Internationalist Perspective

Here is an analysis (translated from French) of the recent uprisings in the Arab world and the movements in Spain and Greece. This presentation was given by a member of IP last Saturday, June 30th, in Paris at the French Discussion Network meeting.

Carol for IP

——————————————-

Presentation of IP at the meeting of the French Discussion Network

Are we now in the era of Indignatos?

1. The Global Context

We have just come through a dark period of history, where, thanks to debt on the one hand, and globalization on the other hand (which made it possible to reduce production costs thanks to the recruiting of cheap labor), capitalism survived through a flight forward intensifying its internal contradictions. The “financial” crisis of 2008 put an end to any illusions as to the durability of these “solutions” and instantiated as its order of the day the necessary devalorization of capital.

The current crisis is not a simple cyclical crisis in the process of the accumulation of capital, but a crisis of “the value-form”. What do we understand by that? The “value-form” continues to force capitalist society to use abstract labor time as a measure of wealth, whereas the creation of real wealth has become less dependent on the quantity of labor time employed, than it is on general knowledge and its application in production.

It has become absurd for humanity to base the decisions (what to produce? how? how much? where? for whom?) on the law of the value. This absurdity manifests itself in the joint presence of generalized overproduction and extreme poverty, by the incapacity of capital to exploit the labor force available to it.

With regard to the proletariat, the “crisis of the value-form” appears as a “basic”, irreversible, phenomenon of increasing expulsion of labor-power from the production process, in increasing unemployment (and especially youth unemployment) and a mass of humans without work.

That is linked to the phenomenon described by some as a “de-massification” of the working class”, by others as a “re-composition of the working class”, which indicates the dismantling of the great concentrations in which workers had accumulated experiences of struggle and solidarity (coal mines in England, the steel industry in Europe, automobile manufacture in Italy, etc) and the explosion of precarious work, part-time work, characterized by a great mobility imposed on the workers.

The fact that the creation of wealth has become more dependent on general knowledge and its application in production is linked to the importance given to the functioning of higher education, and in particular the universities, since the end of the 2nd world war, and more particularly since the beginning of the 21st century. (In China for example, in 1998 institutions of higher education produced 830, 000 graduates, in 2009, 6 million. Between 1982 and 2005, the number of graduates increased 7 fold, while the number of “white collar” jobs went from 7% to 13% of the labor force)

2. The movements in the Arab countries

The above are some of the elements shaping the international context in which a series of massive social uprisings overturned the regimes of several countries of the Middle East, most “friends of the West”, and others not (Syria). Beyond the challenges which these upheavals pose for Western imperialism, this wave of social revolt in the whole Arab world may mark the beginning of a new period of class struggle in a geopolitical space where for decades the working class seemed to be caught up in reactionary ideologies such as nationalism, xenophobia, religious sectarianism. For pro-revolutionaries, the historical significance of these upheavals lies in the experience of various strata of the collective worker who are beginning to shake off the weight of these reactionary ideologies, to overcome the fear of these regimes, to counteract, and overturn regimes whose power seemed unassailable in the past.

Although uprisings in the Arab world do not result directly from the class struggle at the point of production, they are the direct result of the crisis of capitalism. The mobilizations of the masses which demanded the overthrow of the corrupt dictatorships in the whole Arab world have a mixed social base, but result from the despair of a population of young people, exponentially growing, facing unemployment — even within its most educated strata — and with a complete lack of perspective for a decent life, unless they have connections with the pillars of the regime. The economic stagnation, combined with unrestrained corruption, forces layers of the working class to live in a “planet of the slums,” which is what the great urban centers of the Arab world are becoming. That is what galvanized the popular revolts, and not an abstract engagement about the universal rights of man, constitutional democracy, free elections, as proclaimed in the Western media. The “popular” movements in Egypt (a mix of industrial workers, of intellectual and technical strata of the collective worker, of the liberal professions and the lower middle class, gathered at Tahrir Square) became a decisive force from the moment when there were strikes in the textile factories (a key export industry), in the ports and the facilities of the Suez Canal. At that point, the military faced a choice: either crush the demonstrators (with the risk of a generalization of the popular uprising), or install a democratic regime in which the military kept its power). The military, and Washington, made its choice.

The objectives of American policy are the consolidation of capitalist domination in a destabilized region, the increase in American influence and the modernization of the states assailed by the wave of revolts, through a widening of their social base and their transformation into governments based on bourgeois law. In that sense, “democracy” has as its function to control the working class and to ensure “social peace”.

The question of whether the “Arab spring” will be transformed into a “hot” summer — or autumn — where the working class will begin to challenge the new democratic regimes, where they have emerged, remains open! .

3. The movements in Spain and Greece

The capitalist metropoles of Europe are confronted by debt crises in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and possibly in Spain, crises that threaten the financial stability of the European Union and perhaps the future of the euro zone. They have respond to the threat of financial collapse by draconian austerity measures intended to reduce their inflated budget deficits. The reduction of public expenditures, lower wages, a reduction of pensions, are all elements of the policies pursued by the “left” as well as the “right”.

Over the past few months, this draconian austerity that capitalism must impose, has produced a new wave of struggles in Europe whose epicenters are Spain and Greece. That response has included a wave of occupations of “urban public spaces” in dozens of cities, similar to the occupation of the Tahrir Square in Egypt — also fed by the use of social media. Like the demonstrations in Egypt, these “peaceful”, “nonviolent”, “non-destructive” occupations have challenged the authorities by their very NUMBERS. It is difficult to intervene against thousands of people who camp outside, day and night, who hold permanent discussions about how to respond to the economic crisis and the wave of the austerity that it has brought.

Most of the discussions have focused on the demands for “true democracy” in opposition to the parliamentary version under which Spain lived during the 30 last years. But the discussions in the popular assemblies created by the occupations also concentrated on capitalism and the absence of any perspective for the future, on austerity and on unemployment specifically. The leaflet “Que se vayan todos” [printed on our blog] focused on the dictatorship of the economy and money, the reduction of the human beings to commodities, and the denunciation of all the political parties.

The question of the” deepening of democracy” has not only provoked debate among the “indignatos”, but also in the pro-revolutionary milieu. To say, as RGF has, that: “We have already pointed out — particularly at the time of the revolutionary wave inaugurated in Tunisia — that even in countries where the whole of the bourgeoisie was more or less directly in power, the question of the deepening of democracy, of the permanent revolution, with the perspective of a democracy that goes all the way, remained an essential component of the revolutionary strategy of the communist party. .… the first victories on the other side of the Mediterranean have initiated a revolutionary perspective which promises to set Europe ablaze” (In: “The movement for real democracy in Spain”), seems to me doubly erroneous. It seems to me to EXAGGERATE by speaking of a “revolutionary wave,” of a “revolutionary perspective” in connection with the movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya, Syria, (and by extension in connection with Spain or of Greece). Even if revolutionary minorities exist there, the general movement is not characterized by a will to destroy the State, nor to attack the value-form.

The idea according to which “the perspective of a democracy that goes all the way remains an essential component of revolutionary strategy” is astonishing, curious on behalf of pro-revolutionaries in the 21st century. Is this a re-working of the position of Bordiga at the end of the second world war, according to which the revolutionary bourgeoisie and national liberation struggles were the order of the day in the “Third World” countries, whereas the central countries were in the process of reconstruction following the massive destruction of the war? Even for those who might have shared this position at the time, a thoroughgoing re-working of it would be necessary today given the transformation of capitalism (globalization, the transition from Fordism to post-Fordism, the global crisis, the creation of a mass of redundant workers, not exploitable by capital). One cannot see on what objective basis it would be possible to defend the necessity for a “bourgeois revolution” in the Third World countries today.

For a critique of democracy, I return to the excellent book of Dauvé/Nesic: “Beyond Democracy”. Even if everyone is in agreement that it is easier to live in a society where “freedom of expression”, of” opinion”, of “parties”, of “demonstrations” exist (the quotation marks are there to insist on the limited character of these freedoms, which can be exercised AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT DIRECTLY QUESTION STATE POWER), what pro-revolutionaries have to say SPECIFICALLY on the question of democracy, of “direct” democracy, “real” democracy,” etc, is the fact that it is a POLITICAL WEAPON of capital in the current time of crisis, and massive unemployment. Elections will not change the destiny of the inhabitants of the shantytowns, those who for a long time have known that they do not any share in power. In short, the reason for which RGF defends the possibility of democratic struggles in the Third World countries, and of a deepening of democracy in the advanced countries, seems incomprehensible to me.

The movement of the “indignatos” (curiously, the name seems to refer to the booklet “Make indignant you! ” of Stephan Hessel, which is not especially interesting) provokes the enthusiasm of the some (who see there a possible advance in the development of class consciousness and the experience of struggle), and the criticism of others (who see the primarily pacifistic, legalist, side of this movement).

In support of the enthusiasm: it is about a “youth” movement, but one that also includes other elements. We have often pointed to the fact that young people more directly perceive the absence of any perspective within the framework of capitalism and that, simultaneously, they feel less attached to the system, and more critical of it. Those characteristics also generate the possibility of new discussions, the transmission of experiences (for example coming from the elderly who lived under the Franco dictatorship). As Henri Simon posted on the Network, we have to be modest, and to learn from these movements, the way in which they are self-organized in the handling of the various questions (food, trash, health care, the holding of assemblies, of making decisions, the exclusion of the political parties as such). We have also pointed to the use of new technologies and the social networks to communicate information and to organize the demonstrations.

In support of criticism: we have emphasized the “pacifism,” the “legalism,” of such movements, the absence of directly challenging the violence, of the state, the absence of putting the value-form in question, the absence of being able to give a real perspective to the movement, characteristics that make these movements more easily co-opted. In the same way, the use of new technologies and the social networks could create more smoke than fire, and be quickly extinguished. Many critical texts of this type circulate on Internet sites, criticizing both the Spanish indignatos and the demonstrators on Syntagma Square.

4. Conclusions

If we can probably agree on the “objective” conditions governing the sudden appearance of the uprisings and revolts of these past few months, it will undoubtedly be more difficult to agree on what these movements represent for the development of the consciousness of the necessity and the possibility of another social form. I think that that’s a difficulty about the upheavals themselves, and that the divergent appreciations are the strength, rather than a weakness, of the discussion. I would say that the “riots,” the occupations of public places, are one transitory moment, one moment in the development of the expression of dissatisfaction, but a fragile and confused expression. One can formulate the “perspective” in a series of options, which are perhaps simultaneously present in the movements and create a tension there:

Either the demands are focused on “real democracy” and the designated target are the banks, the IMF, corruption, Or the demand is the abolition of capitalism, and the targets are the abolition of wage-labor and the law of value. The first path leads to the recuperation of the movement by the left, the leftists, and capital. Pro-revolutionaries must, in their intervention, insist on the second path, with the risk of being confronted with incomprehension or contempt within the demonstrations;

Either the working class will unleash strikes, confrontations with the state, will assert its power, will forge links with these movements occupying the public space, etc… OR these movements will burn out (be recuperated), only to be re-ignited later.

The following leaflet was recently sent to IP. We reproduce it here with a brief comment.

—————————————-

LET’S GIVE OUR STRUGGLES THEIR ROAD TO A NEW BEGINNING

Listen to the rich cry, they’re scared, their steel force and
alliances are melting down right in their faces.

And now they are more desperate than ever because what they least
wanted is happening again…

It is us, in the whole world, breaking through their barriers of
subjugating fear. There isn’t a corner in the world that doesn’t light
up our way into social transformation. Our fights have lit up the
beacons, exploding blazingly. Going from Peru, China, Chile, Spain,
Belarus, France, Mexico, the U.S., India, England, Portugal, Ireland,
Greece and more regions of the world, we rise from the sleep
manifesting our rage for being kicked out of our jobs and being asked
to still survive, blockading central roads in response to the
installation of power plants where we once had a place to sleep in,
walking out of the classrooms when we find out that we can’t pay what they ask for anymore, running through the streets, launching the Molotov bombs, letting them soar through the sky in anger with fact of not being able to buy a little piece of bread.

All of these people in various regions of the world are going out in
the streets and protesting not just because of their governments,
because of a “bad president” or prime minister, because of bad cabinet reshuffling, not because they may be in a “third world country”, because of a midterm agreement, of austerity measures, not just because of crisis, not because of the troika (IMF/ECB/EU), and also not because of the banking system, individually. No, all these
problems aren’t as disconnected as we may think they are. They don’t only happen in one country or even in a continent. All of these
problems that push us to go out in the streets happen all over the
world, they have a common root; these problems are consequences, they are the characteristics of the economic and social system we live in.

The agreements that may come out between the IMF, EU, and ECB are not the only form that those at the top, the rich, the bourgeoisie have to impose their interest over ours. They have so many laws and ways that they enact, so that through them, they achieve establishing the conditions in which we have to live tormented, with which they determine that malnutrition, shanty towns, unemployment, homelessness, us being sold and bought (by definition just another commodity) are all legal. These are just the forms in which capitalism manifests its nastiness. So, all our struggle shouldn’t aim at getting out off crisis and trying to obtain economic stability (that is impossible in this system), we have to steer it to end with the sickness, end with this cancerous system.

We can waste our strength and continue endangering ourselves
confronting the watchdogs of the rich to only end up hoping that our
misery could be solved in parliament, hoping that the State can
“really represent us”, when in reality the State’s function is to
represent only the dominant, the dominant class. Its function is to
act as the repressive force of the “owners of the world” against our
rising. With that, the idea of “active citizenship” reduces to
nothing, same thing goes for “real democracy”.

So then why do we claim to be citizens? We aren’t citizens, we’ve been boxed in by borders, and those life-takers use them in their advantage to promote their “national unity” so that we don’t realize that there are others in all parts of the world, like us, breathing and living the same conditions which we fight against. It’s not our
responsibility to care for them, to serve them, to carry them on our
shoulder, breaking our backs, letting our sweat drop, letting our
tears fall.

As for democracy, democracy exist when in society there are clashing
classes, where in these classes one of them gets to decide what to do with society through the State, and this class isn’t the exploited
one, it is the exploiting one. So then why ask for real democrazy?
Let’s not let our struggle drown in the absurd, of dying for something
that already exists, for continuing with misery, for a real democracy,
for a “real” exploitation. Why fight for exploitation even more legal
than it already is?

They think they could give us alternatives. What alternatives? To the
fact that their degenerate system can’t hold out much longer? They
can’t even do anything without our existence; they need to take more and more away from us. It is a lie to think we could be better off. These fat cats only say that default is what is left and that it
should be our biggest fear. But, hey, what do we have to lose, but
this type of life? We don’t have lands, we don’t have factories or
companies, we don’t have enterprises; we only have us, our capability to work.

Why should we try to help those bourgeois gain their strength back to
continue on with their rotting system and having us chained to them,
to have us go down with them? Why should we cut back on the little
means of living we have, when they don’t even produce an ounce of it.

There’s no more to hope for this system. It can’t give us health, it
can’t provide us food, it can’t offer us tranquility, it can’t assure
us a glimpse of tomorrow’s morning, it can’t promise us life. They
have us doomed to the condition of having to sell ourselves in
exchange of inhumanity (of a salary), of having to find ourselves
thrown in the streets distressed about wanting to be under the whip of the bourgeois, because otherwise we would lose our right of having a slow death and we would die immediately.

If we were not to enter the factories, if we were to stop constructing
their buildings, if we were to stop cleaning the streets, if we were
to stop teaching their future slaves, if we were to stop fixing “the
malfunctioning”, if we were to stop entering their educational
institutions, the whole world would stop; but if they, their class,
stopped existing, the world would still be turning on its axis, their
existence isn’t necessary, without them there wouldn’t be parasites to feed.

So, after having recognized and witnessed the humiliating,
destructive, and inhumane characteristic of this system, from any side we want to see it, directly confronting the beast, what do have to say? That we can fix it? That we can put a nice ribbon around it and say: “This is the pile of garbage I want”? Or has it been enough
bleeding? Or have we had enough hunger, shanty towns, and sicknesses? Will we just stop at blockading the passage of a mid-term agreement, will we let them intimidate us, are we about to settle down and receive open handedly our old lives back? Or has it been enough that we finally say: “Yes, there’s no other way around it, we have no other option but to raze away this system where the means of production are in the hands of a small group of people, in the hands of the bourgeoisie.”

Let’s break off the chains, throw them on the ground, step on them so that we could pick up the tools we will use to build the new society, where the means of productions are in the hands of humanity, communism!

We know what the problem is, who our enemy is, what we fight against and we know what our potential is; we know that we are the ones that make the world move around and that together with our annoyance of being exploited we have the capacity to obtain a life without exploitation, without repression, without classes. This isn’t a
“beautiful” ideal. It is what’s coming and it’s inevitable. But for
that complete change to happen it is important to recognize our
solidarity, to recognize that we are part of generations and
generations of struggle, that we are the proletarian class; the key is
our international class unity!

In these days of intense protests and strikes, where we manifest our
class anger, as we clash and come face to face with capitalism’s watch dogs we make this putrid system’s bases rumble. Throwing the punch and yelling our rejection deliberately open against this capitalist system, we, proletarians of the world, unite our struggles all over the world, declaring war on this decrepit society.

It’s time now! The circumstances ask for it, our class asks for it:
It’s time to strengthen our class unity, establish our ways of
organizations and extend our struggles throughout every corner of the world.

Let’s carry on! Let’s not give up the fight because we have a whole
new life to win!

Maribel
16-06-11

————————
Comment

Maribel’s passion here is exemplary, and her grasp that these upheavals have to move towards the abolition of capitalism, not “real” democracy, is excellent. The sense, however, that revolution is inevitable is misplaced; it’s too triumphalistic, ignoring the enormous resources that capitalism possesses, material and ideological, with which to contain or possibly crush these upheavals. For me, though, the real problem with this leaflet is its personalization of capital; its depiction of the bourgeoisie, of the capitalist class, exclusively in terms of its greed, its contempt for the workers, its cruelty. What’s missing is the recognition of the impersonal character of capitalist class rule, of the value-form and its imperatives that underlies those social relations, and that compls the capitalist class, as the personification of capital, to act as it does. The capitalist is not just another mode of existence of previous ruling classes, the feudal lord, the slaveholder, motivated by a need for recognition on the part of his serfs or slaves, seeking primarily to expand the outward signs of his power in displays of wealth or conspicuous consumption. The capitalist as the personification of capital and its social relations is compelled to accumulate capital, and that accumulation process under which the collective worker is subsumed is itself riven with contradictions and crises, even as it creates a class, the collective worker, that can put an end to that insane system. It’s that dimension of the current situation that is not as clearly articulated here as is the rage against the lethal effects of this system.

Mac Intosh

Find below the English translation of a leaflet written and distributed by some people at the protest encampment in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol plaza. This ongoing encampment (“acampada”), with people actually living together for days and now for more than two weeks in these plazas, is part of a nation-wide movement involving at least 60, and perhaps as many as 80, cities across Spain, involving tens of thousands and perhaps over a hundred of thousand in all. The movement has called itself various names, including Real Democracy Now (“Democracia Real Ya”), Spanish Revolution (in English), and Take the Plaza (“Toma la Plaza”), and the participants refer to themselves as “los indignados”. While Real Democracy Now has been the most prominently used of these, it is clear from this leaflet that there is some difference of viewpoint on the question of Democracy. The people in the encampments have formed assemblies to discuss their shared situation and what they think should be done to change it. Protests in the plazas began on May 15 under the slogan “we are not commodities (merchandise) in the hands of bankers and politicians”, primarily by young people who are painfully aware of the bleak future facing them in this society. But the movement quickly developed into one encompassing all age groups. It has also spread to various other countries, including Greece (where there have also been many thousands involved), Italy, and France, and on a smaller scale to almost every European country

ER

>>>>>>>>

OUT WITH THEM ALL!

We were many over these last days, who have flowed into the streets to protest. All of us identify with the rejection of politicians, trade unions and bosses. Above all, we realize that we have reached the limit. We are tired of being the pariahs of this world and can no longer accept that a few people fill their pockets and live like kings, while all the others must tighten their belts ever more in order to maintain the health of the sacro-sanct economy. We know that to change all that we must struggle on our own, outside of parties, trade unions and other representatives who want to take charge of us.

Above all, this reality raises a fundamental question that affects the whole world: the contradiction between the interests of the economy and that of humanity. That is what our rebellious brothers in North Africa understood perfectly, that is what we understand here today: when the situation becomes unsustainable, we have to come out and fight. We have borne the unbearable; we have suffered the worst deterioration of our living conditions in decades. But finally we have said enough, and here we are, expressing our rejection of this entire infernal system that transforms our lives into commodities.

We definitely want to express our clear-cut refusal of the label of citizen. This label is tagged onto all people, from the politician to the unemployed, from the trade union boss to the student, from the richest capitalist to the most miserable worker. Completely antagonistic lifestyles are all mixed up. For us this is not a citizen’s struggle. It is a class struggle between exploiters and exploited, or between proletarians and bourgeois as some say. Unemployed, workers, pensioners, immigrants, students …we’re all part of the social class onto which fall all the sacrifices. The politicians, bankers, bosses… belong to the other class which profits, also to a greater or lesser degree, from our impoverishment. Those who do not want to see the reality of this class society, live in a dream world.

So, here we are, protesting in many public squares of many cities around the country, and it is time to reflect, it is time to concretize our positions and to clearly orient our practice. For sure, there is great heterogeneity. There is a confluence of comrades who have struggled for a long time against this system, others who are protesting for the first time, some for whom it’s clear that it is necessary to go “all the way:(“we want everything, now” says a banner at the Puerta del Sol). Some speak of reforming certain things, others still are disoriented, others just want to show that they have had enough … And we must not ignore that there are also those who are fishing in troubled waters, those who want to channel the discontent on order to neutralize its force, taking advantage of the indecision and the weaknesses that we manifest.

Something that we have discussed with many comrades is that our strength is in this rejection, in this movement of negation of everything that prevents us from living. That is what has forged our unity in the streets. We believe it is necessary to continue this way, to deepen and to better concretize our rejection. Because our strength comes from this negation, it is clear to us that we’re not going to solve our problems by demanding a better democracy, as some do, not even by demanding the best democracy we can imagine. Our strength consists in the rejection that we manifest of real democracy, the democracy “of flesh and bones,” that we suffer from day by day, and which is nothing other than the dictatorship of money. There is no other democracy. To strive for that ideal and wonderful democracy is a trap, the praises of which have been sung since our childhood.

In the same way, what’s at stake is not improving this or that aspect or life, because the essential condition will still be the dictatorship of the economy. It’s a matter of completely transforming the world, changing everything. Capitalism cannot reform itself; it must be destroyed. There is no intermediary way. It is necessary to go to the root of the matter; it is necessary to abolish capitalism.

We have occupied the streets a few days before the parliamentary circus [the regional elections in Spain], where whoever is elected will carry out the directives of the market. Good, this is a first step. But we cannot leave it at that. We have to continue the movement, to create and consolidate structures and organizations for the struggle, for the discussion between comrades, to confront the repression that has already struck us in Madrid and Granada. We have to realize that without social transformation, without social revolution, everything will continue as before.

We call for continuing to demonstrate our rejection of the spectacle of the electoral circus in all possible ways. We call to say everywhere: “Out with them all!” But we also call for continuing the struggle after Sunday, May 22. So that we can go much further than we already have. We cannot let the bonds of solidarity we are building perish.

We call for the formation of structures to carry on the struggle, we call for contact among us, to coordinate the battle, to struggle in the assemblies that are being created, in order to make them organs for fighting, for conspiring, for discussing the struggle, and not meetings of citizens. We are calling to organize ourselves throughout the whole country to fight against the tyranny of the commodity.

TO THE STREETS TO STRUGGLE!

DEMOCRACY IS THE DICTATORSHIP OF CAPITAL!

CAPITALISM CANNOT REFORM ITSELF; IT MUST BE DESTROYED!

-BLOQUE “¡QUE SE VAYAN TODOS!” (The “Out with Them All”- Bloc)

qsevayan@yahoo.es

May 19, 2011

Just added to the IP site is a discussion on the role of the trade unions from the Internationalist Discussion Network. The discussion includes contributions from IP comrades as well as Will, Barnes, Loren Golder and others.

The full debate is in the Discussions section of the site, and is linked here

The following first appeared in the Notes from Underground Blog

———————————-

Another exciting installment in an ongoing series.

The current issue of the Spartacist League (U.S.)’s newspaper Workers Vanguard has a series of letters about the class character of Laos.

Seems that very recently the International Communist League, the SL’s international organization, decided that they had been wrong about Laos. It turned out that instead of a grubby backward barely capitalist, brutal dictatorship, the fact that the state owns much of the meagre means of production means that it is in fact a deformed workers state (see below for terminology) This change in policy was announced without any fanfare in an article in Australia Spartacist a little while back, thus prompting letters from rather puzzled readers.

Now, for those not familiar with Trot-speak, the Russian Revolution was a healthy workers revolution, but by the time Stalin rolled around, it was deemed by many to have degenerated. Now with the expansion of Stalinism after the Second World War, orthodox Trotskyists, i.e., those dwindling bands of Trotsky’s followers who still saw something progressive in the Soviet Union were faced with the problem of a whole number of societies more or less identical to the soviet Union, but which were established by the so-called Red Army rather than by any genuine workers uprisings. Hmm, the circle was squared and these states were proclaimed to be deformed workers states.

The British Militant group’s historical leader Ted Grant once suggested that whenever Soviet Army boots touched the ground, the state magically transformed into a workers state. OK, he didn’t put it quite like that, but I’m not exaggerating by much. In any event, Militant bestowed the hallowed, but somewhat tatty title of workers state on Burma at one point.

In the case of Laos, here’s what the SL has to say:

Laos is based on a collectivized economy but ruled by a nationalist bureaucratic caste under the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party. While in recent years the Stalinist regime has enacted a series of “market reforms” following the examples of China and Vietnam, the class character of the state remains the same.

The idea that China or Vietnam constitute any sort of gain for the working class might strike many as a bit odd given the super-exploitation that exists in these societies, but apparently it doesn’t bother the SL.

Although the article is about Laos, less that half of it deals with Laos. The rest focuses on Cambodia, which the SL uses to characterize as a really deformed workers state. Until 1998 or so, then they began to argue that Cambodia’s insane Khmer Rouge regime was intent on destroying the means of production and therefore could not be classified as a workers state (oh well, that’s a relief.) Now, it’s characterized as a bourgeois state with a monarchy.

What motivated this change of line on Laos, retroactive to the mid-70s is unclear.

I always wonder though about those Catholics who did time in purgatory or wherever those sinners went for eating meat on Friday before Vatican Two OK’d it. Is there some sort of Trotsky hell dimension where people end up for these sort of sins of haivng a line too early? (Insert name of organization most closely resembling Trotskyist hell dimension here)

So good news Laotian working class, you have the honour of being part of a select group of deformed workers states which gets you exactly what again? The SL will surely defend you against imperialist attack, although their dubious Maoist “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” ideology would have allowed that anyway (“Libyan workers stop fighting for or against Gaddafi – fight the imperialists instead to militarily defend Gaddafi” …huh?) But in real terms, it doesn’t seem to amount to very much.

On the other hand, the issue was dated April 1, and although the Spartacists are not usually known for their sense of humour, you never know…

Fischer

IP is participating in a discussion forum organized by the GEC (Grupo de Esclarimiento Communista), based in Peru. One of the first themes discussed is ‘how to understand Marxism’. Below our contribution to the debate, the GEC’s reply and our answer.

WHICH MARXISM?

Marxism is the theory of the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, of its immanent tendencies. Perhaps all who call themselves Marxists can be in agreement with this general description. Nevertheless, they reach very different conclusions and they adopt very different practices. For that reason we must ask the question: which Marxism? And furthermore: which Marx? Because “Marxism” was not a theory that came in a complete and finished way from the head of Marx like goddess Athena from the head of Zeus. Marx’s thought was dynamic. He learned from the practice of the class struggle, from his own errors and weaknesses. A key moment in the development of his theory was the failure of the 1848 revolts that were not the revolution that the young Marx had expected, and which led him to an intense process of theoretical reflection. Until this point, Marx’s understanding of history reflected in part, a mechanistic conception, and the teleological vision of Hegel, and his critique of capitalist economy, centering on the inequalities of capitalism and its exploitation of the proletariat, reflected the influence of Ricardo. He understood that it was necessary to go deeper. His effort finally produced the economic manuscripts of 1857-1864 (Grundrisse and others) and the first edition of “Capital’ (1867) with its theory of the value-form. In these works, Marx laid bare the essential structures of capitalist social formation (the commodity, abstract labor, etc.) and passed from the critique of capitalist appropriation of the surplus value produced by the workers, to the critique of the production of value itself. His critique showed that value is a social relation between capital and labor, and not a physical quality of the commodity, in spite of the inverse appearance: that social relations are relations between things. He showed that the world of value is not an objective reality that exists outside of and independent of men but a human construction, historically specific. He investigated its origins and internal contradictions. He showed that value continually forces capital to develop the productive forces, even though masses of workers are permanently expelled from the process of production.

He didn’t have a crystal ball to foresee all the future development of capitalism but gave us a foundation to understand today’s reality, its possibilities and dangers. For Marx, the fundamental contradiction of capitalism is its dependence on living labor for the creation of surplus value while it is forced (by the same hunt for surplus value) to reduce living labor as much possible. In this process, the proletariat, the “collective worker,” as Marx put it, to emphasize that it produces value collectively, sees its capacity to create real wealth, the objectification of its concrete labor, grow rapidly while it sees value, the objectification of its abstract labor, grow less and less. Thus the conditions are born to overcome capitalism. We see them mature now in the expulsion of millions from global production, while there are already one and a half billion unemployed; in the weight of debt, in the vertiginous increase of slum cities, in the social convulsions from China to Egypt. Marx gave us the basis to understand that the current crisis is a crisis of the value-form, of the essential being of capitalism, which will not be solved by conquering state power to enforce a just distribution of surplus value “for the people.”

Unfortunately, much of what Marx wrote after 1848 was little known until the second part of 20th century, and in the interim an “orthodox Marxism” developed which, when it was inspired by Marx, identified itself primarily with the weaknesses of the young Marx, with the influence of bourgeois thinkers on his evolving theory. A more mechanistic, more simplistic, more “leftist” Marx. Thus a Marxist mythology developed, in which history follows a predetermined outcome, each stage programmed, with socialism as a result guaranteed by the development of the productive forces which require a socialist management of the economy, assumed by the Party, or, if we are lucky, by the councils led by the party.

It is not necessary to show here how various followers of Lenin have abused Marxism.We assume that the participants of this forum already are convinced of this. But in left communism also, the influence of “orthodox Marxism” is still very much alive. As well in its partyist expressions like the Italian Left, as in anti-partyist expressions like the Dutch Left, and in the later followers of these currents. They have not managed to free themselves from a mechanistic vision of history; they do not understand the changes in society and hang on to old recipes.

By contrast, Internationalist Perspective proposes a living Marxism, one that is not afraid to criticize its bases, that has no respect for dogma, one that nourishes itself on the practice of the “collective worker.” As Marx did, when the experience of the Paris Commune convinced him that the state cannot be conquered, but must be destroyed.

Internationalist Perspective

———————————————————-

Reply of the GEC:

Dear Comrades:

We agree with many of your positions on Marxism. For example, at the beginning, your document affirms that Marxism is the “theory of the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production”; we share this affirmation, but for us it is more precise to say that Marxism is the theory of the destruction of capitalism and the construction of communism. Because Marxism’s theoretical premises, for us, are not only about the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, but also express the revolutionary political principles for its destruction: political principles that the communist minorities have recognized and systematized from the whole of the proletarian struggle.

Also we share your vision of Marxism in understanding that it is not a theory that has leapt full blown from the head of Marx, because Marxism, aside from the points mentioned above, contains the systematization of the proletariat’s struggles throughout its existence and these are not the invention of anybody, but are the product of the class’s struggle in response to the contradictions of Capitalism. But a few lines further, you speak about “Marx Thought”. We don’t agree with this, this term for us is mistaken. Marxism is not the same as “Marx’s Thought”. Although we agree with what you state further about the different stages about the different stages in which Marx reached important conclusions about the capitalist mode of production, thus laying a base for our present analysis. But Marx, before being a theoretician who contributed his knowledge, was a militant, part of a communist organization. This last impels us to understand that the theoretical contributions that Marx made are not simply his own and exclusive to him, but are the contributions of the revolutionary minorities within which Marx militated. We have to clarify that the conclusions of the communists are the fruit of constant debates within the international communist movement.

Then we must also add that we share the critique of those you call “orthodox Marxists”, but do not share the term by which you designate them. For us, then, those who have distorted and twisted the revolutionary political principles of the proletariat, like all the varieties of Stalinism, cannot be considered Marxist, although they describe themselves as such. It is necessary that as communists we always emphasize this, because Marxism is not mechanical, nor static, as so many see it. For that reason we are in agreement with your last point: “Marxism is a living theory, one that can go back to its source, to criticize its bases; it does not respect dogmas, but bases itself on the practice of “collective worker”. This last point is the real basis to understand Marxism, in its critical dynamics that its history of struggle expresses.

Antón for the GEC. 07-03-11

—————————————————————–

IP responds:

Dear comrades,

Thank you for your reaction. We agree with your comment that Marxism is more than a “theory of internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, that it is, “the theory for the destruction of capitalism and the construction of communism” It’s true: Marxism does not pretend to be a science, looking from outside at the “objective” reality. Its point of departure is the struggle of the proletariat, from it it is born and for it it exists and must be developed, because it contains the possibility of communism. If we spoke of ‘Marx’ thought’, it was not to indicate an eternal truth (like ‘Mao’s thought’) but, to the contrary, to indicate that Marx’ comprehension of reality changed in function of the events, the debates among militants, the development of capital, his studies and the praxis of the proletariat in struggle. Therefore, the question: Which Marx?

The writings of Marx reflect the work of an entire and very full militant life and is therefore not lacking in internal contradictions. Like all varieties of Christianity can find citations in the bible to justify themselves, each variety of “Marxism” can find something in Marx that serves its purposes. But the problem is more profound. Perhaps it is not difficult to demonstrate that the Stalinists are not Marxists. But already it is a little more difficult when we speak of Trotskyists (at least the more intelligent ones). They have certain ‘Marxist’ dogmas in common with left communists. After Marx’ death, in a context of a strongly developing capitalism, Engels and Kautsky, mainly, have molded “orthodox Marxsim”. You critiqued the term ‘orthodox’ and perhaps you are right. We use this word ironically but perhaps that is not obvious. It would be better to speak of ‘traditional’ Marxism. But more important than the term is to see that ‘traditional’ Marxsim not only has given rise to ideologies of the counter-revolution but also infects the pro-revolutionary minorities. We speak of a mechanical Marxism in which historical materialism and dialectics are nothing more than formulas that hide a crude economic determinism and a teleological vision of history, in which each step, including communism, is predestined, in which the proletariat has a ‘mission’, assigned by ‘History’. In this marxism, the proletariat remains subjected to forces outside of it; consciousness is a thing for specialists or does not play an active role. This marxism was very convenient for reformism and then the counter-revolution but also was the foundation of the theories of Lenin, Trotsky and even of their critics like Bordiga and Pannekoek and various groups of the communist left of “today. The concept itself of an “orthodox marxism’ and its content come from them who see themselves as orthodox Marxists, faithful to the dogmas on which “scientific Marxism” is based. For us who see Marxism as living and historical theory, an orthodox marxism can not exist.

You agree with our position that “Marxism is a living theory, that has no fear of criticizing its base, that does not respect dogmas, that informs itselt of the praxis of the ‘collective worker’.” To make Marxism a living theory, the weapon that the struggle against capital needs, we have to liberate it from the dogmas that until now have infected the pro-revolutionary groups. For this purpose, the later writings of Marx, of which a large part was not published before the 1960’s, are an indispensable help.

Sander for IP

18-03-2011

Earlier this year, IP reported on the convictions and impending jail terms for several socialist militants in Korea. Here is a message from the group after the sentences were pronounced.

——————————————————————
The judge sentenced as below;

1) Oh Se-cheol, Yang Hyo-sik, Yang Joon-seok and Choi Young-ik :
imprisonment of 1 1/2 years, but conditional delay of imprisonment for 3 years for violation of National Security Law, and fine of 500,000 won ($500) each for violation of Assembly-Demonstration Law.

2) Park Joon-seon, Jeong Won-hyun, Nam-goong Won and Oh Min-gyu :
imprisonment of 1 year, but conditional delay of imprisonment for 2 years for violation of National Security Law,
and fine of 500,000 won each for violation of Assembly-Demonstration Law.

The meaning of the decision is as follows:

1) The SWLK (Socialist Workers League of Korea) is judged to be an organization for propaganda and agitation for national disturbances, violating Article 7 of the National Security Law.

It shows the political nature of Korean judicial branch, which is a part of state apparatus serving for the capitalist class.

2) The conditional delay of imprisonment can be recognized as the result of Korean and international protest movement. The conditional respite for 3 years means that the imprisonment is suspended for 3 years on the condition of that there will be no other sentence for another crime, and after 3 years the validity of imprisonment sentence expires. But if there is another sentence during the next 3 years, imprisonment from this sentence will follow independently of any imprisonment for further convictions. So, the conditional respite of imprisonment is only a bit better than immediate imprisonment.

3) We, the 8 accused will appeal this sentence to the high court.

We will live and act confidently as revolutionary socialists without regard to the political oppression of the Korean state apparatus.

Thank you to all socialists and workers in the world who supported the judicial struggle of Korean socialists.

Please transmit our gratitude to the comrades of the world.

I think the army was for a time watching, unsure and divided on what course to take, as was Washington. It probably would have preferred a restoration of fear and gave Mubarak ample chance to try to accomplish it. But when in Suez, Cairo and elsewhere workers went on strike, it became clear that intimidation had failed. Mubarak had to go. The hope was that this would defuse the situation. I expected that it would indeed do so, at least for a while, but that was a mistake, reflecting an underestimation of the combativity of the workers in Egypt. I could have known though, given the intensity of class struggles in Egypt in recent years. It is a very hopeful sign that those strikes continue and even spread, it shows the workers realize the limits of the symbolic victory that the departure of Mubarak means. That they want ‘independent unions’ as means to give their solidarity an organized expression beyond the present struggle, is to be expected. That these ‘independent’ unions will become a voice of capital like their colleagues in the more developed countries is also inevitable. The intervention of pro-revolutionaries should perhabs focus less on the form –they should always advocate forms that express the collective ‘ownership’ of the struggle but they can do so only when there really is a collective struggle- and more on the content: the refutation of protectionism, nationalization, anti-imperialism and other ‘solutions’ which the unions and others advocate on the base of the illusion that these will improve the lives of the working population. Promoting these goals serves to obscure the sense of the struggle, which is pointing towards global solidarity, towards producing for needs instead of for profit, towards ending the dictatorship of the value-form over human life.
The Egyptian proletariat has advanced us all in this direction. As Raoul V observes in a recent text on the francophone side of this discussion-list, the international reverberation of its struggle is so great that the (“communist”) authorities of the People’s Republic of China deemed it necessary to censure all internet searches containing the word “Egypt”. As Raoul writes, the working class in Egypt has to wage a struggle on three levels: maintaining the freedom of speech and action conquered in the streets, snatching some improvements in their living and working conditions, and not letting themselves being hoodwinked and marshalled by ‘democratic’, ‘patriottic’, religious, syndicalist forces undertaking the task of massaging society back to normality. That is our fight too.

Sander

The deepening of the world economic crisis, since 2008, has caused a significant degradation of living and working conditions in the “poor” countries and frontal attacks through austerity plans, the increase in unemployment, and the revocation of many [long standing] “social gains” in the “rich” countries.

Class reactions have multiplied throughout the world, there are strikes, riots with violent confrontations with the forces of repression, demonstrations…

What is significant in the current movements is the mobilization of youth. Greek youth have been the cutting edge of contestation since 2008 but in their wake, French and English students and, now, Tunisian, Algerian and Egyptian are the motivating force of the movements. But these young people, in Tunisia, in Egypt seem to have forged a link to other demands. They have been set in motion

The movements unfolding in the Maghreb must be situated in this context of a major aggravation of the world economic crisis and its repercussions on the proletariat, working or unemployed. They express a revolt against the price increase, but also, and this is fundamental, against the complete absence of any perspective represented by the capitalist system. This absence of any perspective manifests itself more and more strongly and affects the whole planet.

These movement are important in other ways too: they constitute an experiment in collective struggle, in the capacity to oppose, the capacity to say “No”, to reject the established order. These experiences, combined with the questioning about [the lack of any perspective, will not fail to have an important impact on the future development of the political consciousness of the proletariat.

The risk exists that the current demands in Tunisia and Egypt will be swallowed up by the illusion that a change of President or of the government will give work to the young people, will fill the shopping baskets of the housewife, and will allow freedom of expression and of organization.

Remember that the transformation of Latin America dictatorships and the so-called “communist” regimes into more modern, “democratic,” political systems, corresponded to a change into regimes better adapted to the present needs of the accumulation of capital, and the need for a democratic control of the working class. But, if these political adaptations allowed a better exploitation of natural resources and some industrial development, they only very partially masked the overturning of existing health care, housing, educational, systems, and the creation of an even wider gap between a newly enriched class and an increasing mass of the poor consigned to unemployment, to poverty, to drugs, and to the violence of the shantytowns and the street.

Thus, the movements of revolt agitating Tunisia and Egypt express at the same time the refusal of the poverty generated by the capitalist mode of production, the search for new perspectives, but also the hopes invested in a change [in the mode] of political management. They reflect the difficulty, for the world proletariat, to envision a new society and thus to break with the economic, social, and political functioning of capitalism.

It is now clear that life in this system, under whatever form it takes, can only produce more poverty, wars, destruction of the environment, and, at the end of the day, a major degradation in the conditions of existence of human beings.

Only putting into question the very bases of this society on a world scale can open up a revolutionary perspective for the creation of a society offering radically different perspectives.

Internationalist Perspective

Three comments / excerpts from internet discussion lists.

…I would add …that the other “battle” within the ruling class in Egypt, within the army, that is now playing out, over the fate of Mubarak (and whether he should be removed immediately or not) also needs to become the subject of Marxist analysis of the events. Even if the army decided to support the “people” and remove Mubarak now, so long as it retains control as an institution, so long as it constitutes a “caretaker” government until elections can be “organized” (which seems to be the choice of the Obama administration), the mass movement will be neutralized by capital, and the time gained will be used to negate it. Only a movement that explicitly raises class demands can begin to avert that fate.

—————————————————–

…Yes, revolutionaries in Egypt must be on the street … but what’s really needed is analysis, not just “pride” — the kind of analysis that Marx made of the class struggles in France in 1848, an analysis of the actual political and class forces in motion, but one relevant to Egypt in 2011. When several days ago the Egyptian army rolled into the streets around Tahrir Square, most of the protester there, including the representatives of organized political groups, greeted them as allies. As a conscript army, its ranks filled with the sons of workers and the poor, the prospects for appealing to them is real. But the army is also the officer corps, the very socio-political force from which Mubarak (like Nasser and Sadat before him came), the veritable lynchpin of the capitalist class in Egypt since 1953. Marxist analysis can make clear that as a political force the army (not the rank and file soldiers) is the enemy of the mass movement, of the working class, and the behavior of the army today, permitting the government thugs to attack Tahrir Square, standing down as hundreds of protesters were assaulted, and several killed, is the outcome. The only question was whether the army would deliver the coup de grace to Mubarak in the interests of preserving its own power or choose to crack down on the protesters: we may be seeing the answer to that question now. As to the political organizations which seek a democratic Egypt, the immediate removal of Mubarak, the suppport of the Obama administration, and elections, none of them, not ElBaradei, not the “New Wafd,” are in a position to mobilize the mass of the population in a free election. Indeed, at the risk of historical analogies they seem to be latter day Miliukov’s and Kerensky’s. Far more likely to emerge in a powerful, perhaps leading position, as a result of free elections is the Muslim Brotherhood, which does have a real powerful base. Perhaps Washington can live with such a regime (after all the Brotherhood is now “moderate”), but can women, Copts, Marxists, workers? That’s not the concern of Obama, but it is the concern of socialists, which is why analysis and not just being in Tahrir Square is what’s needed.

———————————-

Though old formulas may no longer work, worker’s councils, soviets (neighborhood and work place), elected and revocable, are still the place to begin. By contrast, the democratic regimes that replaced the Stalinist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989 legitimated capitalist social relations, preserved the value form (wage labor, commodity production, etc.) and reduced the working class (and the mass of the population) to passive spectators of political processess managed by professionals in the service of capital accumulation and power politics. Is Poland, Hungary, or Romania, post-1989 the model for Tunisia or Egypt? That is where the call for democracy and free elections will lead even if successfful, and not simply a prelude to military rule or religio-ethnic xenophobia. Revolutionaries have something other to propose in an historical epoch where democracy in the best of cases is the political framework to manage austerity and the planet of slums that is all capitalism can produce today.

Mac Intosh