libertarian communism 07

8/3/2019 Libertarian Communism 07

1/26

- I

6p


2/26

This is the seventh issue of ourdiscussion journaL We hoped thisissue would be produced by agroup outside London 9 but thisdidn't prove possible. Hence thedelay in publication, for whichwe apo.Log.Ls.: The next issue willbe produced outside London 9 andw e h op e . 1I BE Rr rA RI ANC Ol vI D, 1U NI SMwill come out Quarterly from nowon,To keep down our costs -paper, ink etc - we have to puta price on LC for the first time.The articles in LC reflectthe views of individualcontributors 9 and do notnecessarily represent those ofthe group as a whole. We welcome

articles from comrades so thatthe journal can become aconstructive contribution to thedevelopment of the socialistmovement.But to achieve this, and toexpand our circulation and ourac tLvitiea , we need more money?pending the end of commodityproduction. Please make all P.O.s,cheQues etc payable to DavidBarnsdale, as London group Treasurer.S en d a ll c or re spo nd an ce ,articles, financial support to theLondon group - R.Knight 9Box 217 9 c/o 197 Kings Cross Rd. 9London WC1.At present there areLIBERrrARIAN COMMUNISM groups in -

ABERDEEN c/o Sandy Blake,G ro Ul ld f lo or r ig ht ;51 Richmond st.,AberdeenandLONDON (us).

We have contacts inEDINBURGHHULLLIVERPOOLMANSJ?IELD (Notts.)OXPORDwho can be contacted through oneof the groups.

CONTENTS1,:,-

Leaflet~ Growth andSocialism page , ~'.

.,Notes on Russian ;~Society and StateCapi talism page 4. , ' . . . 1 ,The I ri sh Q ue st io n - f . o . .A Socialist StudyGuide page 8

Letter from California page 13"World Revolution" -Luxemburg + Lenin page 16" Wo rl d R ev ol ut io n" 1 3 -::reply pageA reply (from us) page 22O th er p ub li ca ti on s page 23

January 1975

I.,",


3/26

Grovvrh onejJne of our members was invited to a week-end Seminar on "Socialism andthe Environment", organised by The Spokesman and financed by the BertrandR us se ll P ea ce Fo un da ti on ; 4 - 5 January 1 9 7 5 . The Seminar provided usefulinformation in spite of being run by a group of left-Labour union officialsand academics for a variety of Labourites and Bolsheviks. Our comradedistributed three discussion papers, of which this was one :GROWTH m~DSOCIALISM

Will there be "industrial growth" in a socialist society? I want toargue that the idea of "growth" is only useful in understanding capitalistsociety, whether run by private enterprise or by the State. People willmake decisions in a socialist society using completely different concepts.By Socialism, I don't mean nationalisation - getting State bureaucrats torun the same rotten system - but a setup with common ownership and democraticcontrol of the means of life by and for the whole community.

In capitalist society, goods and services are not produced to satisfyhuman needs; but to be sold at a profit on the world market. The bosses ofeach competing firm and country plough back these profits to increase theamount of nmdustry they controL This process, called "capitalaccumulation", is the driving force which makes this mad world setup tick.It is measured in terms of "growth". Each government tries to make themeans of production under its control grow at a faster rate than othercountries. Otherwise it would go under in the international rat-race.

Within capitalism; we can win a higher standard of living (if wefight hard enough) during a period of growth than in a slump. As thesystem moves towards a slump; we are finding it more and more difficult tod ef en d l iv in g s ta nd ar ds .Naturally people believe that growth means living in more comfort,and that failure to grow means destitution. The environmentalists who

argue for "zero growth" say that the only way of saving the environmentand helping underdeveloped countries is to take a big cut in our standardof living. No wonder this discourages people from being concerned aboutthe environment! Just like the politicians and trade-union leaders whowant growth; the environmentalist campaigners also believe that we musttrade off material comfort against damage to the environment.BUT MOST OF WHAT liifAI


4/26

To feed the people of the world well, it may be necessary in a Socialistsoclety to expand many branches of food production. But we shouldn't forgetthat people starve now not because the food isn't available or can't bepr-oduced, but because they can It afford to pay profitable prices for it.Food - fruit1 butter, eggs, wheat - which cannot be sold at a profit isdestroyed while millions starve.Even when useful things are produced under capitalism, they are producedin a very wasteful way. Cars, fridges, televisions, shoes and countlessother items are deliberately made shoddy, and spare parts deliberately notmade available, so that they soon break down and have to be bought again -producing more profit. The patents for ladderless stockings, for record-plaYl8r n eedles which last for ever, for light-bulbs which don It fuse, andother inventions are bought up to protect profits.Also, small families doing all their housework isolated from oneanother involves a lot of waste. Imagine a block of 100 flats, each withits ov.m washing machine, spin-drier and so on, being used only 1/100 of thetime, and breaking down and being replaced every year or two. The amount ofproduction, work and raw materials needed, in factories and in homes~ could

be cut down enormously in a sane society, at the same tiIii"8aseveryone isguaranteed free access to these facilities, A real improvement in the comfortand enjoyment of living for working people could be combined with responsibleconservation of energy, materials and labour.

Air conditioners have been invented which clean houses automatically.Commercial building interests have suppressed a new building material whichinsulates so well that heating isn't needed. Nuclear fusion power could bedeveloped and would provide inex..h.austibleuanti ties of pollution-free energy- but the work on it is under military secrecy and has been starved of fundsas a result of pressure exerted by oil and coal interests. Computers~automation and cybernation could 1)8 used to monitor and satisfy human needs,instead of being wasted on keeping accounts, and guiding space-shots andn uc le ar m is si le f: l.(Comment - Someone at the Seminar had worked at Harwe l.l, an atomic researchstatlon, on fusion power. He pointed out to me the dangers of the processand the huge heat emission involved, "thermal po'l.Lu't.i.on"]lso that so muchenergy has to be put in to reach the necessary temperatures that it's notworth the trouble - a sort of perpetual motion machine problem. So we maybe relying on decentralised wind, solar and geothermal energy.)

At the moment automation is a threat to us. We can only live by sellingour mental and physical energies to employers, so if they automate, they doit by throwing us out of our jobs. So let's get rid of forced labour foremployers - the wages system, and. run our lives without bosses by freecooperation.

In deciding what to produce and how much, people in Socialist societywill not decide on some growth rate, and then grow all activities by thatmuch. In making an important decision, they'll cons Ld er' all possibleeffects of producing something :-_ How much do we want it? Could we do without it, and how?- How much would we need or want to produce, and how would we distribute it?_ How much of what kinds of work would be required? Would we enjoy the work?_ Would too much of scarce raw materials be used up?_ vVh_atother effocts will the decision have on our environment, and on how

we live?

j"


5/26

People will weigh up all .such questions through a proQess of democraticdiscussion, based on the fullest easily ava.iLab.Lo Lnf or-ma'ton, Computersand telecommunications can l)e used to put them in touch with informationand one another when holding their dLacus sLons , It will then be up tothem to riake the decision of what and howmuch to produce? which will bestmeet their present and future ll(-:;ec1s~s .ind.i.vdual.s Q.11Cl as a comnunity,Of cour-so it won't be possible for eVGryone to be involved in every decision,but the more basic and far-reaching the effects that the decision is likelyto have on people's way of life" the greater the number of people whowillwant and be abl e to take part in it - whether at local, industrial, regionaljcontinental or world level.

So though the people of Socialist society will take all vital factorsinto consideration? the total quantity of industry (growth) will not be oneof them, Whenthe Workers' Councils are just beginning to organise the newsystem of production, some less useful branches of industry will be reduced,destroyed or converted to more useful purposes. Somebranches of pro0uctionwill be re-organised on a new basLs , Others will be expan(leel so thatevery human being in the world is aclequately feel? clothed, housed and caredfor. Even though the amounts produced of some things will go up, theenormous wast.e of capiLtalism will be aboLi.shed, and things will last verymuch longer.

make freely available enough high-q_nality goods and services to livein comfort and securi ty throughou't the whole world.

No longer is there any need,. taking the world as a whole, for anenormous increase in the quantity of the means of producti.on. Vilhatwe w:~edis a new way of Li.fe, in which we can use rationally for our ownbenef.i.tthe means of production which we have already built up.

So we don't face hard choices between cutting living standa.rds anddestroying the environment, By using modern technology to the full in agenuine Socialist society we can at the same time- cut out most pollution9 conserve raw materials sensibly, and enjoy ahealthier anel more beautiful environment ;- raduce greatly the amount of hard and boring work which we have to do,and control our ownworidng lives

Let s have our cake and eat it! It can he done, but if we leave ittoo long to get together for a Socialist revolution, we won't have thecake left at alL Why not?

(PoS. I've changed and added bits as I've typed this, so' it's notexactly the sane leaflet as J handed out.)


6/26

I amarguing that the last two both reflect aspects of reality, andmust be synthesised.

N o ' r E S ONRUSSIAl~OCIETYu " " i f : D STATECAPITALISMAnalyses of modern Russian society fall into four categories.Similar considerations apply to Mao's Chi.na, East Europe, Cuba'etc.

1. RuasLa as a classless society;2. Russia as an "or-di.nar-y"capitalist society;3 . Russia as a special new type of capitalist society - State

capi talism ;4. Puaa i.a as a non-capitalist class society - bureaucratic society.

3, The theory that Rtl.Ssia is State capitalist is held in more or lessvague terms by most members of the SPGD!by "neo-Trotskyists" like theInterna tional Socialis +e, and by anarcho-communists like the Associa tionof Anarchist Workers (sorry - lLnarchist Workers Association! used to bethe Organisation of Revolutionary Anarchists),

1. Russia as a classless society is still by far the most commonvi.ew, shared by everyone outside the "ultra-left". 'l'he officialSoviet view has been that Russia, since a working class revolution in19179 passed through a period of working class supremacy (dictatorshipof the proletariat)9 then built S.cialism (considered a lower stage ofthe classless societY)9 and is nowmaking the transition to Communism(the supposed higher stage). This is the view of fellow-travellers inthe West and Third Vlorld, and also of most opponents of the Russianregime, who attack it as an example (typical or distorted) of Socialism.For example, the charge that the regime destroys individuality assumesthat this is the result of an egalitarian society rather than of aclass society.

Avariant of the classless-society theory is the orthodoxTrotskyist idea of the degenerated or deformed workers' State, with aruling bureaucratic "caste", which allegedly does not own the meansof production and so is not a class.2. Russia is clearly not SOCialist/Communist in the real sense of thewords. But neither is it a capitalist society on the model of Marx's"Capi.tal", in which the means of production are ownedby differentcapitalists (individuals, corl')orations, trusts) who compete in a free(more or less) market to buy la}:lour power and sell commodities at apr-ofit, thus accumulating capital in rivalory with one another. Thedelusion that this state of affairs prevails in Russia is probablyheld only by somemembers of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, "-J

In its most explicit forms, the theory takes account of the factthat the Russian State and Party bureaucracy collectively controls themeans of production (bureaucratic ownership) in order to accumulatethe State capital, in competition with non-Russian capitals. Anessential part of this process is the production of co~~odities forsale on the world market, State capitalism is a further developmentof monopoly capitalism, in which an entire national State becomes agiant corporation. The large, but subordi.nate, private sector inRussia is neglected for simplicity.


7/26

Western bITurgeois theorists and traditional Trotskyists suchas the International Marxist Group attack the concept of Statecapitalism, on the grounds that production within Russia is notdetermined by an internal market, but is a command Gconomycontrolled by bureaucrats. These criticisms are bassd on Bmisunderstanding, possibly deliberate. ';State c ap.it a.lism" does notmean that there are market relations among separate capitals withinRussia. It mGans that such relations exist between the nationalcapital as a whole, united by the State, and other capitals in theuo r Ld ,

But the Use of the statement "Russian society is Statec ap Lt a I jsm" LrnpLi os that Russia, tak c n in .is o L e t io n , is 3 specialkind of capitalism - whereas the capitalist aspect of Russia can0111y be understood in the context of world c ap it.a.lim , The problemis the anachronistic ideology of nationalism, shared by so many'"rn ar x Ls ts" 9 according to which di ffcrent countries have [:iffe r e r r tsocial syst8ms~ with international connections seen as secondary.We must escape from nationalism to sec world capitalism BS a wholewith the c omp etin States and firms as o on stitu s r r t p ar ts .

liState c ap Lt s Li srn" as a description must be understood asshorthand not for Da new kind of capitalist society they have inRussia"~, but 'for l1a State--controlled unit of world c ap ita Li sm" - aState capital. The rulers of Russia do not by themselves constitutea "Rus sian capitalist c La s s+ , since this .i rnpLi e s c ap Ite Li s t relationsamong themselves. But collectively they are a part of the worldcapitalist class.

Consider a giant multinational concern like Fords or reI.Different top managers do not relate to one another as competingcapitalists! but as officials who cooperate (more or less( incollectiVely running Fords or ICI capital in competition with othercapitals? e.g. the Russian State. If an ideology had arisen whichclaimed that different mUltinational corporations had differentsocial systems which explain their rivalrYi then we might be arguingthe 8XBct class nature of ICI or IBM in the sarno way as we do thatof Russia or China. If we reluctantly admit the usefulness in somecontexts of speaking about a specifically Russian,. or rCI-ish, socialsystem, then these separated systems aI'S not capitalist b0thierarchical or bureaucratic. Their internal relations are those ofcontrol by a bureaucratic, not a capitalist? class.4. The Solidarity q r o up , Jarnes Uurnharn (HThe Managerial Revolution


8/26

As Russia becomes a great capitalist power and autarky isreduced. such disto~tions become intolerable - thus destalinisation.The sch~rn8s of Liberman, ..Sik etc ('lm3I'kot socialism:') aim to makethe constituent enterprises of the State capita] more responsibleto the overall profit~bility of th~ nhtional economy by rewardingtheir managers (ahd workers?) for their corttribution to thenational p ro rLt 0

To what extsnt docs the bureaucratic internal structuregonorate aims d.if f e r e nt from nI'ational" p r o f Ltc-rnakiriq capitalistaims? During the period of autarky (relative isolation from theworld market so as to protect developing industry) the capitalist

~ressuros arB not those of immediate competition, but only tholong-term ~8ed fo accumulate capital in order to compet8~ bothcommercially and militarily~ later on. This allows buroaucraticdistortions like the destruction dfskilled manpower in purQ8sand the imposition of impossible targets in plans~ which areirrational from the vicwpoint of capitalist profito

F u r t h e I' poi n t s

This is a form of internal accountingo It does not introduceinternal competition in the capitalist sense (compare accountingbetwGen Ford factories? say) but gears the operation of the partsof the conl'ern more closely to the profit requirement of the whole.It does, h0w8ver, involve a transfer of pd~er from the centralpolitical blJrS8Ucracy to the decentralised managsrial section ofthe privileged 618ss. The centralists who resist economic reformin Russia thus represent the purely bureaucratic aspect of theeconomys while the reformers represent its capitalist aspecto

The Contradictions of State CapitalismThe Socialist programme is a product of he internal

contradictions of capitalist society? between the fDrces ofprod~ction, rotten-ripe for a cooperative society which can USBthem rationallys and the restr~ctive and wasteful relations ofproduction. If capitalism were a basically stable system whichcould resolve its contradictions, then Socialism would be utopian- that is~ jUst an idea of a better society rather than the wayby which the working class can solve the pressing problems oftheir situation and fulfil thsir human ncodso

Theorists of bur8au~ratic or manag8rial society like Burnhamand Orwell fear that the emergence of bureaucratic society stabilisessocial rslationsi reducing Socialism to a utopiao Trotsky also sawthis as a possibility ~. see '''Solidarity:; vole 7 rio, 110 This neglectsthe contradictions of world capitalism; which influence the nationalbureaucratic SUb-system more and more, and which State controlcannot eliminate.

How8ver~ even if somehow a world State were i~troducBd - anintegral State Ilcapital'" which is no longer a capital u ith the endof competition, but a world bureaucratic order, a~ discussed byOukharin - we have evidence from Russia etc that bureaucratic relationsalso generate social conflicts, waste of resources and so on.Socialism is the only social ordtr which suits advanced productivetBchnologyo Thus bureaucratic relations of production are no lessin contradiction with the forces of production than capitalistrelationso Class struggle would only take different forms.


9/26

State capitalism in Britain?,In this country a struggle unfol~s between the foicesr epr-eserit Lnq personal and co r p o r a t 8 capitalism (0;, g,.T or Les ,Li0sralsi right Bnd cenire wings of tho Lab6ur Part~) Bndtho forcos representing State capitaiism (left wing of Labour,

Communist Party, Trotskyists etc). The question- at issue is- how can t h (3 nat ion a L. c ap i h -a1 b 0 mad 8 m 0 r 8 e f f GC t i v e iniht8r~ational comp~tition? ]he ~tatists ai~ to oust thep riv at c capitalists (who naturally -r e sist tt.i~ I'rovolutionarye ubv e r eLcn'") and unify the strength of F:lritishcapital underthErir,OuJn Stat'e bur e a u c r -a tLc v c o n t r -o .L , ; ;W or ke rs ' c o rrtr o L"~rr an ~ell18nt ma v . be addo d a~' apJ;J:EH)J , , : : gip~. . -_

,Th r=)Sta tis ts a r e the maLrr e ne my o f S ~6 ;' ia l' i~ mw it hi n" th ew or ki ri q c l i' 3. ss ._ .h ay .C


10/26

THE IRISH QUESTION

1. 1169: Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland in bid to impose feudalism,with class of landholding barons loyal to King of England, in placeof Irish clan system where chiefs were elected and land held incommon. - Limited s,uccess only.

THE IRISH QUESTION - IiSOCIALIST STUDY GUIDE

1. How The Protestant Ascendancy Was Established

2. By Tudor times (16th century), since England trading and seapower, Ireland - as large island to west of EPgland and north ofSpain - assumed strategic importance.

3. So, in 1541, Henry VIII deolared King of Ireland as well as ofEngland, making all inhabitants of Ireland subject to English (asopposed to clan) laws.

9. In English 'bourgeois revolution of 1688 Parliament deposed CatholicJames II in favour of Protestant Prinoe William of Orange. James IIraised army, landed in Ireland, finally defeated by William at theBattle of the Boyne: on 12 July 1690.

4. English government deoided to oolonise Ireland in same way ascoast of North Amerioa; by policy of "plantation", i.e. bydispossessing inliabitants and selling the land to "undertakers"on condition that they let it to oolonists from England.5 . Plantation was failure, exoept in Ulster after the defeat in 1603of clan uprising there. Colonised by people mainly from Scotlandbut with minority from England, and all Protestants.6. In 17th oentury Ireland became a battlefield for rival factions inEnglish civil war and bourgeois revolution. Catholic Ireland onroyalis t side.7. 1649~ Cromwell landed to prevent Ireland from being used as 'basE:;

for royalist counter-revolution. Thousands of Irish peasantsslaughtered or sold 'into slavery in West Indies or driven into ... tof Ireland. Royalist (mainly Catholic) landlords disp~ssessed;their lands given to Protestant adventurers and former Cromwelliansoldiers.

8. "Cromwellian 'settlement" established social system in Ireland thatwas to last til end of 19th century: land the property of EnglishProtestant, often absentee, landlord c Iase , who robbed peasants ofall but bare subsistence.

10. Battle of Boyne celebrated in Rome by pontifical high mass, asJames II was supported by Louis XIV of France against whom Pope andvarious European rulers, including William of Orange, had formedalliance.11. William's victory confirmed Cromwellian settlement and "Protestantascendancy" (1. e. rule of Church of Ireland landlord class).Followed by "penal laws" against Catholics so severe that neverf ul ly e nf or ce d.12. Penal laws important for future because meant that when bourgeoisie

arose in non-Protestant south would have to struggle against thisdiscrimination, so linking with Catholic religion. This the seedof identification of Irish Nationalism and Catholicism thatexists to this day.


11/26

II. The Land Question in Ireland13. Irish peasants ruthlessly exploited. Land belonged to absenteeEnglish landlords .wholet it to resident middlemen, who in turnsub-let it in very small holdings to peasants. To get money topay rent (and tithes to the established Protestant Church ofIreland) peasants worked the middleman's land. So in effectworking for 1:limin return for potato patch.14. No incentive to increase productivity: as soon' as middleman saw

peasant .was producing for himself more than bare subsistence heincreased rent.15. Nosecurity of tenure: peasants could be evicted at will and were,

especially when profits of ca,ttle~raising or sheep-farming (whichrequired much less labour) were greater than .those from tilling,mainly corn-grOWing.

21. 1841 population of Ireland was 8 million. In 1851 down to 6 million.Vfuy? :Basically collapse of old absentee lancllord/mic1dleman systemof ex:ploiting Irish peasant, due to ~ (a) failure of successivepotato crops,. peasants' subsistence food. This killed about 1million people in 1840's; (b) repeal of Corn Laws which madegrazing - and evictions - more profi tal)le again; (c) Irish PoorLawRelief Act of 1847 which made it a condition for gettingrelief from starvation that peasants give up their holding'S.Resulting "surplus" population, 1 million of them, forced toemigrate to :Britain, America, Australia.Obvious solution, from capitalist point of view, to introduce"tenant right" (fixity of tenure, fair rents and freedom of sale)intorest of Ireland besides Ulster, 'but landlord oppositionprevented this.

16. This wa3 the long-term tendency; gave Ireland the appearance ofbeing over-populated. But Ireland never,was over-populated withregard to food production, only with regard to number of peopleneeded fOJ.:'more profitable [,Tazing.17. Irish peasarrt carried on his back not only the landlords and theirmiddlemen9,but whole establishment of Church of Ireland and corruptState ac1miniRtration. Only way of resisting was the secret societyand tc.r:co~L'. Ireland was taken for the landlord class by violenceand had continually to be held by it.18. Ulster peaaarrts , mainly non-conformist Protestants, not so bacllyoff. After struggle ma1:1aged~tQachieve "Ulster custom", i.e.

some security of tenure, rents fixed for reasonable period of time,and freedom to sell tenancy including improvements. So did haveinc enti ve to incroas e pnoduc ti vi ty; very important f'ac torrrindevelopment of industry around Belfast in 19th sentury while restof Ireland stagnated.

19. Tendency towards grazing was slowed down,as a res1i1t of Napoleonicwar. Continental blockade gave Ireland virtual monopoly in outsidesupply of grain to England. Ended in 1812, but restored by CornLaws in 1815. So til abolition of these laws in 1849 not sostrong pressure for evictions.

20. But peasant unrest continued. In 1820's diverted by risingCatholic bourgeoiS ie from land question to so-called CatholicErnancipationv L,e. opening of var-i.ous political posts to weal thyCaLho.Lt.ca , Though in 1Q~S~)'s peasant campaign against tithes; ledto ';-Y18irJrst political victory over LandLo'rd cLase, the passingof tIle Tithe CommutationAct of 1838.

22.


12/26

26. By now .An'glQ~Ir:Lshlancllo:td class saw it would have to withdrawfrom Ireland sooner- or later; decided to do so on its own terms,i.e. with g,\3n!3;r;'pusompensation. In1885 Tory governmentintrodqced'fi::rst of as,eI.'ies of: .Land Purchase Acts which allowedpeasants of, I;r.elan,d;',to buy iihe.ir holdings with government loans,Land.Lo.rda' bef:g.g .give:n.mterest-l;earing bonds. These Acts sosuccessful tl1at1;ly 1'921 Irelanel iargely country of peasantproprietors;

23. Trend +owards cattle~rai$;iljg.gmd dairy-farming continued, and soe,,:,ictions too, so that 1~y.18~0 population of Ireland clowna'f'ur-thez- 2 million to 4 million.

24. Peasants resisted; this "tim~ in open mass tenants movements ratherthan secret societies. By 1880's was clear that Irish peasantsgoing to win their class war against English landlords.25. English Lf.be.ra.l government (also opposed, on behalf of industrialcapitalists 9 to landlord class) disestablished Church of Ireland

i~ 1869. Tenant right granted in1881.

31. Secti~;m,6f F;(,Z;i~~sta;r;:tourgeoisie of' North not satisfied withlandlord" rule. "Influenced. by French r8volution, 'theY' foimded"Soeiet,y o f United Irishmen"" 'to fight for an inc:ependantdemo(~"ra~~;:i_cepublic in Ireland in which Protestant and Catholicbourgeoisie would jointly rule.

27. So CromwEil1lans,ettlem~rit, :Whi6b"h8.(l imposed English landlord classon Irish peasa,nts ,. wE:1Sf'inaIl:yliquidated. Had important politicalconsequence: meant that landlords no longer so worried aboutprospect of HomeRule; leadership of anti-Home Rule movement fellto incL1..1J3trialcapitalists of Belfast

. r III. 'J:P,e:Development of Capitalism in. Ireland28. En.glish government discriminated against trade l'ly its colony inIrela::.l.d in same way as it did agains't its American colonies .Wi th

same rUGu,1 t: demand for inc1ependance.'. .29. In 177( ; Amer-Lcan ooLond.es :proclaimedindependance. In 1'779 all-ProteE:'l;:lnt I+,ishParliament fbrced English government to endcliscrimination'aeainSt Iri::?h trade and in 1782 to grant HomeRule.3 o . Peri'ocl of Iri~h Home;Rule 1Mt.edt:i11801, known as "Grattan'sParLi.C1iLl~mtq. 1 a s in fact HomeRu, le for Protestant LandLond class,SUPJl~.~:tedby Prptes;Gant:. bdurgeoi~ie\which had [-!,TOWli up in the North.

32. Landlord class" 'replied in 1795 by setting up the. "Orange Society"pledged to clefend link with :England.and the Protestant Ascendancy.1798: Urtited lrisb,men staged a'bo.rti ve upz-Ising. Provided Englishgove:ehment with excuse to end Home.Rule. 1801.Act ,0 ; f : , tJ :q~:9JX: . / i , : i f ; ;abolished separate Irish parliament ariel' n:~ii 'l ,~J:; j;~e'3)!11f~,"rw:~tfj; / t i , j

, .: .. , .: I} - , ; < , ' ; ~ :: ,

, ,~ ':

3 3 .

J { r : , . , J~;don, ' industry in and arounci Belfast flO1i;isheci~ Belfasts;har~d .in Geheral 19th century indUS~ri!:1:tj.sat~oh,ofBr~ tairitbecame. integral pai


13/26

3 6 . After winning political rights in 1829 (so-called Catholicemancipation) Southern bourgeoisie, under Daniel O'C~mnell,campaigned for repeal of Act of Union, i.e. for HomeRule.37. Modern Irish RomeRule movement dates from 1870. Founded byProtestant landlord, Isaac Butt, but after his death leadershippassed to bourgeois elements under another Protestant, Parnell.38. During 1885 General Election Parnell, faithfully expressing interest

of Southern bourgeoisie, demandedRomeRule so that Ireland couldraise tariffs against British goods. Unlike capitalists of Belfast,whowere part of British indus try and benefited from ErrllJire,Southern bourgeoisie was weak and needed protection fr~m Britishcompetition to develop further.

45. Cause of small industrial section of Southern bourgeoisie passed bydefault to intellectuals like Arthur Griffith, who in 1905 foundedSinn Fein (Ourselves Alone). Sinn Fein openly stood for independantdevelopment of capitalism in Ireland through Parnell's policy oftariff protection.

39. So - uneven d.evelopment of capitalism in Ireland in 19th century ledto conflict of interes t between the Belfas t capi talis ts and Southernbourgeoisie, former wanting Uhion and latter HomeRule, both foreconomic reasons.40. Since struggle for Catholic Emancipation Irish HomeRulers had been

link9d with Catholic religion, drawing support from Catholic. peasants and townspeople in North as well as South. Parnell'sdemand for tariffs was to complete the protestant/Catholicpolitical division.41. For, to get mass basis to resi.st HomeRule, Belfast capitalistsdeeided to "play the Orange card" ,. i .e. to stir up traditional

Protestant fears and prejudices against Catholics.42. Up til 1.886Orange Order was a disreputable body, shunned byrespectable Ulster pourgeoisie. Playing Orange card involved takingover leadership of this body and us ing it to build mass bas is 9 atleast in the. North, for opposing HomeRule. Were successful.43. Gladstone's first HomeRule Bill of 1886 defeated when section ofhis own (Liberal) party - representing English capitalists who

feared exoIus Lon from Irish market under HomeRule - voted against.His second HomeRule Bill in 1892 passed by Commonsbut rejectedby Lords.

44. Irish HomeRule movement then flagC:ed. parnell clriven out andleadership passed to self-satisfied cattle farmers and rancherswhonot doing too badly out of Ene:lish link.

46. Result of 1910 General Election again put HomeRule on agendabecause Irish nationalists held balance of power. Liberals offeredHomeRule L '1 return for support of Irish MP's for their government.47. Third HomeRule Bill of 1912 was passed by Commonsand, thoughopposed by Lords, latter coul.d now only delay it. Wouldhavebecome law in 1914 but for outhreak of Firs t VvorldWar.48. Belfast capitalists resisted threat of HomeRule by organising

pare.-mi.Ll tary force and secret provisional government ready to seizepower in Ulster the day HomeRule became law.,,

IV. The Parti tion of Ireland


14/26

51. So began what Irish textbooks call "The War of Iridependance", Endedin 1921 with Treaty giving indepenc1ance to 26 counties of SouthernIrelandi remaining 6 counties in North-East (Ulster) remained British.

49. The War finally discredited Irish HomeRule party at Westminster.Leadership of struggle paes ed;' after 1916 Easter Rising, to Sinn Fein,now led by re.publicans but with same economic programme.

50. Sinn Fein won 1918 election in Ireland. Boycotted Westminster; metin Dublin, declared themselves the parliament (dan) of Irishrepublic proclaimed in 1916. British government decided to crushthis rebellion.

52. Partition of Ireland was ol'itcome of uneven development of capitalismin Ireland; almost inevi table given opposed economic in teres ts oftwo sections of'


15/26

a ~E~rterWehave received a V'eryinteresting,-letker fro~'l a memberof the Socialistgroup For Ourselves '(PoO. Box 754',Berkeley, California 94701," ,USA). Thisextract is an indi;vidual response to us, and does not necessarily reflectthe views of everyone in the gr01ol.p.

In general, I likeq_ your 0-0urnal9 particularly the fact that it wasan expression of dialoguearld-:not a mere,megaphone for an ,already-determinedset of "positions~~~ broadcast to the eager ears of 'U18 proletari~t9a la World Revolution. I especially enjoyed the articles by BobMiilerand 'David Barnsdale for their criticism of "councilism"--as an ~deologyand their understanding of the dialectic of the form and content of thecommunist revolution, 'rhe criticism 'of IjiiH in the lead article was alsogood. One phrase from it has stuck in n l y - n l : i n d and led me to do a lot ofthinking~

- "This: is the view, n : . ' romantics who.,' .i:iee workers as a sort' oflatent el emena.I fu :ccf-) rather 'than a$ human bej_ngs."Precisely! comrades! I think this view originates no;\;only in "sepaationfrom the working class" hut in the particular conditions under whichcommunist theory was liln::uervedand defended by small groups -during thelong Thermidor after 192~;. Seeing the class en masse integrated intocapitalism via,the Communist Parties, the Social Democracy and the TradeUnions, it is not surprising that these, inheritors of the old ultra-lefttradition should come in ti~e to view the working class in such an 'abstract 'and apocalyptic W:C"ywhich is really a new version of kaut.skyi.sm- the proletariat as the ,tiger which, must be ridden by the party, whichinjects i twith "theory" and "posi t.Lona" at the crucial moment." It isalso not surprising' that lnternationalism/R.I./~LRoJ Accion Proletariahave backslid into such Ld.iocLes as talking about "rthe generalisation ofvvage-labour before its aholi t.Lon" as the lower stage of communistsociety, arid even p-ropos:j_~?:;;a"negotiating State""controlled" by thecouncils. Tell me the difference between this and Lenin in state andRevolution arid I'11 send you a cigar!. However, J : t:end to draw sligh'tly different 'conclusions from thiscri t.i.que than y,~udo. I agree with VVfi_hat no majority (or even clo~etomajori ty ) organisations of the cLasa are possible any longer oute i.deof the onset of a generalised and thoroughgoing revolt. I think thatsince 1914 it has r~a11y been impossible for, class-ih-itself and elass-for-itself tenclencies ~t,~c:c'8xiDtin the same organisation, because theclass can no longer liD.:!.I,) around 'any program but the program of its own,abo1ition as a class, j ! _ ' i in.:.reases in the s-\,sndard of suriiiva1 of one-sector of the, ciass !;,~~:~:~~~~:!:lY_?PGakingave been.; since 1914, at theexponse of another ,sector, .This is- true both with i,n national economiesand outside and between them.

What this means in strategic terms 5s that the communist "party"will be until the moment of revolution itself a minority organisation -not a tiny sect, but' an omnic~ntralis'ed (see our text froo Ilittle, 'rooLat.e?} international organisation of thousands' or tens ?f t~ousands _ofrevolutionary proletarians. agitating, arguing; e?Cchan,glngJ_nformatlon


16/26

and analysis, overthrowing both internally and externally the conditioningwhich facilitates the old social relations and whicl:_1hese relations int ur n p er pe tu at e.I think the key to understanding what is wrong both with"Leninism" (a term which needs historical clarification amongcommunists) and nearly all anarchism is what Marx meant when he talkedabout "the real movement wh i .ch abolishes the present state of things"

(T he Ge rm a~ Id eo lo gy P ar t r), That Ls, the contradictions of capitalismthemselves generate a movement, a tendenoy, which is indeed latent inevery proletarian, and which surfaces as the attempt to overthrowcapi talist relations and establish communist ones. This is not some ideaof an "elemental force" - on the contrary, it asserts the real unity oftheory and practice. 'I'h.eeason WR are forced to see workers as an"elemental force" is because they-:;Ion'tunclerstand that there is aqualitative brealc between the movement of the class-in-itself as. a classfor Capital: the movement to improve.conditions for this or that-sectorand to regulate the price of labour-power, and the communist movementj_tself. VIR imagines that a simple quantitative escalation of demandstruggleswill be "forced!! to become revolutionary in order to win,because capitalism can no longer grant these demands. Alas for v i f R ,history since 1914 has dashed this fond hope again and again, notablyin Germany between 1923 and 19339 when demand struggles failed again andagain, and the workers, far from becoming revolutionary, abandoned theXPD and the Social Democracy in droves only to become IJazis1 WilhelmReich understood many of the reasons for this, but he didn't understandcapitalist socral relations very well in many important respects.

These latter contradictions have reached a far more advanced stagethan they had in the '30s, precisely because of the "solutions" developedby the capitalist class which enabled them to end the Depr-easion withWorld War II (great s.oIu t.Lon, huh?) and initiate an era of the mostmonstrously deformed and anti-human "prosperity" at the expense of theworkers and peasants of the "Third World". It is now clear to more andmore of our class that the world is literally coming to an end, thatnone of the old ways will do any mO'r:e,that there is no future inc ap i t a .L i. sm ,h ow ev er r ef or me d o r mod'i.f Led. This is not merely the cr-LsLsof capitalism, but the crisis of all l)rehisto~z, all forms of class.society.

We might say, then, that the class-in-itself movement isengendered by the contradiction between the interest of capitalism as awhole, which is to pay for labour-power at its value and to expand thereproduction of the whole system, and the interest of any given capital,which is to drive down the price of labour--power in order to maximiseprofit. The communist movement, on the other hand, is engendered bydeeper cont;radictions, namely, the contradictions between the objectivesocialisation of production and the heteronomy of the world market,between socialised labour and privatised commodity consumption, betweenthe relations of production (wage-labour and value-relations in general)and the productive forces (needs and creativity of the producers),between use-value and value.

This last is an awareness which T -feel is generally lacking inyour publications, at least what live seen of them so far. Along withthis lack is another - I don't see any attempt to analyse the presentcrisis, to understand the forces which are pitching us into a newdepression and very likely into World \;VarIII. This l~ck seems. to ~eadin turn to a certain formalism, an excessive concern wlth organlsatlonand structures like de"legation and so forth. I am very sensitive tothis tendency because my own organisai;ion has until recently been


17/26

definitely susceptible to it! I am, actually, rather surprised that youpublished Te~rry Liddle's article at a119 except possib1W as a kind ofnegative example, an example of what monstrous contradictions andc on fu si on s " co un ci .L i. s!' formalism leads to. You make some goodcriticisms of Liddle's article, true, but I don't fh.ink you -get tothe root of what's wrong with. it - namely, the lack of understandingof the difference between capitalist and communist social relations.IJiddle reaJ,.lysounds as if he wants councils to manage the existingworld, the existing type of production, as if "councils" were an end inthemselves and not simply a regrettably necessary means of overcoming theseparations Irnposed by the capitalist orderinG of social space, We willneed councils because Capital has broken production down into enter:Drises,separated production from consumption geographically and socially, andhas tended more arid more to shape production in a way for whi.ch c ommun i.atsociety can have no possible use (e.g. auto pr-oduct.Lon, a rmaments,' largeareas of packaging and "service" industries. and the bureaucra.cy).

\I V OIJTH HE.iiDINGTbe History of tbe Mabknovite Movement -- P.ArohinovTbe Unkn own Re v o luti on -- Voline.

Capitalism socia.lised production, but only part-way< It is thetask of the councils to complete this socialisation via communist (non-commodity) relations, by breaking down the s811arations betweenenterprises, neighbourhoods; countries etc organisationally so as to beable, to do it concretely, that is, by transforming the whole "layout"of society. The coune-irs will be superseded by new forms of organisationthat we can only guess at, because they will emerge from a world. that wecannot even imagine in any detail, a world shaped by the imperative of"the full and free development of each individual" (Marx, CommunistMan i.f'eso ) . The lead article understands this point well enough, cometothink-of it: but Liddle doesn't and I'm not at all sure Newell doeseither since he seems to like :Bookchin so much. I'm puzzled that hecan re~oncile :Bookchinism with the "familiarity" he claims with thewor 1,, ; : of Marx and Engels, Bookch iri explicitly wants to go back to.au tar-ky , wh i.ch is quite impossible. Otherwise, mOEJt of Newell's articler.s fairly sensible, and illuminating at times.In conclusion, I think you should be cautious about how you "relatecormnunism to a continuous trend in the class struggle". The question is

- which continuous trend? There is the struggle of the class-in-itselffor better condi t .Lone, which by itself has nothing to do with communism.Only when in the course of th~se struggles does a communist tendencyemerge, a tsndency to transform social relations, to begin ?om.'Tlunising~is there a link between c ommun Lsrn and the class struggle. Thecommunist movement is not a.Lways p resent, and we must know when it isnot and E . . : E : : Y : _ ~ _ : . ? . ' To cloo-~Gherwiseis to fall back into LsftLsm.

Marxism and Freedom -- Raya DunayevskayaAooeptanoe of I~ufub ri ty - StanlJ3Y 1\1ilgrcim(psyollologioal

experiments)Mao Unrellearsed -- stuart Sobram (seoret speeobes)Meet Your Friendly SouiaL System Peter LaurieLow Intensity OperEltions _.".:Cdr. P. Kitson (use of =Rmy

in defeating oivil disobedienoe,strikes, and insurgency)


18/26

5 i n c E: thE; ['i;} Y EIi Eon t sin F r qn c e in 1 9 6 8 th [;r E] has b E8 n arc v i v 31 0f 9 r 0upsadvocating th~ Bstablishing of Socialism ( correctly understood as 3 world-wloe, frontierless, stateless! wagelsss 9 moneylsss society) through theaction of workers councils. The group largely responcible for re-publishingthese ideas is undoubtedly the Situationists, though other small groups,which have survived since ths 1920's, also played a part. Whatever thereason! recent years have sScn the re-emergenc8 of groups actually standingfor socialism, and rejecting as state capitalist any vision of future societywhich retains thE statc! wages systsm g stc.One of those groups in f3ritain is (',orld r !evolution s the 'first issue ofwhose journal was psblishGd in May 1974. An examination of their statsmentof ';pcrspectives'; will enable the wsaknesses as well as the a dv a nc e s oftheir position to be brought out.WR clearly understand socialism (or communism) in the same sense as Marxdid. Tho proletariat, they say, must

I'attack the roal source of capitalist exploitation - the law ofvalue - by smashing wage labour, production for profit and all theexpressions thereof (banks,money,frontiers) and co~mencc productionfor use and the free distribution of all goods, subject ~nly torationing in case of e n y tornp o r a r y s ho rta qo s" (po16)

Capitalism, they say, ended its historically progressive phase "with thecroation of a technological basis which could abolish scarcity and of aninternational pr6lota~iat capable of ovorthrciwing world capitalism! (p.3)This phase ended with the 1914/18 world slaughter, itself a bloody demon-str ati.cn that c ap ita Li sm UJ3S entering its period of d e cLi n s or lJdecadenc8".50 far, so QOlJd, but lull attach a f unrtarnant a I importance to ~Lh.eJ...E>onceptof capitalist decadence. Indeed th8y would S88m to want to make it themark that distinguishes them from all other groups.For them capitalist dscadsnce is esscntially a question of the capitalistcl~ss no longer being able to find markets on which to sell their goods ata profit. Dn this point ldR f o Llo ur thE1 mistak on v ieu.s of Ro s a l.ux emb u r q e

liAs Rosa Luxembourg showed, surplus value cannot bs realisedu ithin the c o n text of a purely c ap ita Li st e c o nomv' (p.4)

This is just not so. As Marx showed, surplus value could indsed be realisedwithin B purely capitalist economy, i.s. an economy composod exclusivelyof capitalists and wage workers without any third, non-capitalist elementsto constitute an external market for the goods produced by the wage workers.L ux em b o u r q s a rg um ent ac )a irl st ~ ~a rx i n h r. r .( l_g .g ~I ,UD _u .J: 3~ ;i' !? J"- ?L S_P~ t.t al .s o a s e d onan elementary theoretical error. Without going into too much detail, hErmistai:e WAS to completely ignore new capitalist investment when working outthe total effectivG demand (or market) under capitalism. For her, the mar-ket for the net annual product was composed just of the demand of workersand capitalists for consumer goods. Thus while the product was made up ofthe ~Iagcs of tho workers and the surplus value of the capitolists9 themarket for it9 within pure capitalismg was made up by the wages of theworkers plus theclemont of surplus value consumed !)y the capitalists.The rcst of the surplus value, the greater part in fact, dcstinB~ for rc-.in v Est m < :: nt., c 0 u1d not tJ GH rca 1is u d j ~ iE) 0 C 0 u1d fin d no m enk E -J t 0 [-\ c cor din g t 0this reasoning c ap ita L i sr n b.'~~q.o find external markets. Eventually ho u e v e r


19/26


20/26

confidence and abillity to carry out the sociAlist revolution, not as asort of nutomatic r~action to a big slump, but as a rosult of theirGxperienc8 of struggle under c0pitalism. Socialist cosciousnsss will bethe ou t. co rn e o f uo r l.ino class st rurjq L o against capitalism, as it becomesmore and more conscious of what it iSi a struQglc to assert social con-trol over the msans of productio~ in the int~r8sts of tho whole community.L i R 1 [' too n '~l'r [HI c C J n Cl P t i o n 0 f who '}ret hew 0 r kin 9 c 1 ass has 2.1 r E.a d y 11o lC ) ncriticis~d. For 'them the working class is composE~ only of those directlyengaged in productive labour! oth~r uage and salary Garners havo an int-[rest in ending capitalism but tho pressures on them to act against itare not so immediate as those of pro~uctivG workers. Hence they SGe thelatter as b e in q tho spearhead or ;,vanguard" of the rnvo Lut Lo n , Lv an soVFl concede that the other groups will also form "councils" arid play Dpart, through them, in ovorthrowing capitalism. The working class accord-ing to t ha I'-larxianvieDI however, is composed of all tho s s liJhO g ex c Ludo dfrom ownership and control of the means of production, are forced to s81J.their mental and physical onergies for 2 wage or salary in order to live.In the industrialised parts of the world, the great majority of the pop~ulation ars working class in this sense and all parts of them have anequal role to play? through dGmocr~tic self-organisation? in the social-ist rev olutio n.P, fur the i: i10 .iJ1t that cas t s d 0 u b t o n w h c the r 1 . 1 , : r; rca 11 y h :3 san 3 d r: : qua t econception of the socialist revolution 38 a conscious majority revolutionis thsj_rattituc'e to the b o L s he vik party and their coup of Oct 19170 Thebolshevik coup is described as ::one of the highest moments of the pro-Le ta r i a n r ov o lutLnn" (po7) an d th a b o L s hav io party at that tinw 83"[;1p r o L e te r i a n o r q a n . i s ation" (p.14L ActuatLy this no n s e n s e is [1Uit8 atvariance with the J.ogic of thD rest of their theory and is to js explain-ed in terms of opportunism: ~ R in Britain wants to pursu8 the sarno line8S the French group ncvolution Intsrnatioalc g ~hich dogmatically insistson thisviow of Lenin and the bolshcviks. But it shOUld bo closr now thatboth in theory and practic8 9 the bolshevik party was right from the startcommitcd to the statu capitalist industrialisation of Russia; for d02snot Lcnins distinction ~ctw~cn vanguard and masses I lLsdcrs and lodatc.refloct and prefiaure the division of society into a privileged and ane xp Lo itud C1DSS? /\IlY .iLlu s io n s Oil this p oir rt m us t be r uthl o s s Ly opposed.But to be fairl WR~s conception of thr revolution is quite different fromLcnins. According to them 9 in the crisis the workers will form councils~on a geographical DS well 38 an industrial basis~which will comc to chal-1 8 n god 8 f C2 t. the b 0 u r g C 0 Usst at 8 ma chi n c. P CI1 i t ic alp Ole' c r li_/.i.Ll. t h "H, h i-lV Cpassed into the harids of the working class, or q a r iis e d in 3:CfT!E,cJ workerscouncils. This rule of the 8rmsd workers councils thoy dsscribe 28 t.hedictatorship of ths p r o L o t ariat 9 urho s ta s l: tho y SCG a s A Jf 'l n .R 9. i0 .' Gc li .od 8 Stl'0 Y t. h e I , e ! 3 9 c s s 'IstC rn9 the m.sr het9 mo i-, C Y 9 Etc

/

~ Like many such ~roups W~ is dogmatically anti-parliamentary, insistingt hat at n 0 ,? tag Gall c J L J n rlc1' n 0 c i r e u r nsb} n c u s s h 0 U 1 cl tho c:C 11' ,> C I'a t i c 2 .:_1 yorgBnis2d working class ever cont~st elections or send delegatEs to the81 E! ctiv c ins Lit uti iJiis (J f the b [iUr g cui sst at (J. The fa c tis th 8t toe! ,ay ltl Ccannot predict? and shou ~ not try to prodicts the exact courso of thef u t u I'8 s o c i. ali s t, r 8 v C ]_u t .iun, It iss u f fie i Ell t to ins is t t hat it m us t :J E! abonscious, majoritY9Political affair~lGav{nQ it up to the working classitself to settle particular tactics in the liQht of the particular circum-stances that exist at thE time.


21/26

t ., c:: 1"-\ I Y " ''......-jI ~Contrary to the assertions of LIJ3:~RTATIIA'i~Oj '~]\ Jml 'E , r_;H which has seen fit

to attack us in the article signed by steven Stefan in No.6 of themagazine (YlThe:'-eedfor a Revolutionary lilovementll)we in World Revolutiondo not ho Ld that we are the bearers of.some etarnaL and uncl1anging--~'"-truth lying outside the class struggle. Almost as soon as we hadpublished our political platform our continuing dialogue with fractionsand indivic1uals in our general tendei1cy made us aware of a nunbe.r ofinadequate and imprecise formulations in the platform and in a widersense we are perfectly a',are that a "final': elaboration of the communistprogramme is impos~ible because the comnmnist programme is an expressionof the living .0s?_V~!1entf proletariat in the cLaas struggle and any groupthat holCs that it possesses the final answer at ~ny stage automaticallyleaves the movement and becomes an obstacle to it.

f" ~ i,

First of all we are not quite the isolated bunch of fanatics you presentus as, though you would be right in presenting aui general politicaltendency ~s being completely outside what you generously accept as partof the "revolutionary' mov:eillentl1(57 varieties of 'libertarial!s', SH;r~,wome ne ", gays' and students liberation, ahop stewards, etc.). Inaddition to Internationalism our specific tendency includes RevolutionInternati.onale i:O:"-ii~ranc-~-;-"-Il~tel:'nacialism.Qn Venezuala and AccionJ?roletai~iail1~-'Spain;n(1 ti~~e"ar~--a'"'"i1Uillberf communist groups whom werelate '-to"as part of the same general t.endency , such as Y'(!il:;:


22/26

It is true that ,Ie as.sert that no' permanent organisation by workers intheir oun interests is now possible under capitalism'. The whole experienceof the working class this century is that every attempt to organise itselfwhether through parties, soviets, or rank and file striij:.eommittees isfaced with the choice of either a total confrontation with the svstem orbeing co-opted into the totalitarian apgaratus of cap.itaLi.am , ~I'ileeftCommunists of the early twenties, especially the KAPD, believed it vtei:possible for general organisations of the class :.toexist on a more-or-lesspermahent basis within, but against, capitalism. But the decompositionof the factory organisations they advocated prdved them wrong~ Sincethen, again and again organisations which were gSnuine secretions of theworkers in struggle have been recuperated by capital once the originalstruggle has died dovrn: whether workers councils and factory committeesin Poland and Hungary 'legalized I by the state, or the base committeeswhich emerged in factories and neighbourhoods in the Italian Struggles of169 , and today serve only as vehicles for the leftist manipulators. Theonly organisations of the class which have survibed permanently thiscentury have been small,political groups who hava remained committed tothe communist prog~amme.You do not attempt to analyse why it is that workers' organisations arebeing conti~ually co-opted. Instead of locating this process against theobjecti~Q backcround of capitalist decadence and permanent counter-revol-ution, Y0U ~erely advocate the creation of new permanent organisations,one after the other, just as the Trotskyists go throllgh endless attemptsto 'cE'ptm:e' the unions without ever under-at anc i.ng (bec'al1i':::ehey are afraction of capital) why the working class cannot capture the unions,eventho: "'''1 t '1e mrot~ky.i, C{ t co lOl~0"+ C" 1r Ce" r 3 II c. 'r' cs "-;-l"(~"-t 'i~;-~r~, .t ."..~i_ ",J . _. 1.. /1. . : : :>_ '~. L ..:.I J ..l ...C- :,. ' l.J I.")t.. .,__- , \. ;. ~._I".,. '" c ;; _~ . _- .... " l'IYOM pompously accuse us of being 'unable to relate communism to anycontinuous trend in the class struggle'of failing 'to expose the connect-ion of the communist aim with the existing strLlgg1e of the world.ng classto assert their human needs within capitalism'gOn the contrary, it i$ you who fail to make this connection. You want tosee the working class go through endless attempts to organise itself ona permanent basis ~ithout explaining why capital cannot tolerate anyautonomous organilisationof the class this cehtury. You fail to explainthat it is pr-e ci.eeLy because wor-kers . : = ; E . ~ 1 _ ' 2 . ! am;;ert their human needs unce rcapitalism that communism is an absolute necessity for the proletariat.We are c ommun.i.as not for fun but because only by making the communistrevolution can the proletariat really defend its most elementary interests.'I'h t h t l' t .,(acc~demj_cth t J bet .l..' bu l 1l-. a lS VI your as...::S no p.'~" "".. . .; __eore JlC,?,_ . aos rac ci.ori uc 'cop aya part within the class strugE18, to help develop and generalise itsrevolutionary potential, to explain its present limitations and overallgoals. V'hen workers in struggle continuously come up against unions,leftists~ etc, we communiGts can only help to clarify the real nature ofthese organisations, i.e. as factions of capital which the class will haveto C estroy. rfhen the v!orking cLaes time and a[~;aincomes up again:::;theimnos,:3ibilityof winning any real rerorms from cEqJ:LtB.loday i have to-~--."-.---"-relate this to the historical bankruptcy of capitalisG and the ur~ent.~ ,. I._necessity of the communist revolution.~e are completel~ opposed to the transcendental disdain which groups likethe SPGB have for the daj_ly struggles of the cLass 8.nd westr,,,;.c:,.t.henecessity for the class to struggle in the most militant an~ j,llJependentmanner possible and to learn from its experiences. Our spe~~.flc task ascommuni~t,s is to relate the historical e;{perienceof the cias,s,its ownglobal theoretical und erstand i.ng , to the day to day experience of theclass; not to accept the atomised and ~ifflised limitations of that dayto day 'reality' but to help in the process ~hereby the proletariatunifies beyond and against thoBe limit~tions. Because the only weaponthe proletar i.at has is its ability to :3.Ctwith a cOl'l.:!yciou~nderstanding


23/26

of its e~emies and goals, the role of revolutionaries is rrimarily to helpaccelerate the growth of revolutionary consciousness; and it Ban only dothat through intervening in the class with the higJ.1estpossible degreeof clarity. Any political group ~hich disdains the search for clarity,and puts forward bits and p.i.ees of the communist programme whilecontinuing to spread the most appalling illusions aboutparli~merit, unions,etc ,, is ori Ly helping to spread confusion. 'I'h.asurely th'emost pern-icious and dangerous thing about LIBFRTAT';A1~: C Qi' iI ' i lP 'TIE;fJI; it mixes upcounter revolutionary ideologies with isolated aspects of commun.i.amjustifying it all viith the familiar apology of the Left: 'we must notbecome cut-off from the "rnovemerrt!", rAnd incleec1as part of the libert-arian confusionist, 'altenative' left you are by no means cut-off fromtheir movement.wonm REVOLUTION' does not see' its role as' jumping in t with its theoreticalclarity at the time of revolutionary crisis, though we.hold that a majorcrisis is an inde~pensible precondition for revolution. It Dould beabsurd to pretend that 'we' ire going to activate the revolution in thatsense. ne do, however, consider that the crisis will force the workingclass to organise not only in countils But also to create a realcommunist party whose aim is not to 'take power' in the Leninist sensebut to defend the communist programme within the working class, to actas the theoretical vanguard of the CD!11J.}Junistovement. This party willbe a secretion of the class, and existing commun.iat factions like W.R.will playa vital role in its formation. But we are not the partyand we denounce anybody viho cLai.ma that 'they are tIieparty' at thisstage of the class struggle.You say that w . n . do 'not really consider themselv~G part of the workingcalss' and have a romantic view of workers' ability to eru~t into struggle.But precisely because we do co~sider ourselves to be part of the revolu~ionary class, we are confident thet the revolutionary character of theclass will be splendidly demonstrat~d by the class itself and that it willbe none other than those wor-ker-a who are 'normally' atomd.sed and apatheticunder capitalism who viII become 'the vanguard of the revolution' - justas it is those same workers who have been at the forefront of the w i.Ldcatstrikes and uprisings of the 1st few years. Moreover it is another mis-representation to imply th~t W.R. holds that th~se workers 'in the normalcourse of events cannot defend their interests'. In a historic sense itis true that the working class cannot 0efend its interest under capit-alism anymore and must destroy it. But at the same time the class doesstruggle, always, to defeI;lditself and it organL3es those struggles inwhatever way is necessary. What we are saying is that it must organiseoutside and against the unions and that it subsequently dissolves theorganisations it creates in the heat of the struggle these neworgans will play the same anti-working class rola as unions. But thecapacity for self-organisation of the claSB is permanent and inexhaust-able, otherwise the proletariat would not be the revolutionary class.Your comments on our vision of revolution are almost too grotesque to bedealt ~ith at all. You imply that we are for a ~mall elite, a ('pfe-First Internation~lt) Jacobin sact seizing power. This is a disgracefuldistortion of our position. We have clearly stated our utter host-ility to all forms of subBtitutionis~, t~ any elite taking power 'onbehalf of' the class. We have insisted that the emahcipation of theworking class is the task of the working class its~lf; that the formof the proletarian dictatorship is the total power of the workerscouncils, that communism is the creation of a whole ao ci.eL movement.In another article you quote from our comrades in INrYERNAl'IONAI,IElrvInan approving way:"Be caus e the creation of work.ers1 councils: is an expression of a fund-ame~tal opposition to capitalsit society and the beginning of a new


24/26

form of social organisation, the councils can only exist in periods ofrevolutionary 8trug~le; they cannot become permanent institutionalised ,structures ~ithin capitalism without surrendering thier form and content.'(IHTERNATIOFALISH No.2.). FIe re-affirm that workers' councils on1v____ , ._exist at times of revolutionarY,crisis. This is not 'apocalyptic'. Itis a sober appraisal of reality. ~e can~ot,as the libertarians andlibbers want to do, build' COml1:lUnlst'forms' under capitalism. On thecontrary every permanent organis~tion today, no matter how democratic i nform (shop stewards, tenants aaacc i.a'tons , etc ,) w.i Ll,become obstacles, tothe formation of workers couricils and to the communist tranaf or-matLon ,Every such organisation that exists today is part of the vast pile ofrubbish whIch the workerscouncils will have to S1NeeP away ..Revolution is a complete break with old habits and practices, a totalonslaught on the whole of present day society. Similarly, when anindividual be coues a revolutionary he must make a complete breakwith his whole political past. There is no continuity between the Left,whethe:b in its openly state capitalist form or its libertarian appen-dages (O~A etc) - and the revolutionary movement. 'I'hs is recqgnisednot onLy by n.R. but by our whole general tendency.' L.e. wants to playaround Hith communist ideas wh i.I.e attempting to bridge the gulf whichseperates commurri.amand Lef'ti.am, Because there is a .cl~ line betweenthe tWo, that 'bridge' is nothing but a way of crossing clasG lines, andthat is what II.C. is doing with 'its adhesion to the r:r'GB,its par-Li.amen't-.arian~sm and unionist mystification, its support for 'lib' movements andso on.Y au can either go on playing this role - 'the extreme Left of the Left'or break completely with the whole Leftist cesspool, accepting all theconsequen~es that go with it - committment, a certain ine~itable isolation,and so on~ We don't say this because of our 'sectarian' or puristatti tudes. Sectarianism only has mean.i.ngbetween member-s of the samemovement. Vie are no more being sectarian' in denouncing unions, eteviards ,leftists etc., than when we attack Heath, or Nixon, or Mao. We do notdenounce other working cLass, commun i.s , or-gan.iatLons , .rie do'notdenounce the proletariat. Our enemy is capital, Until such time as youunderstand the difference between the revolutionary class and its enemieswe cannot consider you to be part of our movement and must contihue tooppose you poli~ically even though ~e are willing to discuss withindividuals who are serLous Ly Lntereeted in mak.i.nga serious commit tmentto revolutionary politics.

VIOTIm REVOLUTION July 197L~~

; _ ' - - - l r - - / - ~ (";i I \ ,iI_" f .i, V, IFirst, lets get c'lear our relationshipdth the Socialist Party of GreatBritai.n, Those of Ur3 who prior to this ed.i:bionof':LIBE:HTARJAHeQI


25/26

European workers sd.nce 1905 (see :.LIBER'I'ARILNmI)'J'mnS]l1 No.6): As a resultof our activities we were eventually expelled from the SPGB by a vote ofapproxinately 152 to L:2. He now form part of a new political grouJ~)ingwhich is in the process of developing its own coherent pililitical theory.".R. ar e per-haps partly justified in their 1tattackl1 on us in so f'a r - asour reference to them as "sectariEr.nn Ln our last i,sGue was not bac".carlup by a very lengthy analYEis. Nevertheless we did criticise them as.fellow social~sts since we have the same objective as rJ.R. and aLao havemany basic ideas in common, Despite this IN.R. refuses to recognise usas their comrades in a commoristruggle and to this extent prove their-sectarianism.1:e hope to ke ep LIBET:TAIUAH COI\';,ii;i:rSI[ going as a discussion journ.aJ.,and in this Ls sue 1Ne are publishing further criticisms of W:\(. !s Eq)pr.;o.~> 1though we do not nece~sarily agrEe with them all as a group.

NOECS: VIe rape to be bringing cut a more propagandistpaper in the near future. For further details ande..:.'.:Ui. ; i . . . . . . r ' : : ? ) ~ h . ~ ~ ~ , ?:T;~!:)tions etc. w r ite to j~berdeen

~

"}>'l i lce Ba..llarc1,

TNO SOCIiI.JJIST SHORT STORIE.'S. 3p + postageThe SamPacker story; by IN . WaItersBa.Lmur-d l e, 'by TomHubbardM l-iR X ' S EAI 'L~YWRITn~GS. 3p + postageA few copies of Llm--:;HTARIANO N I l \ i l U t U , s l l l I 6 are still available ,free but please send 4 ~ - 1 ? stamp for postage. Articles main~yon wo.rkars Councils, Sorry - all earlier issues out of prLnt,

DHArT STATEHJ:;;N T C ON TIN UED FIt eN JAC K PAGE .t' f j \_ genuine socialist group does not try to manipuLate or gainpower over workers, but works to democtatise both itself andlother working class organisations and activity.It does notpropagate s-ocialism' as a doctr ing, but tries to clarify the;connection of and unite fragmented struggles witbi one anotherand witb the socialist objective. It works against barriers toa ~ree E;o~iety.basec1 Ol}..,.,."s~x,homo_sexualitYc, occupation; educ-j'i atlon,natlonallty,rece- and age, both w i.tbLn .itseLf and intbe Viorking class as~8 whole.

--------------------, --


26/26

The' following ststement was agreed as a draft for discussionby members from Aberdeen, Hull arid London, on19th January19(5. Please send all comments and suggested revisions toAberdeen Group. . c L r (.)~ '1 .{$I; (/le r I !> ( ' ,. ) i1D 01 /' r ~ 0ilL ,~t '1l~~;, ' ' ' ( l

: ; ' t " ' C I to' AriA. I tV' ~,.r'et\,t.. f i . , " ~ Ii' --- ...... ----,lvloder:n.so~iety is dDinat~d by a m,-~Jl;",~ri.'[, ~~cal?_i t 9~~ ,6_P, tf f _:t ~ss r, whi.ch 9IPA~:r;q~s ~be me8~s ?f pt:q~~ln_g__ana _q7strl_~ut~rr;_[vvealtb (sucb as factorles, laoorlt_oJ;,'l_e..,telecl!immunl catlonS)~ividual,corpora~nd stat'e property.Those excludec1fromsuc h control are i!he ,wo~ ola?s, who are forced to sell theirmentaL and pbysic8re'flergies to the oapitalist cLas s for wages\Ond salaries in order to live; and also sucb oppressed groupsas peasants.Tbe capitalist class is divided into rival companies, trusts,natLona, and blocks.Tbese compete in selling goods and services,produced by exploiting tbe w~rking class,at a profit on the worldmarket. Tbe pur pose of pr oducti on f or eoch company, natl on etc.is to accumulate c it s capi tal (means of pr oduotion ) by tlle rea 1-of profit. Capitalist competition gener7tes enormous VJ8ste,environmental damage crises and wars.Since about the turn of tbe century,wben capitalism came to dom-inate the wbole world, it ~as been a dangerously obsolete systemof siciety. This is because tbe technolo~y and productive resourceshave been developed which provide a material basis for a freerway of life, wbiLst tbe oppressions and cbnflicts of capitalismbold back social progress,and threaten human survival withnuclear destruction and destruction of the environment.

In communist society tile \p,.e1n~n..Qfp~;pQ.uction.,_ane.~social affairs~J in gegeral, are 9:.~cL'l.tica iy '0 on:tr,;J_T8d---hL_1_beJ,hole - Q ~ .ople

')" CH to satisfy the humsn- needs oftbe oommun_ ty. Tbis involvesproduction for use instead of for profit, and the abolition oftbe vvages system, nat , enal fr ont ier sa and the coerc ive state.> , , 1 , " }3ecause capitalism is a world system. revolutionory cbange to0 I - ,

, '..< the new society must ,;ccur on a world scale.The cbange can onlybe made by tbe cOJ'lsciouE3,t::utono\1lous,democratic o:2ganisation and, uu't-\"--self acti vi ty of tbe rnajO1:'iy of the workingclci Ss and }2_eaantryin all areas of Bociul l~fe. Probably tbe most important form

v'< > ~ ~ , ) { . . .

1 / 1

--~..,.-- ~ ,.,~

:tmAFTSTLTENENTOFPRINCIPLES

Countries such as Russ i.s and Cbina, in wht.oh the means of pr-od-..uction are collectively controlled by the state bureaucracy, arenot socialist but State capitalist. state capitalsim is the dom--inant trnd in tbe ooncentration of capital into fewer and iBWXBlarger units.Against the reqUirements of tbe capitalist class,workers try toIidefend or advance tbeir standards and conditions of life,toexpress and assert tbeir .needs. as human beings, and to weakencapitalist control of themselves and tbe means of production.Tbeir is no valid division between 'defensive' and revolutionaryworking c , l Q _ _ s....ruggle. Just as people can engage in the conflictover wages arid fin~ confidenee and understanding from their eEp-erience wgicb oon lead them to question tbs system more generally,the prospect of a communist sooiety gives confidence to thoseconciously involved in ohallenging the system as a whole.Thisclass struggle incl~desall areas ~f sooial life-employment,educa't I on, tbe comrcunty, tbe family, the conflict of idea s,personal raletionsbips etc.

libertarian communism 07

Documents