course where our party's programme is non-existent. We have nothing to offer but full blown socialism.
This is not the case at all, I don't want to rehash the UB of Upton Park dispute, however here is a link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Propaganda_League
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.