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.

What does 'Revolutionary' mean to Socialist Democrats today?

Above: Austro-Marxist leader and Theoretician, Otto Bauer



Does (and should) 'Revolutionary' mean anything anymore to the Democratic Socialist Left?




Should it mean anything anymore within the ALP Socialist Left?

Dr Tristan Ewins

A comrade in the ALP Socialist Left recently rebuked me for discussing "revolutionary" politics ; and said that "thankfully" the vast majority in the ALP SL are NOT revolutionaries and that that's "the beginning and the end of the discussion thankfully".



This was my response:



"When we speak of 'revolutionary' aims not everyone is talking of the same thing. Personally I'm NOT talking about an insurrection ; armed or otherwise. What I am talking about is qualitative change ; preferably through democratic channels ; though being prepared for whatever resistance may arise against said qualitative change through democratic channels when push comes to shove. So I'm talking about what various Leftists have described as 'slow revolution' or 'revolutionary reforms'.

What would be a 'revolutionary reform'? Well the Meidner Plan held that promise for a start. (ie: an economic plan which would have rewarded workers with collective capital share in return for wage restraint ; with the consequence workers collectively would over time become the dominant force in the Swedish economy) Going back further: free, universal and equal suffrage comprised a kind of 'democratic and political revolution' which only became possible in many countries following the end of World War I - and the fear of Bolshevism.

Were we around in the 19th Century - or in the 1917-19 period , would we have fought for the suffrage ; or would we have rejected 'revolutionary' changes of all sorts as a matter of policy so as not to rock the boat?


When I talk about a democratic economic revolution I'm talking about democratic collective capital formation ; restoring a robust mixed economy ; supporting co-operatives (producers' and consumers') with state aid. I'm also talking about decisive state support for the voluntary and domestic sectors. I'm talking about going down that road to the point where 'the democratic sector' becomes dominant. And hence a pivotal shift in the balance of class forces.


I'm also talking about a 'democratic cultural and political revolution' : driven by an exponential increase in political participation and consciousness. Where there is a qualitative change (a revolution) in our democracy which takes the form of said consciousness and participation.


For Marxists the final aim is to replace wage labour with economic democracy ; and then to transition to stateless communism. I'm not a full blown communist because I tend to believe human nature is not perfectible ; and therefore I think some kind of state power (albeit democratised) will be necessary for a long time to come.


I think the suppression of wage labour (ie: typified by the exploitation of labour by capital) can be taken so far ; But at a point you run into very serious resistance from the transnational corporations and often by their state-facilitators. Look what happened to Gough ; and look what happened under Rudd re: the Mining Tax. Also there’s the problem of ‘workers exploiting themselves’. Collective capital formation (workers - and hopefully citizens - holding what collectively is a significant share in capital) is a potentially democratising force. (I specify 'citizens' as well so as not to exclude non-capitalist citizens who for whatever reason are outside of the workforce ; eg: pensioners) Hence my support for democratic collective capital formation as policy. At this point it’s a good outcome. But it also creates complexities which would be hard to resolve. So importantly I'm talking about a process - in this country and globally - which spans decades - and maybe more. The transition from feudalism to capitalism was a kind of revolution - which took maybe a couple of centuries. Why not be a revolutionary over the long run?


Indeed the Guaranteed Minimum Income that some of my critics support (and I support as well) itself has revolutionary potential - by getting rid of workers' dependence on selling their labour power to capital in order to survive. Perhaps critics are just worried some Liberal will take the word "revolutionary" out of context ; and depict us all as terrorists or the like? But where do you draw the line then? Do we stop talking about socialism as well? Do we stop talking about 'capitalism' as anything less than 'an eternal absolute'? A truly 'closed system' ; which cannot be relativised or criticised ; and with no way out?



I'm a 'revolutionary' in the sense I support not only political citizenship ; but also social citizenship and economic citizenship. That's how some Swedish radicals viewed the question interestingly enough. 'Economic citizenship' would be a revolution to democratise the economy. 'Social Citizenship' involves the extension of social rights ; including those delivered via the welfare state, regulated labour market and social wage. 'Political citizenship' WAS the political and liberal revolution. And it's not necessarily finished yet either. So what's really so objectionable about all this at the end of the day?"


Finally and interestingly: the ‘Austro-Marxists’ (arguably one of the theoretically-most-significant tendencies in 20th Century European Marxism) talked about "slow revolution" ; especially during the interwar period ; Which they meant in a very similar way in which I use the word. They were also amongst the first to theorise 'multi-culturalism' - in the context of the pre-WWI Austro-Hungarian Empire. (ie: 'what would replace the Empire?')



The idea of 'revolution via democracy' is not new or unprecedented. And Yes - if Bill Shorten started talking about it at this point then it would confuse people. I doubt it reflects his world-view in any case. But here on the relative margins we can discuss it ; and maybe we should discuss it within the ALP Socialist Left (internally) as well ; as part of a process of working out what the ALP Socialist Left really stands for these days. It’s a long struggle to rehabilitate the language and substance of democratic revolution from shallow understandings. (ie: that 'revolution' means 'violence'.) But I think it's worth it in the long run. And it is crucial that people see we're NOT suggesting a 'revolution against democracy' ; but rather "a gradual, democratic (and hopefully peaceful) revolution FROM WITHIN democracy - to EXTEND democracy.

Reform, Revolution, and Reflection

Below is a left-liberal critique from Wes Bishop on the theme of "reform versus revolution". Later tonight Lev Lafayette will be posting a radical/socialist response to that same theme. John Passant has also indicated an interest in replying by the end of the week. Please visit regularly to follow the debate... All readers on the broad left are welcome to contribute to the debate...

Recently Tristan e-mailed me with the request of taking part in a debate about the legitimacy of socialism and whether or not as a stated goal it should be achieved through the avenues of reform or the raging straits of revolution. Upon approaching the answering of this interrogative I came to several conclusions quite quickly, a process that is indispensable for a commentator. The first conclusion I drew was that I am not a socialist. Therefore, to answer the question of how best to achieve socialism is akin to asking the King of Saudi Arabia the best pathway to western style democracy. This first conclusion left me at somewhat of a loss of words, because how can an American capitalist be trusted with the answering of such a question?

As is typical with myself I put the dilemma on the backburner of my mind and let it ferment for a few days before returning. I was not disappointed. Returning to the question I remembered one of the wise lessons my former professor, Dr. Ralph Carbone, had taught me year ago. For two years I had the benefit of learning from this master of rhetoric (i.e. person who LOVED to argue). In his classes he had a fascinating way of educating people about an issue. Walking into the classroom he would announce loudly, “This side of the room your pro-[this], this side your pro-[that]!” It wouldn’t matter what subject, evolution, abortion, immigration, the nature of beauty, all of that was reduced to what side of the room you were sitting in at the time of his announcement. Quickly, people would scramble to get to the side of the room they most strongly agreed with and then the debate would be ready to begin. On several occasions I purposefully sat on the other side of the room, than that of the one I agreed with, because as I found out I could learn much more about an issue (and subsequently myself) by arguing a point I did not agree with. Time and again I would spend entire class sessions, passionately defending intelligent design (that was a treat) or the right of the state to regulate what women can do with their bodies. What astounded me the most was not the fact that I could effectively defend a view point I disagreed with but that movements and philosophies that I found and still find completely incompetent could have valid objections. This realization hit me full force when Dr. Carbone and I began going back and forth over the issue of evolution vs. intelligent design. Typically Dr. Carbone would raise a point, I would counter it, and then he would come back with another counterpoint that shut my argument down. Yet, on this occasion after Dr. Carbone had countered, I came back with another whole new point and effectively refuted his argument. Silence fell over the room as everyone turned to look at me, and Dr. Carbone contemplated for a moment, finally resorting to a fancy two step to avoid the point. I sat stunned with what I had just accomplished; I an upstart sophomore from south eastern Ohio had just shut down a fully fledged Ph.D.

The point of my inclusion of this trip down memory lane in this essay is this, although I do not agree with socialism attempting to argue its case (and how to achieve it in a society) taught me much about the movement and led me to an inevitable conclusion in answering the question, REFORM or REVOLUTION?

Put simply, revolution is not the answer, and reform is the path that should always be attempted, tirelessly and diligently. Now as an engaged reader the question naturally follows as to why this is the case? Why reform? Why not revolution? Is it not hypocritical for an American to condemn revolution, when the country all Americans belong too was born in the throes of revolt?

Again to answer it simply, no it is not hypocritical, and reform is the better path for many different reasons. First off it is not hypocritical because what the American founding fathers engaged in was a risky gambit that could have easily backfired and caused severe repercussions for generations and generations. Yet, the founding fathers were lucky, and more importantly pushed by the British to the point that revolution was the most viable solution for their people. In such a case revolution, unfortunately, was warranted, but as any quick survey of history will reveal, revolutions seldom end as well as America’s, with massive social upheavals and economic disparity being the norm instead of the exception.

Socialist that seek to enact their policies should remember this, as it is overly apparent in the western democracies that civic pathways are open to change. Granted this change can sometimes be frustratingly slow, but reform allows for something that revolution very seldom does. And that factor is the beneficial practice of clear reflection.

As the above story illustrates reflection allows for people to contemplate their situation, and their goals, learning about themselves and what they believe. Reform will allow for the enactors of policies to re-evaluate the course they have chosen, modifying it when necessary, and abandoning it when it is no longer fruitful. The members of my class that rushed quickly to their desired side of the classroom behaved much like revolutionaries. So sure where they of their paths that they felt that no further reflection was needed, no more contemplation warranted. A side was chosen, and that side was now to be defended until the end. Such is the case of revolution, for both parties involved.

For the actual merits of socialism, I will conclude with these parting thoughts-

Inside the United States today there is growing pressure to view our economic system (and the economic systems of the world) in a black and white fashion. This new dogma (or not so new dogma) reduces the world into the inaccurate description of pure capitalism, and pure socialism. In many ways this movement is a precursor to the revolutionary mentality, which pits one faction against another. Automatically, the culture of today is slapping labels on people and telling them, “Look, that person is the enemy, we need to oppose them.”

I speak on behalf of all common sense in America when I put forth the following claim, economics should never be a battleground of ideology, or politics. It should always be an objective approach to what is best for the people of a nation. There will be differences in opinion. There always are, but pretending that the States are teetering on the edge of Socialistic revolution is the same as believing that the U.S. is going to become an Islamic theocracy. Thankfully, many in my country have heeded the lesson of reform and have followed it.

Unfortunately, there are the red herring trumpeters who say Obama will make us socialist, because of the recent response to the economic crisis. However, let one thing be clear, although there is a lot of resentment in the U.S. for “socialism” in the financial and auto industries it should be remembered that the free markets asked for this government assistance. Washington did not storm the lobbies of Detroit and Wall Street; the free market came to the halls of Capital Hill seeking government aid and intervention. Socialism has won an important victory through patient reform on this occurrence because it is vindicated in the conviction that markets are incapable of regulating themselves, and that governments have a fundamental right to protect their citizenry. This tip of the hat to socialism would render from my fellow capitalist a quick condemnation that includes some benign comparison to Stalin. To this I say the following, criticizing socialism because of Stalin is paramount to denouncing democracy because of Iraq.

I stand after all of this an even more radical moderate in my economic philosophy. Although a capitalist, I am quick to denounce the drastic ramblings of Ayn Rand and state that to the contrary of what Objectivist teach, mixed economies are a sign of a viable nation and responsible government.

I have reached these conclusions through reflection, which has been permitted because reform has ruled over revolution. If a young writer can benefit from this practice both now, and as a sophomore years ago, imagine what a world full of individuals could gain from the same feat.

-Wes Bishop

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..."