Karl Marx in London: Owen Jones on Marxism

[Anonymous]

[ALB]

Personally I don't like the phrase "the parliamentary road to socialism" (although we have occasionally used it). I prefer "the political road to socialism" which will involve using elections and parliament. We have in fact never been committed to a purely political road but have always held that the working class need to be organised outside parliament too, to control any elected MPs and councillors but also at work to take over production and kee it going. As we say in our latest statement of this case, our pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament?:

Quote:

The socialist political party (of which we are just a potential embryo) will not be something separate from the socialist majority. It will be the socialist majority self-organised politically, an instrument they have formed to use to achieve a socialist society. The structure of the future mass socialist party will have to reflect – to prefigure – the democratic nature of the society it is seeking to establish. It must be democratic, without leaders, with major decisions made by conferences of mandated and recallable delegates or by referendum, and other decisions made by accountable individuals and committees. It won’t have a leadership with the power to make decisions and tell the general membership what to do. In other words, it will be quite different both from the parties of professional politicians that stand for election today and from the vanguard parties of the Leninists. This is not to say that the socialist majority only needs to organise itself politically. It does need to organise politically so as to be able to win control of political power. But it also needs to organise economically to take over and keep production going immediately after the winning of political control. We can’t anticipate how such socialist workplace organisations will emerge, whether from the reform of the existing trade unions, from breakaways from them or from the formation of completely new organisations. All we can say now is that such workplace organisations will arise and that they too, like the socialist political party, will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders. With the spread of socialist ideas all organisations will change and take on a participatory democratic and socialist character, so that the majority’s organisation for socialism will not be just political and economic, but will also embrace schools and universities, television, film-making, plays and the like as well as inter-personal relationships. We’re talking about a radical social revolution involving all aspects of social life.

I suppose you could, at a pinch, call these socialist-minded workers' organisations "workers councils" but we haven't because of the term's association with the "soviets" that emerged during the Russian anti-tsarist revolution and which have idealised, not to say idolised.The armed forces are part of the state and whoever controls the state will control them. This will apply to a socialist=controlled parliament, so why should the question arise of handing over control to some other body. Presumably you are thinking of some central council of "workers' councils", but would be the point of setting up such a parallel organisation? Other means will exist of controlling socialist MPs (as set out in the extract above from our pamphlet) who, I repeat, won't be separate from control by socialists outside parliament than would the delegates to any central workers council. And it wouldn't be an "SPGB dominated parliament" but a socialist-minded working class dominated parliament.In a sense this is speculation, but the important factor before socialism can be established is to have a democratically-organised majority in favour of it using democratic methods. In the political conditions that exist today one of the means that can be (and we say should be) used is elections and parliament.Here's an article from a back issue of the Socialist Standard on "Workers' Councils":http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1971/no-808-december-1971/workers-councilsSee also this article from 1937 and its concluding paragraph:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1930s/1937/no-399-november-1937/socialist-party-and-economic-organisation

[alanjjohnstone]

LBird i think you are expecting too much of the SPGB “to fill in the blanks” by speculating about the future and circumstances we actually have no idea that may exist. We have formulated our objectives on the conditions that prevail today and have clearly said what we believe the situation is “That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.”  We then elaborated a fuller explanation saying “It would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in … Unless workers organize consciously and politically and take control over the state machinery, including its armed forces, the state will be ensured a bloody victory.” From our Aims and Declaration web-page http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/our-object-and-declaration-principles  Today it is the State that maintains effective control over arms. Workers Councils do not presently exist, nor is there a guarantee that they will indeed be the organs of working class rule although many think it is likely yet others will argue that workers councils would be sectional while neighbourhood  assemblies would be more communal and inclusive so it is possible that power-sharing will be at least three-way. Literally speaking those who will actually control the arms are the ones who will be called upon to use them – and again it is mere hypothesising about how soldiers councils will be organised and the relationship with the wider population. Whether the SPGB have a “twintrack strategy”of being elected to both parliament and any emerging Workers’ Councils  come back to us when that is an option. I am sure it will be getting debated and discussed at the time as it grows into a genuine possibility. Standing for parliamnetary elections right now concerns us more than future elections to a phantom structure.  I’m  always surprised as some criticisms of the SPGB when we are often accused of not basing our policy on real existing social realities and when we do, we are damned for not proposing alternatives that are just conjecture about the future. You also know enough about our case to understand that the Socialist Party has no intention of attempting to raise itself up new saviors or imposing a few intellectuals upon the workers or our organisation as leaders. If the working class choose one means over another and it remains democratic so be it – we will be there, involved and participating. In the words of the immortal Doris Day and the Scottish national team’s Tartan Army, “Whatever shall be,  shall be”

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Personally I don't like the phrase "the parliamentary road to socialism" (although we have occasionally used it). I prefer "the political road to socialism" which will involve using elections and parliament. We have in fact never been committed to a purely political road but have always held that the working class need to be organised outside parliament too, to control any elected MPs and councillors but also at work to take over production and kee it going.

But ‘using elections and parliament’ is ‘the parliamentary road’; the ‘political road’ is an as yet undefined ‘road’, because ‘political’ just means ‘power’. Clearly, the road to power is always a political road, ipso facto.My understanding of the content of ‘political’ in proletarian terms is ‘Workers’ Councils’, the self-organisation of the working class, rather than ‘parliamentary’ which to me means a bourgeois-organisational method.Given that assumption of mine, I’m happy with a twin-track approach of employing parliament both to give us an indication and confirmation of our growing strength through the existing bourgeois electoral system, and to ‘legitimise’ our control of the state and armed forces in the eyes of the members of the state and armed forces, so that any waverers are drawn to obey our ‘legitimate’ parliamentary actions. But… the other ‘track’ is the question of ‘workers’ power’. As you say, that is “the working class … organised outside parliament … to control any elected MPs and councillors”. This, to me, means that power and legitimacy reside outside of parliament, which can only mean within the Workers’ Councils (or soviets, although I know why you avoid that term).

ALB wrote:

The armed forces are part of the state and whoever controls the state will control them. This will apply to a socialist=controlled parliament, so why should the question arise of handing over control to some other body.

Simply, because parliament isn’t a body for workers’ control. It’s at best a propaganda body and legitimising tool for the proletariat, in the eyes of the state employees.

ALB wrote:

Presumably you are thinking of some central council of "workers' councils", but would be the point of setting up such a parallel organisation?

Well, it won’t be a ‘parallel’ organisation, but ‘the’ organisation. Parliament will be a glove puppet to fool the state employees, and we should be open about this. It’s presently a glove puppet for the bourgeoisie, because that ‘puppetness’ is in its very nature. Parliament is structurally a class tool, not a neutral tool; our class tool is Workers’ Councils, which encompass economic, social, political and military control. We can’t have a situation of ‘dual power’, where an instrument built by the bourgeoisie for their purposes is allowed to remain sovereign. In my opinion, that would be playing with fire.

ALB wrote:

The armed forces are part of the state and whoever controls the state will control them.

Yes, Workers’ Councils, the democratic organs of the self-organised proletariat will control (and thus choose which bits to dismantle or temporarily preserve) the state and its armed forces. No ‘parallel’ parliament, just a body subordinate to Workers’ Councils.

ALB wrote:

And it wouldn't be an "SPGB dominated parliament" but a socialist-minded working class dominated parliament.

I take your point, here. I’m using SPGB as shorthand only. The real issue is ‘parliament’ and its structural relationship to socio-economics, not the ‘membership’, working class dominated or not.

ALB wrote:

In a sense this is speculation, but the important factor before socialism can be established is to have a democratically-organised majority in favour of it using democratic methods. In the political conditions that exist today one of the means that can be (and we say should be) used is elections and parliament.

See, I can agree with this statement, simply because it can be interpreted to agree with my views, both that ‘today’ (pre-revolution) it can be used, and that ‘socialism requires a democratically-organised majority’, but it omits ‘tomorrow’ (ie. post revolution) and so leaves open the very issue I’m asking about.That is, who will control the weapons?

Whats wrong with using parliament? wrote:

It will be the socialist majority self-organised politically, an instrument they have formed to use to achieve a socialist society. The structure of the future mass socialist party will have to reflect – to prefigure – the democratic nature of the society it is seeking to establish. It must be democratic, without leaders, with major decisions made by conferences of mandated and recallable delegates or by referendum, and other decisions made by accountable individuals and committees. It won’t have a leadership with the power to make decisions and tell the general membership what to do. In other words, it will be quite different both from the parties of professional politicians that stand for election today and from the vanguard parties of the Leninists.

“An instrument they have formed”? This must refer to Workers’ Councils, because workers haven’t ‘formed parliament’ or, as it says, ‘vanguard parties’.

Whats wrong with using parliament? wrote:

This is not to say that the socialist majority only needs to organise itself politically. It does need to organise politically so as to be able to win control of political power. But it also needs to organise economically to take over and keep production going immediately after the winning of political control. We can’t anticipate how such socialist workplace organisations will emerge, whether from the reform of the existing trade unions, from breakaways from them or from the formation of completely new organisations. All we can say now is that such workplace organisations will arise and that they too, like the socialist political party, will have to organise themselves on a democratic basis, with mandated delegates instead of leaders.

[my bold]Doesn’t this formulation presume the separation, still, of political and economic power? Isn’t this ‘separation of powers’ a bourgeois conception of power? Surely Workers’ Councils will embody the reunification of socio-economic and political power?Perhaps I’m misreading the words, or missing the real meaning, or making some assumptions that the SPGB doesn’t share, so I’m still open to explanation and clarification.But I would like an answer to my initial question, ‘who will control the arms?’. ‘Parliament dominated by the working class’, ‘SPGB’, ‘socialist political party’, ‘workplace organisations’, whatever.But, I must admit, I’m expecting the answer ‘Workers’ Councils’, the political expression of the self-organised proletariat employing democratic means (delegates, recall, mandates, etc.) to control all aspects of power.Including ‘weapons’.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Alan, the SPGB cannot determine the conditions at the time of the revolution when the workers decide they have had enough of capitalism. The party holds that socialism can only be established by a  majority of class conscious workers. They will decide at the time. We believe that in the face of an overwelming majority of the population demanding and voting for socialism it is simply unrealistic to believe that capitalists who have never done a days work in their livess will organise an armed reaction. Hence our reluctance to go into detail but here is the Party's latest Conference resolution on the matter.  'That as the State is an expression of and enforcer of class society, the capture of political power by the working class and the subsequent conversion of the means of living into common property will necessarily lead to the abolition of the state, as its function as the custodian of class rule will have ended. Those intrinsically useful functions of the state machine in capitalism will be retained by socialist society but re-organised and democratised to meet the needs of a society based on production for use' Workers organising production while armed is something that belongs to the days before Universal Sufferage. The later Karl Marx had already seen this , as has been shown elswhere.At this moment in time, how can we envisage arming workers for revolution when they wont even vote for it? 

[Dave]

Looks like the thread has become something else as it started off as a thread on Marx by Owen Jones. I must admit that I have always been irritated with left celebs as this is a mind set of those who wish to be led and not part of a self critical working class where there will be no celebs and will be replaced by an interrelationship between those who may have a certain level of knowledge and wish to facilitate the dissemination of the knowledge collectively.On the topic of workers council and parliament I agree that as marxists we work in the concrete and not in some abstract world which is dominated by the idea, in this case the idea of workers councils. At the moment the working class in the UK is relatively passive and there are no mass resistance to the austerity attacks. The left especially the Trotskyists have tried desperately to force activity through a variety of front organisations and all have failed. The lesson I think is that all we can do is work as socialists within the present structures and parliamentary and local elections are usefull to propagandise for socialism.As far as violence is concerned it all depends on how succesfull workers are in attracting the rank and file of the armed forces to the working class. A mass class conscious confident movement is needed one that knows it will expropiate the capitalist class. Without this mass then the capitalist class would use violence to stop such a develoment after all look at Chile in 1972 and Pinochet.Workers council does not automatically lead to a succesful reolution after all look at Germany in 1919 where workers councils existed and they were dominated by the SPD the German versionof the Labour Party.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird i think you are expecting too much of the SPGB “to fill in the blanks” by speculating about the future and circumstances we actually have no idea that may exist. We have formulated our objectives on the conditions that prevail today and have clearly said what we believe the situation is “That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.”

I don't think that i'm expecting anyone to outline the detailed structure of workers' militia, just to outline 'who' or 'what body' will have the political control of arms.As it stands, I can agree with your statement above, and define "the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local" to mean 'Workers' Councils'.All I'm asking is 'Is that assumption of mine a valid one, in the eyes of the SPGB?'.If not, I'm happy that you define it as 'Westminster and 'county halls', and then I'll know that I disagree with the SPGB.If you don't mind either structure, I'll still know I disagree.You might define to be something else, which hasn't been mentioned yet, and obviously I can't form an opinion on that, yet.

ajj wrote:

Workers Councils do not presently exist, nor is there a guarantee that they will indeed be the organs of working class rule although many think it is likely yet others will argue that workers councils would be sectional while neighbourhood assemblies would be more communal and inclusive so it is possible that power-sharing will be at least three-way.

Or Workers' Councils could be defined to encompass workplaces and neighbourhoods on a geographical basis; I agree that this is all very unclear.But 'three-way power sharing'? That seems a bit too woolly to my mind. There will have to be a pinnacle to a structure (a federation?) which has the final say on questions that relate to the proletariat on a world scale.I'd rather be open about political power and discuss it, rather than leave everything to 'assumptions' by individuals and groups. It's better we have disputes about 'authority' now, when the outcomes will be no more than bruised egos and changed minds.I suspect 'three way power sharing' will be settled by arms. I'd rather avoid that.

ajj wrote:

I’m always surprised as some criticisms of the SPGB when we are often accused of not basing our policy on real existing social realities and when we do, we are damned for not proposing alternatives that are just conjecture about the future.

Well, I'm not 'criticising' the SPGB (yet!), just asking questions, to try to locate your politics, and see if either they agree with my current ones, or if I can have my mind changed to come to an agreement with the SPGB. Who knows?

ajj wrote:

You also know enough about our case to understand that the Socialist Party has no intention of attempting to raise itself up new saviors or imposing a few intellectuals upon the workers or our organisation as leaders. If the working class choose one means over another and it remains democratic so be it – we will be there, involved and participating.

Again, this is acceptable to me, because, in effect, the answer to my question about arms is 'if they exist, Workers' Councils will control them'.If that's 'filling in a blank' unacceptably, I'd rather be told, now.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

At this moment in time, how can we envisage arming workers for revolution when they wont even vote for it?

This might be accidentally very revealing, Vin!From my perspective, I envisage 'workers arming themselves for revolution', rather than a separate 'we' providing permission!

[LBird]

Dave wrote:

Workers council does not automatically lead to a succesful reolution after all look at Germany in 1919 where workers councils existed and they were dominated by the SPD the German versionof the Labour Party.

I've used that very argument myself, Dave, in a debate with the ICC about the need for mass class consciousness prior to the revolution.

[Ed]

I think it's a very interesting question LBird. But I agree with others in saying that we can't formulate an idea now and make the as yet unknown evidence of the future fit that idea . There will of course be many unknown factors which we cannot take into consideration now, even in this hypothetical situation. The party should merely be a tool of the working class as a whole. If the class does not know what their interests are at that time then we are not ready for socialism and we end up in the same mess as the bolsheviks and mensheviks. So assuming that the working class does realize our own interests, the immediate task would be the dismantling of the state apparatus. That is essentially what a vote for the socialist party would mean. If we were elected with an overwhelming majority then that would be our mandate as directed by the class, who would also be formed into workers councils. So I have always seen the relationship between party and class as more symbiotic than with either being dominant. I recall Marx defining sectarianism as "putting the interests of the party above those of the class" but as I've said the party would have already been directed by a vast majority of the class, that's why I see it as more of a symbiosis, as in not separate from the class as a whole which is inferred from the subordinate dominant phraseology.

[Ed]

Here's a thought, you could see the party as just another workers council tasked with the overseeing of the state's destruction or transformation. Just as other workers councils would be tasked with organizing and transforming other industries.That may be a bit out there for some but a different way to look at it perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Dave wrote:

 As far as violence is concerned it all depends on how succesfull workers are in attracting the rank and file of the armed forces to the working class. A mass class conscious confident movement is needed one that knows it will expropiate the capitalist class. Without this mass then the capitalist class would use violence to stop such a develoment after all look at Chile in 1972 and Pinochet. 

 There was a socialist movement in Chile? Chile is not a good example of what is likely to happen. It was a reformist movement bent on improving capitalism.  http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-830-october-1973/chile-myth-and-reality

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

I think it's a very interesting question LBird.

Yeah, isn't it just!

Ed wrote:

The party should merely be a tool of the working class as a whole.

Once again, I could intepret 'the working class as a whole' to mean Workers' Councils, because 'as a whole' suggests a 'structure', rather than an aggregate of individuals lumped together, who vote as individuals in parliamentary elections, as we have now.

Ed wrote:

If we were elected with an overwhelming majority then that would be our mandate as directed by the class, who would also be formed into workers councils. So I have always seen the relationship between party and class as more symbiotic than with either being dominant.

The term 'symbiosis' in politics usually merely gives ideological cover to the side that is doing the 'exploitation'. Power is a one-way street.Dracula to victim: 'Of course, we're in a symbiotic relationship, aren't we, friend? I need blood, and you need the attentions of the count to validate your miserable existence, so, really, we need each other!'Yeah, an interesting question…

[Ed]

LBird wrote:

Ed wrote:

I think it's a very interesting question LBird.

Yeah, isn't it just!

yeah it is I love this stuff 

LBird wrote:

Once again, I could intepret 'the working class as a whole' to mean Workers' Councils, because 'as a whole' suggests a 'structure', rather than an aggregate of individuals lumped together, who vote as individuals in parliamentary elections, as we have now.

I would hope that workers councils would not be separate from the working class as a whole. But as a whole neither are workers parties separate from the class, they are part of the same thing, the working class as a whole. If workers have started organizing into councils and they vote for the spgb to do what they have said they will do that gives the spgb a democratic mandate to carry out those actions as directed by the class most of whom presumably will be involved in some kind of workplace organization. So yeah if you like the party is subordinate to the class but so are workers councils presumably. Which is why I mentioned my thought about viewing the spgb as not that different from a workers council in that regard. And in fact the party structure should act as a model for workers councils in the future. 

LBird wrote:

The term 'symbiosis' in politics usually merely gives ideological cover to the side that is doing the 'exploitation'. Power is a one-way street.Dracula to victim: 'Of course, we're in a symbiotic relationship, aren't we, friend? I need blood, and you need the attentions of the count to validate your miserable existence, so, really, we need each other!'Yeah, an interesting question…

That's the trouble with words innit they can mean all things to all men.

[Dave]

History shows that no ruling class ever gives up its power voluntarily or peacefully. What is certain is that as the working class develops a revolutionary consciousness then the ruling class will take military means to smash the developing workers movement. The British ruling class would do this just as readily as any other ruling class. Now they would do this irrespective of whether there was a parliamentary or workers council political development. The task is to try to combine practical action and theoretical devlopment and that is the problem it has never been achieved in any developed capitalist economy.What I was trying to get at with Chile is that the ruling class will use violence against even reformist political parties if they feel that there power is being threatened.

[Author]

Posts