{"id":20919,"date":"2022-02-24T13:01:19","date_gmt":"2022-02-24T13:01:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/?p=20919"},"modified":"2023-04-01T16:04:02","modified_gmt":"2023-04-01T16:04:02","slug":"freedom-come-all-ye-why-we-need-a-truly-human-and-democratic-communism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/republicancommunist.org\/blog\/2022\/02\/24\/freedom-come-all-ye-why-we-need-a-truly-human-and-democratic-communism\/","title":{"rendered":"Freedom come all ye – Why we need a truly human and democratic communism"},"content":{"rendered":"

The RCN\/RCF has always seen the need to connect anti-capitalist activities with providing a vision of the type of society we want and the means of achieving it. To this end we were engaged in debates in the commune<\/em>. \u00a0One of the articles which Allan Armstrong, with assistance from Bob Goupillot, \u00a0contributed proved too long for the then E&L<\/em> blog. \u00a0But since this article \u00a0has continued relevancy, we are posting it on our\u00a0EL&SD<\/em>\u00a0 which can now handle its length! \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

FREEDOM COME ALL YE<\/strong><\/p>\n

Why we need a truly human and democratic communism<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

How many people today, even on what remains of the Left, publicly and confidently declare their support for \u2018Communism\u2019?\u00a0 Take just three British organisations, which claim to be key parts of the revolutionary Left – the Socialist Workers Party, the Socialist Party and the Alliance for Workers\u2019 Liberty. Nowhere in their What We Stand For<\/em> columns is there any mention of communism. \u00a0If these comrades are communists, they are \u2018closet communists\u2019.\u00a0 Looking tentatively out from their closets, with doors slightly ajar, they might whisper to those within hearing distance, that \u2018Communism\u2019 is nothing to get het-up about really. \u2018Communism\u2019 can be safely relegated to a distant future. The real task is \u201cto build socialism\u201d. \u00a0If they make any reference at all to communism, it is confined to in-house events or theoretical journals and has about as much purchase on their everyday politics as \u2018Clause 4 Socialism\u2019 had for the reformist Left who led the old British Labour Party.\u00a0 If Marx hadn\u2019t called himself a communist for most of his life and hadn\u2019t entitled his best-known work, The Communist Manifesto<\/em>, most of the British revolutionary Left would probably prefer to jettison the term altogether.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1. Communism – an outdated and nostalgic label \u00a0<\/strong>or a fully human, democratic society<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mention of the word \u2018Communism\u2019 conjures up visions of tyrants such as Stalin, Ceausescu, Kim Il Sung and Pol Pot, or grey bureaucrats like Brezhnev, Honecker and Husak. \u00a0Indeed. so discredited has the Communist label become, particularly amongst young people, that even when they clash violently with the representatives of global capitalism\u2019s New World Order, whether in Athens or London, they call their protest \u2018anti-capitalist\u2019 not communist.<\/p>\n

The experience or knowledge of \u2018official\u2019 Communism is now the biggest material factor preventing the recreation of a new human emancipatory alternative to imperialism\u2019s New World Order today. \u00a0Struggles, continue, like the Arab uprising on an epic and heroic scale. \u00a0However, in the absence of any popular vision of an alternative human emancipatory society, most current struggles set themselves self-limiting objectives, which make them easier to defeat, contain or marginalise.\u00a0 Therefore, although new forms of struggle emerge, the lack of a clear political alternative still leaves them trapped within limits set by bureaucratised trade unions and political parties, clinging on to varying versions of social democracy and nationalism. \u00a0This is despite the fact that the material, economic, basis for communism is already with us.<\/p>\n

Therefore, if we are to proudly proclaim ourselves as communists, it is vital that we outline a genuine new human emancipatory communism, which takes full stock of the failings of both \u2018official\u2019 and \u2018dissident Communism\u2019, and which can persuasively show that human liberation can still be achieved. This means a break with both reformist and \u2018revolutionary\u2019 social democracy, i.e. social democracy calling itself Communism. The main purpose of this article will be to show that a genuine new communism, based on real trends in capitalist society, can form an operational politics<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

2. Marx and the abolition of wage slavery\u00a0<\/strong>versus\u00a0<\/strong>\u2018Revolutionary\u2019 social democracy and the continuation of the wages system<\/strong><\/p>\n

Re-examining Marx\u2019s understanding of a fully developed communist society, we can see that it is based on a human emancipatory vision:-<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u201cFrom each according to their ability; to each according to their needs.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    That is giving and sharing<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \u201cWhere the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      That the ends and the means involve the fullest personal development for each individual.<\/p>\n

      If we then look at the key political-economic transformation which Marx felt was necessary to bring about communism, we will find that it is the ending of wage slavery.\u00a0 In Marx\u2019s major critique of capitalist political economy, Capital<\/em>, he railed against those on the Left who confined their demand to, \u201cA fair day\u2019s pay for a fair day\u2019s work\u201d. \u00a0He also opposed the slogan, \u201cWe demand the full product of our labour\u201d. Marx wanted communists to inscribe on their banner, \u201cThe abolition of the wages system\u201d. Yet very few of today\u2019s socialists try to highlight the domination of wage slavery under capitalism. \u00a0The battles for the emancipation of chattel slaves and women are seen as great past and present human struggles. \u00a0But the continued extension of wage slavery throughout the world (often alongside other more brutal forms of bondage such as enforced child labour) hardly concerns the Left. \u00a0Yet, even many on the Right instinctively rebel against the condition of wage slavery, hoping to be independent owners or at least join capitalism\u2019s \u2018house slaves\u2019 as managers.<\/p>\n

      Yet, when we examine the society that \u2018revolutionary\u2019 social democrats want to build immediately after their Revolution, it is most peculiar. \u00a0The wages system is to be retained under socialism. \u00a0This is a bit like the black slaves of pre-Civil War USA rising up against their slave masters – but once they have expelled them, not proceeding to abolish slavery! \u00a0Instead, slavery would remain, but the slaves would elect and emancipate a select few of their number to manage the affairs of the plantation. \u00a0The job of this new management would be to organise the slaves with a view to increasing production, promising a much fairer distribution of the resulting produce afterwards!<\/p>\n

      We can see that Marx offers us<\/strong> a much more profound criticism of capitalism than the majority of today\u2019s revolutionary Left.\u00a0 Furthermore, with its emphasis on wage slavery this has the potential to unite the vast majority of humankind, either struggling under wage slavery\u2019s yoke, still trying to resist its imposition or forming drop-out, non-waged \u2018maroon\u2019 enclaves, beyond its reach.\u00a0 Marx gave various names to the new social order he was struggling to give voice to – \u2018revolutionary democracy\u2019 and \u2018humanism\u2019, but his settled label was \u2018communism\u2019. However, Marx had to warn against other \u2018communisms\u2019 – particularly \u2018vulgar Communism\u2019. \u2018Vulgar Communism\u2019 expressed the hatred many felt at the growing inequalities and injustices associated with the early days of industrial capitalism at the beginning of the nineteenth century.\u00a0 However, it took the form of an angry levelling down of the new capitalist order, rather than creating a new emancipatory higher level of society.<\/p>\n

      Therefore \u2018anti-capitalism\u2019 is not enough. Revolutions can lead to an immediate feeling of intense liberation, but they are usually followed by much longer periods of defence, setbacks and painful reconstruction. \u00a0The twentieth century was the \u2018Century of Revolutions\u2019, but it eventually produced so little for humanity at such a high cost, it is not surprising that many are very cautious, despite the growing barbarism of The New World Order. \u00a0Therefore, it is vital that we outline a genuine democratic communism rooted in today\u2019s realities and we show how this could be achieved.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong>3. The decline of Marx\u2019s genuine communism \u00a0<\/strong>and the rise of orthodox Marxism and \u2018official Communism\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

      During Marx\u2019s lifetime, communist politics had the support of a wider spectrum of opinion than was to be the case later. \u00a0Marx himself never claimed to be the sole advocate of a patented \u2018Communist\u2019 model. \u00a0Indeed, this was the very opposite of his aim, which was to give voice to the aspirations of workers and others for an emancipatory alternative struggling both within and against capitalism. \u00a0Furthermore, there were other contemporaries of Marx, such as Dietzgen, who theoretically contributed to this wider communism. \u00a0Communism wasn\u2019t Marxism.<\/p>\n

      The Second International was formed at a time of worker militancy in 1889, but this did not lead to a new wave of communist revolution. Indeed, it was the Second International, which helped to massively shift the terms of the debate. \u00a0Instead of advocating the abolition of wage slavery, it helped promote the idea of the \u2018noble\u2019 wage worker, and the acceptance of the condition of wage slavery, but on better terms. \u00a0Trade unions would improve wages. \u00a0Social Democratic politicians would tax the capitalist wage-slave masters, to ameliorate their employees\u2019 conditions, and provide workers with a social wage too.\u00a0 This is analogous to prisoners earning the right to decorate their own cells rather than destroy the jail and live in freedom.<\/p>\n

      The term \u2018communism\u2019 itself was relegated by the Second International as a new Social Democracy made increasing accommodation with a renewed capitalism – the monopoly imperialist capitalism identified by Lenin.<\/p>\n

      After the defeat of the International Revolutionary Wave of 1916-21, which gave birth to the Communist Third International, Marx\u2019s genuine communist legacy became almost completely marginalised and lost.\u00a0 Ironically though, this occurred at the same time that the Communist Party leaderships in a whole number of countries, beginning with the USSR, but later followed by Yugoslavia, Albania, North Korea, China and Cuba amongst others, promoted an almost complete identity of \u2018Communism\u2019 with Marx.\u00a0 \u2018Communism\u2019 became an ideology associated with a \u2018great individual\u2019 (and of course the self-chosen successor\/s); a notion that the ideologues of \u2018western capitalism\u2019 were equally keen to promote!<\/p>\n

      Marx, however, saw communist organisation as completely subordinate to a real revolutionary movement of wage slaves seeking to live an authentic life in the here and now and to abolish their slavery. \u00a0\u2018Official Communism\u2019 and its \u2018dissident\u2019 emulators elevated first \u2018The Party\u2019 and, then the Party-state, to the prime mover of further social development, through an increasing number of \u2018necessary\u2019 political and economic stages. \u00a0\u2018Orthodox Marxism\u2019 trampled over the genuine communism originally promoted by Marx.<\/p>\n

      The abolition of wage slavery, which formed the core of the genuine communist project, was relegated to an increasingly distant utopian \u2018Communist\u2019 future. \u00a0In the meantime, a new middle class was to be in control. \u00a0\u2018The Party\u2019 was to fuse with the state to provide this<\/strong> class with the political power the traditional capitalists enjoyed through private ownership and control of capital.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      4. Wage slavery and the living creative pole of capital<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Wage slavery is enshrined in the labour contract, under the cover of which the capitalists legally \u2018steal\u2019 the products of our labour power. \u00a0However, the surplus value created by our labour power (over and above what we are paid for by the boss) is also embodied in these products. So, the capitalist owners or controllers can then appropriate this surplus value, \u2018contained\u2019 in the products we make and they take control of, when they sell them as commodities on the market. \u00a0Because the eventual realisation of surplus value takes place at some distance from its creation in the workplace, appearing \u2018magically\u2019 in the accounts at company HQ, the value we create through our labour power doesn\u2019t immediately appear to us – it is hidden.\u00a0 Furthermore, our own labour power is bought and sold on the labour market, like any other commodity.\u00a0 As long as our labour power ends up producing their capital, we remain wage slaves.<\/p>\n

      But Marx clearly understood that wage slaves aren\u2019t merely victims. \u00a0We also represent the creative pole of the capitalist relationship. \u00a0Yet the essence of this relationship appears to be reversed, making the capitalist owners and controllers seem to be responsible for all production and distribution. \u00a0This has helped to imbue them with \u2018legitimate\u2019 political power too.<\/p>\n

      However, we, as workers, create all new value and wealth.\u00a0 We create both ourselves as living labour and capital as dead labour.\u00a0 We produce not only all our means of subsistence and the luxuries of the capitalist class, but the capital – the factories, offices, machinery, technology, raw materials and commodities – through which they try to control us, but never completely succeed.\u00a0 It is literally a constant life and death struggle between living and dead labour.<\/p>\n

      We perform a wide variety of very different concrete labouring activities such as mining construction , assembly or office work, nursing or cleaning, word processing or image creation, etc. However, these different concrete labour activities have to be reduced to a common abstract labour standard, which can be expressed in some common monetary form. \u00a0This enables the capitalists to convert surplus value into profits in the sphere of capitalist circulation, with their banks, stock and commodity exchanges, etc, through the competition of the market. \u00a0It also enables them to compare relative rates of profit, so that they can direct their investments to the most profitable sectors of business.\u00a0 In order to maximise their profits, they need to push our wages down to their socially necessary minimum.\u00a0 They attempt to increase the hours we work or intensify the labour we do.\u00a0 To help them achieve this they closely monitor and measure our work and threaten us with disciplinary action or the sack. They take our real lives and offer us merely money in exchange.<\/p>\n

      Labour time is the measure of our labour transferred to products to create new value. However, since our own labour power is also a commodity, then its cost is also determined by the labour time necessary for its production through training, feeding, clothing, sheltering and providing the domestic and social life necessary to raise more workers for the future.<\/p>\n

      Marx identified simple and complex labour.\u00a0 Simple labour is unskilled, involving relatively little labour time in its production, hence it usually receives low wages. \u00a0Complex labour is skilled labour created through greater inputs of training and education, thus involving more labour time in its production.\u00a0 Much of this is provided by family, friends, workmates, or by the wider public through taxation. Yet capitalism frequently allows individuals to privately appropriate the benefits of this wider social contribution in the form of higher pay.\u00a0 This helps to explain pay differentials.<\/p>\n

      Although labour time determines value under capitalism, this is not achieved in a planned way, but through the market.\u00a0 As a result, there is an irrational core to all this. \u00a0Goods and services are usually produced before the need for them has been socially determined.\u00a0 It is only if these goods and services are sold that their need has been proved by capitalist criteria.\u00a0 However, to achieve this state of affairs there may have been periods of massive overproduction, with goods unsold and factories on short-time working or closed down.\u00a0 This leads to reduced wages, more short-time working or redundancies.\u00a0 On other occasions there are chronic shortages, leading to overtime working, speed-ups and increased industrial injuries.\u00a0 These are only the direct human consequences.\u00a0 Yet all this is rational by capitalist criteria. \u00a0Society does continue to reproduce itself, and material wealth has been greatly increased (even though access to this has been very unequal and sometimes completely denied).\u00a0 Yet this is a by-product of the central drive to create profits and many people and environments have been exploited, degraded and devastated in the process.<\/p>\n

      Furthermore, capitalists are continually trying to lower their costs, so skilled labour is under constant attack, through the application of new technology. \u00a0Although new technology may lead to new more advanced skills for a few, for the majority it is a de-skilling process.\u00a0 This is because capitalists only introduce technology in the first place to lower their costs and increase their direct control of the production process. During the nineteenth century, when workers first successfully struggled to shorten the working day, capitalists responded with the introduction of machinery to intensify labour.\u00a0 They reduced their workers to \u2018hands\u2019, mere appendages to a machine.\u00a0 Discipline was imposed by the regular working of the machine and by the supervision of the chargehand.\u00a0 Today, call centres have become the modern sweatshops, with discipline imposed jointly by embedded computer programmes and by floor managers.\u00a0 It is the capitalist owners and controllers who gain the benefits of technological \u2018progress\u2019, since it is they who appropriate our dead labour to invest and create further rounds of surplus labour.<\/p>\n

      Even though workers collectively produce all the new wealth in society (the sum total of goods and services), once we leave our workplaces, the only access we have to this is by spending the money we have earned.\u00a0 Therefore, the only relationship we have with the other producers of wealth we mutually depend on is a monetary connection through the market.\u00a0 This wealth this only available to us in the form of commodities. \u00a0It is the capitalist owners and controllers who decide which of our needs to supply and who promote particular commodities often with a built-in obsolescence or a \u2018dependency hook\u2019 e.g. cigarettes and coffee.\u00a0 Under capitalism vast amounts of labour time are employed in the promotion and advertising of particular products and in the media cultivation of certain \u2018fashionable\u2019 lifestyles. \u00a0Thus \u00a3millions were spent producing and promoting the blue \u2018Smartie\u2019, involving many undoubtedly skilled people on a project of zero social worth.<\/p>\n

      This all adds up to what Marx called commodity fetishism. Relationships between people take the form of relationships between commodities or things. This becomes particularly marked, when very immediate human needs – housing, health and education provision, or even intimate sexual relations – are handed over to \u2018the market\u2019.\u00a0 But commodity fetishism is merely part of a much wider condition of alienation, which stems from the contradictions and conflicts in the capitalist production process, at the heart of which is the condition of wage slavery. \u00a0And such a condition can only be maintained by an oppressive state. \u00a0Therefore, fetishism involves the giving up of our real individual and collective power to the modern deities of money, the market and the state.<\/p>\n

      Communism, though, is already latent within capitalism.\u00a0 It is the product of the constant struggle between the capitalist and working class.\u00a0 The core of this conflict is a \u2018battle of needs\u2019 focusing on socially necessary labour time. The need for the capitalists to make profits means they define this socially necessary labour time as the minimum necessary to produce and reproduce the workforce they require.\u00a0 For us, socially necessary labour time is a much wider concept.\u00a0 It means maximising our consumption of humanly valuable goods and services and living a more human life with greater time for social, cultural and recreational activity.\u00a0 It also means trying to get beyond the alienation we feel under wage slavery.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong>5. Communism, the end of wage slavery and the transformation of socially necessary labour time <\/strong><\/p>\n

      Thus, Marx rooted the conditions for the achievement of communism in the ending of wage slavery, alongside changes in human consciousness, not in the building of an increasing number of \u2018necessary\u2019 political and economic stages.\u00a0 Under \u00a0the orthodox Marxist schema, the central emancipatory drive becomes lost and the emphasis is placed initially on achieving a separate political power before further building up the national and world economy using the most advanced capitalist technologies. In Marx\u2019s emancipatory vision of communism, technology is a subordinate element.\u00a0 The communist revolution is neither essentially economic nor technological, but political and social.\u00a0 During the first phase of communism, we would still have to make use of capitalism\u2019s inherited technologies.\u00a0 But part of the communist revolution will be \u2018take these technologies apart\u2019 and reassemble those which can still be used, so they are consistent with truly human productive activity and to create new technologies more adequate to the purposes of human liberation.\u00a0 Technologies that will be sustainable, ecologically sound and alive with human creativity.<\/p>\n

      Marx saw the voluntary cooperative and consciously planned efforts of freely associated labour as communism\u2019s primary basis for providing a qualitative step beyond capitalism.\u00a0 He certainly saw this as leading to a quantitative increase in the material wealth necessary to lead a truly human life and this will still remain the case whilst poverty persists.\u00a0 But an increasingly important contribution to developing communism, resulting from freely associated labour, is the ability to incorporate non-economic, social, cultural and human \u2018spiritual\u2019 elements into the production of human wealth, leading also to a transformed understanding of human needs, no longer based on a capitalist \u2018shop-till-you-drop\u2019 philosophy.<\/p>\n

      Under the first phase of communism, socially necessary labour time continues but is transformed.\u00a0 Socially necessary labour time becomes defined on the basis of human needs, whilst the planning of production and distribution is done directly on the basis of labour hours.\u00a0 We still need an effective form of accountancy, since the allocation of scarce skilled labour and resources needs to be taken into account. At the same time, other factors, such as enhancing human development and environmental sustainability need to become central features of the accounting process.<\/p>\n

      Each person would receive a certificate showing the hours of work they have completed. This enables them to withdraw goods and services from the \u2018communal store\u2019. To achieve this, each individual\u2019s actual hours of work; the average social hours of labour time embodied in each product; the average social labour time used in each arena of production, and the total social labour time used by society, all have to be calculated.<\/p>\n

      There wouldn\u2019t be a 1:1 relationship between individual labour time performed and individual consumption. There needs to be deductions for simple reproduction of the continued production process and for the general \u2018costs\u2019 of administration. These are intrinsic to the production process itself and can also be calculated in labour hours. The importance of meeting wider social needs would also be met through deductions prior to individual consumption. e.g. for education, healthcare, provision for children, the elderly, sick, etc, and for emergency contingencies. There would also be deductions for new production projects.\u00a0 The proportion of goods and services which are provided for on the direct basis of human need (water, heating, transport, etc) increases as their abundance develops, although they are still accounted for by labour hour calculations. One part of the effective transition to the upper phase of communism, is where distribution is solely on the basis of need and no longer on the basis of labour hours worked. However, the conditions for the upper phase of communism must directly develop from the lower phase.<\/p>\n

      Yet distribution on the basis of hours worked is still radically egalitarian. Such distribution also undermines the inherited class-bound notions of superiority still embodied in the social democratic would-be administrators\u2019 vision of a planned society, with its continuing large differentials inherited from capitalism.\u00a0 The benefits arising from the application of particular forms of skilled labour would be socially distributed, rather than privately appropriated as at present.\u00a0 Other forms of recognition, rather than monetary award, could be developed for the socially recognised contributions made by particular individuals.<\/p>\n

      Crucially, in the lower phase of communism, there is no necessity for the intervention of a centralised administration of ‘socialist’ planners to allocate consumption items according to some \u2018socialist\u2019 wages, taxation and pricing policy. Therefore, the significance of planning production and distribution on the basis of the measurement of labour hours is also political for it underlines workers\u2019 real, rather than the nominal control of production and distribution, which occurs when these functions are separated.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      6. Communism and overcoming the division between political and economic<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Marx outlined the necessary \u2018economic\u2019 condition for the first phase of communism. If workers are to retain real power, then wage slavery must be abolished. This means, as already shown, that production and distribution must be based on the calculation of labour hours.\u00a0 However, this condition can only be met if it is married to a second \u2018political\u2019 condition – the replacement of the old capitalist state machinery and parliament by the commune model – with linked workers\u2019 councils backed by the power of armed workers\u2019 militias.\u00a0 That is a thorough going, consistent and militant democracy.<\/p>\n

      In uniting the \u2018economic\u2019 and \u2018political\u2019 conditions in this manner, the first phase of communism also overcomes the political and economic division promoted by capitalism.\u00a0 It strips away the mask disguising the real source of capitalist \u2018political\u2019 power – their continued \u2018economic\u2019 extraction of surplus labour.\u00a0 Traditional capitalist owners don\u2019t need to take direct \u2018private\u2019 control of the capitalist state, precisely because their real political power ultimately stems from their private ownership and control of capitalist property. This is guaranteed a continued legal contractual existence, whatever parliamentary, fascist or military government is in office.\u00a0 This is why traditional social democrats e.g. the Labour Party, can take political office, but they can not take real political and economic control, whilst such a division remained in place.<\/p>\n

      Therefore, if workers fail to abolish wage slavery and plan production and distribution directly on the basis of meeting human needs, then even a new commune state can\u2019t prevent the re-emergence of full capitalist control.\u00a0 Marx already realised that, what later became the \u2018official\u2019 and \u2018dissident Communist\u2019 \u2018Marxist orthodoxy\u2019 – the wages system under workers\u2019 control – could no more open up the road to human emancipation than capitalist parliamentary democracy under workers\u2019 control, that earlier contribution of \u2018orthodox Marxism\u2019 by pre-1917 \u2018revolutionary\u2019 Social Democracy. Herein lies the connection between reformist and \u2018revolutionary\u2019 social democracy. Neither sees the immediate abolition of wage slavery as necessary to the first phase of any emancipatory transition.<\/p>\n

      Capitalism is pregnant with the communist alternative based on our collective struggle against the alienating condition of wage slavery. But both reformist and \u2018revolutionary\u2019 social democracy insert their new and \u2018necessary\u2019 political and economic stages – either a majority socialist government or a \u2018workers\u2019 state\u2019.\u00a0 So instead of moving to the first phase of communism, clearly outlined by Marx in The Critique of the Gotha Programme<\/em>, we are offered instead a \u2018transition to socialism\u2019, where our social democrats want to continue with the wages system.\u00a0 Reformist \u2018social democrats\u2019 see their transition taking place under the parliamentary direction of the commanding heights of the economy. \u2018Revolutionary \u2018social democrats\u2019 see their transition through the Party-state direction of \u2018The Plan\u2019.\u00a0 In this manner any genuine transition to communism is stillborn.<\/p>\n

      All attempts to implement the \u2018transition to socialism\u2019, in the last \u2018Century of Revolutions\u2019, proved to be rather roundabout ways to introduce the transition to capitalism. As some Eastern European wags used to put it, \u201cSocialism is the longest road to capitalism!\u201d\u00a0 A failure to realise this can only lead to growing irrelevance as resistance to imperialism\u2019s \u2018New World Order\u2019 grows or to repeating the same old mistakes.\u00a0 Hence the forms of struggle we adopt need to be in harmony with our goals, distant and near and humanise, rather than dehumanise the participants.<\/p>\n

      Marx had anticipated the roots of the failure of \u2018official\u2019 and \u2018dissident\u2019 Communism. He saw that workers cannot hold on to their political control under the first phase of communism if they still remain wage slaves.\u00a0 For the maintenance of the wages system under workers\u2019 control only elevates workers to politically favoured \u2018house slave\u2019 status, whilst the real control lies with the \u2018socialist\u2019 administrators implementing \u2018The Plan\u2019.\u00a0 In the absence of the objective accounting system outlined by Marx and later developed by others (1), through calculations based on labour times, the \u2018socialist\u2019 administrators have to resort instead to arbitrary criteria or cost calculations based on the capitalist model.\u00a0 Their \u2018Plan\u2019 usually however provides special rewards for selected people in \u2018The Party\u2019!<\/p>\n

      Such a \u2018socialist\u2019 administration would displace remaining workers\u2019 control and extend its power over every aspect of the economy and society. It would increasingly see itself as the representative of the \u2018general interest\u2019, whilst seeing workers\u2019 councils as merely representing local and special interests.\u00a0 Therefore, these workers\u2019 councils would need to be marginalised or suppressed whenever they came into conflict with \u2018The Plan\u2019 and \u2018The Party\u2019. Even, if workers were initially consulted over \u2018The Plan\u2019, through their workers\u2019 councils, this would not give workers real control, which would remain elsewhere.\u00a0 It is only if workers have direct collective control in each workplace over the labour hours they dispose of, that they have the equivalent power capitalists enjoy through direct private ownership.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      7. \u00a0‘Orthodox Marxism\u2019 and the suppression of the full legacy of the Paris Commune<\/strong><\/p>\n

      Marx learned from the experience of the Paris Commune of 1870 the necessity for communists not just to take over the capitalist state, but to smash it. \u00a0However, Marx was not reverting to the older \u2018vulgar Communism\u2019 with its attempts to tear down and level (an anger which could be well understood after the brutality of the suppression of the Paris Commune).\u00a0\u00a0 He pointed instead to the Commune as the model for a new workers\u2019 semi-state to offer a real alternative to replace the pre-existing capitalist state.\u00a0 It was still a state because it needed to retain the power to repress the remaining capitalist opposition by means of armed workers\u2019 militias.\u00a0 To this extent it still had dictatorial aspects.\u00a0 However, it was now the majority who were to rule through their communes not the minority, as in all previous class states.\u00a0 In other words, the majority democratic dictatorship of the proletariat was to replace the minority parliamentary\/one-party\/military dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.<\/p>\n

      From 1917 this much became the \u2018orthodox Marxism\u2019 of a wide range of \u2018official\u2019 and \u2018dissident Communist\u2019 organisations.\u00a0 This was largely due to Lenin\u2019s most famous work, State and Revolution<\/em>, written between the 1917 February and October Russian Revolutions.\u00a0 This did much to revive this lost legacy of Marx.\u00a0 Now, whilst it may be \u2018orthodox Marxism\u2019 today, with the admittedly much smaller band of \u2018post-official Communists\u2019, this certainly was not the case in 1917.\u00a0 The year before, Lenin himself had accused fellow Bolshevik, Bukharin, of an anarchist deviation for suggesting the need to smash the capitalist state.\u00a0 The reason for this was that Lenin was still trying to unlearn much of the previous \u2018orthodox Marxism\u2019 he had absorbed from such \u2018revolutionary\u2019 Social Democratic theoreticians as Kautsky of the SPD in Germany and Plekhanov of the RSDLP in Russia.<\/p>\n

      The pre-1917 \u2018orthodox Marxism\u2019, which prevailed in the Second International, claimed workers could exercise real political control by means of capitalist parliamentary democracy under workers\u2019 control expressed through Social Democratic parties holding office. In countries where parliamentary democracies were absent or weak, then Social Democrats could seek to establish temporary revolutionary dictatorships, but the aim was that these should give way to parliamentary democracy whenever possible. \u00a0But in 1917, after the February Revolution in the Russian Empire, Lenin witnessed the reappearance of the workers\u2019 councils or soviets, which had first formed in the failed 1905 Russian Revolution. He now saw the significance of Marx\u2019s commune model and quoted extensively from Marx\u2019s The Civil War in France<\/em> in his State and Revolution.<\/em><\/p>\n

      But, as we have seen, Marx went further still in outlining the conditions for the implementation of a genuine communism in The Critique of the Gotha Programme. <\/em>\u00a0But Marx\u2019s second condition for the setting up of the first phase of communism – the production and distribution of goods and services on the basis of labour time – is as alien to today\u2019s \u2018official\u2019 and \u2018dissident\u2019 Communists, as Marx\u2019s first condition – the smashing of the capitalist state and its replacement by the Commune semi-state – was to Second International Social Democracy, even its self-declared revolutionary wing.<\/p>\n

      When the rising International Revolutionary Wave began in 1916 (Lenin dated it with the Easter Rising in Dublin) millions of workers, already thrown into the maelstrom of the First World War, felt the need to reject the whole Second International legacy, including its \u2018revolutionary\u2019 leaders, such as Kautsky and Plekhanov. \u00a0When a new Third International was formed in 1919, after the Russian Revolution, it once more returned to Marx\u2019s name for his new social emancipatory order – communism.<\/p>\n

      However, even Lenin didn\u2019t fully appreciate the significance of Marx\u2019s second condition for the first phase of communism, although he referred to Marx\u2019s Critique of the Gotha Programme<\/em> in his State and Revolution<\/em>.\u00a0 Lenin states, \u201cAccounting and control – that is what is mainly needed for the \u2019smooth working\u2019, for the proper functioning of the first phase of communist society\u201d.\u00a0 This is very close, but instead of firmly adopting Marx\u2019s ground for \u201caccounting and control\u201d – the planning of production and distribution on the basis of labour time, Lenin retreats to the older \u2018revolutionary\u2019 Social Democratic view.\u00a0 He still substantially shared the view that socialism (the first phase of communism) was the culmination of the \u2018objective\u2019 concentration and centralisation undertaken by monopoly capitalism.<\/p>\n

      This view looked to the state to continue the centralising process until production was fully nationalised and hence ripe for socialisation.\u00a0 Lenin took the logic of Social Democratic, \u2018orthodox Marxism\u2019 one step further. \u00a0He argued that \u201cGerman imperialism, which has made the greatest advance… in big industrial organisations within the framework of capitalism, has independently given proof of its economic progressiveness by being the first to introduce labour conscription\u201d!\u00a0 Lenin extended this \u201cprogressive\u201d capitalist legacy to his view of communism, where he declared, \u201cAll citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of armed workers… The whole society will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of labour and pay.\u201d\u00a0 Thus, we see that Lenin ends up advocating a kind of \u2018vulgar Communism\u2019 or \u2018barracks socialism\u2019. \u00a0\u2018Revolutionary\u2019 social democracy views the economic organisation and technology bequeathed by capitalism as progressive. \u00a0It does not see the need to abolish wage slavery or to question its technology but to make it fairer and more efficient – to put the wage slavery under workers\u2019 control!<\/p>\n

      Furthermore, if we look at Lenin\u2019s quotes, we can see how close they come to anticipating the society that eventually triumphed under Stalin. \u00a0The supervision of armed workers soon gave way to the supervision of unarmed workers by \u2018socialist\u2019 administrators, backed by the army, the regular and secret police, as well as ‘The Party’ placemen at every level.\u00a0 Needless to say, equality of labour and pay were never implemented!\u00a0 But certainly, Stalinist USSR came close to being a society organised as one big \u201coffice\u201d and \u201cfactory\u201d.<\/p>\n

      Although the imperialist interventions from 1918 failed to overthrow the infant USSR, the military, diplomatic and economic pressures produced, in effect, \u2018a counter-revolution from within the revolution\u2019. With the crushing of Kronstadt in 1921, workers lost all remaining direct power over the state and workplace and the promotion, not the abolition, of waged labour became a central aim of the New Economic Policy, introduced after the victory of the Party-state.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      8. ‘Dissident Communism\u2019 fails to get to the roots of the degeneration of the Revolution<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong>Trotsky and Trotskyism have tried to present themselves as a coherent alternative to the degeneration of \u2018official\u2019 Communism.\u00a0 Yet Trotsky himself was a pace-setter of the earlier phase of \u2018the counter-revolution within the revolution\u2019. He openly supported the militarisation of labour in 1920, and he helped to suppress the Kronstadt Rising in 1921, at a time when the political role of Stalin was less central.\u00a0 However, the political degeneration of the USSR became so rapid after this that Trotsky increasingly found himself in opposition to the emerging majority of the Party-state bureaucracy led by Stalin.\u00a0 Trotsky moved from being an \u2018official Communist\u2019 to becoming a \u2018dissident communist\u2019.<\/p>\n

      Yet defence of the Party-state still remained the key for Trotsky.\u00a0 Hence Trotsky called for \u2018political revolution\u2019 not \u2018social revolution\u2019 in the USSR after Stalin consolidated his power. Trotsky opposed Stalin\u2019s attempt to build socialism as an autarky with minimal trade with the outside world.\u00a0 He argued that the USSR needed to be able to draw on the resources of imperialism, either by revolutionary appropriation through the overthrow of capitalist powers or, where this couldn\u2019t be achieved, through state controlled international trade.<\/p>\n

      The Trotskyist dispute with \u2018official\u2019 Communism has no genuine communist grounding to it, since neither variant of \u2018revolutionary\u2019 social democracy upheld the need to end the wages system as the central part of the revolutionary transition.\u00a0 Trotsky paid little heed to the continuation and extension of waged labour, as such, under the New Economic Plan, nor under Stalin\u2019s Five Year Plan after 1928 (with its massive growth in labour camp slavery too).<\/p>\n

      Trotskyists, appalled by the consequences of what they termed \u2018Stalinism\u2019, (overlooking Trotsky\u2019s own earlier direct role in the degeneration of the Revolution) lay the blame on Stalin\u2019s attempt to build socialism in one country. As a result, some Trotskyists have, in effect, retreated to a neo-Kautskyist view.\u00a0 Kautsky, the leading theoretician of pre-World War One \u2018revolutionary\u2019 Social Democracy, had argued that the major imperialist powers would increasingly be able to plan the division of the world between them, rendering imperialist wars more and more unlikely.\u00a0 This was his theory of ultra-imperialism.\u00a0 This led Kautsky to a position of passivity in the face of the First World War. Whilst the newly emerging communists organised amongst those workers and armed forces who felt the necessity to challenge the war mongers with increasingly revolutionary action, Kautsky looked to the logic of imperialist development itself to bring about the end of war, helped by Social Democrat-organised pacifist moral pressure upon the war-making governments!<\/p>\n

      Echoing Kautsky\u2019s theory of ultra-imperialism, some today now look to the long march of global capitalism to create a global working class, which can ultimately unite in a near simultaneous world-wide revolution. This \u2018Big Bang Theory of Socialism\u2019 overlooks the fact that it is precisely in resisting the policies of imperialism with its \u2018New World Order\u2019, that any real communist organisation can be built.\u00a0 The neo-Kautskyite theory places its adherents in the camp of the apologists for the New World Order, undermining those workers, peasants and tribal peoples resisting such \u2018progress\u2019 in the here and now.\u00a0 In essence, the neo-Kautskyist view is a Lefter version of that held by today\u2019s \u2018social market\u2019 democrats such as Tony Blair! They argue that such is the power of \u2018globalisation\u2019 and the world market, there is very little a national government can do except meekly bow to the dictates of multinational capital, hoping its citizens will benefit from any \u2018trickle-down\u2019 benefits and that governments can make the workings of the \u2018free\u2019 market a little more humane.<\/p>\n

      Meanwhile, today\u2019s neo-Kautskyites say we have to wait for the international \u2018big bang\u2019 revolution. Therefore, scrape the surface of their much-vaunted alternatives – Stalin\u2019s \u2018socialism in one country\u2019 and Trotsky\u2019s \u2018international socialism\u2019 – and it can soon be seen that what is really immediately on offer is national capitalism. \u2018Socialism in one country\u2019 and \u2018international socialism\u2019 both mean capitalism in every country!<\/p>\n

      Now, whilst such passive, and in effect, anti-revolutionary views carry some weight today, when the working class is still being politically atomised under the current Capitalist Offensive, a \u2018revolutionary\u2019 social democratic alternative still lingers on in the wings, sometimes drawing some sustenance from the post-1917 Revolution. \u00a0These have included Die Linke in Germany, the New Anti-Capitalist Party in France, and the United Left Alliance in Ireland. \u00a0Since the ideological crisis of neo-liberalism, following the 2008 Credit Crunch, these organisations have promoted a mixture of neo-Keynesian and other, more comprehensive national statist reforms, particularly\u00a0 nationalisation.<\/p>\n

      Despite the historic divisions between Stalin and Trotsky, they both shared the view that it is nationalised property relations which form the basis of socialism and it is the Party-state which is the prime agent in building socialism.\u00a0 This is why Trotskyists continually found themselves politically disarmed by Stalin\u2019s actions.\u00a0 In 1928, Stalin abandoned the New Economic Policy, with its strong dependence on peasant-based agricultural development, which Trotsky believed would eventually subordinate the USSR to imperialism.\u00a0 In its place Stalin forced through his First Five Year Plan with extensive nationalisation. This \u2018revolution-from above\u2019, was supported by the majority of Trotsky\u2019s followers, along with many other previous \u2018dissidents\u2019.<\/p>\n

      However, Trotsky himself maintained that Stalin, now attempting only ‘to build socialism in one country’, could not spread this new revolution.\u00a0 Indeed, he went on to claim that the Stalinist regime would either succumb to full-blown imperialism or to political revolution in the forthcoming Second World War. \u00a0Thus, when Stalin\u2019s Red Army seized and held on to eastern Europe and Manchuria in 1945, once again many Trotskyists found themselves confused. The majority gave various degrees of political support for Stalin\u2019s advances.<\/p>\n

      Stalin had never abandoned an intention to internationalise his \u2018revolution-from-above\u2019.\u00a0 It was just that, as the victor in the intra-Party struggle after Lenin\u2019s death, and hence the holder of state power, he was more conservative about any unnecessarily \u2018adventurist\u2019 international actions which could jeopardise his control. When, as after the Second World War, the balance of forces was overwhelmingly in his favour, he went on to internationalise his \u2018revolution-from-above\u2019.<\/p>\n

      Therefore, the anti-Kautskyist wing of Trotskyism saw its \u2018permanent revolution\u2019 being implemented, albeit rather slowly and mainly under the hegemony of the USSR. \u00a0Yet for them every hesitant new \u2018workers\u2019 state\u2019 still marked a stage on the long march to \u2018international socialism\u2019. This wing of Trotskyism could also raise criticisms and try to distance itself from the \u2018stalinist\u2019 excesses, but when push came to shove, they remained \u2018official Communism\u2019s loyal opposition.\u00a0 \u00a0Trotskyists had long ceased to define workers\u2019 states as states directly controlled by workers. \u00a0Instead, these states got their essential character by virtue of having large-scale nationalised property. \u00a0On this basis a huge Trotskyist in-house debate developed over the \u2018degenerate\u2019, \u2018deformed\u2019 or \u2018deflected\u2019 nature of such \u2018workers\u2019 states as those found in the USSR, Yugoslavia, eastern Europe, China, Cuba, Kampuchea, Afghanistan and even Burma! This debate has been about as politically productive as that of the medieval scholastics – \u2018How many angels can dance on the end of a pin\u2019.<\/p>\n

      Today\u2019s some remaining Trotskyists claim to follow in a more democratic tradition than that of the old \u2018official Communism\u2019. Given the profoundly undemocratic practices of most of the Trotskyist Left in the UK – the blatant thuggery of the old Socialist Labour League\/WRP springs to mind – this is an extremely questionable point. \u00a0To any genuine communist, \u2018official\u2019 and \u2018dissident Communists\u2019 seem to come from the same political stable, with their common emphasis on \u2018The Party\u2019 or Party-state.<\/p>\n

      Now, when in opposition, Trotsky did begin to raise the demand for more democratic freedoms. \u00a0He called for the revival of the soviets he had helped to suppress, but these were to be promoted top-down by \u2018The Party\u2019.\u00a0 But \u2018official Communist\u2019 states have shown their ability to involve the population in mass mobilisations in various forms of popular assemblies, in for example, China and Cuba, another factor that has disorientated many Trotskyists. \u00a0Yet Trotsky, himself, still remained very cautious about promoting working class organization, which might have asserted its political independence of the Party-state.\u00a0This, of course would also have been anathema to any \u2018official Communists\u2019 holding state power.<\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      9. \u00a0Challenging the arguments of \u2018revolutionary\u2019 social democracy<\/strong><\/p>\n

      The essential point, shared by \u2018official\u2019 and \u2018dissident Communists\u2019 alike, has been their political\/economic stageist view of Communism, with their invention of a new \u2018transition to socialism\u2019. \u00a0This is why the hoary old story pedalled by today\u2019s \u2018revolutionary\u2019 social democrats\u2019 needs to be constantly challenged. \u00a0They claim that any attempt to begin the abolition of the wages system, when workers have only seized power in one or a few countries, is doomed to fail. \u00a0Yes, workers can have their workers\u2019 councils, but they must confine their activities to helping to formulate The Plan for more efficient production and more equitable distribution, whilst they continue to earn their wages. Workers can\u2019t be trusted to take full and direct responsibility for planning, production and distribution on the basis of labour hours until the World Workers\u2019 Republic is achieved.\u00a0 They need to have all of the planet\u2019s resources to achieve this.<\/p>\n

      Yet, imperialist powers \u00a0aren\u2019t going to like it, whatever form the \u2018workers revolution\u2019 takes, if it involves any serious challenges to their New World Order. \u00a0Imperialist powers weren\u2019t even happy with mildly reforming governments such as Mossadeq\u2019s challenge to Anglo-Dutch Oil in Iran in 1953, Arbenz\u2019s challenge to the United Fruit Company in Guatemala in 1954, Allende\u2019s challenge to ITT in Chile in 1973. \u00a0They were bloodily suppressed.\u00a0 Meanwhile, US imperialism is backing the repressive Colombian regime, and sponsoring coups in Honduras and Haiti, to provide military bases and encircle the new challenges to US corporate control of resources represented by the Chavez government in Venezuela and the Morales government in Bolivia.<\/p>\n

      Whether a<\/strong>ny new post-revolutionary state maintains the wages system under workers\u2019 control, as our \u2018revolutionary social democrats\u2019 want, or whether it moves directly to abolish wage slavery, as genuine communists want, it still faces the same difficulties, until the revolution spreads further.\u00a0 Both would initially command the same material resources within the same borders. However, the imperialists can exert more direct pressure upon a state, which has already largely separated itself from real workers\u2019 democratic control, whilst a genuine workers\u2019 council state in the process of abolishing wage slavery would be a much greater inspiration to workers worldwide when it comes to spreading the international revolution.<\/p>\n

      No doubt after a successful workers\u2019 revolution the debate will rage as to how much emphasis is placed on spreading the revolution internationally or on how to consolidate what has already been achieved. \u00a0The Russian Revolution (the most advanced part of the wider International Revolutionary Wave of 1916-21) certainly faced such debates.\u00a0 One such debate occurred when German troops invaded the infant Soviet republic in 1918 – should the humiliating Brest Litovsk Treaty with Germany be signed or should a revolutionary defencist war be continued.\u00a0 Even if some argue that Lenin and the Bolsheviks made the correct tactical decision in every such case, it must still be conceded that there were increasingly high political, economic and social costs involved with each political retreat, which together built up a cumulative legacy. \u00a0This means that such actions don\u2019t necessarily provide ideal models.\u00a0 Making a current virtue out of every past \u2018necessity\u2019 isn\u2019t a good basis for developing a human emancipatory communism for a new millennium.<\/p>\n

      The Brest Litovsk Treaty, and the later introduction of the New Economic Policy, were both opposed from within the camp of the Third International by various Left communists. (4) These communists came nearest to reclaiming Marx\u2019s full communist legacy, during and soon after the International Revolutionary Wave of 1916-21. Some clearly understood that the development of world communism involved the deepening of the roots of working class power, through real workers\u2019 democracy and the attempt to abolish wage slavery. \u00a0They also understood the immediate need to spread the revolution internationally until, by triumphing over the whole globe, the second higher phase of communism could be achieved.<\/p>\n

      However, our aim shouldn\u2019t be to try and elevate all their political positions to a new \u2018orthodox Marxism\u2019, since, just like everyone else struggling in difficult conditions, their politics were marked by contradictions too. \u00a0Today we, though, have the great benefit of hindsight and the dubious benefit of a further eighty years of capitalism to be able to draw conclusions for a more human, democratic, communism.<\/p>\n

      At present, the need for a new genuine communism is only appreciated by a relatively small number and is under constant political attack from the \u2018revolutionary realists\u2019, who pitch their politics at the level imposed by \u2018dead labour\u2019 or capital, hoping vulture like to eventually inherit and feed off the carcass.\u00a0 As communists we should always be part of living labour\u2019s challenge, looking a deeper and further, knowing that communism is an ever-present spectre within capitalism.\u00a0 To Marx, communism was not an alternative religion to be preached by a new secular ministry in \u2018The Party\u2019.\u00a0 Marx\u2019s view of political organisation was not \u2018The Party\u2019 organised by an ambitious new middle class armed with \u2018The Plan\u2019. It was the organisation of a real movement of workers in struggle, the living, creative pole of capital, constantly seeking ways to break the chains of wage slavery.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

      References<\/strong><\/p>\n

       <\/p>\n

      1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 See The Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution<\/em> \u00a0\u00a0 by Jan Appel<\/p>\n

      2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 See Left Communists and the Russian Revolution<\/em> in Aufheben<\/em> no 8<\/p>\n

      _________<\/p>\n

      also see:-<\/p>\n

      Emancipation & Liberation – Coverage of What Is Communism?<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n