The problem with this analysis is the number of political parties who claim to be revolutionary cannot even agree among themselves. For example the Socialist Workers Party could not agree on almost anything with the Workers Revolutionary Party, which itself split into two factions, with the SWP claiming the former Soviet Union was “State Capitalist” while the WRP maintaining the USSR was a “Degenerated Workers State”. The fact is does it matter? A good debating shop maybe but about as much relevance to the working class as what colour the loo roll the Pope or Monarch uses!
My own experience tells me that the sole aim of the supposed “vanguard” of the revolution, or those who seek to be the “vanguard” is to replace themselves for the working-class. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) replacing the democratic structures of the ‘Supreme Soviet’ with themselves. To anybody who has read George Orwell’s Animal Farm where the pigs took over the position of the farmer living in luxury while the rest of the animals, having overthrown the Farmer, Mr Jones, representing capitalism, struggled just as they had under Jones!
My own experience tells me that the sole aim of the supposed “vanguard” of the revolution, or those who seek to be the “vanguard” is to replace themselves for the working-class. This is what occurred in the Soviet Union with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) replacing the democratic structures of the ‘Supreme Soviet’ with themselves. To anybody who has read George Orwell’s Animal Farm where the pigs took over the position of the farmer living in luxury while the rest of the animals, having overthrown the Farmer, Mr Jones, representing capitalism, struggled just as they had under Jones!
The various political parties who all claim to be Marxists are in fact no such thing. These parties who bicker over the slightest detail such as the one mentioned above are incapable of leading the proletariat to the successful overthrow of capitalism replacing the system of exploitation with one of production for need - not greed - and equality.
The major question of which all others stem from is; who owns the means of production, distribution and exchange the capitalist minority class or the majority working class? The capitalist class have no idea how to operate the means of production they own – this includes all the new technology and not just the factories, transport, land and all that goes with it. That leads me to thinking how do the proletariat seize the means of production which is rightfully theirs? All three classical economists, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx all agree labour creates all wealth. Smith added labour time to Smith's initial theory and Marx put the icing on the cake by depicting labour power as the creation of wealth and the only commodity the worker has to sell to an employer for a monetary wage. That is a relevant today as it was back in the nineteenth century. Deindustrialisation does not alter this central principle.
Three ingredients are necessary which the capitalist class fear and are constantly aiming not to create these conditions for. They introduce laws, give out enough sweeties to buy off and divide the working class to prevent these three ingredients from evolving.
Firstly we need a general withdrawal of labour leading to occupation of the means of production and private property, secondly mass civil disobedience in support of this strike and thirdly the ability to defend the strike and civil demonstrations and occupations. All three of these are essential to a successful socialist revolution leading to truly communist society, and these political parties cannot substitute themselves for the class. That then begs the question who does coordinate the revolutionary mood within the working class should it ever come about? Well, that leadership must come from the point of production, the workplace, be it in transport, the banks, the offices etc and that lead and guidance should come from the militant shop steward’s committees. The only democracy in the workplace as things stand are the election yearly of the shop stewards. This system of true democracy starts at the base point, the workplace. The area councils are the next strata of revolutionary government leading to the national council, or supreme governing body. Everybody from the point of production, pensioners committees and all minority and ethnic groups must have the maximum say in the democratic process. What we have now is not ‘participatory’ democracy but liberal democracy which is not really democracy at all.
All the parties in any liberal democracy are elected to represent the interests of the capitalist class usually at the expense of the working class. Admittedly this is better than fascist dictatorship but it does not substitute workers' control of the economy and industry in all their manifestations. The economy must be planned, not free market as it presently is. Marx maintained the development of the “industrial proletariat” was dependent on the advancement of the “industrial bourgeoisie” which at the time was perfectly true. We have now gone beyond that precondition and the bourgeoisie as a class are no longer necessary. This does not mean murdering individual members of that class as some people think or pretend to think in order to discredit socialism. It simply means a transfer of power from the capitalist class to the working class.
All the parties in any liberal democracy are elected to represent the interests of the capitalist class usually at the expense of the working class. Admittedly this is better than fascist dictatorship but it does not substitute workers' control of the economy and industry in all their manifestations. The economy must be planned, not free market as it presently is. Marx maintained the development of the “industrial proletariat” was dependent on the advancement of the “industrial bourgeoisie” which at the time was perfectly true. We have now gone beyond that precondition and the bourgeoisie as a class are no longer necessary. This does not mean murdering individual members of that class as some people think or pretend to think in order to discredit socialism. It simply means a transfer of power from the capitalist class to the working class.
In order for workers living standards to increase the present ruling class would have a decrease in their living standard. Does anybody need an eight-bedroom house while others are living on the street? To achieve this socialist society built on equality will not come about through voting in its present form. Irrespective of who we vote into government the capitalist or ruling class will still be in charge – the word democracy is all well and good, in their eyes, providing it does not threaten their class status – the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which is what we have at the moment. Out of this struggle for socialism based on democratic elections at the point of production, in the working-class areas and in care homes a political party may evolve but it is not a precondition for socialist revolution. What is essential are strong trade union rank and file shop stewards forming these revolutionary committees which at the moment we do not have, yet.
Would the bourgeoisie fight back? Yes, without a doubt, they would not hand over the means of production, distribution and exchange land and estates which the minority class presently own. They would fight using their armies, and this applies to any country, to crush the revolutionary workers organisation and it for this reason the proletariat must have the ability to defend themselves meaning an armed wing. This armed wing would defend the revolution, as did the Red Army in the USSR before the likes of Lenin reinterpreted all “power to the soviets” to mean all power to the Bolsheviks and himself in particular. This was when the distorted version of socialism in the USSR began to go tragically wrong. We must learn the lessons of history and not fall for the Soviet model, though it was better than the mess presently prevailing in that part of the world.
In theory the political party would dissolve itself once the overthrow of capitalism has been achieved. In reality would this happen? In my experience after the parties who claim revolutionary status have stopped fighting each other the one which takes the roll of “vanguard” of the revolution will not dissolve itself and hand power to the elected councils. There’s more chance of finding rocking horse shit! For this reason I would argue the democratic socialist revolution does not need the so-called revolutionary party who wish to substitute themselves for the proletariat as a whole. ‘Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely’
Will this scenario of socialist revolution ever happen? That I cannot answer as people, for the time being, appear generally happy with been exploited and settle for a few crumbs from the table of the wealthy. It is not a question of wanting a larger slice of the cake but moreover we want to ‘own the bakery’. People may appear happy enough at the moment, certainly in the Western world, but ideas and thoughts can change in struggle. That struggle one day will have to be waged. The question is when this transformation of class power will occur not if.
Would the bourgeoisie fight back? Yes, without a doubt, they would not hand over the means of production, distribution and exchange land and estates which the minority class presently own. They would fight using their armies, and this applies to any country, to crush the revolutionary workers organisation and it for this reason the proletariat must have the ability to defend themselves meaning an armed wing. This armed wing would defend the revolution, as did the Red Army in the USSR before the likes of Lenin reinterpreted all “power to the soviets” to mean all power to the Bolsheviks and himself in particular. This was when the distorted version of socialism in the USSR began to go tragically wrong. We must learn the lessons of history and not fall for the Soviet model, though it was better than the mess presently prevailing in that part of the world.
In theory the political party would dissolve itself once the overthrow of capitalism has been achieved. In reality would this happen? In my experience after the parties who claim revolutionary status have stopped fighting each other the one which takes the roll of “vanguard” of the revolution will not dissolve itself and hand power to the elected councils. There’s more chance of finding rocking horse shit! For this reason I would argue the democratic socialist revolution does not need the so-called revolutionary party who wish to substitute themselves for the proletariat as a whole. ‘Power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutely’
Will this scenario of socialist revolution ever happen? That I cannot answer as people, for the time being, appear generally happy with been exploited and settle for a few crumbs from the table of the wealthy. It is not a question of wanting a larger slice of the cake but moreover we want to ‘own the bakery’. People may appear happy enough at the moment, certainly in the Western world, but ideas and thoughts can change in struggle. That struggle one day will have to be waged. The question is when this transformation of class power will occur not if.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
