 |
|
Notes for a thesis on international socialism |
1. A scientific theory of communism begins with the scientific study of modern capitalism Marx treated the question of communism in the same way as a naturalist would treat the question of the development of, say, a new biological variety, once he knew it had originated in such and such a way and was changing is such and such a definite direction.” The science of modern communism is derived in part from critical study of the insights of previous theorists of communism, such as Marx, Engels and Lenin. However it can only be understood on the basis of scientific knowledge of contemporary global capitalism. We will begin with the insights of the first theorists of scientific communism. Then we will turn attention to contemporary world capitalism. Communism originates from within capitalism . Communism is not a utopian scheme invent by ideologists. On the contrary it is an historical process. As Lenin says, commenting on Marx’s view, “it has its origins in capitalism, that it develops historically from capitalism, that it is the action of a social force to which capitalism gave birth.” (Lenin SW 2 p299). 2. Socialism is the transition phase or stage between capitalism and communism Marx says that “between capitalism and communism lies the period of the revolutionary transition of the one into the other.” (Lenin SW 2 p300). This idea conforms to the theory of change (dialectics), which identifies the existence of an intermediate or transitional stage between opposites. The transitional stage will contain the evolving elements of the opposites. In this case the opposites are ‘capitalism’ and ‘communism’, and ‘socialism’ is the transition phase or stage containing elements of capitalism and communism. Lenin says “the first fact that has been established most accurately by the whole theory of development, by science as a whole - a fact ignored by the utopians, and is ignored by the present-day opportunists, who are afraid of the socialist revolution - is that, historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage, or special phase, of transition from capitalism to communism” (Lenin SW 2 p300) Socialism or “socialist revolution” This period might be called “socialism” but is better understood by the term “socialism revolution” which implies a process of relatively rapid change. The term “international socialist revolution” is therefore better than international socialism, although these terms may be used interchangeably. Socialism is the lower stage or phase of communism Socialism was seen by Marx, Engels and Lenin as the lower phase or stage of communism. Lenin says “the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the “first”, or lower phase of communist society. Socialism or the socialist revolution is an economic revolution. In Lenin’s debate with the ‘Imperialist Economists’ he sets out to clarify the relationship between economics and politics. Democracy is identified as a political concept. Capitalism, imperialism and the socialist revolution are understood as economic concepts. Lenin says “ Capitalism in general, and imperialism in particular, turn democracy into an illusion - though at the same time capitalism engenders democratic aspirations in the masses, creates democratic institutions, aggrevates the antagonism between imperialism’s denial of democracy and the mass striving for democracy. Capitalism and imperialism can be overthrown only by economic revolution. They cannot be overthrown by democratic transformations, even the most ‘ideal’. But a proletariat not schooled in the struggle for democracy is incapable of performing an economic revolution.” (Lenin CW 23 p25) Drawing a sharp line between democracy and economics is essential in order to understand scientifically the inter-relationship between them. It is the failure to do this that is one of the characteristics of economism. Economism is based on the a confused relationship between economics and politics which it perpetuates with the working class movement. Capitalism and its opposite communism are the economic and material foundations of radically different societies. The transformation of one into the other, the socialist revolution, must be the process of transforming the materialist foundations, the way we produce, distribute, exchange and consume the products of society. The fundamental process is and must be an economic and technological revolution. What is the substance of the economic revolution? Marx developed his theory of capitalism as an exploitative commodity producing society. Commodities are not simply use values or useful products, but are the valued property of their owners. The value of this property is measured in terms of money by its price. Capitalism is regulated by value, expressed in the relationship of wages, prices and profits. The power of productive labour to produce socially useful goods and services is ultimately held back by the law of value. The socialist economic revolution can be seen as the liberation of use value from the constraints of value. In social terms this means the liberation of the working class from the domination and exploitation by the profit hungry capitalist class. Production will be governed by social needs and not what people can afford. The socialist economic revolution is the process of abolishing value, which means money, prices and profits. Communist society is the result of this economic revolution. What will replace money and hence wages, prices and profits? The democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, socialist revolution and communism The dictatorship of the proletariat or the ‘workers state’ is a dictatorship in the sense that every state is the dictatorship of the ruling class over society. This must take a democratic form if it is to be the state of the working class majority. The workers state will be necessary to oversee the socialist economic revolution. As this revolution is completed there will no longer be any need or function for the state. The economic revolution will abolish all parasitic social classes, based on property ownership. The state will “wither away”. The state corresponds to the epoch of the socialist revolution, but not to communist society What is the socialist revolution? In defence of the international socialist revolution The international socialist revolution is the revolutionary process, over a period of time, in which the international working class transforms international capitalism into world communism. This transitional period has also been called the lower phase or stage of communism. For communists, socialism is not a type of society with its own state and forms of organisation. It is not a new system of society. It is a revolution, which regardless of where it begins, must be broadly international in its scope. Whilst we cannot know in advance how long such a revolution would last, it may well last for a number of months, years or even decades. When we set up the Republican Communist Network (RCN), we adopted five slogans to summarize our politics. These were
The proposed fourth slogan ‘international socialism’ was not agreed. It was agreed to adopt an addendum which says “The network is in the process of debating international socialism as a slogan”. My proposal is that we adopt the slogan “international socialist revolution” rather national or international socialism. 1. Abandoning socialism altogether In face of the difficulty and disagrement we have had in coming to an agreed socialist slogan, it is tempting to drop the socialist slogan from the platform. That would be a serious error. Simply liquidating the socialist slogan would reflect the anti-socialist and liquidationist politics of the bourgeoisie. This is exactly what Blair, the Labour Party and Thatcher before them, are trying to do, write socialism out of history. We must have a socialist slogan and defend it against all the enemies of the working class. 2. Socialism or socialist revolution I think we should shift the debate from terms like “soclaism ( national and international) to socialist revolution. What we should debate is the nature of the socialist revolution. Communists should distinguish themselves from socialists whose aim is limited to bringing about a socialist society. Tony Benn for example is a ‘socialist’ not a communist. Communists may say loosely that we want a socialist society, when in fact we want a socialist revolution. It is not a socialist society we want but a socialist revolution. Between ‘workers power’ and ‘world communism’ is the socialist revolution. 3. For and against the international socialist revolution The implication of this is that I wish to propose the slogan ‘international socialist revolution’ as the fourth slogan for the RCN. We cannot necessarily assume that those opposed to international socialism will necessarily oppose an international socialist revolution. The debate over international socialism is an old debate just beginning again. Weekly Worker (26/11/98) claimed that “the Communist Tendency is opposed to international socialism”. Allan Armstrong accepted that this was correct. He says that “the Communist Tendency has expressed its specifically communist opposition to the notion of international socialism” (TCT Proposals for a Republican Communist pole of Attraction p 4) As an international socialist, I find this statement a contradiction in terms. It would be like speaking of a specifically communist opposition to the working class! The only alternative formulation supported by TCT was separating ‘socialism’ and ‘internationalism’. Logically this means national socialism or ‘socialism in one country’. But TCT says it is opposed “to a perspective of building socialism in one country”. (TCT Proposals p3) This is somewhat confusing, unless it is the concept of “building” they oppose. But that has not been made clear. So we are left with the idea that we are facing some new version of national socialism. What reasons were given for TCT opposition to the slogan of international socialism. First Allan’s weakest argument is “that the term ‘international socialism’ was used as the name of journal of both the CWI-Scotland and the SWP”. Allan suggests that dropping the slogan of international socialism “should at least give us a cutting edge against the CWI. This means that our platform points should distinguish us from the CWI, not overlap with them.” This argument is fundamentally false. This is a sectarian not a principled argument. We do not adopt or drop slogans in order to be different from some arbitrarily chosen Marxist group. We don’t gain a cutting edge simply by trying to be different. If the slogan is scientifically correct, it will give us a cutting edge, even against those who misuse it. If we drop it then our rivals will use the “cutting edge” against us. We must concentrate on what is scientifically correct. When the CWI ask why have we abandoned international socialism will we say “in order to be different from you”? The second argument is equally dubious. Allan points out that the left nationalist Scottish Republican Socialist Party (SRSP) had objected to ‘international socialism’ (TCT Proposals p3) He says “there had been a long tradition of ‘Brit Left’ organisations which has used ‘international socialism’ to disparage any attempts at independent activity in Scotland, Wales and Ireland - a position which could be best summed up as “neither Washington nor Moscow - but London!” No concrete examples of who, when and where this happened. But we can guess it is an oblique reference to the SWP. Allan points out that “the socialist republican tradition in Scotland (i.e. left nationalists - my addition) has long expressed its opposition to big nation chauvinism masquerading under the guise of ‘international socialism’. Allan goes on to say “that the TCT was also sympathetic to the socialist republican argument”. But if the SWP is big nation chauvinism using international socialism, is Scottish Militant Labour (now called CWI-Scotland) an example of little nation chauvinism masquerading with the slogan of international socialism. Perhaps it is ‘neither Washington nor Moscow but Edinburgh or Glasgow! Again this doesn’t take us very far. Genuine communists must oppose big nation and little nation chauvinism. But this is not an argument to abandon international socialism. Neither does it show whether international socialism is scientifically correct. The fact that words like ‘revolutionary democracy’ ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat’ and ‘communism’ have been abused and misused for reactionary ends is not in itself an argument to ditch them. It could equally mean that we contest them and redefine them scientifically. Instead of challenging his nationalist friends, Allan seems to accept that international socialism is an English slogan. Is he is on a guilt trip about his past use of this slogan? Is he is trying to make amends? Whatever the reason, the TCT lines up with the left nationalists who oppose the slogan as “chauvinist” and against the internationalist communists who defend it. Neither the sectarian nor the nationalist arguments hold water. The only real argument lies in the scientific understanding of socialism. Unfortunately Allan fails to give us even a shortened version in this six page document. The TCT’s ‘principled’ opposition to international socialism is noted, but the principles are not actually explained even in brief summary. References are made to previous documents and ‘Campaign for a Federal Republic’ comrades criticized for having not understood these “despite TCT sending CFR comrades all the documents”. So what is socialism? Popular socialism is part of the culture of the left. Tony Benn, Arthur Scargill, Tony Cliff and more or less everybody else to their left uses the term. Even the most obvious enemies of socialism like Bomber Blair very occasionally use it. In popular usage, socialism can be used in an ideological, political or economic context. It can, for example, be seen as a set of ideas, values, ideals, principles and aims. In so far as Tony Blair admits to being a socialist, it is usually in such idealistic and moralistic terms. It can be used as a political term to describe a type of state, government, or party. Thus we have socialist governments and socialist republics. We have a multitude of socialist parties such as the Scottish Socialist Party, the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Labour Party. Finally it can be understood as an economic term like capitalism. The most widely understood concept on the British left is that socialism is a type of socio-economic system based on state ownership of the means of production. The state employs the working class and pays their wages. We call this ‘state capitalism’. But this kind of ‘socialism’is seen in national terms. National ownership of the means of production is deeply embedded in socialist culture. It is expressed in Stalinism, Euro-Communism and left Labourism. These theories see national socialism established by a political process of parliamentary reform or socialist political revolution. The socialist revolution is seen here as a political process for establishing a socialist society. Socialist revolution is the process and socialism the end result. Scientific socialism should take its starting point as the concept put forward by Marx and quoted by Lenin in “State and Revolution”. Marx says that “between capitalism and communism lies the period of the revolutionary transition of the one into the other.” (Lenin SW 2 p300). This “period of revolutionary transition” is socialism or the socialist revolution. Lenin says that “historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage, or special phase, of transition from capitalism to communism” (Lenin SW 2 p300) He defends this idea against “the present-day opportunists, who are afraid of the socialist revolution”. The special stage or phase of transition could be called ‘socialism’. But the term ‘socialist revolution’ fits more accurately since it emphasises the idea of movement and motion. It is the stage of unceasing revolutionary change between one type of society and its opposite. Socialism and socialist revolution are therefore interchangeable terms. The latter is superior. In Lenin’s debate with the ‘Imperialist Economists’ he sets out to clarify the relationship between economics and politics. Democracy is identified as a political concept. Capitalism, imperialism and socialism are understood as economic concepts. Lenin says “ Capitalism in general, and imperialism in particular, turn democracy into an illusion - though at the same time capitalism engenders democratic aspirations in the masses, creates democratic institutions, aggrevates the antagonism between imperialism’s denial of democracy and the mass striving for democracy. Capitalism and imperialism can be overthrown only by economic revolution. They cannot be overthrown by democratic transformations, even the most ‘ideal’. But a proletariat not schooled in the struggle for democracy is incapable of performing an economic revolution.” (Lenin CW 23 p25) Lenin quite rightly draws a sharp distinction between democratic transformation and economic revolution in order to understand scientifically the inter-relationship between them. One important characteristic of economism is its confusion of economics and politics. Socialism is and must be an economic revolution. The movement from capitalism to its opposite of communism is fundamentally about transforming the economic and technological foundations of global society. The socialist revolution means the process of radically transforming the way we produce, distribute, exchange and consume the products of society. The process is and must be an economic and technological revolution. What is the substance of the economic revolution? Under imperialism or international capitalism, the power of productive Labour to produce socially useful goods and services is held back by the law of value. The socialist economic revolution can be seen as the liberation of the production of use value from the constraints of value. In social terms this means the liberation of the international working class from the domination and exploitation by the profit hungry global capitalist class. Production will be governed by social needs and not what people can afford. The socialist economic revolution is the process of abolishing value, that is money, prices and profits. Communist society is the result of this economic revolution. So far I have deliberately avoided the question of the national and international dimensions of socialism. I will offer the following definition of socialism. Socialism is an international economic revolution carried out by the international working class which brings about a world communist society. The term “international socialist revolution” best expresses this. The RDG uses the terms international socialism and international socialist revolution interchangeably. However when push comes to shove and we are seeking to be scientifically accurate the ‘international socialist revolution’ is the superior term and should be used instead. This brings us to Trotsky. Trotsky used the term “international socialist revolution” is his theory of permanent revolution ( Permanent revolution and results and prospects p280). He explains that “the international character of the socialist revolution which constitutes the third aspect of the theory of permanent revolution, flows from the present state of economy and the social structure of humanity” (p133). He explains that “internationalism is no abstract principle, but a theoretical and political reflection of the character of the world economy, of world development of the productive forces and the world scale of the class struggle.” (p133) So I have ended up clarifying, at least for myself, my own position. Whilst I would defend the slogan of international socialism against all forms of national socialism, I agree with Trotsky that the international socialist revolution is better. I would want to propose that amendment to the Republican Communist Network. I would want to find out whether the TCT would oppose this. The very idea of international socialism or any kind of socialism is under attack from the bourgeoisie, who are trying to eradicate from popular and working class consciousness. Our response must not be to drop it in order to pull a fast one on Scottish Militant Labour or the SWP. We must use the lessons of the past to explain international socialism for the new generation of workers in the new century. 2 nd April 1999 |
Without revolutionary theory, no revolutionary movementRevolutionary Democratic Group: contact@rdg.org.uk
Here you can find the latest RDG articles or other articles we think may be of general interest
| Scottish Socialist Party crisis |
Siding with Murdoch - Weekly Worker Fact and Fiction - what's happened in the SSP? - Socialist Unity Network RCN Statement on the Split in the Scottish Socialist Party - Republican Communist Network |