WeeklyWorker

10.06.1999

Defence of international socialist revolution

On April 5 1999 agreement was reached in Edinburgh to convene a founding conference of a republican communist network. A date has been set for Saturday July 3. Individuals and organisations are invited to participate if they agree with the following slogans:

The proposed fourth slogan, ‘international socialism’, was not agreed. Some, including the Revolutionary Democratic Group and the Campaign for a Federal Republic, supported the slogan. The Communist Tendency was strongly opposed. It was agreed that the platform should have the four agreed slogans plus an addendum which says: “The network is in the process of debating international socialism as a slogan.”

One option was to drop any reference to socialism at all. 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. The debate over international socialism is an old debate just beginning again.

The Weekly Worker (November 26 1998) 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” (Proposals for a republican communist pole of attraction p4). 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 the CT was separating ‘socialism’ and ‘internationalism’. Logically this means national socialism or ‘socialism in one country’. But the CT says it is opposed “to a perspective of building socialism in one country” (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 the CT opposition to the slogan of international socialism? First Allan’s weakest argument is: “The term ‘international socialism’ was used as the name of the journal of both the CWI-Scotland and the SWP.” Allan suggests that dropping the slogan “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 do not 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 asks why we have 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 had objected to ‘international socialism’ (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 [ie, left nationalists - DC] has long expressed its opposition to big nation chauvinism masquerading under the guise of ‘international socialism’.” Allan goes on to say: “The CT 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 does not 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 CT 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 CT’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 are criticised for having not understood these, “despite CT 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. Insofar 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, Eurocommunism 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: “Between capitalism and communism lies the period of the revolutionary transition of the one into the other” (quoted in VI Lenin SW  Vol 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” (ibid). 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, aggravates 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” (VI Lenin CW  Vol 23, p25).

Lenin quite rightly draws a sharp distinction between democratic transformation and economic revolution in order to understand scientifically the interrelationship 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 domination and exploitation by the profit-hungry global capitalist class. Production will be governed by social needs and direct labour time, not value. 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’ in his theory of permanent revolution (L Trotsky Results and prospects New York 1974, 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 ‘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 CT 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 it 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.

Dave Craig