State Power and the Left today

 

 

Above:  Antonio Gramsci developed ideas of ‘War of Movement’ and ‘War of Position’: arguing there was more than one road to change.

 

Dr Tristan Ewins 

 

The other day I saw another post by a Conservative trashing Marxism, and arguing that Marxism had never succeeded in practice.  In response I argued that it depends on how you measure success.  There may never have been a communist government of the sort Marx envisaged.  Some regimes were a macabre parody of Marx’s principles.  But Marx also helped to unleash the social forces which at the same time improved society, while perhaps preventing the kind of extreme polarisation that may have driven revolution.   So in a way perhaps Marx helped mobilise forces which prevented the kind of final confrontation he envisaged.  Perhaps the success of democratic socialists and social democrats in achieving reform actually prevented the polarisation which would lead to revolution. Though from the 70s onward the Left has also declined with the embrace of neo-liberalism, the collapse of the USSR, falling wages, declining unionisation, working class militancy and class identity, and so on.  In response to these set-backs most alleged Leftists chose the strategy of capitulation ; and the embrace of identity politics as an alternative to socialism.  Not to say that identity struggles aren’t important ; but they do not replace the need to have a clear critique of political economy ; and an organised and conscious working class.

 

 

 

 

In response to those who argue there is nothing of value in reading Marxist texts today, I say this: Marxism is fine so long as you don't take Marx's or Lenin's writings as a closed book. Lots of socialist democrats were also Marxists. Marxism influenced many Social Democratic countries in Europe who have been prosperous. China is prosperous but fails to meet Marx's principles on creative freedom and fulfilment. Lenin worked under perhaps the worst possible circumstances and was driven to make terrible compromises. Then much of the world socialist movement applied his (Lenin’s) ideas ''more or less straight' into situations that demanded more nuanced and situational thinking.

 

 

 

Thinkers such as Gramsci, Habermas, Marcuse - remedied this to an extent.  Meanwhile Chantal Mouffe mixes Marxism with robust liberal pluralism to base a strong theory of social change today that some call 'Post-Marxism'.  (Mouffe refers to her outlook as ‘Agonism’)  But the Marxist tradition is both deep and broad - and we shouldn't shy away from borrowing from it today. But perhaps with more respect for liberalism than Lenin had.  Because the ideology of liberalism is a kind of defence in the sense that the State’s perceived legitimacy rests upon certain liberal rights and freedoms.  When those aspects of liberal ideology recede the Left typically becomes more vulnerable to brute repression.  But at the same time it causes the capitalist state to face a legitimation crisis where it's perceived legitimacy was based on liberalism.  It 'cuts both ways'.  That said, today many workers are increasingly exploited and impoverished in line with a decline of social resistance and class struggle. In part we're to blame for that ourselves on the broad Left for reverting to nebulous 'Third Way' thinking, and abandoning class and the critique of capitalism in the rush to identity politics.

 

 

 

Though Marx himself knew his work wasn't complete, and there's still lots of value in his works we can still draw on today. And as a tradition Marxism is very diverse and broad. But indeed his works don't solve every problem on Earth ; and with the passage of well over a century many things have changed. We do have to account for this.

 

 

 

One of the key factors distinguishing Marxism from mainstream liberal democracy is the Marxist critique of the State.  Marx thought the working class had to seize state power.  Lenin, meanwhile, argued this was only possible if the previous state was ‘smashed’ ; that socialists could not successfully take a hold of the ‘ready made state machinery’ to govern on behalf of working people and those who had been oppressed.  The situation which followed Revolution was referred to by Marx as ‘the Dictatorship of the Proletariat’.  Many critics of Marx see this as referring to the literal Stalinist dictatorship which eventuated in the USSR.

 

 

 

Yet as Rosa Luxemburg pointed out dictatorship of the proletariat can be interpreted as the democratic rule of the workers ; as opposed to Lenin for whom it was the rule of the Communist Party. So 'dictatorship of the proletariat' doesn't need to mean the dictatorship of one person or party. But Lenin worked amidst a collapsing society where foreign intervention was everywhere ; and the Entente powers (Britain, the Commonwealth, and France) were determined to destroy the new government as that government had pulled out of the war. (that is, World War One) The United States and Italy had also joined the Entente.  Unfortunately the logic of the crises which followed led to centralisation in the hands of fewer and fewer people ; and the Bolsheviks turned in against themselves ; until Stalin was the only one of the old Bolsheviks who was left. (except for Alexandra Kollontai ; who became a diplomat for the ‘workers’ state’ ; and ended up as ambassador to Sweden) Engels pointed out that some authoritarianism was necessary in the midst of a Revolution – to protect the infant Communist government from its enemies.   But Gramsci pointed out that not all revolutions are the same ; and this means we should not apply the Leninist template universally.  Perhaps the Bolsheviks should have maintained the Red Army ; but allowed the Constituent Assembly to sit ; as well as the Soviets. In other words freedom - but with a backup plan. The problem would be if the Constituent Assembly tried to establish their own State ; and hence threaten sustained working class democracy.  This kind of arrangement is called ‘Dual Power’ ; where all power is not centralised in one place.  (but control of the apparatus of force can still be a decisive factor)   Also importantly: the State involves the apparatus of administration and not merely the apparatus of force.  Seeking to 'smash' the state 'root and branch' - including the apparatus of administration - could prove to be self-destructive in the final  analysis.

 

 

 

Considering the matter historically: Under immense pressure, The French Revolution descended into Terror ; and eventually Bonapartism (dictatorship) ; But this didn't cause liberal democrats to abandon their cause. Eventually they succeeded. Neither should we on the Socialist Left abandon our cause. Most importantly we need to be outspoken about our cause ; because without this we will not mobilise anyone. Without this capitalist ideology and institutions appear beyond question ; and alternatives are seen as practically unthinkable. Also we need to be principled on issues like privatisation – as hypocrisy has a demoralising and demobilising effect  , and upcoming generations of activists are thoroughly detached form the values of their predecessors.

 

 

 

Lenin was a democratic centralist ; which translated to the rule of the Party - which in turn delegated power to decide and govern between Conferences to a Central Committee. He was prepared to share power with like-minded Parties such as the Left Social Revolutionaries ; but after he suffered an attempted assassination by one of their members he abandoned this. Rosa Luxemburg was scathing of over-centralisation ; pointing out that it smothered workers' democracy ; and the self-corrective dynamics of that democracy.  The wisest Central Committee was no substitute for democratic practice. You could argue that over-centralisation was a crisis-management measure - but the problem is that the Crisis never ended. And we ended up with the personal dictatorship of Stalin. The comparison between socialists and liberal democrats stands ; because even if Lenin was an over-centralist - he did not speak for all socialists. The aim should have been to balance crisis management with workers' freedom and democracy.

 

 

 

Some liberals have a problem with forging a State which is sympathetic to the Left ; and hence not likely to resort to extreme violence against the Left.  They presume that the modern state is democratic and impartial ; and hence all the Left has to do to change society is to win a majority in Parliament.  Problem is: apply that to the Austrian instance. At the end of World War I the Austrian Social Democrats controlled the Army. They achieved a liberal democratic revolution. But after the war they gave up State power and allowed a new conventional army to be set up. As an insurance policy they maintained their own militia. In 1934 they achieved a majority in the Constituent Assembly. Immediately the Fascists dissolved the Parliament by force - and in doing so they were supported by the regular Army. For a time the Social Democrats negotiated behind the scenes. While they did this the Army raided their arms caches and arrested their leaders. Finally what was left of the workers' militia (the Schutzbund) took up arms, fortifying the public housing estates in Vienna. But they were crushed after about a week, and many of their remaining leaders were executed. Austria was under the heel of a kind of fascism – years before the Nazis occupied the country.  (The Austrian fascist regime had clerical sympathies ; and did not want German dominance ; like Franco’s regime in Spain they were repressive ; but they did not have the Nazis’ racialized Ideology)

 

 

 

The point is that unless progressive forces control the Armed Forces – or otherwise influence it towards democracy - they have no guarantee they can peacefully achieve a majority and govern for their constituents. They can allow other parties to govern, yes. But they cannot afford to allow their enemies to control the armed apparatus of State if they actually have a choice in the matter.

 

 

 

In Australia the prospect of radically reforming the Armed Forces seems unlikely.  Perhaps the best we can do is school the military in pluralism and democracy ; and try and ensure they never intervene inappropriately.  Unfortunately, constitutionalism is not necessarily enough ; as Reserve Powers can be used to undermine democracy. Such intervention is currently not likely as what passes for the Left in Australia does little to challenge the status-quo. The opportunity to radically reform the armed forces in Austria only occurred after a State collapse with the defeat of Austria-Hungary ; and over a million Austrian and Hungarian deaths in World War One.   But with no opportunity to radically reform the State, radicals always run the risk of falling afoul of it.

 

 

 

Historically, though– in the instance of Revolutionary Russia - what I'm arguing for is basically that there should have been a kind of dual power. Here, again, the Bolsheviks would have controlled the Red Army and hence that would comprise 'the last line of defense' . The Soviets would have had their sphere of influence ; but the Constituent Assembly would be enabled to do its job of representing voters as well. Though without forming a state that was hostile to the Revolution.

 

 

 

In a recent argument I put forward this view and was accused of hypocrisy.  I was accused of endorsing state repression ;  and hence having double standards on liberty.  It was held that radically reforming the State so the apparatus of force upheld democracy – including support for elected left-wing governments - led to actual dictatorship in the common sense of the word.

 

 

 

But that's not what I'm arguing. My argument is "hold on to control of the apparatus of force if you can - AS AN INSURANCE POLICY against the violent or repressive tendencies of your enemies." So THEY cannot use the state against you in an oppressive way. More generally, I'm glad for my rivals to have free speech. I'm not glad for them to have the option of using state power to repress me when things don't go their way.

 

 

 

In the Russian context, however, things were more complex ; as it was in the middle of a Civil War - and with foreign intervention ; there was the spectre of hunger and social collapse and so on.  Once you’ve accepted that the French Revolutionaries had to resort to crisis management under certain circumstances, then the same ought apply to the socialist Left in its struggles. But better still to avoid the kind of crises that warrant such tactics. Hence 'War of Position' is better than 'War of Movement'. (we’ll explain this shortly) It all ended badly for the Bolsheviks anyway.  There was a virtual 'repeat of history' as the rise of Stalin shadowed the previous rise of Napoleon.  So if you could achieve stability on the basis of a progressive and democratic pluralism that would be best. But it’s best if you can have that pluralism while progressives control the apparatus of force as an insurance policy. Importantly, the State is not homogenous.  While I am not a structuralist, the structuralist Marxist Nicos Poulantzas described the State as a ‘contested field’ ; upon which the logic of class struggle was ‘imprinted’.  The idea that the State can be contested without being left as a homogenous ‘instrument’ across its breadth and depth is a very important one.

 

 

 

This is why what Antonio Gramsci called 'war of position' is preferable to what he called 'war of movement'. In a 'war of movement' - eg: the 1917 Russian Revolution - order is collapsing and competing interests and parties rush to fill the void. In the process the struggle can become very violent. In the Russia 1917 context there was foreign intervention and White Armies besieging the Revolution.  And if Communist Parties do 'whatever it takes' there's the potential for it to end disastrously. (though in that context many feel they have no choice ; it’s easy to judge when personally you live in conditions of stability)  By contrast a 'war of position' involves a long term struggle for hegemony ; through institutions, organisations, traditions, practices, movements.  Power is gained by reaching pre-eminence in civil society - potentially through democratic processes.  And again the State can be penetrated by the process of class struggle itself.  But the fate of Salvador Allende – whose democratic socialist government in Chile was overthrown in 1973 by Pinochet with the assistance of the CIA - shows that if the armed forces are hostile it can still end in slaughter. (against the Left)   The massacre of Leftists and labour movement activists in Indonesia in 1965-1966 is an even more horrifying example: where over half a million were slain and the rivers literally ran red with blood.  The apparatus of force is perhaps the hardest part of the State to penetrate and challenge. In Australia, also, the Labor Government of Gough Whitlam was effectively overthrown in 1975 in a ‘constitutional coup’.

 

 

 

Of course bourgeois regimes don't mind wars ; and there is hypocrisy when it comes to the matter of violence. Violence might become inevitable in defence of a picket line for instance. But the modern Left has an interest in not escalating violence too far ; because it does not stand a chance against the violent power of the modern State if that state is hostile.  Or more to the point ; against the State’s apparatus of force.  Perhaps the word ‘apparatus’ suggests an instrumental outlook – which is problematic – but the armed forces can be isolated from any broader class struggle. At the end of World War One, though, the establishment of workers’ armies was possible in a context where millions of workers were mobilised in the armed forces by a horrific war which had discredited the old regimes.  And the class struggle in Australia is also problematic because class consciousness is now at an all time low following the demobilisation of the labour movement in the 1980s and thereafter.  The Left has a substantial task in front of it.

 

 

 

So the modern struggle involves taking every opportunity to reform the State ; while engaging in cultural and social struggles ; as well as civil disobedience.  This means always pushing the boundaries ; but having the wisdom not to press them too far if there is a likely prospect of overwhelming repression.   Again: escalation beyond a certain point is not usually a wise option for the Left.

 

 

 

A strong and mobilised civil society is also a defence against repression ; so achieving this is a high priority for both revolutionaries and reformers.  Perhaps the best way is a mix of reformist and revolutionary outlooks. That is: seek qualitative change ; but be prepared to achieve this incrementally.   While at the same time taking advantage of ‘watershed’ scenarios to achieve radical change more quickly.  All this involves mobilising civil society and reforming the State to contain the threat of repression.

 

 

 

This may also seem distanced from the reality of day to day politics ; but that current reality is one where progressive parties have limited power because of the threat of international capital strike ; and the Left’s marginalisation in Civil Society.  The Left has also largely abandoned struggles or – and ideologies of – radical democratisation, class liberation, and other progressive causes.   In other words, large parts of the modern Left have either lost their reason for being ; became irrelevant ; or limited themselves to identity struggles while only contesting political economy at the margins.  Again: Hypocrisy on issues like privatisation, and timidity on issues like tax reform, Industrial Relations reform, and social wage expansion – leave newer generations on the Left demobilised, disoriented and demoralised. But if the Left ever rediscovers itself, all these issues discussed here will once again burn with immediate relevance.

Responding to Kim Carr on the ALP's ‘Socialisation Objective’

 

Above: ALP Socialist Left Senator Kim Carr is right to take NSW Labor leader, Luke Foley to task for rejecting the ALP's 'socialisation objective'; But he is wrong in his apparent rejection on an 'extensive' public sector.

The socialisation objective is about more than nationalisation ; but extensive and strategic social ownership needs to factor into our plans and principles.

Tristan Ewins

In ‘The Age’ on August 9th 2015, Socialist Left Labor Senator Kim Carr provided a statement in defence of the ALP’s standing Socialist Objective.   That includes the ‘socialisation objective’ specifically which (originally in 1921) committed Labor to the following:

‘‘The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other antisocial features in these fields.’’

He also relates how in 1981

“23 explanatory subparagraphs were added to it. These set out goals such as full employment, the abolition of poverty, a more equal distribution of wealth and the elimination of exploitation in the home.”

Carr places himself at odds with NSW Labor Leader Luke Foley – for whom the socialisation objective was ‘confusing’.   Foley was beginning from the assumption that socialisation means nationalisation – and that those defending it were simply engaging in obfuscation.  For Foley Labor ought ‘say what it means and mean what it says’.   If we are about ending exploitation, then in the Marxist sense this infers the abolition of wage labour.  This is important – as is the question of socialisation interpreted as nationalisation.  And we will come back to this later- to consider why the positions of both Foley and Carr are problematic.

For Kim Carr it is the more-recent explanatory paragraphs which communicate the true essence of the Party’s Socialist Objective.  Further elaboration or reformulation are thus considered not necessary.

Some commentators have argued to the effect that these ‘explanatory paragraphs’ rendered the Objective meaningless anyway.  But before proceeding it is useful to consider specifics.  Hence the following selection from that section of the ALP Platform in question:

"c) Redistribution of political and economic power so that all members of society have the opportunity to participate in the shaping and control of the institutions and relationships which determine their lives.

"d) Maintenance of and support for a competitive non-monopolistic private sector, including small business and farming, controlled and owned by Australians, operating within clear social guidelines and objectives.

"l) Equal access and rights to employment, education, information, technology, housing, health and welfare services, cultural and leisure activities and the law.

"j) The abolition of poverty, and the achievement of greater equality in the distribution of income, wealth and opportunity.

"n) Recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights, including freedom of expression, the press, assembly, association, conscience and religion; the right to privacy; the protection of the individual from oppression by the state; and democratic reform of the Australian legal system.

"p) Elimination of discrimination and exploitation on the grounds of class, race, sex, sexuality, religion, political affiliation, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, regional location, economic or household status.

"t) Recognition of the need to work towards achieving ecologically sustainable development.

"u) Maintenance of world peace; an independent Australian position in world affairs; the recognition of the right of all nations to self determination and independence; regional and international agreement for arms control and disarmament; the provision of economic and social aid to developing nations; a commitment to resolve international conflicts through the UN; and a recognition of the inalienable right of all people to liberty, equality, democracy and social justice."

Hence the Objective is really quite extensive and substantial, and it does not restrict itself solely to socialisation interpreted as nationalisation. Indeed it could be considered both politically liberal and democratic socialist as well in the sense of advocating universal social rights of citizenship.  The promise of moving towards equality of political and economic power suggests a radically redistributive project, but at the same time there is the important (and realistic) concession in support for a non-monopolistic, competitive private sector. 

This Objective – reformulated in 1981 to be inclusive of both the Party’s Left and Right could be interpreted after the way of Nordic social democracy, with the probable implication of supporting a comprehensive welfare state and social wage; a progressive taxation system; as well as appropriate industrial rights. But there is room for improvement.  Some of these could be spelled out more clearly and overtly. And the significance of socialisation interpreted either as occurring through the public sector – or through a more diverse ‘democratic sector’ including State Aid for co-operative and mutualist enterprise – is not elaborated upon sufficiently.

Kim Carr gives the impression that he believes Foley’s proposed Objective is “tepid” and weak – and could just as easily find a place in the Platform of the Liberal Party.  After all, who today disagrees with the principle of ‘equal opportunity’ – at least openly or ‘in theory’?  Carr gestures towards the true inequality of opportunities that persist under capitalism ; for instance the meaninglessness of any ‘freedom’ of individuals to negotiate terms in the labour market – where the only real strength of workers under these circumstances – their collective solidarity – is progressively undermined and even criminalised.  He argues that this:

“is like saying that a millionaire and a homeless person have the same freedom of choice to sleep under bridges”

And for socialists ‘equal opportunity’ must mean more than ‘meritocracy in the labour market’. As the Objective insists, it must include: “Equal access and rights to employment, education, information, technology, housing, health and welfare services, cultural and leisure activities and the law.”   Socialism implies progress towards the principle of ‘From each according to ability, to each according to need’.

Sure, the Liberals make a mockery of ‘equal opportunity’ in practice – supporting privilege in Education, and proposing deregulation where quality of education would depend upon user pays mechanisms which excluded the poor and much of the working class.  Chris Bowen has also gone a bit further, arguing for equality of outcomes in Health.  Bowen’s proposal of a ‘toothless’ National Conference; his apparent opposition to a robust mixed economy; his support for a simpler (ie: in reality less progressive) tax system –  are all disappointing. But support for real equality of opportunity in education, and crucially equality of outcomes in health - comprise a beach-head for something more progressive – and so this common ground should be capitalised upon.

Hence we desperately need to commit to a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme,  Medicare Dental, and ‘closing the gap’ on life expectancy of the mentally ill – ahead of the next Federal election.

Notably: because the Conservatives are progressively abandoning meaningful commitments to political liberty and civil rights, as well as genuine and comprehensive meritocracy through a more accessible and equitable regime of Education – that should not be taken as a signal to simply opportunistically occupy the vacated political space. Aspects of Greens policy have been depicted as ‘extreme’; whereas in reality they are closer to the legacy of Whitlam, say, than we are ourselves often in the ALP today.  We cannot accept these terms of debate ; and we cannot simply move to the Right and allow to Greens alone to occupy that political terrain. The Politics of ‘Convergence on the Centre’ are really self-defeating where it occurs on the terms of our Conservative rivals, and on the terms of an Ideological monopoly mass media.

If we are truly a democratic socialist party we must not only exist for winning elections as an end in itself.  We must be about contesting the very substance of ‘the mainstream’, progressively reshaping the discourse to shift the relative centre to the Left in keeping with our values.  Antonio Gramsci would refer to the formation of a  ‘counter-hegemonic historic bloc’ – an alliance of forces through which society’s ‘common sense’ is reconstructed as the substance of democratic socialism. Again after Gramsci this could be interpreted as a ‘war of position’ – taken in our own specific circumstances as a process of laying political siege to, and contesting the institutions of civil society and the state. Culminating in the democratisation of the State itself – so that the way is unambiguously open for ‘a democratic path’ to socialism.

Kim Carr concludes his commentary by elaborating on what socialisation means to him.  To establish this we will reproduce some of his closing comments on socialisation:

“It is not about the straw man of extensive public ownership and a centrally planned economy. But it is about public entrepreneurialism, and public investment in the forms of human endeavour that are necessary to build and sustain a democratic, just and technologically advanced society.

Socialisation is about defending a just minimum wage and fair working conditions. It is about the creation and defence of Medicare, the enhancement of a great public education system, and the construction of national infrastructure such as the Snowy Mountains Scheme and the National Broadband Network.”

While Carr’s support for public education, nation-building infrastructure and ‘public entrepreneurialism’ are encouraging, he himself appears to be conceding substantially to the neo-liberal Ideology.  That is: In the sense of implying support for ‘small government’ through rejection of an “extensive” public sector.   While Foley wants to get rid of the socialisation objective because he rejects any radical connotations, Carr seems to be implying that we sidestep or reject content associated with public ownership – content which could potentially and progressively challenge the current distribution of power and wealth under capitalism. (and hence not acceptable to capitalists)  Though perhaps Carr is open to tax reform, as well as social wage, social insurance and welfare extension – all of which are central components of a democratic socialist agenda of ‘socialisation’.  Here we could do with specifics – and policy ambition.

Few today support a Soviet model of centralised state planning.  But we should not close our eyes to the possibilities of strategically extending the public sector, and engaging in strategic instances of planning.  Neo-liberal Ideology rules out public and democratic sector expansion as well as socialisation interpreted as regulation where ‘the absolutism and prerogatives of capital’ are progressively curtailed.  (see the work of the Swedish social democratic thinker, Nils Karleby) But the old socialist Ideology aspired towards progressive nationalisation – potentially over decades.  In the 1970s socialists like Stuart Holland hoped that the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy would ultimately revert into public hands.  Today, though, we could well embrace the project of a ‘democratic mixed economy’.  

The ‘way forward’ to something along the lines of ‘socialising the commanding heights’ appears to be blocked on account of the dominant Ideology, and also because of the power of Capital to obstruct reform through destabilisation, capital strike, disinformation etc.  Indeed, this can be a corrupting influence upon democracies.  Here, while the sheer political and economic clout of the biggest transnationals is a genuine threat to democracy, working people and citizens nonetheless stand to benefit from job-creating-investment, and as consumers from various innovations in areas ranging from automotive industries to information technology.  While the scale of the transnationals is in some ways threatening – and we need to frankly recognise this - the economies of scale and competition involved can have benefits in these fields. Though there are also other problems (eg: built-in-obsolescence) which might be remediable through some form of regulation.  And global solidarity of labour is necessary to prevent the transnationals from simply exploiting the poorest and least organised workers.

And yet much of the old socialism remains instructive. Capitalism can be inefficient, unstable and wasteful. It can create conditions of exploitation and human alienation.  The expropriation of a portion of the proceeds from labour by capitalists remains morally problematic even though few on today’s Labor Left will openly discuss this. For genuinely small investors (eg: other workers) dividends may comprise a fair return in the context of making a sacrifice through deferring consumption. But in the bigger picture a portion of the value created by workers is expropriated by capitalists. Workers generally do not enjoy the full proceeds of their labours. These arguments are commonly ignored simply because the consequences are potentially radical for a Left ‘on the back foot’ in a steady (decades-long) process of liquidating its own traditions in order to ‘Converge at the Centre’. Here it was really Hawke and Keating who ‘led the way’ providing the ‘inspiration’ for Blair.   We need to retain a frank critique of capitalism even if the movement towards something better has currently stalled.

But the extension of the ‘democratic sector’ - including the important ‘subset’ of the public sector -remains important despite being at odds with the prevailing Ideology.  By ‘the democratic sector’ we refer not only to the traditional public sector, but also to a multiplicity of co-operative and mutualist forms, as well as democratic collective capital formation and other like-projects, as well as self-employment and co-determination.  These democratic economic forms and strategies can mitigate or indeed end instances of alienation and exploitation.  They can result in a more equitable distribution of wealth and the power that corresponds to this; and also give working people creative control over their labours.  

Efficiencies and reduction of cost-structures through natural public monopolies can also be capitalised upon – flowing on to the private sector and making better wages and conditions, and more progressive corporate taxation sustainable.  For instance: did we really ever need two sets of mobile telephony infrastructure?  And what price are we still paying for that duplication?  Indeed, ‘competition’ in areas such as energy, transport and communications infrastructure, water – are still deeply ‘anti-intuitive’, wasteful and unnecessary.  Hence it is possible to add to the current capitalism’s survivability while laying foundation stones for something better ‘long term’. 

An extended public sector specifically can lead to many other desirable outcomes.  Socialisation of profits via public enterprises in areas like mining, general insurance, private health insurance and banking could (in the Australian context) deliver tens of billions into welfare, infrastructure and social wage programs.  And a ‘not-for-profit’ footing could enable better pay and conditions for child care and other professionals who currently face extreme exploitation. Without getting into a long debate over the labour theory of value – public sector workers could be compensated fairly – but profits would be redistributed through the social wage, investment in infrastructure and services, and in welfare.  There would be no expropriation of surplus value, here, in the traditional capitalist sense. Though the redistribution of profits could appear to some to be diluting the return to labour. (that would not be a problem for some forms of co-operative enterprise for instance)  Government Business Enterprises and public infrastructure could also be administered in such a way as to cross-subsidise in favour of the disadvantaged ; but also to enhance competition where oligopolistic collusion would otherwise be a threat.

So indeed there are many arguments in favour of an extended public sector as part of a broader project of a ‘democratic mixed economy’.   Contra-Luke Foley - Let’s defend the Socialist Objective.  But let’s not dilute it to the point where it becomes merely token or symbolic.  Indeed let’s try and improve the Objective to make clear our aspirations for a democratic mixed economy; an expanded welfare state; a reformed tax mix and an expanded social wage.  Yet as against Kim Carr’s aversion to an ‘extensive’ public sector, strategic expansion of the public sector remains important and valid, as does the spread of other democratic forms – such as co-operative enterprise – with assistance via State Aid.  Indeed, these together could comprise a ‘multi-pronged strategy’: a long-awaited Left counter-offensive against the dominant neo-liberalism.

Both neo-liberalism and the old ‘Communism’ have demonstrably failed.  We need to reject the prevailing intellectual fetish for ‘undistorted’ markets, privatisation and small government and return to the question of a democratic mixed economy with an open mind.

Nb: Several other essays on the theme of a ‘democratic mixed economy’ can be found here:

http://democraticmixedeconomy.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/what-is-democratic-mixed-economy.html

 

Some thoughts on social transformation

Below are some excerpts from a debate I’ve had at John Passant’s ‘En Passant’ blog…  We’ve been considering holding an exchange on the old debate “Reform versus Revolution”  The material is not a well-planned essay – but hopefully the points we make will spur debate.

Sincerely, Tristan

Liberal consensus, the power of wealth, counter-hegemony and strategic compromise…

In the course of struggling for change liberal consensus gives us some room to move… Participatory and democratic media are also important. In the future, possibilities will arise through revolutionised communications technology   But even despite this - the power of concentrated wealth is appalling.

 

What bothers me, though, is that some people internalise the ‘wisdom’ that radical reform must lead to disaster - as a consequence of retaliation by wealth - and the servants of wealth in various national governments.  The problem is that people can accept this – without questioning the legitimacy of the broader social and economic system…  This should appal every liberal and democratic bone in our bodies!!!

 

Swedish style social democratic corporatist compromise is not my "perfect and final ideal".  Ultimately, I hope for a more expansive program of economic democracy than has been sustained even there…  But to build an alternative based on the Swedish welfare state would compromise a victory of epic proportions!!!  Still - the struggle for justice is a long and difficult task. It is a task through which we must confront ingrained elements of conservatism deep within the working class itself. And aside from that we face a cultural sphere deeply influenced by Ideology...

Outwardly there is liberty... But with the domination of the cultural sphere by wealth - as Chomsky says - there is a manufacturing [of] consent...

The point here is that we face what Gramsci would call a long "war of position" - a cultural war for the hearts and minds of the working class; of all oppressed groups; and of all those moved to stand for justice...

In this struggle, though, there are 'peaks' and 'troughs'... And even were a majority of workers and citizens to realise the case for change: even then progressive forces may not be in a position to implement a socialist program...   

By ‘socialist program’, it is important to note that I do not refer to the authoritarian command economies of the former USSR and Eastern Bloc…  Rather I work for a liberal democratic socialism: based of a democratic mixed economy; with strategic natural monopoly, and democratic yet competitive markets.   This would include Government Business Enterprises, mutual societies and co-operatives, collective capital formation (eg: pension or wage earner funds) and social infrastructure.

In the process of working for such a program, though, we would deal not only with the resistance of the local bourgeoisie - but of world capitalism... Isolation can swiftly degenerate into Stalinism - and is not preferable...

 

Also of note: It should not be underestimated - the dimensions of the task of building a constituency for socialism... Most are (understandably) deeply immersed in the present - in everyday life – and day to day issues: mortgages, groceries, working hours and wages - dominate peoples' consciousness...  Such everyday issues are critically important.  But to challenge the "Common sense" of capitalism requires a more long-term cultural struggle…

Anyway - this is a convoluted way of putting it - but the struggle we are talking about might be such as to span decades... In the meantime it is reasonable to suppose outbursts of struggle will be met with strategic compromise... The point is to be strong enough for such compromise to be agreed to on as favourable terms as possible.

Restoring the 'mixed economy' is a good place to start... And over the course of the years we ought also fight for democratisation – as suggested before, through co-operative enterprise, public infrastructure, Government Business Enterprise, collective capital formation and the like...   

Importantly: the so-called 'final objective' is not the 'be all and end all'.... Here and now we can fight for the needs of workers, oppressed minorities. We can demand the very liberties that go to the heart of the system's very legitimation...

Contesting the dominant ideology - which legitimises the rule of concentrated private wealth - is a long term project - a multi-faceted struggle of interlocking social movements... In this process - if there are outbursts of struggle - judgements will need to be made - re: support within the state apparatus; whether those within the apparatus of force and coercion intervene on one side of another, or allow the struggle to play its course...

And of course –again - there is the spectre of global retaliation if foreign interests are expropriated without what they deem to be acceptable reimbursement... And through all this, we cannot just 'project' our agendas onto the working class and social movements... It is reasonable to suppose social movements might support a radical compromise... but maybe not as absolute a transformation as some seek...

This all being the case there will need to be periodic compromise at intervals over the decades - through the course of progressive struggles... And in this we need to contend with power in its many varied forms... Like Billy Bragg says "You can borrow ideas but you can't borrow situations..."