Letters

Not Marxist

Phil Sharpe’s line of argument strikes me as implausible and unconvincing (Letters, October 27). Of course, “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.” However, this is not really the point, is it? By all means clarify and elaborate, but what is it that you are attempting to clarify and elaborate?

If you are talking in terms of harnessing the price mechanism within socialism to meet consumer demand, then, frankly, you have broken away from the Marxist conception of socialism as a synonym for communism, altogether. And we all surely understand that this conception would entail the “communistic abolition of buying and selling” (Communist manifesto). I am less concerned with the label on the bottle than the contents inside. If Phil wants to describe socialism as a society which is compatible with the market - “market socialism” - then fine: that’s his prerogative. But what he cannot legitimately do is claim this is somehow consonant with a Marxian standpoint. When Lenin redefined socialism as a stage separate from communism and characterised it as a system of wage labour under the auspices of the state - all workers would become “employees of the state”, he said - he completely removed himself from, and placed himself outside, the Marxian paradigm. Now, individuals are quite at liberty to do so, but, to be consistent, they should drop the pretence that they are engaged in a process of “clarifying and elaborating” on the Marxian conception of socialism. They are not. What they are doing is promoting a fundamentally different conception of socialism at variance with what Marx was promoting.

Let us be clear about this. It is not because I have some dogmatic attachment to what Marx wrote that I say this - there are actually quite a number of things that Marx wrote about where I think he erred badly. However, this conception of socialism/communism as a non-market society is absolutely central to his whole world view and, more to the point, is intuitively logical and makes sense. Why does Phil think that the very first line of Marx’s great opus Das Kapital should have identified generalised commodity production with capitalism? In attacking capitalism, Marx was looking beyond capitalism to a very different kind of society, in which commodity production - “the buying and selling system” - would completely cease to exist. We need to get back to our Marxian basics.

Common ownership of the means of wealth production logically preludes economic exchange. If I own a bakery, it makes no sense that I should have to pay for the loaf of bread baked within its four walls. The same argument would apply if a group of individuals owned the bakery. And if everyone in society owned, not just the bakery, but all the means of production - what is called the common ownership or communism - then clearly there would no longer be any kind of market or price mechanism at all. No-one would have to pay for anything. There would be free access to goods and services, and the corollary of this is that individuals would freely and voluntarily contribute to the production of these goods and services. That is what Marx meant by socialism/communism - “From each according to ability, to each according to need”. So the existence of a market or price mechanism signifies the absence of common ownership and hence the absence of communism or socialism. In other words, it signifies the existence of private property in the means of production - whether this takes the form of de jure legal ownership of capital, as in the west, or the de facto ownership by a class - notably the nomenklatura - in the old Soviet Union. In the latter case, ultimate control (which is what ‘ownership rights’ boil down to in the end) was exercised exclusively by this class, which, through its stranglehold on the state machine, had complete control over the disposal of the surplus product.

Phil’s defence of the market and his plea that it should be incorporated in some kind of updated version of socialism is weak and ill informed. He seems to be suggesting that, unless we apply the ‘supply and demand’ mechanism of the market, we are lumbered with some kind of top-heavy, unwieldy centralised planning bureaucracy, in which all economic decision-making in society will be concentrated - something he, quite rightly, sees as being fundamentally incompatible with industrial democracy. But that is nonsense. The alternative to this market mechanism he invokes is not society-wide central planning, which, in its literal sense, nobody really advocates these days. Rather, the alternative is a non-market mechanism of supply and demand involving a self-regulating system of stock control and a polycentric system of planning. In other words, the pattern of consumer demand in a socialist society is principally governed by the rate at which stock is cleared in the distribution stores in accordance with the consumers’ own self-defined needs without any kind of market transaction intervening in this process whatsoever. The distribution stores monitoring the rate at which stock is cleared then transmit orders to their suppliers to replenish their stock levels. At no point is a market involved.

As a matter of fact, this kind of non-market system of accounting, based on calculation in kind, already exists and operates alongside the system of monetary calculation today. Indeed, no large-scale advanced economy - not even capitalism - can dispense with calculation in kind, but we can certainly do without monetary calculation and all its attendant absurdities and contradictory consequences This is what a socialist society will do and it is by thinking along these lines that we are subjecting “Marx’s brief comments about socialism” to a process of “clarification and elaboration” - not by promoting that imbroglio of confusion that is so-called ‘market socialism’.

Robin Cox
email

No dogma

It is not “SPGB dogma” to argue that Marx wanted to see the end of “commodity production”, as Phil Sharpe claims, if only because the Socialist Party of Great Britain is not alone in understanding Marx in this way. In fact, it can be argued that a criticism of commodity production was the essence of all Marx’s writings on economics and some of his philosophical stuff too (alienation, fetishism of commodities, etc).

Marx begins his major published work on capitalism, Capital, with the words: “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails presents itself as ‘an immense accumulation of commodities’.” He then proceeds to examine what a commodity is, as an item of wealth produced to be exchanged (bought and sold on a market) and brings out how the capitalist mode of production is the highest form of commodity production, in which human labour-power too has become a commodity. The abolition of capitalism is, therefore, for him the abolition of commodity production and all that goes with it in its highest form (markets, money, wages, banks, etc).

‘Market socialism’ - ie, ‘socialist’ commodity production - is an oxymoron. Of course, Marx is not infallible and he could be wrong, but those in favour of it should come out openly and say they think Marx was wrong and was just another utopian socialist, instead of claiming that they are ‘developing’ his views.

Adam Buick
email

Abundance

Marx’s critique of capitalism stands firm. As for those who Phil Sharpe cites as having improved on Marx, space does not permit me to discuss. Nor will I deal with Phil’s interpretation of the SPGB. Nor will I reply to the straw man argument that I was disagreeing upon the necessity for industrial democracy or was denying the existence of supply and demand and the importance of the consumer (to each according to self-defined needs). Nor will I be drawn into the red herring that the present capitalist ecological problem of an ever-expansive accumulation of capital can be equated with a steady-state, zero-growth socialism.

But, yes, I am guilty of the premise of a potential abundance with socialism (“We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance” - Sylvia Pankhurst). Phil disputes that socialism will be without markets, money or any buying and selling, telling us that “the problem with this view is that it does not establish whether an economy can function in this manner”. I suggest he investigates the economic structure of the Inca empire and also ‘primitive communism’ for the answer.

The point that I am making is that only under socialism can the market acquire progressive features. But in socialism there will be no need for it. Phil believes that the present rationing system based on wages and prices will continue in a socialist society and will be reformed for the better. He says economics is about the allocation of scarce resources. Yet he fails to explain what scarcity and abundance mean.

Abundance is a situation where productive resources are sufficient to produce enough wealth to satisfy human needs, while scarcity is a situation where productive resources are insufficient for this purpose. Abundance is a relationship between supply and demand, where the former exceeds the latter.

In socialism, a buffer of surplus stock for any particular item, whether a consumer or a producer good, can be produced, to allow for future fluctuations in the demand for that item, and to provide an adequate response time for any necessary adjustments. Thus achieving abundance can be understood as the maintenance of an adequate buffer of stock in the light of extrapolated trends in demand. The relative abundance or scarcity of a product would be indicated by how easy or difficult it was to maintain such an adequate buffer stock in the face of a demand trend (upward, static or downward). It will thus be possible to choose how to combine different factors for production, and whether to use one rather than another, on the basis of their relative abundance/scarcity.

But Phil mistakes supply and demand with the market mechanism. It transforms the individual’s desire for steak into an effective demand for a hamburger - or, as I put it, “the market ensures that that people act in ways opposite to what they desire”.

Phil maintains that socialism will continue to rely on market accounting. A reason why socialism holds an advantage over capitalism is the elimination of the vast resources needed in monetary/pricing accounting. In socialism, calculations will be done directly in use-values, without any general unit of calculation. Needs will be communicated to productive units as requests for specific useful things, while productive units will communicate their requirements to their suppliers as requests for other useful things.

Hence the idea that I support the subordination of labour within supermarkets is absurd. Did I ever say that? What I was conveying in regard to supermarkets was that we will use the tools that capitalism bequeaths us, modified and adapted to the new conditions. There are inventory control systems and logistics. The key to good stock management is the turnover rate and the point at which it may need to be reordered. This will also be affected by considerations such as how long it takes for fresh stock to arrive and the need to anticipate possible changes in demand. If requirements are low in relation to a build-up of stock, then this would be an indication to a production unit that its production should be reduced. If requirements are high in relation to stock, then this would be an automatic indication that its production should be increased. Hence, it is the shelf-stacker who will be more of importance than any cash-till operator in determining supply and demand. There would be a marked degree of automaticity in the way the socialist distribution system operated. Nowhere do I argue for a centralised command economy, but rather a polycentric network of coordinated links between users and suppliers; between final users and their immediate suppliers, between the latter and their suppliers, and so on, down the line to those who extract the raw materials from nature.

This is what a commodity-free, non-market system is all about - production for use/need and not for exchange/sale. I always thought this was the root of being a socialist, especially for a Marxist. Phil thinks otherwise.

Alan Johnstone
email

Confused

The existence of the market implies exploitation, as it involves the production of commodities. Commodities have an exchange value and their exchange value is related to the amount of labour time used to create them.

Marx’s Capital reveals the nature of a commodity and how a wage represents the exchange value of a worker’s labour-power. Money is a commodity used to mediate the exchange value of all other commodities As long as the market exists, workers will exchange ‘labour-power’ for a wage.

That the market and thus commodity production can exist in socialism, as Phil Sharpe suggests, is absurd. Even those he mentions (Plekhanov, Lenin, Luxemburg, Trotsky, Bukharin) all recognised that commodity production implied the existence of capitalism and exploitation. Even Stalin recognised that the end of capitalism will mean an end to the market and hence the commodity: “Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation, commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour-power, for employers and employed. There will be only free workers.”

It was only politically opportunism that led Lenin and the Bolsheviks to make the false distinction between ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’, which confuses many on the left, including Phil Sharpe.

Vin Maratty
Sunderland

Misled by Marx

Whatever the difference between Phil Sharpe and Alan Johnstone regarding socialism and the market, both claim to defend Marxism - a doctrine which misleads most of the revolutionary left to fight for dictatorship rather than a democratic socialist society; a doctrine which falsely claims that capitalism came about primarily because of the circulation of money, rather than the energy revolution; a doctrine which claims that it was the development of the productive forces which triggered the birth of capitalism, when in fact the opposite was the case, in that initially it was the decline of the productive forces under feudalism which started the whole process; a doctrine which simplistically places being before consciousness, when scientists today have shown that the views of the scientists can influence the result of an experiment.

Sharpe accuses the SPGB of justifying its antiquated Marxism, but is not this what most of the revolutionary left is doing? This includes the sectarian goal of seeking to win the Labour Party over to Marxism - a doctrine which is deeply flawed in its theoretical foundations - when the true task should be to win the Labour Party over to the idea of a democratic socialist society.

As for the issue of the market socialism, this is a contradiction in terms. However, the resolution of the contradiction between socialism and the market is resolved gradually rather than abolished in one go, a point which some people don’t seem to grasp.

Finally, for Marxists, the idea of a democratic socialist society is so alien that, when reforms were needed in the former Soviet Union, no-one came up the idea of a democratic socialist society, but instead something called glasnost. The same is the case with China, where the communists at present seem to have no concept of a democratic socialist society.

On the revolutionary left we were all misled by Marx and his dictatorship theory.

Tony Clark
Labour supporter

State of anarchy

“Bowdlerised” (Letters, October 27)? I’ve never played cricket in my life!

What Jack Conrad is actually saying is not that anarchists necessarily reject work in existing unions, but reject the conclusions Marxist-Leninist draw on the purpose for that work: ie, “moulding the working class into a class capable of establishing its own state”. Oooh, well, yes, that’s true, and if that’s what you were saying then I did misunderstand your meaning.

Of course class-struggle anarchists do want the working class to come to power as a class, but we don’t draw the conclusion that an alternative democratic egalitarian system of global social commonwealth necessitates a state. But it wasn’t my purpose in the last letter or this one to repeat such an ancient and long-standing disagreement. I am happy to concede I misunderstood Jack’s comment and apologise.

I will say though that anarchists do not necessarily reject standing in elections, although in general we would - it depends on the platform it offered and the political gains around what issue we did so. Think of the opportunities of an anarchist standing in a police and crime commissioners election! Think of the world of wonder which could be addressed on that platform regarding the nature of law and the state, crime, punishment, the police, etc. Of course, it would be a cat among the pigeons and nobody would be seeking to make the foul system work more efficiently, god forbid, but it is an example of what I mean. Comrade Bone from Class War was always quite innovative in this direction - ‘All means necessary’ was a sound slogan.

Of course, I do not agree that anarchism necessarily demands a belief in spontaneity either - a number of anarchist organisations and tendencies have and had deep roots in the class and in organising for a bigger loaf as well as the bakery: eg, the Industrial Workers of the World and Spanish CNT, and actually the American labour movement in general. Its failure has been to consistently maintain and build on its early strengths and influence and, dare I say it, leaders who were able to stay alive long enough or organise nationwide. I should say in the case of the USA this was at the point of gun, the billy club and the jail sentence, rather than a lack of vision. Interestingly the early Chinese revolutionary movement was heavily influenced by anarchism - as a result of distorted news, Mao and the early Chinese communists assumed the Soviet revolution of 1917 was anarchist-inspired, as did many of the heroes of the IWW in the USA.

Frankly though, Jack quoting Lenin denouncing anarchism for having achieved no worthwhile gains is a bit rich, mate, given the ‘achievements’ of Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism.

David Douglass
Tyne and Wear

Barbarism

‘A tale of two cities’ (October 27) was the usual interesting piece by Yassamine Mather, in which she contrasts coverage of the sieges of cities Aleppo and Mosul in western media. The only difference, in terms of carnage and effects on civilian population, appears to be the way in which the events are reported - eg, Russia and Syria bad, USA and allies good (the involvement of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States being conveniently skipped over).

The problem with the article, as with much coverage on the ‘left’, is that, while arousing critical faculties and awareness of bias, it leaves us as confused by devastation and changing allegiances of imperial powers as those who consume the reports of western media. We can then only sit back or join in the pillorying of Putin and Assad (which takes us conveniently behind our ruling class) to avoid being characterised as Russian dupes by the likes of Boris Johnson and his spinners.

This is a most important conflict, which takes us towards the barbarism which Rosa Luxemburg foresaw in the lead-up to World Wars I and II, as a result of capitalism’s inability to resolve its crisis and the failure of the development of a socialist consciousness necessary to overthrow it.

Marxists must attempt to analyse the roots of the conflict in terms which go beyond the superficial appearances (evil dictators, tribal and religious splits, etc) to the real basis in competing capitalist interests (natural resources and who controls the regions that supply them, gas and oil, etc) usually ignored in press coverage. Marxian analysis should always seek to connect issues, and war is not simply a side show for other developments in the world economy. The ruling class are well aware of these bases to the disputes - see http://armedforcesjournal.com/pipeline-politics-in-syria.

Of course, the arguments are not conclusive, but we should not fall behind in looking for explanations that rise above those presented to us in the media, as only on an understanding of capital’s competing national interests and contradictions can we hope to develop the understanding necessary to overthrow it and create a world fit for us all to live in.

John Holliday
email

Anti-unionism

The Tories, Ukip, the Democratic Unionists, Liberal Democrats and Labour Party are all British unionist parties. But last weekend’s Left Unity conference took a significant step forward - it became an anti-unionist party and thus drew a sharp distinction with Corbyn’s Labour Party. LU took the first steps to realigning the party with the democratic movement in Scotland, not least in demanding the abolition of the 1707 Act of Union.

Since 2015 the Corbyn victories have produced an existential crisis in Left Unity. The party was founded in 2013 in the ‘Spirit of 45’ to fill the political space vacated by New Labour with its neoliberal policies. The post-war ‘social monarchy’ had been under assault by every government from Thatcher to Blair and Brown. The election of Corbyn turned the tables and the ‘Spirit of 45’ now revived inside the Labour Party. The very purpose of Left Unity and its rival, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, were put under question.

Over the last year LU has lost members to Labour and Momentum. The three main Marxist groups - Workers Power, CPGB and Socialist Resistance - have all departed for greener pastures in the Labour Party. There is no denying the contribution members of these groups made to Left Unity, which is weakened by their exit. Yet politically they were a barrier to building a socialist party of militant working class democracy and internationalism. Nowhere was this shown more clearly than their failures on the national question.

The conference began as it meant to continue by moving the motions on Scotland from the end of the agenda to the middle. Then the first motion from York that LU should dissolve was easily seen off. If the rats had already left there was no sign the ship was sinking. The crew were busily plotting a new course for new political conditions. Left Unity would fight alongside, but remain independent of, the Labour Party and would highlight its distinct programme - or, in marketing speak, it unique selling points.

This conference may, in time, come to be seen as a turning point in LU’s fightback. There would be no concessions to the Anglo-British nationalism which unionism underpins. This had powered the ‘leave’ campaign. ‘Make Britain great again’, ‘British jobs for British workers’, ‘Take back British sovereignty’ and ‘Stop immigration’ were at the centre of the British exit campaign. LU rejected the concept of Brexit and called for a “democratic exit”. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU and must be allowed to do so. England and Wales voted ‘leave’ and should do so as soon as possible.

In the post-EU referendum world, LU agreed to fight to defend all workers’ and social rights, not least of European citizens denied a vote in the referendum. Just as employers are demanding ‘free trade’ and access to EU markets, so organised workers must fight to maintain the right to move freely across the EU. There should be no restrictions and no work permits. Free movement for workers is as important as free trade is for capitalists. Therefore England and Wales should remain, like Norway, in the European Economic Area.

All this is a defensive position against reactionary forces. But, looking to the future, LU would “campaign for a refounded European Union on a democratic and anti-capitalist basis” and continue to work with the European Left Party. Whilst there is still more to be done on European policy, there is no retreat on freedom of movement and a democratic Europe. Work on developing policy will continue at the next conference, agreed for spring 2017.

Conference policy on Europe, Scotland and the Labour Party neatly fuses with the issue of self-determination. The new policy says: “Left Unity recognises the right of the Scottish people to self-determination and in particular the right to remain in the EU, given the majority vote in Scotland to remain. Left Unity will fully support the call for a ‘self-determination’ referendum to enable the Scottish people to decide to leave the UK and seek to remain in the EU.”

Consequently, “Left Unity calls for the Labour Party to support such a referendum and commit a future Labour government to guarantee Scotland’s right to a referendum on the EU or on other issues. In the event that a Scottish referendum is held before the next general election, LU will promote activities to encourage the working class movement to support Scottish exit from the UK to implement the decision of the Scottish people to seek to remain in the EU.”

Steve Freeman
Left Unity and Rise

Good luck

It seems to me a direct parallel can be drawn between the Labour Party coming under Corbynist/McDonnellite authority and (on the other side of things) British capitalism being obliged to leave the European Union courtesy of the referendum.

I’m referring to the fact that, in their respective circumstances, any previously relied upon status quo has now fallen under the wheels of a runaway train - a train that’s hurtling along its tracks of both major and largely unmanageable problems, in fact with nothing to stop it except the ‘buffers’ of eventual disaster!

In the case of Labour, how the hell is Corbyn and McDonnell’s whisked-up/rehashed version of bog-standard Keynesianism going to produce anything other than a quagmire of reformist chaos - an utter farrago by way of flaccid failure? (Thereby also creating utter disappointment, plus tragic disillusionment, for its well-intentioned/decent-minded supporters from amongst the working population.)

On that other side if things, how the hell can British capitalism expect to conjure up and then lash together anything close to an equivalently convenient system of border-ignoring financial criminality, let alone its drug dealer-like obsession with ‘peddling’ consumerism? (By which I mean, in order to replace what soon they’re giving over to those Brussels-based ‘postcode’ gangsters - or, put more politely, those countries continuing as members of the EU.)

So all that really can be said in this current setting to the deeply misguided, not to say idiotically delusional, Corbyn and McDonnell (and arguably even to their innocent/misled followers) - as well as yelled out to that utterly toxic and obnoxious set of gargoyles surrounding nasty little ‘blue socialism’-rebranded Theresa May - is: Hey, good luck with all of that, everybody!

Boris Kaspersky
email

Direct democracy

Comrade Eric Blanc, in his otherwise excellent article, ‘The roots of 1917’ (October 27), makes the throwaway remark that “the soviets represented a more direct form of democracy than envisioned even by the early Kautsky” - which (as he notes earlier) was that “a parliament based on universal suffrage would be a central component of the dictatorship of the proletariat”.

This is a fallacy, albeit commonly held by revolutionary Marxists and anarchists. In a sense, the opposite is the case. Except at the very lowest tier - that of the workplace or geographical neighbourhood - council democracy is extremely indirect. A national parliament is directly elected by the citizenry. A central (or ‘supreme’) council, which is the national decision-making body in the council model, consists of delegates elected by regional councils, which in turn consist of delegates elected by city or county councils, which in turn … etc. In this pyramidal structure several tiers separate the national decision-makers from the grass roots.

For a detailed discussion, see my essay, ‘Collective decision-making and supervision in a communist society’ (www.matzpen.org/docs/Machover-Collective%20Decision-Making.pdf), in which I refer to a ground-breaking article on the subject by Daryl Glaser.

Moshé Machover
email