Most people think that the Left is the movement of the working class for socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. It does seem to be about supporting the struggle of the workers, but when you look more closely into it one of the main features of the Left is supporting liberal capitalist parties such as the Labour Party or the Democrats in America. The Left will also routinely advocate support for certain weaker, e.g. "third world” countries - meaning the governments of nation states, against stronger ones i.e. Western Powers. This is described as anti-imperialism as though the victory of the weaker country would do more than slightly alter the ranking of states within the world imperialist pecking order. Imperialism is a historical stage of capitalism and opposing it, as opposed to opposing capitalism itself via working class revolution, is meaningless. Then there is a common form of "radical" nationalism consisting of supporting so-called "national liberation movements", such as the PLO and the IRA, both who now exercise state power on behalf of their antagonist. Often it is argued, even if one disapproves of nationalism, that nevertheless nations have a right to self-determination, and one must support this right. An example of double-talk. The working class should not talk about its rights but about its class interest. Talking about a right to national "self-determination" (as though a geographical grouping of antagonistic classes can be a "self") is like saying that workers have a right" to be slaves if they want to. Siding with the working class against all capitalist factions necessitates opposing all forms of nationalism whatsoever. Last but not least, is the advocacy of the leadership of "revolutionary left" over the working class This division between a mass of followers and an elite of leaders mirrors the divide in mainstream capitalism (and indeed all forms of class society) between rulers and ruled, and serves well the project of constructing state capitalism, after the future revolution.
None of this means that socialists expect that all workers will come simultaneously towards revolutionary ideas, because to begin with only a minority will be revolutionaries, but their task is to argue their case with the rest of their fellow workers as equals. What the Left do, however, is to perpetuate the sheep-like mentality workers learn under capitalism and harness it to their aim to be in charge after the “revolution”. We say that if anyone is in charge, if the working class does not lead itself and consciously build a new society, then it will fare no better than in Russia and China and all the rest did. We believe that all left-wing groups, whether Stalinist or Trotskyist (or Maoist or whatever they call themselves) are merely radical capitalist organisations who, if they ever came to power, would erect new state-capitalist dictatorships in the name of the very working class they would then proceed to crush. This is not a matter of the subjective intentions of their members, whose sincerity we are not questioning here, but the objective result of their policies.
All the confusion created by the Left cannot hide forever the fact that since the time capitalism began there has been a real movement for a new and genuinely human way of life, for a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle. This movement has emerged again and again. Each time it has been crushed, but only to re-emerge, perhaps years or decades later. In place of capitalist society with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of all. Production for profit will be replaced by production for pleasure. When the ruling classes are fully overthrown we will be free to take on the re-organisation of everything. We can then gather in public assemblies and at work-place meetings to discuss our real needs and desires. No more will people be compelled to be competitive with each other. All of us will be a co-owner of the entirety of the world's wealth and means of production, as well as sharing in the entire natural environment.
Planning and decision making will not be a separate or specialised occupation. It will be an integrated part of production and of life for everyone. For the day-to-day matters of running, for instance, a given factory, decisions will be made at assemblies of all those involved. But nobody's activities need be restricted to a given "job" or locality. There will no longer be a "work day." Nor a separate "leisure" time.
The Malthusian view of the world says that it cannot support each individual with adequate food, shelter etc. as its population grows and grows. This idea is still quite prevalent but socialists keep pointing out because of improved technology, the planet can indeed support a growing world population. Many environmentalists would like to envisage a predominantly rural society, having rightly identified urbanisation with shanty-towns and slums under capitalism and so desire a closer connection with nature. But does city life preclude this, and do we actually want a predominantly rural environment. It is certainly desirable to have less of a division between towns and country in technological and productive terms. We probably should have small factories and workshops in villages and already many seek increased city farming. Concentrations of people can imply cultural and lifestyle diversity and homes can possess architectural variety.
The Socialist Party stands for the creation of a world without states, classes, money and wages, where production will be undertaken for need not profit but to directly satisfy all human needs. Some people describe this as "utopian". In one sense this is true: such a society does not exist anywhere, and never has. But we reject this "utopian" label if it implies that our goal has no connection with present-day reality. Some organisations engage in the class struggle in order to recruit members to their party, with the aim of eventually becoming strong enough to seize power. We oppose such groups. We do not set ourselves up as generals, directing the rest of the working class into battle. A genuine and successful revolution can only be carried out by vast masses of working people consciously organising and leading themselves. Besides, in the unlikely event that such groups did succeed in seizing power, the likely outcome would be in a so-called "worker's state" (with them in power), in which we would find ourselves working for "socialist" bosses, being paid "socialist" wages, and so on. If they share our future goal at all - and in most cases, they don't - it is only as a distant mirage which continually recedes in the face of endless "transitional periods".
Let us be clear about this: the only way capitalism can be dismantled is for the working class to immediately abolish money and the market, and distribute goods according to need (albeit with scarce goods being rationed for a time if necessary). Those who argue that this cannot be done immediately are in fact arguing for retaining the very core of capitalist social relations - if that is done the revolution is as good as dead. We believe that, despite the obstacles put in its way by both Right and Left, the working class has the power to destroy capitalism for real, and create a society without classes, without the state, national boundaries, oppression or inequality. A society not based on money or other forms of exchange, but on collective ownership of, and free access to, all society's goods on the part of the whole of humanity. This society, which we call Communism or Socialism or Anarchism interchangeably, will be the first truly free society ever to exist. Our task in the Socialist Party is not to be leaders but to be part of the process of creation of a revolutionary working class movement that will put an end to our world's long history of oppression and exploitation, and begin the long history of the free, world human community to come.
As for the Left, they can take their "transitional demands," "cadre leadership" and "revolutionary self-sacrifice” -- and shove it up their respective rear-ends. There will be no commodity exchange and no State and no religious mullahs or rabbis to decide our activities for us; no "national interest."
No comments:
Post a Comment