What are the Ends and Means that Drive our Political Activity?

What are the Ends and Means that drive our Political Activity? At a recent meeting that I attended, the speaker emphasised the importance of ‘ends’ over ‘means’. We have seen in the recent decisions made by the Labour Government that, for them, for the ‘ends’ that they hope to achieve, the establishment of a growing economy has to be the priority. The ‘means’ have to be given priority over the ‘ends’. But what are the ‘ends’ that we are aiming for? The Revolutionary Parties Stress that capitalism has failed the majority of the people and is now failing to meet the demands of even its most stalwart supporters. But ‘Revolution’, in itself, is a ‘means’ it is not the ‘end’. What is it that left wing reformists and revolutionaries all seek? It is quite simple — a life which all people can enjoy, that is free from poverty, discrimination and exploitation. A life in which each individual can fulfil their own potential. A world free from wars. The provision of education, of health care, of communal activity, so that everyone can enjoy the fruits of the Earth and the benefits that technological advances can bring. An environment and a climate that is conducive to the well being of all. A society in which the community is of greater importance than the individual. In which we are all work together for the combined good. This may all sound utopian, and others may express these things differently. It is hard to visualise a Society in which all the faults of modern society are wiped away and in which people can live happy, social lives, able to live freely and express their complete humanity in whatever form that may take. But such a Society is possible. In the past it was not possible to meet the material needs of the whole population. Now, with the advances in technology, IT, and many other major inventions that have been wrought by the ingenuity of human beings, we are in a position to meet the needs of everyone. Provided the resources available to us are used for that purpose. This is where the need for a ‘Revolution’ becomes apposite. Our economic system is based upon the production and distribution of goods of all kinds, in the words, used by Karl Marx, commodities. To produce these goods, people have to work, to labour, in doing so they add value to the material on which they labour. But the machines, the factories, the warehouses, the transport and all other means of producing these things belong to a small number of people. These owners of those means form the Ruling Class. They depend upon the wealth created by the Working Class in producing these goods for sale. They profit from this added (surplus) value which the workers add during their labour. This distorts the whole of the relationships within society. Remove this form of exploitation and produce the things that are needed for everyday living for use rather than for exchange and the whole nature of society changes. People no longer need to compete and their natural inclination to co-operate comes to the for. The question is “How do we move from the present society to the form of society that I described at the beginning of this article? What I have set out in this piece are the ‘ends’ to which all our activity should be directed. What is now needed is to discuss and analyse the ‘means’ by which we reach that situation. The major debate, as regards ‘means’ is between Reform and Revolution. In many ways this does not state the position with complete accuracy. The other argument is that ‘there is no Parliamentary Road to Socialism. In stressing these aspects of the struggle they are, in fact, in fact, putting the cart before the horse. Let us, for a moment, consider what Marx said. In ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ he writes “With the change in the economic foundation the immense superstructure is more or less transformed. ……. No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; the new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself. Therefore mankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve; since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the task itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation” In considering the points made here, we need also to bear in mind the words of Gramsci, writing about The State and Civil Society’ collected in The Prison Notebooks, when he writes “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.” Nothing that Marx or Gramsci writes can be taken to indicate that a certain outcome is inevitable. What is inevitable is that there will be crises within the system but the resolution of each crisis depends to a certain extent what the working class does. Throughout history there has been a battle between those who provide the basic requirements for life and those who control the ownership and the means of that production. This is the essence of the class struggle which takes place within the daily lives of the producers, peasants or proletariat, and there is the more direct struggle that takes place between the combined forces of the immediate producers and the ruling class within the society. An early example would be the Peasants Revolt, but I wish to consider the various ways that workers have sought to control their own living conditions. There is a belief that workers are unable to make such decisions, that they need to be taught what to do by elements from the so called higher classes. Knowledge has come to be seen as literate, written information. All other forms of knowledge are devalued by those who came to dominate the world of literature. Workers have long sought to organise themselves and to act in order to obtain power over their own circumstances. The rise of Methodism took place largely within the working class. They saw in this a form of religion which was not an arm of the state but within which they were free to develop. The structures of the chapel with its lay preachers; its class system, small groups in which the members met during the week to support each other, to study different aspects of life; and the hymns of Charles Wesley and others translating their beliefs into songs that they could sing. Through this even those unable to read could understand the fundamentals of their religion. In this way working people began to organise for themselves. They learnt skills and an understanding of the world which led them to act in other directions as well as narrowly within the Chapel. But this was but one of the ways in which the working class developed their own structures. An underrated movement was that of Luddism. The peasants did have some degree of control over their own lives. I grew up in the Midlands. At one time the peasants in this area combined farming their land with framework knitting. With the advent of the factory able to produce the same type of goods, though of inferior quality, at a much faster and cheaper rate, these framework knitters were seriously threatened. In one book describing their plight it is stated that they faced a choice,either twelve hours on the treadmill at the workhouse or starvation. The early reaction of the Luddites was to wreck these new factory machines. They were not mindless yokels but serious men who were seeking to maintain a form of life which, though not perfect by any means, gave them some control over their living conditions. The peasants/proletariat knew that they had to organise in order to defend their livelihoods. That is why the met, secretly and openly, to listen to those who were assuming leadership of the growing unrest. One such gathering was in Saint Peter’s Field in Manchester. The Ruling Class well understood the dangers that could arise from such gatherings and so they ruthlessly crushed this gatherings which, as well as its political purpose, was for the men women and children gathered together a social event which ended in death for many and injuries for many more. The Chartist movement, with its six demands, for the vote, the ballot, payment of members, equal constituencies, and annual elections, seeking to extend to every man of sound mind over 21 the same rights as rich men had enjoyed for years, required great organisations in order to obtain the signatures and to organise the March on London. This the equivalent of the first political,party of the working class. These were not the only way in which the working class began to organise and to take control over their lives. The Co-operative movement grew from modest beginnings to become an integral part of the lives of many working class families. Controlled and run by ordinary women and men, it grew into a vast organisation. People often think just of the shops but in addition to shops the Co-op owned land and farms. It was a other form in which working people took control of their own lives, preferring quality food to the adulterated food offered by the commercial enterprises of the ruling class. Beyond this were also the Sick and Dividend clubs, often as an alternative to the banned trade unions, but also as organisations in their own rights, with the aim of combining together to pay into a common pot when they were fit and able and in work so that if hardship should come in any form they had a resource to call upon. At the end of the year any funds remaining would be divided amongst the members. Workers taking control of their own lives. So far I have not mentioned the main forms of working class organisation, the trade unions and the various political parties, Socialist, Labour and Communist. All off these have played a part in both the defensive and offensive activities of the working class. Lenin wrongly claimed that the working class could only form ‘trade union’ mentality but the evidence from history would indicate otherwise. Not only did they organise as mentioned above, but they were active politically both at a local and national level. The question we need to ask is why, when the basis for further progress was possible, did they not go further? In the terms of Gramsci, there can be no doubt that in 1918 and 1945 the old was dying and there were signs that the new was present but why did it not develop into the revolutionary movement that was necessary. Now, in 2025, can we say that the working class has developed any further than it had in these earlier years ? Certainly what happened after 1945 was that as the working class shared in some of the gains that other classes were making. Sections of the class found themselves prospering beyond the level that other sections of the class were able to do. Capitalism was allowed to restructure and the working class suffered a major defeat at the hands of Margaret Thatcher and large sections of the industrial base were destroyed. In my next article, I will seek to develop these thoughts and bring them with the situations that we are faced with in 2025. Scribar