Karl Marx in London: Owen Jones on Marxism
- This topic has 81 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
All the discourse of "workers councils" this, parliament that, is merely so much chat. As has been said, innumerable times, what pertains at the time of a societal change, we can only speculate on. We can say that, having a majority of delegates in parliament and in like institutes aroiund the world, that are there with a mandate for change, will give legitimation to a revolution. To try and use ideas that surrounded the 1917 revolution, simply will not wash. When Socialism is brought about, it will be by a "class conscious", "self aware" majority, fully aware of it's class position and of what is necessary to bring about it's emancipation. It will not be based on a minority cadre of so called professional revolutionaries, leading the masses. Masses, moreover, who do not even have a clue about the society they inhabit, never mind what is being suggested to replace it.The Socialist Party have no interest in gaining "power", nor in "exploiting" anyone. It's aim, it's sole aim, is to propogate Socialist ideas. To disseminate them to the widest possible audience, to spread consciousness as to what is possible. As more workers join the movement for an alternative society, so they will bring fresh ideas on how to achieve our goals and add fresh impetus to the struggle.What is most assuredly the case, is that as long as we have Capitalism, with all it's structures, workers will continue to be exploited and used as adjuncts to the lust for profit for the few. Steve Colborn
Most of the Leninist parties call themselves Communist Parties, and they are just nationalist parties of the country where they have been formed, North Korea is called a democratic republic and peoples are living under a dictatorship and a dynasty, China is called the Peoples Republic of China, and peoples do not control the country, Nicaragua is called the Socialist Republic of Nicaragua and socialism has never existed in that country, the same thing can be applied to Cuba. Most of the left winger leaders have been called leaders of the proletariat, socialist and communist and they have been oppressors and killers of the workers. It is not what they say, it is what they are
"Or Workers' Councils could be defined to encompass workplaces and neighbourhoods on a geographical basis" We have also forgotten to mention Industrial Unions, either as contemplated by the IWW or the SLP as models for the future and who have their proponents. The IWW did re-define their IUs to include non-workers such as the creation of their Household Service IU680. Three-way…it might be four-way? I too have cited in debates on Libcom the fact that the butcher Gustav Noske to dissuade revolution got himself elected as the head of a workers council as evidence of the relative lack of political maturity and the confusion.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Noske#German_revolution_and_civil_war
Dave wrote:History shows that no ruling class ever gives up its power voluntarily or peacefully.This is often said, but is it actually true? It can certainly be said that no ruling class has ever given up power "voluntarily" in that it has spontaneously decided of its own accord to do this without being put under any sort of pressure to do so, but there are a number of historical examples of a ruling class giving up "peacefully" when put under overwhelming popular pressure, under the force, if you like of mass popular opposition. The state-capitalist ruling class in East Germany and Czechoslovakia for instance. Here were hard-line regimes with repressive force at their disposal which, when faced with mass popular opposition, decided not to use this force but literally to give up, knowing that they had no chance of holding on to their power and that if they tried, as some elements of the ruling class in Rumania did, they would be signing their own death warrants.Surely, the situation on the eve of the socialist revolution will be like that in Eastern Europe twenty or so years ago, only more so. A mass popular and democratically-organised socialist movement enjoying majority support. Under these circumstances the capitalist ruling class will have no realistic choice but to surrender, especially if majority socialist support is confirmed by an election victory. They wouldn't be doing so voluntarily but will have been forced out by mass popular pressure. So I think your statement needs to be amended to read:
Quote:History shows that no ruling class ever gives up its power without being forced to do so.That's more historically accurate.
Dave wrote: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.I don't think this argument can be sustained either. Certainly, we cannot say that this will be "certain" to happen. One reason for this will be that as a revoluntary consciousness develops among the working class this will, as has already been mentioned in the discusssion here, be bound to affect workers working for the state, including those in the armed forces. Which will make the armed forces, and the whole state apparaus, an unreliable weapon in the hands of the ruling class.Any ruling class that tried to use military force against a growing democratically-organised socialist movement would be taking the enormous risk, for them, of making the instrument by which they rule unstable and unusable. In fact it is hard to see the ruling class being united on this any more than the armed forces would be.One section of the ruling class might prefer to try an alternative strategy to counter the growing socialist movement — offering reforms and improvements to try to defuse it. Actually, I would suggest this is the more likely scenario and describes how ruling classes have behaved when faced with growing popular discontent. "Give them reform or they'll give you revolution", as one Tory politician once put it. So, here again, your statement needs to be amended:
Quote:What is certain is that as the working class develops a revolutionary consciousness then the ruling class will take measures to counter the developing workers movement.Good points Alb. I would add that a working class revolution based on the vast majority of the population with a clear mandate is unique in history. Once the vast majority have decide to abolish capitalism then the rest will be a walk in the park.As for the ruling class, it is using its power now by suppressing revolutionary ideas. The big battle is the battle of ideas and in that sense the ruling class is taking counter measures against the working class.
While I agree that when the working class as a class develops a socialist perspective the capitalist class will more than likely be overthrown with a relative small amount of casualties. After all the Russian reolution of 1917 was a relatively bloodless affair. The problem however is that as the process develops the capitalist class will use a wide variety of methods to sustain their power and part of that will be the use of physical force. The example of Noske is a good one for it shows that the German capitalist class took steps to abort the development of a socialist consciousness and they were helped in this by bad tactics of the sparticists and the left of the Marxist movement. The same will happen in the UK and the working class needs to know that a revolution can be a dangerous but necessary event if class rule is to be overthrown.The example of the collapse of Stalinist/State Capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe is not a very good one as what we saw was a shift within the ruling class where sections of the ruling class became the dominate class. This has happened more than once for example in Britain in the nineteenth century saw a shift within the ruling class when the aristocracy ceded political power to the industrial bourgeosie. This became possible once they saw that the working class can co exist within capitalism without their property rights being seriously clallenged. A revolution is qualatatively different with one class being replaced by another class. A socialist revolution is the most difficult event to accompolish but it does need to be done if barbarism is not to become the norm.One question does the SPGB see socialism as an ethical imperative or a material necessity?
Where did you get the idea that Great Britain is socialist ? It sounds like the same conception of the members of the Tea Party of US who are saying that Obama, and the US government are communist
Dave wrote:One question does the SPGB see socialism as an ethical imperative or a material necessity?A material necessity! Poverty, war, starvation, strikes, distruction of the planet….. may or may not be 'ethically wrong' but 'ethics' is/are no cure for such ills. The profit motive overides any 'ethical' considerations. Arguing about 'ethics' is a diversion. It is in our interests to feed, clothe and keep safe ourselves and our children.; capitalism prevents these things and socialism is a material necessity.
Did they have politicians in the communist primitive society ? I have seen that politic appears in our society with the emerge of class differentiation and social inequality. In a society based on social and economical equality would we need political parties, politicians and political struggles ?
In Cuba where a socialist revolution did not take place, the ruling class gave up and they stopped supporting the old government in order to support the guerrillas fighters, that is the reason why they were able to take control of the country, it was not because they were more braves than anybody else. The Anarchists had more influences within the ranks working class than the Stalinists and the Trotskyite, and both were forced to emigrate, they were persecuted, jailed, and killed. If we have a majority of conscious members of the working class, the ruling class will be forced to give up, we might some resistance in some places, but they are going to be minor resistance. We have seen revolts in some countries because a minority have tried to take control of the state, but a vast majority have never supported them including the Bolsheviks
You can't tell me that every last cretin working in the armed forces or police force of every nation on earth will join the class war on the Socialist side.
Who's saying that? The argument is that, with the spread of socialist ideas, enough members of the armed forces would be to render these forces an unreliable and perhaps a useless instrument in the hands of the ruling class. We've seen plenty of dictators give up when they realise that the armed forces are no longer on their side.Even today when socialist understanding is very limited there are some former members of the armed forces in the Socialist Party. I was talking to one the other evening.
Nor will every cretin in your local factory or super-store will join the class war on our side. But there will be a sufficient majority of non-cretins who will determine the outcome of events. There will be enough socialist soldiers who will ensure a rogue squaddie or maverick unit cannot be a military threat. Worth a readhttp://libcom.org/library/mutinies-dave-lamb-solidarity "The mutinies we have described cannot be separated from the revolutionary events that were sweeping across the industrialised world. There is no doubt that they represent a significant chapter in working class history. The evidence presented shows that for a while the power of the armed forces had slipped out of the control of the ruling classes." We often talk of the right-wing military coups but forget all about the revolts. Many will counter that these took place within the time of conscripts and the draft but we sometimes overlook the police strikes throughout modern history. Our case is that class consciousness is contagious, no section of the working class is immune to its spread. (During the Winnipeg general strike the local city police were willing to come out but it was the strike committee who told them to stay at work and the State who sacked them for showing sympathy and solidarity.)
There was a police strike in Ecuador because the government tried to cut their benefits and pensions, and they blocked roadas, bridges, and they protested on the streets, and part of the peoples supported them, and the leftist goverment of that country tried to use the army in order to repress them. The Constitucionalistas who participated in the uprising in the Dominican Republic in 1965 they were members of the armed forces, and they fought against the US invasion along with the peoples from the poor neighborhood and the workers, some of them were killed by the others members of the army. One of them was elected as president by the peoples participating in the uprising, and later one he became a Castroist, and most of the left wings groups supported him too
During the Iraq war several members of the US army refused to fight and they were sitting on the pavement of the military airport, and they were forced to take the planes. During the Vietnam war many soldiers rebelled against their own captain, generals and lieutenant, and they refused to fight. I met an ex-military person who became a Marxist after he participated in the Korean War, and within the army he came to the conclusion that war were fought in order to defend the interests of the ruling class, and that the armies are composed of poor peoples and workers, he returned all his medals, and then, he became the editor of a leftist newspaper
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.