The Poverty of the Left and Freedom for Palestine
There is an underlying current among the left, no matter where you go, no matter who is your president. A perverse sense of liberalism within the current system, within the current dynamic of society. The free world, the great nation, the democracy. An ideology permeating through the minds of many, and despite the rhetoric and promotion of social justice, even far left suffer from the poverty of the system.
The system I am talking about is Capitalism. A system based on commodity production, which organises itself on the accumulation of profits. Despite the constantly revolutionised technology and industry, the system of Capitalism to this day does not, nor can it, provide for all. And yes, for a time, Capitalism promised providing for all, “Believe in Capitalism, and you will be wealthy!” And yet wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small minority, while the remainder are either scraping by or so impoverished that they can barely afford clean drinking water.
Imperialism, a necessary outcome of Capitalism, has rocked the world since the turn of the 20th century. As Capitalism grew, through the competitive market, the amount of competitors decreased. Ponds that once had many small fish had become ponds holding very few fat and bloated fish. Markets within nations are swallowed up and monopolised leaving nowhere else for the Capitalist to accumulate his or her profits. So it becomes necessary, with the help of the Capitalist State to go into competition with other nation states. To open new markets through Imperialist wars. World War I and II saw the most extreme in these inter-nation competitions. The results of which were a re-carving of the world into major Capitalist blocs, dominated by one power or another – be it through military force or economic treaties. The biggest of these major blocs, and by far the most powerful is the United States of America. And it is no wonder then why every major war since the Second World War has been provoked/instigated by the U.S.A.
One of the ways in which the United States established its dominance was to seek ‘watchdogs’ across the world. Nations who would be willing to trade off with the United States. Mutual interests so-to-speak. Australia, formerly a close friend of the United Kingdom, quickly became one of these friends post Vietnam. Another of these watchdogs was the State of Israel. Israel, which was formed in 1948 with the aid of the British Government, had grown considerably. Through military expansion, it had progressively ostracised Palestinians and broken down the borders of Palestine, until Palestine was no more than isolated settlements within Israel. However, it was not till the bombing of Libya by the United States that Israel got on board with the U.S’s Imperial project. Israel bent over for the U.S., begging for a trade off. Israel was to become another Watchdog of the United States. The trade was simple. The United States was to give aid to Israel, and arm Israel to allow it to become the strongest nation in its region, to have the most powerfully armed ruling class in its region and to finally have the means to easily squash Palestine once and for all, to ensure Israeli hegemony. In return Israel would put down any and all dissent toward the U.S from its neighbours and in doing so, ensure the U.S had a stake in the massive reserves of Oil. Oil, under Capitalism, is by far the most important commodity. Every economy in the world relies on Oil, to fuel their machines, to run their automobiles.
“We must become owners, or at any rate the controllers at the source ... of supply ... of oil.” – Winston Churchill.
Not only did the U.S want a stake, it needed a stake. This strategic alliance with Israel would not only mean a control over resources U.S Capitalism needed, but also inhibit the ability of lesser powers, such as the United Kingdom and Russia, from being able to use it to their advantage. And so it was set in stone. Israel and the United States became the best of friends, and Israel did not disappoint.
As I briefed above, Israel has always been the Apartheid state that we know and loath today, from its very creation. Its birth was one of apartheid agenda, to turn arabs into second-class citizens, deliberately impoverish and ostracise them wherever possible, to so severely undermine them that Palestine would no longer be remembered. In its place would be Israel, and only Israel. Its birth and its continued existence was justified with Zionism and Racism. Dirty arabs, long live Israel! And to back up the things I am saying, I will add the following quotes:
“In Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants ... The Four Powers are committed to Zionism.” - Lord Balfour 1919 (Prior to the formation of Israel)
“If we dig in here, England will come to our aid. It is not the Arabs who the English will pick to ... colonise Palestine, it is we.” – Golda Meir 1921
Zionism, which once represented the idea of Israel, of the Jewish homeland, was becoming the idea of sovereignty to colonial powers. And not too long after, with the formation of Israel in 1948, Zionism would be transformed. No longer did it require religious connotation. Zionism was now all about the State of Israel itself and its right to exist on the shoulders of the Palestinians.
Some more quotes to further show Israel’s position in regards to its brutality and resistance groups:
“Behind the official excuse of we shall not tolerate shelling or terrorist reactions’ lies a strategic view which holds that the physical annihilation of the PLO [Palestinian Liberation Organisation] has to be achieved. That is, not only must its fingers and hands in the West Bank be amputated (as is now being done with an iron fist), but its heart and head in Beirut must be dealt with. As Israel does not want the PLO as a partner for talks or as an interlocutor for any solution in the West Bank, the supporters of confrontation with the PLO hold that the logical continuation of the struggle with the PLO in the territories is in Lebanon. With the loss of its physical strength, in their opinion, the PLO will lose not only its hold over the territories but also its growing international status.” – Ha’aretz 1982.
“We have no solution... You [Palestinians] shall continue to live like dogs, and whoever wishes may leave, and we will see where this process leads.” - Moshe Dayan, Chief of Staff of the IDF, early 1970s.
“When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged roaches in a bottle.” – Rafael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the IDF, 1983.
“The significance of the [Gaza Strip disengagement] plan is the freezing of the peace process, It supplies the amount of formaldehyde that is necessary so there will not be a political process with the Palestinians ... When you freeze [the peace] process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the [Palestinian] refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. ... Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. ... And all this with authority and permission. All with a [US] presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress.” - Dov Weisglass, Advisor to the Israel Prime Minister, 2004.
“The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet but not to make them die of hunger." - Dov Weisglass, Advisor to the Israel Prime Minister, 2006.
“The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger 'shoah' [Holocaust] because we will use all our might to defend ourselves.” - Matan Vilnai, Israeli Deputy Defense Minister, 2008.
The above should correct any uncertainties you (the readers) had, if not, I will address them later. The bloody history of Palestine since the turn of the 20th century has been, absolutely upon the shoulders of giants. The United Kingdom, the United States and Israel. Israel’s other mode of justification is ‘protection.’ The same excuses the United States used against Stalinist/Maoist-Communism during the Vietnam war and the Cold war, the same excuses the United States used against Iraq and Afghanistan. Claiming protection, defense, when it is they who are the instigators of the violence. When it is they who created the reacting terrorist factions. When it is they who oppressed and butchered so many middle-easterners that they had no where to turn other than to Terrorism or Arab-Nationalism.
I wont spend too much time on this point. It needs not much more than this. To be final and clear: Israel, the United States and the United Kingdom are all responsible for the turmoil in the Middle-east, and it is they who are the terrorist states. It is they who callously murder and pillage for their precious Capitalism.
The Left and Terrorism
I find it peculiar, the state of the Left on Terrorism. They can barely keep their hats on at the first sight of it. What do we do? What do we say? Are they right? Are they wrong? ‘They must be wrong! ‘ They say in the end. ‘Because our governments don’t strap bombs to children! Our governments don’t use suicide bombers! And they don’t kill civilians and terrorise them!”
Obviously, this is far from entirely true. First of all, rather than strapping bombs to children, governments such as Israel, the U.S and the U.K bomb them. Over 400 of the dead in Gaza in the past days are children. (Also, I have yet to see a substantiated claim about bombs strapped to children by Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah or any group of the like.) ‘Our’ governments don’t use suicide bombers, but they have no problem with sending thousands, often hundreds of thousands, of young working people, good people, to war to die. It might not be suicide bombing, but it is most certainly for many of them forced suicide. And finally, as I have already shown, ‘our’ governments do kill civilians and terrorise them. And by all stretches of the imagination, disproportionately. 3000 (approx.) dead in the World Trade Center bombings in 2001, 1.2 Million dead (conservative estimate) in Afghanistan alone by Coalition forces (Australia, United States, United Kingdom and several other smaller nations). 1 Dead due to rocket fire from Hamas into Israel, 1200 dead from bombings and ground occupation in Gaza by Israel.
Proportionate or not, the acts are still wrong. They are not for ‘defense’ but rather for dominion. They are the result of ruling classes fighting other ruling classes at our expense. And no, let’s be clear on this, no Imperialist state will willingly agree to end its hostilities. They cannot. The foundations of a superpower lie in Imperialism itself. The foundations of those Imperialist states lie in the oppression and exploitation of their people. None of these states seek peace. And for any of the left to assume peace can be achieved through the likes of presidents such as Obama, is living a pipe dream. (Obama in early 2008 voiced that he thought Australia ought to send 20,000 troops to Afghanistan, has made clear he intends to boost troops in Afghanistan, and has not taken Iran off the table of possible invasion.)
All ‘democratic’ reasoning with the state of Israel, of the U.S, is met with utter callousness.
What to do?
What must be done is mobilise. The only way to achieve peace in the middle-east, or indeed anywhere, including at home, is to show that neither you, or your friends, brothers or sisters, will lie down and accept what you are told. Millions across the world already have, and those numbers are growing with no signs of stopping yet. Average working people across the world are an amazingly powerful social force, one which can bring to a stand still Capitalism, warmongering States and the like.
It is a case of poverty on the left, that very few recognise this beyond a spur of the moment outrage. We, who are supposed to be more aware, more analysing, more astute in the politics, should be setting the example, acting out, acting now, and acting relentlessly. However, the left is not. Groups on the far left have done exceedingly well, as have the Arab and Palestinian and Muslim populations across the world. The remainder of the left however have been utterly slack, and rather disgusting in their actions.
We have lefties who have stated they need to ‘deepen the politics’ by holding ‘public meetings’ which will ‘educate’ people in the struggle and ‘appeal to the wider audience.’ This idea is a few things, first and foremost, its a farce. To say that the politics were not already deep is arrogant and outright wrong. It assumes the people turning up to demonstrations are stupid, and that they know very little, when it is all too clear – the people turning up by and large know more about middle eastern politics and what needs to be done than the majority of the left. Public meetings also deter from mobilisation of the people, and essentially stagnate movements, and themselves. It is not public meetings that build movements, it is action that builds movements. The idea of having to educate the masses is essentially elitist, but elitism aside, is also racist. Acting as if you have to appeal to everyone but Arabs and Palestinians is ridiculous, and expecting Arabs and Muslims to be subject to the whims of backwards elements of white society is clearly wrong. I need not say more on that.
I have heard claims, ‘the movement is tiring.’ Which is outrageous, as all signs point to it growing stronger. Numbers across the board have increased astronomically since the beginning of the attacks on Gaza. This statement has no basis in the reality of the movement.
I have heard claims that education and lobbying should be the focus, as that is the only way to get things done. This is so poor an idea I almost cannot bare to have to repeat it to you all. Lobbying? Who needs a lobby when you have 1.5 million people on the streets? That was the number in Turkey. Who needs a lobby when you have 150,000 people on the streets, or 100,000 people on the streets? (Paris, London) Education is fundamental, yes, but it does not take priority over activism. It is impossible to educate the masses if you do not make yourself relevant to them, and the majority of people requiring education are people who honestly do not care about the issue, and quite often hold very racist ideas toward Muslims and Arabs. Again, Palestine has not the time to waste waiting for the white left to get their people educated, and Arabs should not have to sit around and wait for us to work ourselves out. Rather – They lead, we should support, and in doing so educate. Activism and Education go hand in hand, and through that, agitation to mobilise comes. We should not be seeking the backwards elements, or the Parliament to fix the problem, but rather the billions across the world who are angry, who are outraged at these war crimes, who want to see justice!
For more on Palestine’s struggle:
“Israel: Hijack State – America’s Watchdog in the Middle East” - http://www.marxists.de/middleast/rose/index.htm
“Its a Lie!: There is no Israeli Ceasefire in Gaza” - http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1878&Itemid=66
“Gaza slaughter an indictment of the system...” - http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1879&Itemid=66
“No Compromise – Only mass struggle can free Palestine” - http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1880&Itemid=66
“They’re wiping out entire families...” - http://socialistworker.org/2009/01/12/theyre-wiping-out-entire-families
“Dispatches – the Killing Zone” - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5863204188744026936
“Clashes follow Israeli ‘cessation’” - http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2009/01/200911834825963827.html
“Gaza doctors tragedy caught on Israeli TV” - http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/200911715289337400.html
“Take a walk through Gaza” - http://youngfoxredux.blogspot.com/2009/01/take-walk-through-gaza.html (Warning, very graphic.)
“Powerless in Gaza” - http://www.marxists.de/middleast/alexander/gaza.htm
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Friday, December 19, 2008
The Kronstadt Rebellion - Extract from How the Workers Took Power: The 1917 Russian Revolution by Sandra Bloodworth
In the circumstances of Russia, given the backward nature of the economy, plus the destruction wrought by the World War and then three years of civil war, foreign invasion and economic blockade by the West, the options narrowed very quickly. In 1921 this confronts us in all its stark reality. A sign that the workers' state was in dire trouble was the Kronstadt rebellion in March. This former centre of revolutionary zeal, previously a strong base for the Bolsheviks (now renamed as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) became a flashpoint for all the discontents bred by three years of bitter civil war and the resulting poverty and devastation.
Now that the threat of the Whites (counter-revolutionary forces) had receded, the suffering was increasingly laid at the door of the Communist Party. The Bolsheviks' brutal crushing of the Kronstadt revolt is often held up as evidence that it was the very nature of the party that led to the Stalinist bureaucracy of the later years. A more accurate assessment is what Lenin said at the time: "The Kronstadt events were like a flash of lighting which threw more of a glare upon reality than anything else." [1]
It may be legitimate to argue that the Bolsheviks over-reacted, although it cannot be discounted that a victory for the rebellion would have opened the way to a new offensive from the Whites, who were backing it. Anarchists and others who hold up this rebellion and the Bolsheviks' response argue that this shows that the Bolsheviks were authoritarian from the start. The Kronstadt rebellion is held up as a revolutionary challenge to the Bolsheviks' totalitarian dictatorship. However the most recent archives available reveal a completely different picture. Kronstadt was no longer a stronghold of revolutionary soldiers. But the revolutionary soldiers still there actually organised against the rebellion, as did the workers on the Island. The uprising was led by pro-Tsarist generals who said openly that their call for 'soviets without Bolsheviks' was just a way of cloaking their action in the rhetoric of the revolution, that they intended taking power themselves. [2] No doubt they were able to tap into growing discontent among the layers of the population who were not steeped in the revolutionary traditions of the most advanced workers, but that does not make it legitimate. It was a rebellion with backing from counter-revolutionaries against a workers' state under siege. In early 1921 it was still possible to hope that the revolutionary movements in some Euripean countries might triumph. It would have been sheer capitulation and abandonment of the revolutionary goals for which millions had made such sacrifices to have risked the regime's survival because of the rising discontent.
The Kronstadt tragedy was, as Lenin realised, a blinding revelation of the drastic circumstances the revolution faced. It was not any part of the cause of its defeat. To argue that it was is to ignore the problem of isolation and therefore to accept the Stalinist ideology that socialism can be built in one country. And in light of the latest archival evidence it is tantamount to supporting the outright counter-revolution. Lenin spelt out what was necessary, if they were to go on to build socialism, at the Party Congress in March 1921.
'here industrial workers are in a minority, and the petty farmers are the vast majority. In such a country, the socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries ... The second condition is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorship, that is, holds the state power, and the majority of the peasant population.' [3]
With these two problems in mind, the Communist Party Congress, with hardly any debate or dissent, introduced what became known as the New Economic Policy (NEP) which ended grain requisitioning from the peasants. Instead, they would be taxed and able to use whatever profits they could make as they decided. In other words, it allowed the reintroduction of the market. In fact, to try to hold on with the prospect of being rescued by the international revolution, the Congress conceded virtually all of the demands of the Kronstadters except theiranti-democratic call for 'soviets without Bolsheviks.' Perhaps if the Bolsheviks had made these concessions more quickly, they could have spared the lives of those killed in the fighting that put down the rebellion. But let's be clear. If this had not led to a resurgance of the reactionaries, if it had avoided violence - none of which was inevitable - it would not have made on iota of a difference to the outcome of the revolution in the long run. Kronstadt, the reintroduction of the market, the bureaucratic degeneration of the party as it ruled over an increasingly impossible situation - none of these are the cause of the counter-revolution that engulfed them. They are the effect of the failure of the revolutions in the West and the isolation of the workers' state in Russia.
Citations:
1. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 32, p. 169.
2. Daniel Lopez and Corey Oakley, 'New facts explode anarchist myth' in Socialist Alternative, no 100, March 2006, available at www.sa.org.au. Original source at www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html
3. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 32, p. 125.
Now that the threat of the Whites (counter-revolutionary forces) had receded, the suffering was increasingly laid at the door of the Communist Party. The Bolsheviks' brutal crushing of the Kronstadt revolt is often held up as evidence that it was the very nature of the party that led to the Stalinist bureaucracy of the later years. A more accurate assessment is what Lenin said at the time: "The Kronstadt events were like a flash of lighting which threw more of a glare upon reality than anything else." [1]
It may be legitimate to argue that the Bolsheviks over-reacted, although it cannot be discounted that a victory for the rebellion would have opened the way to a new offensive from the Whites, who were backing it. Anarchists and others who hold up this rebellion and the Bolsheviks' response argue that this shows that the Bolsheviks were authoritarian from the start. The Kronstadt rebellion is held up as a revolutionary challenge to the Bolsheviks' totalitarian dictatorship. However the most recent archives available reveal a completely different picture. Kronstadt was no longer a stronghold of revolutionary soldiers. But the revolutionary soldiers still there actually organised against the rebellion, as did the workers on the Island. The uprising was led by pro-Tsarist generals who said openly that their call for 'soviets without Bolsheviks' was just a way of cloaking their action in the rhetoric of the revolution, that they intended taking power themselves. [2] No doubt they were able to tap into growing discontent among the layers of the population who were not steeped in the revolutionary traditions of the most advanced workers, but that does not make it legitimate. It was a rebellion with backing from counter-revolutionaries against a workers' state under siege. In early 1921 it was still possible to hope that the revolutionary movements in some Euripean countries might triumph. It would have been sheer capitulation and abandonment of the revolutionary goals for which millions had made such sacrifices to have risked the regime's survival because of the rising discontent.
The Kronstadt tragedy was, as Lenin realised, a blinding revelation of the drastic circumstances the revolution faced. It was not any part of the cause of its defeat. To argue that it was is to ignore the problem of isolation and therefore to accept the Stalinist ideology that socialism can be built in one country. And in light of the latest archival evidence it is tantamount to supporting the outright counter-revolution. Lenin spelt out what was necessary, if they were to go on to build socialism, at the Party Congress in March 1921.
'here industrial workers are in a minority, and the petty farmers are the vast majority. In such a country, the socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries ... The second condition is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorship, that is, holds the state power, and the majority of the peasant population.' [3]
With these two problems in mind, the Communist Party Congress, with hardly any debate or dissent, introduced what became known as the New Economic Policy (NEP) which ended grain requisitioning from the peasants. Instead, they would be taxed and able to use whatever profits they could make as they decided. In other words, it allowed the reintroduction of the market. In fact, to try to hold on with the prospect of being rescued by the international revolution, the Congress conceded virtually all of the demands of the Kronstadters except theiranti-democratic call for 'soviets without Bolsheviks.' Perhaps if the Bolsheviks had made these concessions more quickly, they could have spared the lives of those killed in the fighting that put down the rebellion. But let's be clear. If this had not led to a resurgance of the reactionaries, if it had avoided violence - none of which was inevitable - it would not have made on iota of a difference to the outcome of the revolution in the long run. Kronstadt, the reintroduction of the market, the bureaucratic degeneration of the party as it ruled over an increasingly impossible situation - none of these are the cause of the counter-revolution that engulfed them. They are the effect of the failure of the revolutions in the West and the isolation of the workers' state in Russia.
Citations:
1. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 32, p. 169.
2. Daniel Lopez and Corey Oakley, 'New facts explode anarchist myth' in Socialist Alternative, no 100, March 2006, available at www.sa.org.au. Original source at www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html
3. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 32, p. 125.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
In Solidarity...
In Solidarity with the people of Greece, struggling against the oppression of the state and Capitalism. It is through their actions against the Fascists and the State that others across the world are being inspired to act out.
For this, we pay tribute.
R.I.P Alexis.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Workers' State
One of the defining points when it comes to Socialism, specifically, Marxist Socialism, has been the role of the Workers’ State. Or even beyond that, what is the Workers’ State? Through a series of debates, discussions and reading, I feel I can confidently give an analysis of the Workers’ State, or at least the idea of what the Workers’ State should be.
As with all left revolutionary groups, the results aimed for are the liberation of human beings fromm an oppressive society who maintains its control through a series of elaborate laws, ideological propaganda and the segregation of the oppressed. Namely, these groups have a tendency toward an Anti-Capitalist stance. One of the many issues that face these groups is the role of the State as it exists today, and more over, whether it can be used in the favour of the oppressed.
Well to an extent it can be. As we, the oppressed, have proven many times the State apparatus can be forced to reform its ways in our favour. Some of these reforms are equal pay for equal work, the right to welfare, the right to an education et cetera. These reforms were won through a process of necessary struggle by the oppressed. The oppressed, taking action into their own hands created large scale mass movements. These movements then sought solidarity from those outside the movement, and with this mass of people found the political strength to make demands for such things above.
However, the State as it exists today is not an ally of the oppressed, nor is it a neutral party to the goings on of the world around us. Rather, it acts in opposition the majority of the time to us. It either acts of its own accord to oppress and belittle the oppressed, or capitulates to the will of other oppressors. Some may claim that despite this, we have a democracy, and that what we must do is put good people into the legislative body to create good policy, and to tell the oppressors to get lost. This is an impossibility.
The State as it exists today is designed against us in almost every way. Its democracy is barely recognisable as a democracy. Rather, it is a dictatorship using the facade and rhetoric of democracy. This dictatorship, consisting of members of the oppressing class, bicker and debate in public forum, then tell us that this is democracy. In the same breath, they tell us that it is they who represent us. Then once every so often, usually every three or four years, they will allow us to vote, and make a choice: Do we want this oppressor? Or do we want the other? Which one bickered the best? And which one sounded like they cared the most?
This is but one fallacy of the current State. To go beyond this, we are forced to abide by a set of elaborate rules which are accompanied by a very specific ideology. That ideology is justified with supposed evidence. The ideology, of course, is that we must be told how to live and how to act. That we are too stupid to be civilised. We are told that when their laws do not exist that chaos and anarchy in its worst form takes control. (To clarify, I mean a specific type of social anarchy, the kind of anarchy portrayed in any given punk-rock promotional video. This kind of anarchy is by no means the action or the political view of most – if not all – true Anarchists.) If we are uncertain of this justification, we are given graphic images of violence, of arson, of cries of terror and distress – usually from places that dared to deny this ideology. What they do not allow us to know is that it was not those average oppressed people who caused the horrific scenes. Rather, it was a very malicious, often minority group, who exacted their violence upon those people. Be them radical terrorists, the Capitalist saboteurs or the very State which attempts to perpetrate this ideology.
Those laws imprison us, chain us to the will of those oppressors. If we do not obey them, we are punished. And often the punishment is outrageous in comparison to a crime. For example: There was a time in old London when stealing a loaf of bread could see you arrested, jailed and then shipped off to unknown lands – not at all too dissimilar to today – where for stealing an iPod, you can be arrested, have the goods confiscated, then be forced to work ‘community service’ of any amount of time (I’ve never heard of less than 60 hours), unpaid. In simple terms, this is theft being punished with slavery.
The final arm of the State which serves as a facade and aids in its justification is the violence at its command. The Police force and the Military. The Police, we are told, protect us from ourselves. They maintain order and keep us safe from our neighbours. This could be anything but the case. The Police may help little old ladies from time to time, but more often than not what the Police are doing with all their time is searching for people to lock-up. Searching for people who do not canonise to the will of the societal order they serve. This can be anything from a humble shoplifter to a person skateboarding without a helmet. They will merrily fine you, take money from you and hand it to the state. But to a greater extreme, it is their role to suppress you. At the moment you, and perhaps those around you, turn your attention to those they serve and demand something against their will, the Police are there to keep you at bay. They push you back with riot shields, blind you with tear gas, smash you with batons if you advance, and in recent times, shoot you with ‘non-lethal’ bullets, and perform the modern version of electro-shock therapy upon you.
This is not a case of civil dissidents. This is a case of your average activist, taking an opposition to the horrific proposals and actions of the State which serves as a means to oppress.
The State serves us only when we exercise our political strength in numbers and our economic strength in numbers. Through public protest and demonstration we exercise our will, and through strike wave campaigns, we force it upon them. But these steps gain us only humble reforms. Reforms which are every day being pushed back, and pushed down, until they can be hidden away and become unrecognisable in the darkness. Consider censorship, consider freedom of speech, consider welfare rights, consider health care, consider the eight hour day and consider equal pay for equal work. Consider the right to assembly. All of which have been under constant attack – especially in recent years.
Never the less we resist, we continue to try to defend our victories. However, if we capitulate to the will of reformists who believe the policy makers will save us, we’ll find ourselves starting back at square one.
If you have not caught on yet of what I am talking about, I am talking about specifically the social relations of Capitalist society. The oppressing class, the Capitalist class, who by means of mass murder, colonisation in the period leading up to the dominion of Capitalism and through oppressive state arms, seize control over all means of subsistence. All productive forces are in the hands of this oppressive class. The oppressed, the working class, those whose backs Capitalist Society rests upon, who necessarily are disenfranchised and stripped of their connection to products of their labour to create the oppressing class. The State, which serves as a secondary Capitalist venture, however ‘socialises’ itself in order to turn a profit. It too competes as the lone Capitalist might, however it goes further. To coin the term ‘[...]the highest form of Capitalism.’ The Capitalist State has developed Imperialism. Capitalism in its most brutal and darkest form. (This opinion is debatable. I would amount the state to being just as horrific as I do free market Capitalism.)
Through the process of struggle, Socialists say, the Working Class must rise. In fact, many revolutionary thinkers will align themselves to this train of thought. It is necessary for the oppressed to rise to the same level of the oppressors in order to defeat them. Now I could go into details about how the working class would rise to this point, however, it will consume too much time and space, and as this is a long article, I would rather just provide further reading at the end.
Socialists say that in the heat of struggle, for a Revolution to be successful, an opposition to the Capitalist State must be created. It is called the Workers’ State, and it is nothing like the Capitalist State.
The Workers’ State is by its sheer nature, by the conditions it is created in, true democracy. Consisting of a series of committees or councils, these groups created by the workers themselves, consisting of workers themselves, electing delegates, representatives, who have no greater power or wealth than the workers their represent, who are able to be repealed at any time if they do not act in the way expected of them. These councils are a symbol of workers’ united power, of workers’ ability to organise themselves in such a way that all the needs of their comrades can be met, and so that they can defend themselves efficiently and swiftly as a unified whole.
Why is it that a Socialist says it is necessary to create the Workers’ State?
With the overthrow of the Capitalist State, and with it the ideology of Capitalism, with the overthrow of Capitalism itself, a power vacuum is create. What occurs then, is various other powers attempt to fill that vacuum. Consider the varying forces at the time of this vacuum’s creation. The reformists, the Capitalist counter-revolutionaries, the Totalitarians and let us not forget the Free Market itself. Let us theorise that the working class has not created its own organised power (as we have seen many times in the past), let us assume that once the revolt is complete, and the over throw is complete, that these other forces capitalise on the situation, quickly we have a fight amongst outside forces vying for dominance and the support of those who revolted, and with no one there to oppose them in an organised fashion, they have no resistance to reinstalling themselves, or recreating the ruling class.
This is why the Workers’ State is necessary. In this period of time, while other forces which oppose democracy and working class liberation exist, it is necessary for the working class to recognise the need for themselves to fill this void. Merely returning home does not fill this void. It is necessary for the working class to acknowledge their own power, and make clear to other forces, “This is our will!” lest those other forces assume the rhetoric of “We serve you! Trust us!” which all too often has been proven quite convincing.
With the installation of the Workers’ State, other forces now have no option other than to capitulate to the will of the Workers’ State, or to outright oppose it. And we have seen this outright opposition before, as well as the forced capitulation.
With this new power, the Workers’ State, the working class can strip back the wealth accumulated by the Capitalist state and by the Capitalist themselves. It can voice its will upon the world, and as the majority would undoubtedly support it – as it is them – go unrivalled. Its mere existence strips the power from the Capitalist state, makes its legislation irrelevant, and provides a coherent body for defending against the violent arms it has monopolised.
This state reorganises the mode of production to that of human need instead of profit and accumulation of capital. The boss, the manager and the owner are now irrelevant, as all the means of production are centralised and redistributed to the working class. Production now creates what is needed, and what is fairly wanted by the working class. Distribution is now performed without limitation, goods and services are now distributed on the basis of need, and are given at no cost. Distribution occurs freely with only one string attached: The resources which are used to produce must be replenished.
Is the Workers’ State totalitarian?
Admittedly, yes. However it is not a totalitarian oppressive force which exploits and belittles the vast majority of people. To coin the term “Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Working Class)” the new workers’ state serves one true purpose: To suppress forces which oppose workers’ power, and to suppress those who would re-enslave the masses. However, do not let this statement fool you into believing it to be undemocratic, or against equality. This totalitarian dictatorship of the vast majority, returns the former ruling class to the position they were in when they were born: no more than a human being with equal value and opportunity to other human beings.
At what point does this Workers’ State ‘wither away?’
At the point in which no other oppressive force exists. With the absence of counter-revolutionaries, without anyone else to fill any vacuums, the role of the Workers’ State becomes unnecessary, and therefore is discarded.
It is the role of the state to suppress. That can be admitted. However there is a hefty difference between the suppression, or rather, oppression of the Capitalist state as opposed to the Workers’ State. The state exists because there is such an irreconcilable struggle between existing classes that there must be an institution, an apparatus existing to suppress the lesser class.
The workers state is different in that, rather than oppressing many to create a ruling minority, it suppresses the ruling minority and maintains the level of ruling class for the majority. Once these classes no longer exist. Once it is only worker, the state has no justifiable reason for existing, it has no substance or purpose, and as stated, dissolves.
The Workers’ State is no longer a Workers’ State at the point where power is centralised into a restricted portion of that organised body. It is no longer the Workers’ State if the delegates / representatives have no accountability. And it is no longer a Workers’ State if it is not the Workers themselves who control it. (This statement is made against those persons who would try to make out that the USSR, or China, or Venezuela, or Cuba might be Workers’ States.)
Depending on your political views, you may or may not disagree. However, as a Socialist I will say that it is absolutely necessary for this vastly different state apparatus to be formed at the time of successful revolution. And it is required only as long as there are forces capable of seizing dominion over the working class in existence. I do not aim to allow the creation of a minority dictatorship such as the USSR (Stalinist), or the Chinese Communists (Maoist). I aim to see the majority dictatorship of equality, freedom and dignity. Of the self-emancipation of the working class.
A final note.
I could very well be wrong in my analysis. I could be mislead somewhere. I am only human. My expressed views are not the same views of every Socialist, nor are they the same views of every Revolutionary Socialist. However, this is my interpretation of the Workers’ State based on what I have been given. And it is my understanding that this form of State is the only justifiable one, as all others are oppressive and designed to enslave rather than liberate.
Readings:
Rather than list several individual readings I will point you in the direction of a handy website. This website has plenty of works, you need only look for them.
http://www.marxists.org/
As with all left revolutionary groups, the results aimed for are the liberation of human beings fromm an oppressive society who maintains its control through a series of elaborate laws, ideological propaganda and the segregation of the oppressed. Namely, these groups have a tendency toward an Anti-Capitalist stance. One of the many issues that face these groups is the role of the State as it exists today, and more over, whether it can be used in the favour of the oppressed.
Well to an extent it can be. As we, the oppressed, have proven many times the State apparatus can be forced to reform its ways in our favour. Some of these reforms are equal pay for equal work, the right to welfare, the right to an education et cetera. These reforms were won through a process of necessary struggle by the oppressed. The oppressed, taking action into their own hands created large scale mass movements. These movements then sought solidarity from those outside the movement, and with this mass of people found the political strength to make demands for such things above.
However, the State as it exists today is not an ally of the oppressed, nor is it a neutral party to the goings on of the world around us. Rather, it acts in opposition the majority of the time to us. It either acts of its own accord to oppress and belittle the oppressed, or capitulates to the will of other oppressors. Some may claim that despite this, we have a democracy, and that what we must do is put good people into the legislative body to create good policy, and to tell the oppressors to get lost. This is an impossibility.
The State as it exists today is designed against us in almost every way. Its democracy is barely recognisable as a democracy. Rather, it is a dictatorship using the facade and rhetoric of democracy. This dictatorship, consisting of members of the oppressing class, bicker and debate in public forum, then tell us that this is democracy. In the same breath, they tell us that it is they who represent us. Then once every so often, usually every three or four years, they will allow us to vote, and make a choice: Do we want this oppressor? Or do we want the other? Which one bickered the best? And which one sounded like they cared the most?
This is but one fallacy of the current State. To go beyond this, we are forced to abide by a set of elaborate rules which are accompanied by a very specific ideology. That ideology is justified with supposed evidence. The ideology, of course, is that we must be told how to live and how to act. That we are too stupid to be civilised. We are told that when their laws do not exist that chaos and anarchy in its worst form takes control. (To clarify, I mean a specific type of social anarchy, the kind of anarchy portrayed in any given punk-rock promotional video. This kind of anarchy is by no means the action or the political view of most – if not all – true Anarchists.) If we are uncertain of this justification, we are given graphic images of violence, of arson, of cries of terror and distress – usually from places that dared to deny this ideology. What they do not allow us to know is that it was not those average oppressed people who caused the horrific scenes. Rather, it was a very malicious, often minority group, who exacted their violence upon those people. Be them radical terrorists, the Capitalist saboteurs or the very State which attempts to perpetrate this ideology.
Those laws imprison us, chain us to the will of those oppressors. If we do not obey them, we are punished. And often the punishment is outrageous in comparison to a crime. For example: There was a time in old London when stealing a loaf of bread could see you arrested, jailed and then shipped off to unknown lands – not at all too dissimilar to today – where for stealing an iPod, you can be arrested, have the goods confiscated, then be forced to work ‘community service’ of any amount of time (I’ve never heard of less than 60 hours), unpaid. In simple terms, this is theft being punished with slavery.
The final arm of the State which serves as a facade and aids in its justification is the violence at its command. The Police force and the Military. The Police, we are told, protect us from ourselves. They maintain order and keep us safe from our neighbours. This could be anything but the case. The Police may help little old ladies from time to time, but more often than not what the Police are doing with all their time is searching for people to lock-up. Searching for people who do not canonise to the will of the societal order they serve. This can be anything from a humble shoplifter to a person skateboarding without a helmet. They will merrily fine you, take money from you and hand it to the state. But to a greater extreme, it is their role to suppress you. At the moment you, and perhaps those around you, turn your attention to those they serve and demand something against their will, the Police are there to keep you at bay. They push you back with riot shields, blind you with tear gas, smash you with batons if you advance, and in recent times, shoot you with ‘non-lethal’ bullets, and perform the modern version of electro-shock therapy upon you.
This is not a case of civil dissidents. This is a case of your average activist, taking an opposition to the horrific proposals and actions of the State which serves as a means to oppress.
The State serves us only when we exercise our political strength in numbers and our economic strength in numbers. Through public protest and demonstration we exercise our will, and through strike wave campaigns, we force it upon them. But these steps gain us only humble reforms. Reforms which are every day being pushed back, and pushed down, until they can be hidden away and become unrecognisable in the darkness. Consider censorship, consider freedom of speech, consider welfare rights, consider health care, consider the eight hour day and consider equal pay for equal work. Consider the right to assembly. All of which have been under constant attack – especially in recent years.
Never the less we resist, we continue to try to defend our victories. However, if we capitulate to the will of reformists who believe the policy makers will save us, we’ll find ourselves starting back at square one.
If you have not caught on yet of what I am talking about, I am talking about specifically the social relations of Capitalist society. The oppressing class, the Capitalist class, who by means of mass murder, colonisation in the period leading up to the dominion of Capitalism and through oppressive state arms, seize control over all means of subsistence. All productive forces are in the hands of this oppressive class. The oppressed, the working class, those whose backs Capitalist Society rests upon, who necessarily are disenfranchised and stripped of their connection to products of their labour to create the oppressing class. The State, which serves as a secondary Capitalist venture, however ‘socialises’ itself in order to turn a profit. It too competes as the lone Capitalist might, however it goes further. To coin the term ‘[...]the highest form of Capitalism.’ The Capitalist State has developed Imperialism. Capitalism in its most brutal and darkest form. (This opinion is debatable. I would amount the state to being just as horrific as I do free market Capitalism.)
Through the process of struggle, Socialists say, the Working Class must rise. In fact, many revolutionary thinkers will align themselves to this train of thought. It is necessary for the oppressed to rise to the same level of the oppressors in order to defeat them. Now I could go into details about how the working class would rise to this point, however, it will consume too much time and space, and as this is a long article, I would rather just provide further reading at the end.
Socialists say that in the heat of struggle, for a Revolution to be successful, an opposition to the Capitalist State must be created. It is called the Workers’ State, and it is nothing like the Capitalist State.
The Workers’ State is by its sheer nature, by the conditions it is created in, true democracy. Consisting of a series of committees or councils, these groups created by the workers themselves, consisting of workers themselves, electing delegates, representatives, who have no greater power or wealth than the workers their represent, who are able to be repealed at any time if they do not act in the way expected of them. These councils are a symbol of workers’ united power, of workers’ ability to organise themselves in such a way that all the needs of their comrades can be met, and so that they can defend themselves efficiently and swiftly as a unified whole.
Why is it that a Socialist says it is necessary to create the Workers’ State?
With the overthrow of the Capitalist State, and with it the ideology of Capitalism, with the overthrow of Capitalism itself, a power vacuum is create. What occurs then, is various other powers attempt to fill that vacuum. Consider the varying forces at the time of this vacuum’s creation. The reformists, the Capitalist counter-revolutionaries, the Totalitarians and let us not forget the Free Market itself. Let us theorise that the working class has not created its own organised power (as we have seen many times in the past), let us assume that once the revolt is complete, and the over throw is complete, that these other forces capitalise on the situation, quickly we have a fight amongst outside forces vying for dominance and the support of those who revolted, and with no one there to oppose them in an organised fashion, they have no resistance to reinstalling themselves, or recreating the ruling class.
This is why the Workers’ State is necessary. In this period of time, while other forces which oppose democracy and working class liberation exist, it is necessary for the working class to recognise the need for themselves to fill this void. Merely returning home does not fill this void. It is necessary for the working class to acknowledge their own power, and make clear to other forces, “This is our will!” lest those other forces assume the rhetoric of “We serve you! Trust us!” which all too often has been proven quite convincing.
With the installation of the Workers’ State, other forces now have no option other than to capitulate to the will of the Workers’ State, or to outright oppose it. And we have seen this outright opposition before, as well as the forced capitulation.
With this new power, the Workers’ State, the working class can strip back the wealth accumulated by the Capitalist state and by the Capitalist themselves. It can voice its will upon the world, and as the majority would undoubtedly support it – as it is them – go unrivalled. Its mere existence strips the power from the Capitalist state, makes its legislation irrelevant, and provides a coherent body for defending against the violent arms it has monopolised.
This state reorganises the mode of production to that of human need instead of profit and accumulation of capital. The boss, the manager and the owner are now irrelevant, as all the means of production are centralised and redistributed to the working class. Production now creates what is needed, and what is fairly wanted by the working class. Distribution is now performed without limitation, goods and services are now distributed on the basis of need, and are given at no cost. Distribution occurs freely with only one string attached: The resources which are used to produce must be replenished.
Is the Workers’ State totalitarian?
Admittedly, yes. However it is not a totalitarian oppressive force which exploits and belittles the vast majority of people. To coin the term “Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Working Class)” the new workers’ state serves one true purpose: To suppress forces which oppose workers’ power, and to suppress those who would re-enslave the masses. However, do not let this statement fool you into believing it to be undemocratic, or against equality. This totalitarian dictatorship of the vast majority, returns the former ruling class to the position they were in when they were born: no more than a human being with equal value and opportunity to other human beings.
At what point does this Workers’ State ‘wither away?’
At the point in which no other oppressive force exists. With the absence of counter-revolutionaries, without anyone else to fill any vacuums, the role of the Workers’ State becomes unnecessary, and therefore is discarded.
It is the role of the state to suppress. That can be admitted. However there is a hefty difference between the suppression, or rather, oppression of the Capitalist state as opposed to the Workers’ State. The state exists because there is such an irreconcilable struggle between existing classes that there must be an institution, an apparatus existing to suppress the lesser class.
The workers state is different in that, rather than oppressing many to create a ruling minority, it suppresses the ruling minority and maintains the level of ruling class for the majority. Once these classes no longer exist. Once it is only worker, the state has no justifiable reason for existing, it has no substance or purpose, and as stated, dissolves.
The Workers’ State is no longer a Workers’ State at the point where power is centralised into a restricted portion of that organised body. It is no longer the Workers’ State if the delegates / representatives have no accountability. And it is no longer a Workers’ State if it is not the Workers themselves who control it. (This statement is made against those persons who would try to make out that the USSR, or China, or Venezuela, or Cuba might be Workers’ States.)
Depending on your political views, you may or may not disagree. However, as a Socialist I will say that it is absolutely necessary for this vastly different state apparatus to be formed at the time of successful revolution. And it is required only as long as there are forces capable of seizing dominion over the working class in existence. I do not aim to allow the creation of a minority dictatorship such as the USSR (Stalinist), or the Chinese Communists (Maoist). I aim to see the majority dictatorship of equality, freedom and dignity. Of the self-emancipation of the working class.
A final note.
I could very well be wrong in my analysis. I could be mislead somewhere. I am only human. My expressed views are not the same views of every Socialist, nor are they the same views of every Revolutionary Socialist. However, this is my interpretation of the Workers’ State based on what I have been given. And it is my understanding that this form of State is the only justifiable one, as all others are oppressive and designed to enslave rather than liberate.
Readings:
Rather than list several individual readings I will point you in the direction of a handy website. This website has plenty of works, you need only look for them.
http://www.marxists.org/
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Fuck hope, Let's make change!
One of our talented comrades created this poster piece - which in its simplicity I think puts out a very concrete message that smashes through the soft political stance of many of our fellow organisations and political parties.
Fuck hope, Let's make change!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Alternative to Capitalism
When you get involved in leftist politics, all to often you are confronted with the horrors of Capitalism. Even before that, for many of us, exposure to these horrors has forced us into disillusionment, distain, anger at the world around us. We talk frequently as the enlightened - not to sound too big in ourselves. Pointing out the barbarism, the contradictions and so forth. However what of the alternative?
For so many, an alternative is never seen. For many, an alternative seems too far away to grasp. So the purpose of this addition to this blog is to talk about Socialism - the only viable, though by no means permanent, alternative to Capitalism.
I'm not going to talk about Social Democratic policy, or a Reformist road to achieve Socialism. I'm going to be talking about what I consider the only viable method to achieve Socialism - The emancipation of the working class - and thereby, all of humanity.
The Capitalist system, in all its contradictions, all its horrors, creates its own grave, and grave digger. The Working Class. Where there may have been many classes before, Capitalism concentrated all persons into two Classes - Those that exploit - The Capitalist Class, and those that are exploited - The Working class. The Capitalist class rely almost entirely on the Working Class to use their capital. As through this relation, through this mode of production, exchange value is created. Never the less, the Capitalist Class must always try to maximise profit, to increase unendingly its own Capital. One of the most fundamental ways of doing this, is to pay its working class less for its commodity - Labour power/time.
If you use your imagination, and a little intellectualism, we can easily see the conflicting interests, objectively, between both classes. And it is this objective factor that creates what is called Class Struggle.
Socialism, to be created in its entirety, requires maturity of this struggle. It requires the working class, and the capitalist class, to be at war with each other. It sounds pretty dire, I know.
By War, I do not mean open warfare where the classes form armies and go head to head. I mean the working class attacking the fundamental core of the Capitalist system through their maturing struggle. Challenging the economic strength of the Capitalist - by withholding their Labour Power. Challenging the political strength of the Capitalist, by assembling in defiance of their will, and Challenging the ideology which justifies the Capitalist Class's existence, by destroying the prejudices and contradictory ideas in the heat of struggle - in the objective push toward a unified, coherent working class movement.
Though this mature struggle, a working class revolution can form. And with appropriate leadership - as there was in the 1917 Russian Revolution, and in the leadership of the Paris Commune of the 19th century, the working class can progress to the point of complete dissatisfaction with the Capitalist society formerly controlling them. They denounce the ideology, no longer recognise their society, and create the foundations for society anew.
But what is Socialist Society? What does the alternative look like? In the simplest terms, Democratic. There is but one fundamental, concrete factor we can all be sure of when it comes to what a Socialist Society looks like, true democracy. Where every person has a say, where elected representatives are no more powerful than the workers around them, and are held accountable for every move they make. Where workers democratically organise themselves, and produce for the needs of their fellow human beings, instead of for exploitative personal gain. This is the transitional product of working class movements coming to fruition under circumstances honed and tempered to their emancipation.
From this, it is clear we can see, that what Lenin, Trotsky, Marx and Engels, Luxemburg, etc fought and died for was not the Totalitarian dictatorships of Maoist China, or Stalinist Russia.
From this we see Socialism is not a government above the rest. Rather that it is united, free and equal, working class power. Where the majority rule, and the formerly ruling class minority become no more powerful than the people they once forced into subservience.
Beyond this, we cannot say what Socialist Society will look like. To speculate above and beyond democratic decision would be to remove ourselves from that ideal of true democracy, that democracy of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The point is that this is an alternative, that is achievable. It may be vague, and we may only have one sure thing to count on - provided our cards play out right, and we make it, but it already becomes better than the society of the Capitalist. And what's better, is that we would decide how it is run, what it entails. We would decide based on what we needed and wanted. What was just, and right by all humanity.
The Socialist alternative is democracy. Freedom. Equality.
We work for all, we feed all.
For so many, an alternative is never seen. For many, an alternative seems too far away to grasp. So the purpose of this addition to this blog is to talk about Socialism - the only viable, though by no means permanent, alternative to Capitalism.
I'm not going to talk about Social Democratic policy, or a Reformist road to achieve Socialism. I'm going to be talking about what I consider the only viable method to achieve Socialism - The emancipation of the working class - and thereby, all of humanity.
The Capitalist system, in all its contradictions, all its horrors, creates its own grave, and grave digger. The Working Class. Where there may have been many classes before, Capitalism concentrated all persons into two Classes - Those that exploit - The Capitalist Class, and those that are exploited - The Working class. The Capitalist class rely almost entirely on the Working Class to use their capital. As through this relation, through this mode of production, exchange value is created. Never the less, the Capitalist Class must always try to maximise profit, to increase unendingly its own Capital. One of the most fundamental ways of doing this, is to pay its working class less for its commodity - Labour power/time.
If you use your imagination, and a little intellectualism, we can easily see the conflicting interests, objectively, between both classes. And it is this objective factor that creates what is called Class Struggle.
Socialism, to be created in its entirety, requires maturity of this struggle. It requires the working class, and the capitalist class, to be at war with each other. It sounds pretty dire, I know.
By War, I do not mean open warfare where the classes form armies and go head to head. I mean the working class attacking the fundamental core of the Capitalist system through their maturing struggle. Challenging the economic strength of the Capitalist - by withholding their Labour Power. Challenging the political strength of the Capitalist, by assembling in defiance of their will, and Challenging the ideology which justifies the Capitalist Class's existence, by destroying the prejudices and contradictory ideas in the heat of struggle - in the objective push toward a unified, coherent working class movement.
Though this mature struggle, a working class revolution can form. And with appropriate leadership - as there was in the 1917 Russian Revolution, and in the leadership of the Paris Commune of the 19th century, the working class can progress to the point of complete dissatisfaction with the Capitalist society formerly controlling them. They denounce the ideology, no longer recognise their society, and create the foundations for society anew.
But what is Socialist Society? What does the alternative look like? In the simplest terms, Democratic. There is but one fundamental, concrete factor we can all be sure of when it comes to what a Socialist Society looks like, true democracy. Where every person has a say, where elected representatives are no more powerful than the workers around them, and are held accountable for every move they make. Where workers democratically organise themselves, and produce for the needs of their fellow human beings, instead of for exploitative personal gain. This is the transitional product of working class movements coming to fruition under circumstances honed and tempered to their emancipation.
From this, it is clear we can see, that what Lenin, Trotsky, Marx and Engels, Luxemburg, etc fought and died for was not the Totalitarian dictatorships of Maoist China, or Stalinist Russia.
From this we see Socialism is not a government above the rest. Rather that it is united, free and equal, working class power. Where the majority rule, and the formerly ruling class minority become no more powerful than the people they once forced into subservience.
Beyond this, we cannot say what Socialist Society will look like. To speculate above and beyond democratic decision would be to remove ourselves from that ideal of true democracy, that democracy of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The point is that this is an alternative, that is achievable. It may be vague, and we may only have one sure thing to count on - provided our cards play out right, and we make it, but it already becomes better than the society of the Capitalist. And what's better, is that we would decide how it is run, what it entails. We would decide based on what we needed and wanted. What was just, and right by all humanity.
The Socialist alternative is democracy. Freedom. Equality.
We work for all, we feed all.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Even the Socialist can be Socially Ideological...
Time and time again, despite all the talk about fixing the world, I have conversed with other socialists and found their positions on one particular group of people sub-par, or at worst, disgusting. To think that with all the talk about despotism, and the poor of the world that they can so easily think so little of the same people they set out to inevitably save.
The struggle for workers’ power is as much the struggle for the lumpen. Those of the lowest socio-economic level, not just the working poor, but the poor who have become despot and homeless, those that have become unable to access any means of subsistence. These are people who know, at the forefront of their minds, more consistently than the entirety of the working class, the destruction that Capitalism creates. Though, they may not call it Capitalism. They may call it big business, rich people, profiteers of the slums, bosses etc. Objectively, this point of view is no less than that of the Worker, the fundamental difference is that whilst Workers have a means of subsistence (though minor), the poorest of the poor have none. Their struggles are not minor struggles, minor defiance against bosses – their struggles are struggles for their lives. Their ability to exist, not even to live (as to live, you need to be able to enjoy your life – at least in this context), just to exist. Their entire lives are built up brooding over hostilities toward the rich and powerful. The ones who have the means to save them, however do not. And they know just as quickly as any other why: Corporate, ruling class self-interest is more important than the interests of the many. This is the status quo of thought amongst the poor.
So to clear something up, how do I know this? Well, I’m one of them. Or was. Not only was I one of them, I was one of them for more than half of my life. My friends are them. My friends’ friends are them. Their parents are them, and their parents’ parents were them. Junkies, thugs, petty criminals, homeless, and despot.
Amidst those I know now, those Socialists I’ve conversed with, become friends with, become loyal to – I have to say the majority can be considered relatively middle class. They have no objective material factors pushing them toward Socialist politics, rather, it seems almost much more subjective, as if it were a choice they made for moral reasons. I however was pushed toward these politics for objective reasons. Not because I thought it was a good idea, rather, because I know it is a necessary idea, first hand.
When I speak to them about the poor, I have received opinions that the poor are useless, can’t be relied on (to some extent is true when talking about Socialist politics), the overall face-value of the opinion is negative – that is, until those people have to speak with those poor, despot people – and discover once again just how horrible the poor life really is.
I find the most disgusting part of it, is the negative view of the poor by Socialists. These are people the Socialist is supposed to be speaking for (to some extent). To be saying “Look! These people live this way because Capitalism can’t give them a home, or food, or clean water! It pushes people to poverty! And once there, they rarely get out! Capitalism forces people to look for ideological escapes, such as drug and alcohol abuse! It leaves us with but two enjoyments – Sex and intoxication – and even then they attack those last remaining loves!”
However, when these things are said, once everyone goes back to their lives to continue the good fight, the poor become a thorn in their side somehow. The person they don’t want to associate with. The people they dislike – not because they are scumbags, but because they just don’t help.
Well this is me saying that the poor of the world are a stronger fighting force than we all think. I understand that the only collective that can lead a Revolution is the working class, and that it is the working class we need to convince as they hold economic and political power. However – if the poorest of the poor can see uprising, and can taste change, they fight for it harder, and longer than any other. The poor are the martyrs of struggle, the poor are the special operatives of struggle, far more astute, far more militant and far tougher in struggle than most workers.
So don’t discredit them so easily. Aim to convince those of the lowest level of the same politics you would a worker.
The struggle for workers’ power is as much the struggle for the lumpen. Those of the lowest socio-economic level, not just the working poor, but the poor who have become despot and homeless, those that have become unable to access any means of subsistence. These are people who know, at the forefront of their minds, more consistently than the entirety of the working class, the destruction that Capitalism creates. Though, they may not call it Capitalism. They may call it big business, rich people, profiteers of the slums, bosses etc. Objectively, this point of view is no less than that of the Worker, the fundamental difference is that whilst Workers have a means of subsistence (though minor), the poorest of the poor have none. Their struggles are not minor struggles, minor defiance against bosses – their struggles are struggles for their lives. Their ability to exist, not even to live (as to live, you need to be able to enjoy your life – at least in this context), just to exist. Their entire lives are built up brooding over hostilities toward the rich and powerful. The ones who have the means to save them, however do not. And they know just as quickly as any other why: Corporate, ruling class self-interest is more important than the interests of the many. This is the status quo of thought amongst the poor.
So to clear something up, how do I know this? Well, I’m one of them. Or was. Not only was I one of them, I was one of them for more than half of my life. My friends are them. My friends’ friends are them. Their parents are them, and their parents’ parents were them. Junkies, thugs, petty criminals, homeless, and despot.
Amidst those I know now, those Socialists I’ve conversed with, become friends with, become loyal to – I have to say the majority can be considered relatively middle class. They have no objective material factors pushing them toward Socialist politics, rather, it seems almost much more subjective, as if it were a choice they made for moral reasons. I however was pushed toward these politics for objective reasons. Not because I thought it was a good idea, rather, because I know it is a necessary idea, first hand.
When I speak to them about the poor, I have received opinions that the poor are useless, can’t be relied on (to some extent is true when talking about Socialist politics), the overall face-value of the opinion is negative – that is, until those people have to speak with those poor, despot people – and discover once again just how horrible the poor life really is.
I find the most disgusting part of it, is the negative view of the poor by Socialists. These are people the Socialist is supposed to be speaking for (to some extent). To be saying “Look! These people live this way because Capitalism can’t give them a home, or food, or clean water! It pushes people to poverty! And once there, they rarely get out! Capitalism forces people to look for ideological escapes, such as drug and alcohol abuse! It leaves us with but two enjoyments – Sex and intoxication – and even then they attack those last remaining loves!”
However, when these things are said, once everyone goes back to their lives to continue the good fight, the poor become a thorn in their side somehow. The person they don’t want to associate with. The people they dislike – not because they are scumbags, but because they just don’t help.
Well this is me saying that the poor of the world are a stronger fighting force than we all think. I understand that the only collective that can lead a Revolution is the working class, and that it is the working class we need to convince as they hold economic and political power. However – if the poorest of the poor can see uprising, and can taste change, they fight for it harder, and longer than any other. The poor are the martyrs of struggle, the poor are the special operatives of struggle, far more astute, far more militant and far tougher in struggle than most workers.
So don’t discredit them so easily. Aim to convince those of the lowest level of the same politics you would a worker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)