Letters

Infallibility

An important problem with the approach of Alan Johnstone is that he considers that Marx represents the infallible basis to determine the ‘truth’ of the subject under discussion (Letters, October 20.

Thus he contends: “Marx envisaged socialism as being a society entirely without markets, money or any buying and selling.” This comment implies that any innovation by Kautsky, Plekhanov, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Bukharin, Lukács and Gramsci is heretical. Presumably, Johnstone would also treat the eloquent contemporary defence of Marxism by professor István Mészáros with disdain.

The point is that Marx’s brief comments about socialism were bound to be subject to a process of clarification and elaboration by the Marxists of later time periods. For example, Kautsky suggested that money and wages could be part of the socialist economy, and the Bolsheviks had to accept that the market was important in order to tackle peasant’s unrest. Lenin and Bukharin developed a conception of the transition to socialism based on the role of the market and the proletariat-peasant alliance. In the contemporary period, Alex Nove, in The economics of feasible socialism, has developed an understanding of socialist society based on the role of the public sector and market mechanisms. Mészáros has outlined that socialism means the overcoming of the domination of capital within the relations of production. In contrast, Johnstone rigidly adheres to the Critique of the Gotha programme!

In relation to the various points made by Johnstone, he seems to have ignored entirely the perspective that I outlined in my previous letter which outlined the importance of class struggle and revolutionary change if socialism is to be realised. On the basis of this understanding, the standpoint I outlined is entirely Marxist. The view which is ascribed to me, that the role of the market under capitalism is not problematical, is absurd. The point that I am making is that only under socialism can the market acquire progressive features. The present system is based on the domination of capital over labour, which has to be consciously overcome under socialism. Only within these parameters can a market be valid. This is why the view about my approach outlined by Johnstone has to be rejected: “A few tweaks here, a bit of tinkering there and, hey presto, capitalism is fixed and we have socialism.” This reformist interpretation of my views is invalid because the whole process of the overcoming of the domination of capital over labour is the most monumental in history. Only in this context, and applied strictly to consumption, can the market have an important role. Hence the idea that I support the subordination of labour within supermarkets is absurd.

In other words, if we tackle the commodification of labour, via the establishment of workers’ management of production, then Johnstone’s following comment does not apply. He contends: “Dogma it may be, but the abolition of the market (commodity production) is socialism.” But, if the subordination of labour within the relations of production is overcome in terms of the development of industrial democracy, then the commodified character of production is being transformed. We have learnt from history that centralised planned economies do not end the hierarchical relations of the process of production. This is precisely why the development of industrial democracy is vital. However, the success of the supremacy of labour within the economy can go alongside the sovereignty of the consumer, via the role of the market. The point is that the price mechanism can stimulate and promote the production of goods needed by the consumer. In contrast, Johnstone assumes that these issues are resolved by abundance, which is a dogmatic assumption in a world defined by ecological issues. Instead economics is still best defined as being about the allocation of scarce resources.

The effective response of Johnstone to these types of arguments is to suggest that they are invalid because they oppose the infallible views of Marx: “To confirm my own shameless dogma, Marx envisaged socialism as being a society entirely without markets, money or any buying and selling.” In reply, the problem with this view is that it does not establish whether an economy can function in this manner. If socialism is to flourish it is not reasonable to expect that all aspects of capitalism will be replaced by alternative mechanisms. For example, the process of supply and demand is the most efficient basis to realise the needs of the consumer. This means that we have to incorporate this aspect of capitalism without sacrificing the principles of socialism, such as the supremacy of labour within the relations of production.

The effective major argument of Alan Johnstone is that the influence of the market acts to impose its imperatives onto people in an irrational manner: “Markets result in impersonal forces ... which ensure that the people do what is required in order for it to function. While the market is presented as a regime of freedom, where no-one forces anyone to do anything, the reality is different, as the market ensures that that people act in ways opposite to what they desire.” If this was absolutely true it would not be possible to explain the continuation of capitalism and its ability to oppose most attempts to end its domination. Instead we have to understand what aspects of the present economic system are progressive and so can become part of socialism.

The role of cooperative labour is one aspect that is integral to the future economic system, but so is the importance of the activity of the consumer via the role of the market. In order to overcome the problem of the control of irrational economic forces democratic planning is important, but this should not become the justification to deny the allocation of resources via the role of supply and demand. Alan Johnstone claims that my position is no longer Marxist. Presumably this label can be attached to those people we disagree with. I would suggest that anyone who is committed to revolutionary struggle for socialism can be defined as Marxist. Marxism is a dynamic and developing theory that cannot be defined by the infallible word or the influence of authoritative leaders.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain seems to consider itself an exclusive interpreter of Marxism. This standpoint makes it very dogmatic and opposed to any development of Marxism since about 1915. They are even reticent to consider their views similar to those of Kautsky and the Mensheviks. But their orthodoxy means they are critics of the October revolution since its inception, and so do not appreciate the difficulties of this attempt to advance both socialism and world revolution.

The problem is that a timeless, pure Marxism could never be a perceptive guide for the class struggles of the past hundred years. It was necessary to develop strategy if the difficulties of trying to overcome the problems of the revolutionary process were to be overcome. Instead the SPGB has been content to justify its antiquated Marxism. In this context any revision of the infallible word can be denounced. This is the essence of the criticism of ‘market socialism’.

Phil Sharpe
Email

No prizes

Left Unity is holding its conference at the weekend. The central question should be the democratic revolution and the role of the working class and how this impacts on Scotland, Ireland, Europe and the Labour Party after Corbyn. Unfortunately this is not on Left Unity’s radar screen. The focal point is on what Labour can achieve and what role LU should play in relation to it. At least on paper this seems like a repeat of last year’s conference, as if LU is stuck in a rut.

Since last year LU has continued to lose members to the Labour Party and Momentum. Most recently Socialist Resistance has joined Workers Power and the CPGB in heading out the exit door and into Labour. The party of social reform has to decide whether to join Labour. The party of democratic revolution has to explain why republicanism and anti-unionism is necessary in the UK, and a republican United States of Europe is necessary, if we are serious about socialism and not limited to British social reform.

In 2013 the strategic and programmatic choices were between building a socialist Labour Party, a Marxist or Trotskyist communist party or a republican socialist party. By 2016 politics has moved on as a result of the Scottish and European Union referenda and the unexpected election of Jeremy Corbyn. All the Marxist groups have left to join Labour. So should LU become an external faction of the Labour Party or become a more independent party with much clearer lines of demarcation from Labour on democracy, the national question and Europe?

The real ideological problem for ‘radical’ socialists is that the Labour Party had discarded its traditional ideological clothes 20 years ago. LU bought them at the charity shop and now Labour has taken them back again. This can be spun in two ways. Either LU was set up on the wrong foundation, or it was merely holding the fort until Corbyn arrived with massive reinforcements. Corbyn and Momentum represent either the failure of Left Unity or its triumph on a mass scale!

There are only two possible futures for Left Unity - as a radical socialist party or republican socialist party. You would find it difficult to compare these alternatives, because bizarrely they are in different sections of the agenda. In section B there is the future of LU and relations with Labour and at the end in G on building LU and relations with Labour. The ‘future of LU’ and ‘building LU in the future’ should be considered at the same time.

The main debate in section B of the agenda will repeat last year’s conference. York branch has proposed that Left Unity disband and join Labour. Haringey argues that LU must continue doing what we have been doing, opposing all forms of discrimination and supporting progressive struggles for a just, democratic and equal society. South London argues that LU must continue not least as an insurance policy if Corbyn is usurped (or betrayed). They want constitutional changes, a new electoral strategy and a conference in spring next year. Wigan branch wants to support Corbyn more closely, whilst developing independent policies. It calls for an end to all bans and proscriptions from the Labour Party and applying for affiliation to Labour (which the CPGB proposed last year)

There are two other resolutions on building Left Unity in the light of Corbyn and these are for some reason at the end of the agenda, in section G, instead of where they belong, in section B. Haringey is calling for a Left Forum to make links with ex-members who joined Labour and others inside or outside Labour. South London has a resolution, with amendments from Wigan, calling on LU to change direction and strategy and become a republican socialist party, which campaigns for democratic revolution in the UK and Europe and makes an alliance with Rise in Scotland. No prizes for guessing which I will be supporting!

Steve Freeman
Left Unity and Rise

Bowdlerised

David Douglass says he wants to “correct” my “observation” about anarchism (Letters, October 20). Unfortunately he does no such thing.

With his long experience in the National Union of Mineworkers, the comrade is well placed to explain the theoretical relationship between anarchism and the trade unions and, perhaps more importantly, provide his own unique insights to events, personalities and disputes. Always interesting and valuable … and why we are more than happy to commission articles and reviews from comrade Douglass.

However, in order to “correct” me on this occasion, the comrade deletes so much of what I said that I am sorry to say it amounts to distortion. Here is his version of Jack Conrad: “Anarchism, on principle, shuns … fighting within existing institutions of the working class: trade unions, co-ops, Labour Party, Communist Party, etc.”

Presented in this way I come across as a complete idiot. After all, the anarchist, comrade Douglass, is well known to me, and was, to his everlasting credit, an outstanding NUM militant before, during and after the 1984-85 Great Strike. Ergo, this anarchist did not on principle shun fighting within trade unions. Quite the opposite. Therefore, the dumb arse, Jack Conrad, needs correcting.

However, in my review article of Chris Knight’s Decoding Chomsky this is what I actually wrote: “Anarchism, on principle, shuns what Marxists call politics. That is the necessity of fighting within the existing institutions of the working class: trade unions, co-ops, Labour Party, Communist Party, etc, and thereby moulding the working class into a class capable of establishing its own state (a fully democratic semi-state sometimes called the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’).”

Clearly, then there is a David Douglass version of Jack Conrad and a real Jack Conrad, The point that the real Jack Conrad is making, right or wrong, is that we Marxists work within the existing institutions of the working class in order to mould this historically special class into a future ruling class. A class which wields state power, the dictatorship of the proletariat, against class enemies at home and abroad with a view to superseding capitalism and establishing socialism. Anarchists reject this perspective … yes, as a matter of principle.

I went on to deal with anarchist objections to standing in elections and our opposition to spontaneist perspectives:

“Fielding candidates for local councils, the House of Commons, the European parliament, etc, is angrily denounced as sowing illusions. Even when no illusions are sown. Eg, the Bolsheviks in 1907 and 1912. Fundamentally, of course, anarchism is theoretically based on the spontaneous, the ideal of elemental power, the individual or collective deed as the vital trigger. By contrast Marxism stresses high theory, consciousness, programme, historic patience, digging deep roots, building mass organisations, holding back short-termist instincts, inculcating the long view, etc.”

Finally, I presented my own attitude towards class-struggle anarchists (such as comrade Douglass himself):

“While there is no reason to doubt the convictions of genuine, class-struggle anarchists, the two outlooks, Marxism and anarchism, are fundamentally incompatible. ‘Anarchism,’ remarked Lenin, ‘is bourgeois individualism in reverse’; it is the ‘product of despair’. That is why anarchism has no worthwhile revolutionary strategy, no worthwhile theory and has produced no worthwhile results. Hence, we must seek to win good anarchists to Marxism, not bend Marxism in the direction of anarchism.”

As with polemics, corrections ought to be based on what is actually being said. Not on bowdlerised misrepresentations. The first approach has the potential to serve the class struggle, the second approach merely spreads confusion. Frankly, I expect better from comrade Douglass.

Jack Conrad
London

Respect

I agree with comrade Mike Macnair’s stance that the Labour right wing is abusing the ‘personal abuse’ card, and I also sympathise with his past experience of a ‘diplomatic criticism’ regime (orthodox Trotskyism). However, I disagree with his criticism of so-called ‘speech controls’ enforcing ‘civility’ and ‘respect’.

From all my experience, moderated discussions and the enforcement of ‘civility’ and ‘respect’ by disciplinary proceedings are necessary, not least for left unity.

We on the left should be capable of offering professional criticism. Professional criticism does not include criticism for the sake of criticism, the stuff of critical critics. Professional criticism does not include tiresome ad hominems and polemical slurs that only drive people away; this legacy of deliberately misrepresenting the views of opponents may have worked in Lenin’s day, but is totally inappropriate in our own time!

Professional criticism can, however, be expressed as an informed concern about an internal opponent’s lack of due diligence. Professional criticism can flourish in a regime of moderated discussions and enforced ‘civility’ and ‘respect’.

Jacob Richter
email

Alternative

The organised left in Israel is under major attack. Last week, a speech delivered in the UN by the director general of the Be’tselem organisation (an NGO monitoring human rights violations in the occupied territories) sparked huge controversy. The right called for the man to be deprived of his Israeli citizenship due to his call to the UN security council to act against Israel.

This attack on this left NGO marked another round of attempts to delegitimise the Israeli left and the organisations associated with it. There have been severe attacks on Arab MPs for many reasons - all of them aimed at ending Arab representation in Israel’s parliament. Nonetheless, the parties which stand in opposition to Netanyahu’s government, including the Labor Party, do not support the left, but rather aspire to replace Netanyahu as their main goal, whilst adopting militaristic, nationalist and chauvinist positions. There is no principled opposition to the right apart from the tiny left-Zionist Meretz party and the united faction of the Arab parties which includes the Communist Party of Israel.

The acute problem of the left is its inability to approach the masses in order to challenge the right and undermine the prevalent chauvinist demagogy and incitement. We can see this problem in the call for the security council to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The call for foreign imperialist intervention does not help to recruit the masses, but rather does the opposite by alienating them. Socialists and even social democrats cannot allow themselves to be manipulated by this rhetoric, but where there is no Marxist compass the very idea of class-oriented policies seems absurd. However, creating a Marxist alternative is highly difficult in Israel, where even the unions are split: Histadrut, on the one hand, and a relatively new organisation, Workers Power. In spite of the radical orientation of the latter, it desires to expand its membership by depoliticising itself.

Here we come to the problem of establishing a mass party of the working class, Arabs and Jews, with a socialist agenda. But how can this sort of party can be built whilst the entire left - especially the Jews - is totally degenerated? How can we forge a working class party whilst the Arab leadership adopts a nationalistic stance and removes itself from internationalism? Who can constitute a leadership which should be trusted in the way of shaping a party of the toiling masses?

David Shtrum
email