What should Revolutionary Socialists do Now

What should Revolutionary Socialists do now? One aspect of the Russian Revolution that is not given detailed attention is the period at the end of the civil war. What were the conditions faced by the leadership led by Lenin? From reading Lenin, Trotsky and Bukharin it is clear that the problems faced by the working class were the same as those faced by the capitalist ruling class prior to the revolution but in very different circumstances. There was a belief amongst the Bolsheviks that there would be a need for compulsion to deal with the residual capitalist components within society. There was also a belief that there would be a need for compulsion on the working class, not of the kind that prevailed before the revolution because that was based on class antagonism, but a compulsion based on the need to rebuild the economy in order to establish a communist society. Bukharin discusses the situation in ‘The theory of the State and the Transition to Socialism’. How he puts the situation is that he presents two opposing approaches, that of a collegiate structure and of a more dictatorial structure. Bukharin makes the argument that in the immediate situation following the civil war the Russian economy needed the more dictatorial approach (he writes of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’). As the Bolshevik rulers take control of the economy there would be a gradual change leading to the collegiate approach and a withering away of the state. These views Bukharin expressed in the above mentioned article and also in his work ‘Towards a Theory of the Imperialist State', written in 1915. But he was not alone in stating such ideas. Lenin in ‘Left Wing Communism’ and Trotsky in ‘The task of the Young Worker’ expressed similar ideas. In his discussion, Bukharin raises the concepts of the dialectic. He relates that the in the process of dialectical change elements present in the structure prior to the change are preserved in the structure after the change, but in a different form and at a higher level. An example would be the nature of Parliament in the transition to capitalism. Under feudalism though a Parliament did exist it was subordinate to the King. After the transition to capitalism the king was subordinate to Parliament and the whole nature of Parliament changed. The question then arises as to what elements within the working class and capitalism will be preserved under the transition to a socialist society. It would appear to me that the working class has gone backward in the past 75 years. In my experience, as I analyse the state of the working class and the changes that have occurred since the end of World War 2 and the present day, I can identify a number of features of working class life that were present in 1945 and can trace their development, or otherwise, to the present day. The work place is seen as the dominant area of working class involvement but it is not the only such area. Even considering the workplace major changes have taken place which have weakened working class power. Major large industries which were in the vanguard of working class activity, coal mining, car production, steel making and hosiery, are no longer important sectors of employment. The nature of other types of employment have changed. As a young teacher in the 60s I had to argue strongly that teachers were part of the working class. Nowadays that is fully accepted. These are significant changes and cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. When considering the nature of the working class, as I found it during my early development, I would list a number of areas and organisations that defined working class lives. I have mentioned above the dominant role of the workplace. It has to be remembered that most women in the community in which I grew up were workers. One of the major industries in my Town was hosiery, both knitwear and stockings. Women were also employed in the major industrial enterprises. The list of working class organisations that brought working men and women together included trade unions, the Co-operative movement, the Working Men’s Clubs, Methodist Chapels (with Sunday Schools being of especially influence), the Labour Party, football teams, allotments, markets. Each one of these could be analysed in detail. Trade unionism was an accepted part of life. But, as with the Co-op and the Labour Party, workers belonged but were not necessarily actively involved in the organisational structures. The position of the Labour Party is particularly interesting. There was a general sense that the Labour Party was the people’s party. The people would vote for them and generally support them but they would not, apart from those with a particular interest, take active roles within the Party. This did not mean that people in general did not have knowledge of and interest in political events. This type of ‘mixed consciousness’ (for want of a better expression) was a general feature of the lives and approaches of working class people. The organisations that I have listed were not isolated organisations butvwere 'cross-linked' in different ways, individuals being members of, or having connections with a number if not all of these groups. What can be said of the conditions of the working class at that time is that all these institutions fed into a concept of solidarity that was prevalent within working class communities. It is this sense of solidarity that is lacking in modern day society. What these institutions did also provide was an opportunity for those workers, men and women, who wished to play a role in their society to become active. In this way they acquired skills of organisation, committee work, financial management, personal relations, secretarial skills. All of these could then be transferred from the area in which they were intimately involved into other areas of value to the class as a whole. The situation has changed. Some of these organisations have declined and lost their base in the working class. The nature of other organisations has changed in line with changes in society as a whole. There have occurred particular statements which have been what I would call ‘indicators of change’. Two such ‘indicators of change’ spring to mind. The first was a statement of Harold MacMillann ‘You have never had it so good’; the second Margaret Thatcher’s infamous remark that ‘There is no such thing as Society’. The first of these was true, brought about by the changes introduced by the 1945 election which enabled working people to benefit from the post war boom, in terms of better health, housing, education, transport, and an increase in wealth. The benefits that workers enjoyed in those years were substantially better than the situation they had faced between the two world wars - periods of economic depression, housing problems, lack of health care and the defeat of the general strike. To argue that more could have been achieved had the Labour Party not been a reformist organisation seeking to improve and maintain capitalism but a revolutionary organisation which was determined to destroy capitalism, may well be true, but this is not to say that immediate gains were not made. Life was considerably better, but as we now know, gains in a capitalist society can be lost as well as in favourable times won. What I am seeking to do is take an objective look at the history of the society in the period of my life and learn the lessons of those years. What were the consequences of this period of improved economic conditions? With increased wealth sections of the working class were able to improve their situation relative to other sections of the class. The advent of the motor car led to a serious decline in public transport. Thus one section of the working class gained to the detriment of other sections of the working class. In terms of housing, those sections of the class who had prospered to a greater extent relative to other sections were able to buy their own homes (albeit on mortgages that locked them into dependence on financial institutions making them vulnerable in cases of financial crises). In this way there came about a division within the working class brought about by the belief of a large section that they were now part of a ‘middle class’ and no longer part of the working class. This division has grown wider and has had serious consequences. It is, of course, a false division. The ‘so called’ middle classes are still subject to the alienation in capitalist society between the owners and controllers of property (that is property in terms of capitalism not the private property of individuals). They may appear to be secure but as shown by events in the economy such as the collapse of certain shopping institutions they are still vulnerable to the vagaries of capitalism. The most significant effect of these changes is that the concept of solidarity that predominated in my early years is not something that can now be taken for granted. There are other matters that need to be mentioned. One thing that Bukharin expected was that the advanced countries would be in total control of their economies thereby becoming state capitalist economies. He presumed that internal conflict between different capitalist organisations would be overcome as the state, which is the force that exerts capitalist structures on the whole of society would dominate and that the contradictions and conflicts would take place on an international stage. These expectations have not been fulfilled. The question of collegiate structures is one that I find of particular interest. In the 1960 s the question of workers control was a key topic of interest. When I first attended the National Conference of my Union (National Association of Schoolmasters) about that time the Educational Lecture dealt with the Collegiate system within school. When later I undertook a Diploma Course in Educational Administration at the London University Institute of Education, I undertook a study of ‘The control and Organisation of Schools in a Democratic Society’ in which I developed ideas by which schools could be run in a collegiate manner. In other words at that time workers control of industry and organisations was very much at the forefront of progressive thinking. There is now no thinking in that direction. In all areas of public life the view that decisions are best made if there is an individual in position to make decisions. This trend began when the idea was put about that the problem with the British economy was that decisions were taking too long to be taken. The claim was made that committees were the worst way of ruling and making decisions. This is most clearly seen in local Government. The effect of this has been that there has been a gradual exclusion of people from the decision making process throughout public life. It is seen in the managerial approach that is now predominant in education and the health service. These organisations are now run by managers and the voice of the professionals working within the organisations, who are fully aware of the needs of those whom they serve, is no longer heard. It is also seen in the fact that so few people are involved in the organisation structures (Ward parties, constituency parties) of the Labour Party. There is a general acceptance of ‘top down’ leadership which is also affecting revolutionary parties who are not immune from trends within wider society. The effect of all of this is that people in general are no longer engaged with the structures that determine and control our lives. It is not that they are unconcerned, apathetic, or lack knowledge or opinions. The structures are no longer present. The important requirement for people to question and challenge authorities is no longer allowed for. One dangerous result of this is that extreme right wing groups can be seen by some as being more amenable and considerate of particular needs. In finding this response there people are thereby more inclined to go along with the reactionary views that are the driving force of these extreme right wing groups. It is very important that such right wing groups are directly confronted when they appear on the streets. It is also important that the left is seen to be aware of and tackling issues that affect the daily lives of people. I wrote earlier about the nature of dialectical change. The idea that there is a thesis - the present capitalist society. Within that capitalist there are major contradictions both within the capitalist class and between the capitalist class and the proletariat (which includes the ‘so-called modern middle class ‘, modern because historically the middle class was the rising bourgeoisie). This in dialectical terms would be the antithesis. With the revolution would come the synthesis. A new form of society will arise. But what forms that are found in modern society will be transformed and be found at a higher level after the revolution? It would seem to me that as well as arguing for the absolute need for a revolutionary change in society we should also be working to develop those ideas and structures that we would wish to retain in society. But do we know what they are? I firmly believe that one important aspect of society which should be retained is that of class solidarity. To my mind this means that we have to take a much greater interest in the problems faced by the working class. If we return, for a moment, to the forms of working class life mentioned earlier, the work place was one of many institutions, the most important but that does not mean the others can be neglected. I am not suggesting that we seek to recreate these various organisations but we do need to be aware of the way in which solidarity is created. It has been suggested that revolutionaries are the best reformists. It is undoubtedly true that we should be arguing for reforms that will advance the working class, improve the lives of people, and lead to greater equity and equality. In saying this we should take notes of Lenin’s structures about ‘infantile disorders’. Elections are an integral part of present day life. National and Local Government can have a direct bearing on the lives of the working class. The anti trade union laws, both existing and planned, and the laws affecting those seeking asylum, both existing and planned, were all established through Parliament. Left revolutionary parties may not be strong enough or large enough to seek positions in councils or parliament but we should recognise the role that many councillors and some Members of Parliament are playing. The tactics of the united front are based on the idea that we march together but retain our own banners. The main opposition is the capitalist ruling class, those members of the working class who fight for a better life for working class people may be mistaken in believing in reforms alone, but they are not the enemy. By working with them but also presenting our alternative approach we are far more likely to win their support in the demand for a revolution. We have nothing to fear from reforms, it is clear that reforms are not eternal but are easily lost. What is important is that we build a working class movement which recognises the need for solidarity. I also believe that we should challenge any idea that detracts workers from involvement in all aspects of the society within which their lives are based. This means that we challenge all and any movement away from collegiality, the belief that all members of the working class have a right to be fully engaged in all decisions affecting working class life, towards any form of dictatorship however mild the idea of ‘leader knows best’ may be expressed. Classic examples being the role of union leaders in strike situations, the role of Political Party ruling councils and arrangements such as the latest position with Voter ID. We should establish the position that the only way to defeat bad laws is to disobey them. Serious thought needs to be given to the organs of the working class as to what is important in the everyday lives of people. Faced with climate change, imperialist conflict whether by economic rivalry, sanctions or war, the threat of nuclear extermination, the possibility of an asteroid striking the earth, and the increasing signs of crisis in capitalism, it is easy to lose sight of the problems of everyday life: the effect of the years of austerity producing dire poverty amongst many low paid workers, the needs of those who have to rely on benefits, the pressures placed upon women who have to leave their children and enter low paid jobs in order to satisfy Government requirements, the total neglect and disregard of the needs of children and young people. ( food banks!) . We cannot just hope that suddenly some event will arise which will result in the working class rising up leading to a revolution which will solve all these problems. The experience of the Russian Revolution suggests that this is not what happens. In the here and now we have to build the class solidarity that is essential for any progressive move. As Marx wrote ‘ the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class’. Lenin and others who stress the role of a revolutionary party may well be right. But that party must be what those who stress this role claim for the Party that it is ‘the memory of the class’. That must be a total memory not just a selective memory. Rosa Luxemburg laid great stress on the need for a strong Working class Party that was supported by the majority of the working class. That is what we should be working for. An army may be more effective if it has a strong vanguard, but a vanguard that is not supported by a strong army will be defeated. It has been said that ‘we cannot hear what you are saying because your actions are speaking too loudly’. The recent furore over the BBC sports coverage shows the effect of one man making a stand on principle. It is my belief that the revolutionary left has to review its tactics and aim to build a mass working class party whilst retaining its revolutionary zeal. This will not be easy but the weakness in British politics over the last period has been a failure to stand up for principles, a failure to act when the first steps in reactionary policies are taken thereby conceding the principle and ultimately suffering the consequences. At the end of the day, class is all important, other issues are a consequence of the class struggle. We need to be more astute and have greater recognition of trends in society and a willingness to stand up and be counted whenever reactionary or backward steps as regards the working class are proposed. We stand together. Unity in Action. Solidarity.