17.12.1998

Petty bourgeois idealism

Phil Sharpe asks whether the views of Roy Bull - vice president of the SLP - are scientific

Roy Bull and the journal Economic, Philosophic and Science Review have called for an open discussion of their views. Such a call is to be welcomed, and a detailed discussion of their opinions will help to determine whether the EPSR is scientific - or whether they uphold another type of bourgeois or petty bourgeois ideology.

Before outlining an analysis of the standpoint of the EPSR it is necessary to discuss what is or is not a scientific theory.

Possibly the most outstanding example of a scientific theory that is able to explain the world is Darwin’s theory of evolution. This theory not only challenged all existing idealist theories about nature, but it showed that the process of adaptation of the species to their environment did not require an inherent purpose, or essence, and instead the development of the species was the product of an interaction between the internal and external conditions of existence.

This materialist standpoint showed the necessity of an alternative to idealist philosophies of history based upon the primacy of the individual. Despite Kautsky’s and other modifications of Darwin’s theory (some of these modifications are improvements; others are not) it continues to explain the natural world, and in a non-reductive manner this theory can facilitate an understanding of contemporary social reality.

I am not trying to suggest that Darwin’s views are infallible and eternal, but at present no other theory explains the natural world in a more coherent manner. In contrast, Newton’s laws of mechanical motion have been replaced by the theoretical revolution of modem physics because it became possible to evaluate physical laws and principles in a more dynamic manner. The theoretical transformation of physics was made possible through the emergence of an alternative approach that challenged the ability of the original theory to explain the world.

In other words, we get to know and interpret the world through the conflict and interaction of competing theories. Marx was aware of this process of theoretical development. He was critical of various forms of utopian socialism and Hegelian idealism in the formation of historical materialism, and in his later work on political economy he was critical of various types of bourgeois economics. But within this criticism Marx recognised the intellectual contribution of Hegelian ideas and bourgeois economics as part of the raw material of his standpoint.

In contrast to Marx’s approach Roy Bull only wants to outline one theory, and dismisses all other ideas as superficial, for example in relation to sexuality. This subjective standpoint raises questions about the scientific validity of his theory.

Whilst the adherents of Trotskyism have sometimes defended their particular perspective on the Soviet Union in a dogmatic manner, the constant comparison between the theory of degenerated workers’ state, new class standpoint and state capitalism represents the possibility to arrive at a more explanatory conception of the Soviet Union. This has been shown in the work of Ticktin, and his detailed alternative to these various orthodox Trotskyist views. Furthermore, the CPGB have been prepared to reassess their previous stance on the Soviet Union in relation to the significance of August 1991. This flexibility does not inherently guarantee scientific status to their theoretical endeavours, but such a willingness to change does show a recognition of the need for continual theoretical adaptation in order to explain the world adequately. To Roy Bull such a process is opportunist and revisionist because truth is immutable and absolute.

Secondly, science is not primarily about prediction. The EPSR reduction of science to prediction and perspectives represents the approach of empiricism and positivism. These trends within the philosophy of science try to establish rigid and predictive laws, often expressing the view that cause will inevitably lead to a given effect, and in this manner deny the importance of human activity and consciousness. What is more important than making a prediction is the capacity of a theory to explain reality.

Thus whilst Ticktin constantly predicted the crisis and collapse of the Soviet Union, what was far more explanatory was his analysis of the problems the Soviet elite had in trying to transform concrete labour into abstract labour. However, Ticktin’s generalised prediction of transforming crisis was justified by his aspiration to imminently overthrow Stalinism, which was conflated with his analysis. Hence the prediction became an ideological aspect of teleological essentialism: the Soviet Union has no essence and so lacks purpose; this means it must be overthrown and replaced by a social formation with a purpose. This shows there is a constant tension between scientific rigour and an idealist ideological philosophy of history within even the most scientific of theories.

Thirdly, there is a constant conflict between materialism and idealism within a given theory. Marx’s Capital is explanatory about capital-labour relations in regarding the elaboration of the operation of the law of value. This study of economic activity does not require additional support from the supposed law of the negation of the negation, but Marx justifies this approach for explaining socialist transition. The process of negation represents schematic movement towards socialist transition, from private production to socialised private production and then onto a higher level of socialist socialised production.

This standpoint represents an idealist philosophy of history of the realisation of an inevitable purpose, but the law of value explains more precisely the structural mechanisms of capital accumulation and the exploitation of the proletariat. This shows the structural possibility for socialism, but not in a determinist and inexorable manner.

The eminent French philosopher of science, Gaston Bachelard, was aware that no new theory can overcome the epistemological problems and obstacles created by its emergence from an antiquated and idealist previous theory. In this context the biggest challenge to the scientific status of Marxist theory has initially come from 19th century utopian socialism and various Hegelian philosophies of history. In the 20th century varieties of counterrevolutionary opportunism have proved to be a more formidable challenge because they represented the theoretical and political attempt to use Marxism in order to undermine its revolutionary character.

Stalinism has expressed a new form of utopian socialism that has opposed the development of world proletarian revolution, but has occasionally supported bureaucratic world revolution. This means that in order to uphold Marxism as a scientific theory it is necessary to oppose the reactionary historical idealism of Stalinism and show how it suppresses the potential for world revolution. If this task is rejected then Marxism is conceived as a petty bourgeois ideological instrument of reactionary idealist utopian socialism. Roy Bull has rejected the scientific and emancipatory content of Marxism and become an apologist for idealist Stalinism.

The politics of the EPSR has three main components. Firstly, the economic crisis has a depth and scope not understood by Trotskyism, and the onset of crisis is starting to revive and rejuvenate working class political organisation. Secondly, the building of revolutionary politics is based upon the need to defeat Trotskyism, which represents subjective idealist defeatism and factionalism. Thirdly, Trotskyist factionalism is based upon repudiation of the scientific analysis of oppression, such as homosexuality. Trotskyism represents soundbite, politically correct politics that upholds separatism and single-issue campaigns.

In relation to the first point the EPSR has a limited view as to what constitutes economic science (Roy Bull maintains that Mészáros’s brilliant book Beyond capital is revisionist) and Roy Bull shares with Ted Grant an emphasis upon prediction as the key content of a theory. This one-sided approach leads Roy Bull to argue that society can only move in one direction - towards crisis, war and the prospect of proletarian revolution. To question this perspective is by definition the justification of pessimism, and represents an illusory attempt to turn the tide of history, because despite the fall of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bloc society is still going in one direction - towards socialism and the new creation of workers’ states.

This standpoint is idealist because the supposed scientific consciousness of the EPSR is equated with absolute truth, so there is no possibility of any discrepancy between their perspectives and reality. If any anomalies occur, such as the growing world recession not developing in the short term, then facts will be adjusted in order to ensure that the immaculate predictive character of the theory is maintained.

What the EPSR tend to ignore is that because capitalism is an anarchic system its effects can be unknown and almost unpredictable. It is necessary to recognise that the contradictory character of capitalism means, firstly, the acute economic crisis in Russia and elsewhere will not necessarily develop quickly on a global scale. However, the very globalised nature of the interdependent world economy also shows the possible tendencies for the development of world crisis. Secondly, the effects of capitalist crisis can be protracted rather than immediate. Thirdly, there is no mechanical relationship between crisis and revolution, but what is crucially necessary is for Marxism to develop a revolutionary consciousness within the proletariat as part of the preparation for revolution.

The EPSR stance is not to develop revolutionary consciousness within the proletariat, because they defend an alienated ideology that projects onto the economic crisis what the proletariat must do: that is, carry out revolution. The mechanical imperatives of economic crisis will result in an inevitable revolution. Thus consciousness is reduced to economic determinism, and this results in the EPSR propagating a shallow optimism that leads to calling their opponents defeatist.

What about the so-called Trotskyist defeatists in the SLP? The Fourth International Supporters Caucus shares the same heritage as the catastrophist Socialist Action: they are both adherents to the objectivist and determinist United Secretariat of the Fourth International. This means Fisc has an optimistic view that the imperatives of the historical and objective process will mean that either economic crisis or the success of entryism will turn social democracy or Stalinism to the left. To Fisc the SLP is a distorted vehicle for proletarian revolution in Britain, via the mechanical development of economic or political crisis.

This represents the same alienated consciousness as the EPSR, and so their differences are tactical and organisational. Fisc and the EPSR are bitter rivals concerning who will be the best cheerleader for Scargill, and the left trade union bureaucracy, in the context of the situation where the SLP has effectively replaced the proletariat as the instrument of revolution.

Roy Bull maintains that Trotskyism has a petty bourgeois hatred of workers’ states and represents egotistical factionalism. It is not possible to outline here a detailed history of why differences and factionalism have developed within Trotskyism. But a combination of historical idealism and philosophical rigidity about party policy has led to constant crisis, factionalism and fragmentation. This situation cannot be overcome by ending factions, as Roy Bull seems to suggest, but instead by calls for a party based upon open factions, and which is determined to oppose historical idealism and philosophical dogmatism (there is no party philosophy).

Stalinism has often avoided chronic factionalism in the past because of its alienated consciousness, of a projection of the aspiration for socialism onto an uncritical loyalty for the Soviet Union, or China. The demise of the Soviet Union has increased the factionalism of Stalinism because of the objective and material collapse of the basis of the world view of pro-Soviet Stalinism - the Soviet Union is no longer the expression of the hope of humanity for socialism. Faction fights have developed between Stalinists as to the cause of this situation, and Roy Bull is part of this factionalising, whether he likes it or not.

Supposed Trotskyist hatred of the Soviet Union and the other workers’ states did not lead to the demise of the Soviet Union, and nor was Trotskyism the puppet of American imperialism. Roy Bull can try to make Trotskyism a scapegoat for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but this view is only a subjective response that fails to enrich our understanding of the Soviet Union. Roy Bull cannot carry out a substantial analysis of the demise of the Soviet Union because that would show the internal contradictions of the system are an expression of the problems of bureaucratic rule. Thus Roy Bull puts the defence of the Stalinist bureaucracy before the necessity of carrying out a scientific analysis to explain the overthrow of the system.

Thirdly, it is not Trotskyism but Fisc who effectively reject the EPSR call for open discussion of issues, such as homosexuality. Fisc are unprincipled bureaucrats, and so it is of no surprise that they have not carried out a theoretical struggle against the ideas of the EPSR, and instead they call for the suppression of EPSR publications and the annulment of Roy Bull as vice-president of the SLP. The attempted Fisc witch hunt against the EPSR (but of course until recently the EPSR and Fisc were united in witch hunting the Trotskyists and Weekly Worker supporters) does not mean that the EPSR has been carrying out a scientific analysis of sexuality, as they allege.

Human sexual psychology is one of the most complex areas of human activity, and there can be no one main reason, or causally reductive explanation as to why someone should become homosexual or heterosexual. Indeed, given the recent possible discovery of the ‘gay gene’, the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate continues to intensify.

In contrast to the scientific dialogue about sexual orientation, Roy Bull outlines in the EPSR (November 24) a dogmatic, rightwing Freudian explanation. He argues that the absence of a masculine father figure is the most probable cause of male homosexuality. Sustaining this approach requires that he assumes that the feminine represents weakness and masculinity equals strength. Thus in the name of scientific objectivity, Roy Bull upholds traditional bourgeois ideology and morality about the family unit.

Far more problematic than having a gay or heterosexual orientation is the problem of latency: an obsessive fear of acknowledging and realising their particular sexuality by repressed and puritanical individuals. This situation can lead to a voluntary celibacy, and the connected build-up of psychological hatred of others who enjoy a sexual and loving relationship. After Stalin’s wife died in the early 1930s he was apparently celibate for many years. Furthermore, Stalin jailed Molotov’s wife, yet Molotov was his second in command. He also executed or jailed the partners of his many political opponents. If such people become leaders and dictators, as with Hitler and Stalin, this justification of a morbid psychology can facilitate the development of regimes of the utmost barbarism.

Thus it is necessary to locate the basis of Roy Bull’s one-dimensional and almost traditional bourgeois approach to sexuality in his Stalinism. Roy Bull is essentially defining socialism in terms of political conformity and ideological homogeneity. This suggests similar rigidity in relation to sexuality. In other words, his historical idealism is responsible for his non-scientific views about sexuality because his concept of socialism is modelled upon the elitist utopian socialism of the Soviet Union under Stalin leadership, and in that society homosexuality was suppressed and repressed.

Hence Roy Bull defends a type of petty bourgeois ideology of defending the ‘conventional’ family unit, and so fails to become scientific in acknowledging the diversity of family life and equal sexual partnerships.