'Practical Socialism - Its Principles and Methods'. (Part 1)

The Socialist Party is a thorn in the side of the left-wing and our mere existence means that the Left are required to meet the arguments of traditional Marxism. Part of its task is to liberate the idea of socialism from the immense accumulation of ideological baggage that has become its burden. By stripping this away the Socialist Party reveals the core simplicity and practicality of socialism. It has been said that the capitalist system digs its own grave; it does not! The only way it will be consigned to history is when a majority of people take political action to end it. What the capitalist system does do, and has no choice about it, is develop a material basis for what could be a new socialist society. These developments are in the global fields of production, distribution, administration, and communications. They bring with them the possibility of a different world system with a good life for all people in conditions of peace, cooperation and well being.  The Socialist Party analysis of social problems and their causes clarifies what is happening in the world of economics and politics from the point of view of working people, searches out the causes of problems and is a pointer to solutions. Without this socialist criticism, clear understanding would be lost, leaving only a veil of mystification which conceals the real interests and motives of dominant power groups.

Those who take a 'gradualist' view believe that a new society can only be introduced piecemeal through policies of reform. For this, the all-important issue is to capture political control to form a government. It is assumed that such a government would be not just in political control but also economic control. Then, through legislation on such problems as housing, health care and education and pensions, living standards for working people would be raised. Such a government, working in close collaboration with the trade unions, would be able to raise the level of wages for all working people. At the same time, through the nationalisation of industry, and through corporation tax, inheritance tax, and death duties, the owning class of capitalists would be removed from all sectors of production and taxed out of existence. This we can describe as the reformist road to socialism and has been adopted by the progressives and liberals of the left-wing and has filled manifesto after manifesto with lists of demands.

The Socialist Party takes a different view which argues that the condition for the establishment of socialism was not simply the capture of political power. To be successful, political control had to be supported by a majority of people who fully understood the meaning of socialism together with what would be involved in the change from capitalism to socialism. It was held that unless this majority of socialists was achieved, capitalism would continue. Their campaigning is directed at raising socialist consciousness through meetings, leaflets, pamphlets and a socialist journal. It argued that the best way to defend worker's interests within capitalism was to build up a strong, principled socialist movement. Members of the Socialist Party have based their criticism of the reformist route not primarily on political theory but on economic theory. This was a crucial difference between what came to be the reformist policy and the revolutionary policy. The reformists began with a political objective which was the capture of political power. The SPGB began with an economic analysis of the capitalist system which set out the limitations of political action within capitalism and therefore the need for a revolutionary change. They understood that no government, however well intentioned, or given to revolutionary aspiration, could direct the course of capitalist economic development simply by the application of political hopes. They argued that the mechanics of the market system are driven by economic laws which are inherent in the system and which are not susceptible to ideological direction or government control. It was accepted that politics could make a marginal difference but ultimately, economic factors would be decisive in setting a framework of constraints on what governments and therefore society can do. In this view, production is both regulated and limited by what can be distributed as commodities for sale at a profit in the markets. The idea that class ownership and the profit system could be subjected to gradual abolished through reform change was an illusion.  It meant that socialism could not be introduced gradually by reform but only as a result of conscious political action by a majority of socialists.

It is inherent in the capitalist system that it generates discontent and protest but it has also been unfortunate that the long history of protest has been empty of political action that could end the system. Inevitably, the causes of problems are left intact and lead on to a further rounds of protest. This reduces protest to political theatre.  Because it is impossible for the capitalist system to serve the interests of the whole community it constantly throws up issues that demand action by those who are socially concerned. The great danger in being diverted from campaigning for socialism and swamped by campaigns to "Ban the Bomb", "Stop the War", "Cancel the Debt," or whatever. This becomes not just a diversion but an end in itself. Inevitably, it becomes a campaign for an "improved" version of humane capitalism. Though the scripts may vary and the actors may change the message is the same, "we demand that governments do this, that or the other!"  It is in this process of campaigning for a re-branded or a reformed form of capitalism that the work for socialism tends to become lost. Those who in the past felt that action should be limited to making capitalism a better system, have contributed, albeit unwittingly, to the present state of things. A sane society cannot be postponed without accepting the consequences of the postponement. The spectacle of thousands, demanding that governments act on their behalf is a most reassuring signal to those in power that their positions of control are secure. Repeated demonstrations do little more than confirming the continuity of the system. It is in this sense that most, protest is a permanent feature of the status quo. The point should be to change society not to appeal to the doubtful better nature of its power structures.  The Socialist Party analysis is not only a criticism of the capitalist system, it also a criticism of the political activities of most working people.  However, no matter how true the analysis and how correct the proposed political action required for their solution and the building of a better world, the ideas of the Socialist Party, nevertheless, failed to influence the every-day thinking of our fellow-workers, mostly ignored although it is the party that shines the light of hope in a world heading towards disaster.

Adapted from the late Pieter Lawrence,  'Practical Socialism - Its Principles and Methods

The System Overrules The Good Intentions

Some politicians are well meaning and, as I was once a member of a pro-capitalist party, I can speak from experience. One such person is Al Gore, who, though no longer in office, carries some weight. Watching him interviewed promoting his new movie, "An inconvenient sequel: Truth to Power." One definitely feels he is really concerned about the effects of global warming. Gore makes various suggestions how this can be eliminated and to an extent, it can be slowed down within capitalism, but never stopped.

Gore is oblivious to the fact that the government making decisions concerning global warming are responding to the needs of capitalism in the countries they represent. Does anyone seriously think Trump gives a damn about the effects of it, and he isn't the only one? 

We in the SPC do not sneer at the well-known paradigm of good intentions, which could be a very fine thing if one translates those intentions into working for a society where global warming won't exist. 

John Ayers

Scottish arms traders

28 firms from Scotland are due to attend an arms fair in London dubbed a “festival of violence” – including a US arms giant with a factory in Fife that’s been linked to alleged war crimes in Yemen.

The Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair will take place at the Excel Centre in East London between 12-15 September, with around 34,000 attendees expected. It is one of the largest arms fairs in the world, a bi-annual event that brings more than 1,500 exhibitors together with military delegations from around the world. It includes governments with dire human rights records. DSEI facilitates arms sales ranging from rifles to tanks, and from fighter jets to battleships. Some 56 countries have been invited, including regimes accused of gross human rights abuses. Among them are Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Kuwait, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and United Arab Emirates.

Companies based in Scotland due to attend the event include Raytheon, which makes laser guided systems for smart bombs used in Yemen and Chemring, a company based in Ardeer accused of selling weapons to Gulf State countries who use them to suppress pro-democracy demonstrations. Major arms firms with facilities in Scotland also due to attend DSEI include BAE Systems, Leonardo, Thales and Lockheed Martin. Other smaller companies due to take part include Jack Ellis Body Protection, from Kirriemuir, MacTaggart Scott and Digital Barriers, a firm selling surveillance technology.

Campaign Against Arms Trade said the guest list for DSEI includes a range of “despots, dictatorships and human rights abusers” from regimes that have committed “terrible abuses” against their citizens. “Yet UK civil servants and government ministers will be rolling out the red carpet for them. If Theresa May and her colleagues care for human rights and democracy then it’s time to shut down DSEI,” the campaign’s Andrew Smith argued.

Everything Dandy? Well We Have Our Doubts

In "Women and the Vote," by Jad Adams, Oxford University Press, 2014, the author analyses women's struggle for the vote all over the world. The one common trend, which permeates the book, is the main reason they got the vote was that they proved their loyalty to their country; really meaning the local capitalist class. Pretty sickening isn't it? 

We in the S.P.C stand for a society where nobody has to campaign for equality as it will be a given.

Too many people view politicians as stupid, corrupt or both. Though in the SPC, we realise some are, we don't dwell on it too much, as it would be tantamount to saying, "if they weren't a bunch of jerks, everything under capitalism would be peachy-dandy."

 Well, we have our doubts about that.

Our Social Revolution

 Political revolution to describe a change in the class which controls the State, social revolution to mean a change in the basis of society and socialist revolution to describe the particular change of society from capitalism to socialism. We cannot deny that the word revolution has often been used to mean “violent overthrow” and in fact most of the political and social revolutions of the past have been violent. We deny, however, that there is any necessary connexion between revolution and violence. This is an important point, and one we have always made ourselves. In our view the distinction between revolution and reform is not between violent overthrow (insurrection) and peaceful change (using elections and Parliament), but between those who want to replace capitalism by Socialism and those who seek merely to re-form capitalism in one way or another. We claim to be revolutionaries because we stand for a fundamental and rapid change in the basis of society following the capture of political power by the working class, even though we hold that the working class can capture political power peacefully through elections and Parliament. On the other hand, there are many who believe in the violent capture of political power but who would use it merely to re-form capitalism (generally into State capitalism). We deny they are revolutionaries, irrespective of their commitment to insurrectionary tactics.

 The change we desperately need now is a change in the structure of society itself. A change which will give us freedom from their domination and exploitation. So that we shall have control of the technology and science we develop. Control of the production and distribution we need to live on. Control of change itself. Only we can make this sort of change. We are in the immense majority all over the world. We produce and manage everything already. The capitalist class and their power structure contribute nothing. But they consume over half the wealth we produce. This sort of change cannot be gradual.

The e people who own all the industries in the country are few in number—about 10 per cent of the population— and for that reason is very rich. It’s not strictly true that members of this privileged class must have necessarily worked to own all they do. A great deal of their wealth is inherited. But in any case, let’s ask us how these fortunes are made in the first place. After all, they’re so huge it seems unlikely that they are made simply by living a frugal life. These fortunes are made out of you and me. n any industry, the workers produce more in terms of wealth than they receive as wages—because they are not paid for what they produce, but just enough for them to live at a certain standard of living. This is then used up and then back we go to work again the following week. In other words, it’s because wages, on an average, only provide us with enough to keep alive and healthy—plus enough to reproduce sufficient offspring to carry on the job of piling up more wealth than we ever see—that we have to perpetuate the agony in the way described. And it is the difference between this amount and the amount actually produced by workers which accounts for the profits of the owners. So we also perpetuate our compulsory generosity at the same time. The present system, and the way it is run. depends entirely on the effort of people like us, who have to work. We run the whole show from, lop to bottom. For that reason, if all of us united together, it would be in our power to set up a system where there would not be the rat-race that exists at present. We suggest that we set up a system where we all co-operate to make necessary work as pleasant as possible and our conditions of life the best possible, too. This, in turn, we suggest, can be done by establishing a society where all wealth is owned in common.

 The Socialist Party can’t do a thing on its own. What is needed is a majority of people like us to do something. Members of the Socialist Party realise that their interests are identical with the interests of 90 per cent of people in society; and that all of us can only achieve an appreciable improvement in our position by political action. This doesn’t mean going into Parliament and forming a government. Rather it means going into Parliament to end the need for a Parliament at all!  It is from Parliament, you see, that the system of private ownership is ultimately run. The government of the day deals with affairs which affect the owners of industry as a class rather than as individuals. Hence all the time spent on finance, influence and control over whole industries, and so on. All this will go when private ownership goes. This is a task for which the Socialist Party can be used. It doesn’t run for office, as all the other political parties do. It exists as a vehicle which the population can use for ending property society, if it decides to, by sending the party’s delegates to Parliament for that purpose. This is the reason, and the only reason, the Socialist Party contests elections. We always lose, but that doesn’t mean to say we’re wasting our time. We expect to lose elections until enough people have accepted the arguments for the radical change I’ve been talking about. And by contesting elections we help to propagate these ideas. So at this stage we are mainly a propaganda organisation.

There can only be a radical change in the way we conduct our lives if there is a corresponding radical change in society. This must be done ultimately by a majority of the population bringing about the kind of change we've indicated. The task may seem almost hopeless. But there is a slim chance, and the only organisation which gives voice to these ideas is the Socialist Party.

Violence Sells The Product

In, Lemmings don't Leap, by Edwin Moore, Chambers, 2006, the author demolishes popular myths, one of which is the Wild West, which wasn't very wild. Sure there were shoot outs on Main Street but not to the extent we've been told.

In Dodge City's worse year for killing, only 5 were shot, Tombstone also had 5, and Deadwood 4.

Quiet a difference from movies that show the dead littering the street, but, and this is a sad reflection on capitalism – its violence that sells product. 

John Ayers.

Spread The Light Of Socialism

'I'm not the angry racist they see': Alt-Righter became viral face of hate in Virginia — and now regrets it – rawstory.com

Right! All the Nazi officers said they regretted their past actions during the trials. If you ask me, if a person can commit such grave atrocity towards their fellow humans, even once, regret does not absolve them of their crime. Yet the issue is not with individual acts, but the deep current of racist build up in today's society's veins. Until we clear it, it will keep poisoning new minds.

And that is why we are here in SPC. Trying hard to spread the light of socialism as an inclusive and sustainable future for all human kind. 

John Ayers

No War Between Nations, No Peace Between Classes!

Capitalism has us heading towards catastrophe. Today, future prospects certainly appear dire on many fronts. The Socialist Party argues that the idea of the global socialist revolution must become stronger than the idea of the nation, that the nation-state must be dismembered, if the working class wishes to be victorious. Between capitalism and the social revolution there can be no compromise of any sort, only class struggle until resolution. It must be clearly decided what is understood as socialism and what is not. 

Marx and Engels took a pragmatic view of nationalism. Hungarian and Polish nationalism in 1848 was good because these potential new nations would form a bulwark against Tsarist despotism, but on the other hand, Czech and Croat nationalism was bad as it would facilitate Russian reactionaryism. Marx and Engels supported many of the nationalist struggles of their day because they viewed capitalism as a historic advance over feudalism.  They understood that capitalism could develop the productive capacities of human society to levels unimaginable under feudalism. They understood further that capitalism brought into existence a class of producers--the proletariat, the modern working class--that for the fir›t time in history was truly collective. This class thereby embodied the potential for democratic self-rule. In the eyes of Marx and Engels, every victory for capitalism over feudalism propelled humanity further toward the goal of freedom from material want and political subjugation.

Later socialist such as Luxemburg, on the other hand, believed that the right of nations’ to self-determination had become pure utopianism and national independence was no longer something worthy to strive for. Times had changed and history had moved on from the situation Marx and Engels faced. The truth of what Marx and Engels had written that " The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got." had been proven. Workers own no country, so why should we care which section of the class of thieves owns which national portion of the world? Workers have the world to win, not nations to fight for. National liberation revolutions were not proletarian movements that led to socialism of any kind.  We cannot separate abolishing capitalism from abolishing nation-states, which is not accomplished by national-liberation revolutions or socialism-in-one-country. We aim for the worldwide cooperative commonwealth, where all of the world’s people are able to fully flourish as individuals. National sovereignty is something socialists don’t actually want because our aim is not national independence but planetary cooperation.

Every Socialist recognises the complete futility of individual or mob violence as a working-class weapon, in face of the overwhelming power of the State. The fact that the “propaganda of the deed,” so dear to the anarchists or direct-action advocates, has always played into the hands of reaction is a commonplace. The labour movement in all lands passes through despairing stages of such activity, and it is only as its futility becomes thoroughly realised, and the true nature of the problem which faces the worker is understood, that the worship of mere disorder or violence is outgrown. Its very hopelessness shows it to be a gesture of despair. It is the expression of economic and political weakness, disorganisation, and ignorant passion.

 This is not to say that the question of force has not an important part to play in the struggle for socialism; for when the need and time arrive the workers cannot hesitate to use force against force. It does mean, however, that the force to be used must be the organised might of the whole working class, rooted in economic needs, and based on knowledge rather than on blind hate, and used because essential to complete the task of emancipation. In essence, though, the success of a revolution depends, not upon mere force, but upon economic necessity. The role of force is secondary to this. And it is only because the economic necessities of the capitalist system pave the way for the working class advance to power, that Socialists are enabled to use legality in their educational and organising work; it is only because they are the expression of economic needs and forces that the workers have the opportunity of advancing from strength to strength until their power is sufficient to finally wrest from their masters the major force of the State.

Marx and Engels say in the Communist Manifesto:

“The First Step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of a ruling class, to win the battle of democracy. The Proletariat will use its political supremacy, to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the Slate, i.e., of the proletariat organised as a ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.”

The measures necessary when the workers have won their class battle can, indeed, only be definitely decided upon when that moment arrives. The only possible program for a Socialist party is Socialism; and its only “immediate aim” is the straight fight for the conquest of the State in order to begin the transformation of capitalist society into Socialism. As the founders of scientific Socialism state in the Manifesto itself, their “immediate aim" is the “formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” Any party, indeed, whose immediate aim is less than this, is, by that same token, not a Socialist party.

The point of socialist activity is their effect on consciousness by highlighting the forces of capitalism responsible for damage and death to the exploited and the oppressed, and to show people that there are still creative and daring ways to resist the powers-that-be despite repression. The world despite all the tragedies remains rich with possibilities and holds a sense that we can and must do better. It necessitates the overthrow of the ruling class as being in the interests of the vast majority of humanity, and that goal becomes increasingly imaginable. We put the interests and aspirations of the vast majority, in the forefront and need a massive social revolution. We must reach to the root of things. We require to study, learn, organize and talk the language of radical change. Knowing that things are unjust or terrible is never quite enough. Socialism's motivating ideal is the liberation of all humanity from all forms of alienation.  We always need a vision and a palpable sense of the world we're fighting for.  A socialist vision is essential for sustained motivation, at both the individual and the organisational levels. The Socialist Party wants to embrace a better world.  We point to the world we want to live in and invite solidarity to build unity. Let's begin by linking arms and raising up clenched fists.

And they call it charity...

At least 400 children are thought to be buried are believed to be buried in a mass grave in a section of St Mary's Cemetery in Lanark, Lanarkshire, southern Scotland, according to an investigation by BBC News.

The children were all residents of a care home run by Catholic nuns, The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent de Paul.

Frank Docherty and Jim Kane discovered an overgrown, unmarked section of St Mary's Cemetery during their efforts to reveal physical abuse which they said many former residents had suffered.

The death records indicate that most of the children died of natural causes, from diseases common at the time such as TB, pneumonia and pleurisy. Analysis of the records show that a third of those who died were aged five or under. Very few of those who died, 24 in total, were aged over 15, and most of the deaths occurred between 1870 and 1930.

Socialist Courier are minded of the fact that these same nuns are proponents of the right to life - no contraception or abortion - yet have a total disregard for the dignity of death. Dead children discarded in an unmarked grave. 

Lives Don't Matter As Much.

The recent movie, "Dunkirk" certainly qualifies to be included in the obscene and heard department. Its directing is taut, the acting is good, but nevertheless, it is sickening to see boys being murdered for attempting to further the interests of capitalism. Sickening also to read the comments of the reviewer in the Toronto Star July 29 "…best treatment of a dive bomber attack circa, 1940 that I have ever seen."

Well, whoopee-de-doo, let's all go on a 3-week bender to celebrate. The most telling comment is when an army officer asks a naval one, why the navy won't come and help evacuate 340,000 soldiers stranded on the beach and receives an honest reply. "They" need the ships to fight other battles.

The translation being, "the capitalist class don't give a crap about the lives of thousands of people." As it was, private individuals using pleasure craft got them off.

John Ayers.

You Get What Is Cheaper.

Now how can one keep the Toronto Transit Commission out of the news? 

The latest is that the T.T.C.'s para-transit service wheel-trans are now hiring taxis to carry the disabled. "But," you may cry, "taxis don't have the equipment."

Quite true, but they cost the T.T.C. $20.00 a trip compared to 50% for a wheel-trans bus. Hey! We live under capitalism pal. 

Steve and John.

The Socialist Party and Peace

 The Socialist Party does not deny the sincerity of many anti-war peace campaigners. The courage of many of those involved in peace movements cannot fail to impress. The energy and ingenuity they display in tackling a job they consider important provides further proof that once working men and women get on the right track capitalism’s days are numbered.

All sorts of appeals are made to the Socialist Party to join forces with these anti-war organisations, but it declines any alliance. Not because we do not yearn for the cessation of the war. By no means so. Members of the Socialist Party above all others understand the horror of war. But we cannot associate with the various "Peace" and "Stop the War" movements.

Firstly, because we stand for socialism and they do not. Because we refuse to associate with those who support the capitalist class during "peace" time and who fight for the subjection of the working class. Therefore we cannot ally ourselves with these capitalists and clergymen and politicians. We refuse to lower the socialist red flag to march alongside our class enemies.

The second reason we cannot unite with the stop the war movement is that they simply cannot succeed and are impotent so it would be foolish to join in futile campaigns. Appeals to governments are the general methods yet they leave in power the makers of wars, the capitalist class. They intend to let the profit-making system which itself produces commercial rivalry and inevitably international warfare to continue. Supposing that nuclear weapons could be banned. If two nations, possessing the necessary technical knowledge and possessing the components, should quarrel seriously enough over the things wars are really fought for— markets, sources of raw materials, strategic Bases, etc—and even supposing they commenced fighting with “conventional,” “moral” weapons, would not the losing side set its scientists to producing nuclear weapons in order to stave off defeat? If history is anything to go by, the side which was winning would use the nukes and justify this by claiming it had brought hostilities to a speedier conclusion

Surely it is no longer doubted that wars are born of the fight for spoil between capitalists. Under capitalism, even in times of peace, states are always in competition with each other over markets, sources of raw materials, investment outlets, trade route and other economic and strategic questions. When it comes to negotiating over these differences the existence of a powerful armed force in the background is an important factor in the relationship of forces which decides the outcome. So each state is obliged to try to obtain the most modern and most effective (destructive) arms that it can afford, irrespective of whether or not it is actually involved in a conflict at home or abroad.

The level of a state’s armament is part of its negotiating strength and general credibility. This is why there is always a vast international market for arms of all sorts which no capitalist country which has an arms-producing capacity is going to refuse to supply for “moral” reasons. This is especially so in the current period of economic crisis when every little export helps. 

The Socialist Party fights for the removal of a system of society which works out to the detriment of the many. The crusaders for peace are out for an alteration in the method of government whereby the wars between capitalist countries can be reduced or abolished. Socialism declares in favour of a new system wherein capital and capitalist governments cease to be. Peace propagandists by no means unite in condemning capitalist society, and they are mostly opposed to a change in the system altogether. What is the Socialist Party's attitude to war? It is that war as we know it is produced in the main by the conflict between the interests of capitalists of various nations. It is born of the rivalry between sellers of goods for profit, and it can only die when selling for profit is abolished. In other words, the socialist theory holds and capitalist practice proves that only by ending the entire capitalist system can war with all its attendant horrors cease. If you wish to stop all wars you must stop all capitalist competition and to do this you must work for socialism.

Capitalism generates wars because it is organised in such a way that its wealth can only be produced and distributed by a process of competition. The industries of capitalism are the private property of a small class of persons, and wealth is produced primarily for sale with a view to profit. A capitalist enterprise requires markets, trade routes, supplies of wage labour, raw materials, places to invest capital, and the power of a state to protect these interests. The foreign policy of a capitalist state attempts to acquire these needs in its relations with other countries. The rub is that there are several capitalist states in the world competing intensively for the same needs, and the size of the planet is limited. They must necessarily come into conflict with one another; and if the conflict cannot be settled or negotiated to the satisfaction of all parties concerned, they go to war. In competing for their essential business needs, capitalist countries seek control over territories in which they can sell goods, and from which they can extract profit and raw materials.

The Socialist Party would point out that the war is part of a whole related pattern of social problems generated by capitalism; and because it is part of a related pattern, the war cannot be attacked in isolation from the rest of the pattern or from its roots in the needs of capitalist society; the only way this problem, and others like it, can be permanently solved is to establish a system of society in which the means of production are owned and democratically controlled by the whole people, and goods are produced for use and not for competitive exchange and profit.

The whole point of modern war is that it comes from the capitalist social system. The only way to prevent war is to establish socialism. If capitalism is to be overthrown women and men have to work together for socialism. Common ownership will foster new kinds of relationships between human beings. Women and men will, at last, be free to live life as they choose, to cooperate with each other in building a future in which we will no longer be exploited for profit. 

The Best Gift

 Father denounces 'twisted worldview' of son who attended neo-Nazi riots in US – standard.co.uk

Reading this article reminded me how my father used to talk about racism and people's self-determination. From the earliest ages, I remember him saying "People are your brothers and sisters regardless of their birthplace, their colour, their faith and their social status." And he always lived according to principles of socialism at home and outside as far as I could observe. I think the best gift any socialist father can leave to their children is a profound love of humanity so that the new generation gets a chance to save themselves from the mistakes of the past generations. 

A good step towards One world, one people! 

Steve and John

What is the importance of Gramsci's cultural hegemony?

Gramsci is said, in the Prison Notebooks, to have developed a new and original kind of Marxist sociology, which, over the last half century or so, has engendered a vast range of debate, interpretation and controversy by academics and others – the so-called ‘Gramsci industry’. One of the key matters debated has been his concept of ‘hegemony’ (‘egemonia’).

This was the term Gramsci used to describe what he saw as the prerequisite for a successful revolution: the building of an ideological consensus throughout all the institutions of society spread by intellectuals who saw the need for revolution and used their ability to persuade and proselytise workers to carry through that revolution. Only when that process was sufficiently widespread, would successful revolutionary action be possible. So hegemony was what might be called the social penetration of revolutionary ideas.

This outlook is very different from the fervour with which in earlier years Gramsci had greeted the Russian revolution and advocated similar uprisings in other countries. By the second half of the 1920s, with Italy ruled by a Fascist dictatorship and opposition leaders exiled or imprisoned, Gramsci came to see revolution as a longer-term prospect which would depend on the conditions existing in individual countries.

And it is this ‘long-term’ idea of revolutionary change that has been interpreted in very many different ways according to the standpoint or political position of the individual commentator. One way it could be read would seem to tie in closely with the World Socialist Movement's view that only through widespread political consciousness on the part of workers and majority consent for social revolution can a society based on the satisfaction of human needs rather than on the profit imperative be established.

In this light, Gramsci’s hegemony could be seen to have the profoundly democratic implications of insisting on a widespread and well-informed desire among the majority of workers for socialist revolution before such a revolution can come about. Indeed it is clear that Gramsci was not unaware of Marx’s ‘majoritarian’ view of socialism (or communism – they were interchangeable for Marx) as a stateless, leaderless world where the wages system is abolished and a system of ‘from each according to ability to each according to need’ operates.

In an article written in 1920, for example, Gramsci refers to ‘communist society’ as ‘the International of nations without states’, and later from prison, he writes about ‘the disappearance of the state, the absorption of political society into civil society’. However, though he referred to himself as using ‘the Marxist method’, such reflections on the nature of the society he wished to see established are few and far between and cannot reasonably be said to characterise the mainstream of his thought.

Leninist
 When looked at closely in fact, Gramsci’s thought is overwhelmingly marked by what may be called the coercive element of his Leninist political background. So, while undoubtedly in his later writings he came to see the Soviet model as inapplicable to other Western societies, he nevertheless continued to conceive of revolution as the taking of power via the leadership of a minority group, even if in different circumstances from those experienced by Lenin in Russia.

The most important pointer to this lies in Gramsci’s view of the state. Hardly ever does he view socialism other than as a form of state. The overwhelming thrust of his analysis and his recommendations for political action point not to doing away with states and the class divisions that go with them but to establishing new kinds of states.

In 1919, enthused by the Bolshevik takeover in Russia, Gramsci wrote: ‘Society cannot live without a state: the state is the concrete act of will which guards against the will of the individual, faction, disorder and individual indiscipline ....communism is not against the state, in fact, it is implacably opposed to the enemies of the state.’

Later too, in his prison writings, arguing now for a ‘long-term strategy’, he continued to declare the need for states and state organisation, for leaders and led, for governors and governed in the conduct of human affairs – underlined by his frequent use of three terms in particular: ‘direzione’ (leadership), ‘disciplina’ (discipline) and ‘coercizione’ (coercion).

So, despite what Gramsci himself recognised as changed times and circumstances compared with Russia in 1917, he continued to be profoundly influenced by Lenin’s view that ‘if socialism can only be realised when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not see Socialism for at least 500 years’ – in other words that genuine majority social consciousness was unachievable.

And in line with this, when looked at closely his ‘hegemony’, far from eschewing the idea of a revolutionary vanguard, sees an intellectual leadership taking the masses with them. In other words the ‘consent’ that his hegemony, his long-term penetration of ideas, proposes is not the informed consent of a convinced socialist majority but an awakening of what, at one point he refers to as ‘popular passions’, a spontaneous spilling over of revolutionary enthusiasm which enables the leadership to take the masses with them and then govern in the way they think best.

Human nature
 Underpinning this lack of confidence by Gramsci in the ability of a majority to self-organise is a factor little commented on but particularly significant – and that is his view of what may be called ‘human nature’. In writing explicitly about human nature, which Gramsci does on a number of occasions, he expresses agreement with Marx’s view that human nature is not something innate, fixed and unchanging, not something homogeneous for all people in all times but something that changes historically and is inseparable from ideas in society at a given time.

This view of humanity is in fact described by Gramsci as ‘the great innovation of Marxism’ and he contrasts it favourably with other widely-held early 20th century views such as the Catholic dogma of original sin and the ‘idealist’ position that human nature was identical at all times and undeveloping.

But despite Gramsci’s stated ‘theoretical’ view on this topic, scrutiny of his writings in places where ‘human nature’ is not raised explicitly but is rather present in an implicit way points his thought in a different, more pessimistic direction.

When he writes about education, for example, his pronouncements about the need for ‘coercion’ indicate little confidence in the ability of human beings to behave fundamentally differently or to adaptably change their ‘nature’ in a different social environment.

In corresponding with his wife about the education of their children, in response to her view that, if children are left to interact with the environment and the environment is non-oppressive, they will develop co-operative forms of behaviour, he states ‘I think that man is a historical formation but one obtained through coercion’ and implies that without coercion undesirable behaviour will result.

Then, in the Prison Notebooks, on a similar topic, he writes: ‘Education is a struggle against the instincts which are tied to our elementary biological functions, it is a struggle against nature itself.’ What surfaces here as in other places, even if not stated explicitly, is a view of human nature not as the exclusive product of history but as characterised by some kind of inherent propensity towards anti-social forms of behaviour which needs to be coerced and tamed.

Viewed in this light, Gramsci’s vision of post-revolutionary society as a place where human beings will continue to need leadership and coercion should not be seen either as being in contradiction with his theory of ideological penetration (‘hegemony’) or as inconsistent with the views that emerge about human nature when his writings do not explicitly focus on that subject.

So we should not be surprised that Gramsci’s vision for the future is not a society of free access and democratic control where people organise themselves freely and collectively as a majority but rather a change from one form of minority authority to another – a change from a system of the few manifestly governing in their own interests to the few claiming to govern in the interests of the majority.

The evidence of Gramsci’s writings, therefore, suggests that the revolution he envisages is not one in which democracy in the sense of each participating with equal understanding and equal authority prevails. Crucially, the leadership function is not abolished.

The hegemonisers will essentially be in charge since they will be the ones with the necessary understanding to run the society they have conceived. What this society might be like he does not go on to say in any detail.

But it would clearly not be a socialist world of free access and democratic control that rejects authority from above together with its political expression, the state.

For Gramsci, any such considerations were at best peripheral to the thrust of his thought and his social vision. And though he did have a revolutionary project, it is not a socialist one in the terms that socialism is correctly understood.

From an article in the Socialist Standard by Howard Moss

Matthew Culbert