Values in Politics – an examination of Eric Aarons’ social philosophy

 

above:  a photo of Eric Aarons at work on a sculpture - art being another of Eric's passions

In the following article Richard Archer provides a deep assessment of the social philosophy of Eric Aarons: one of the most important figures in the history of Australian communism.  But as Archer explains, these days Eric prefers the mantle of an ethical, environmentalist and humanist social democracy.  Broadly agreeing with Aarons, Archer nonetheless insists on basing our social enquiries on actually-existing social tendencies and class forces - including the process of class struggle which continues to emerge in diverse forms in today's capitalist world.  What emerges is a picture of Aarons thought arisng from a lifetime of experience and thought - well-worth engaging with in the search for a framework for Left thinking in the 21st Century.

Nb:  There is a public meeting coming in NSW on April 14th to celebrate Eric's life and work.

The details are as follows: 

 

The Casula Powerhouse Arts Centre is hosting an event to honour Eric’s wide-ranging contributions to art, politics and political philosophy.

2:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Featuring Guest Speakers

Meredith Burgmann

– ALP and progressive left activist, and former President of the NSW Legislative Council

 

Professor Steve Keen – author of Debunking Economics

 

Drew Hutton – President of the “Lock the Gate Alliance” fighting irresponsible mining, longtime environmental campaigner, and a co-founder of the Australian Greens

 

Margaret West – artist, poet and essayist

 

Join us – and Eric – for an afternoon of discussion and celebration.

Refreshments provided.

nb also: The publisher of this blog, Tristan Ewins, has also written an extensive commentary on one of Eric's more recent works 'Hayek versus Marx - and Today's Challenges' - and that can be found here: http://hayekversusmarx.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/responding-to-eric-aarons-hayek-versus.html

Debate welcome!!!
 

Article By  Richard Archer

Eric Aarons, born 1919 in Sydney and now retired to Minto NSW, was a prominent activist in the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) and for a time its National Secretary. He was also its leading theoretician producing party documents that tackled the wide range of issues challenging not only the working class but its industrial and political organisations.

 

Later in life, he wrote a number of books covering philosophy, socialism, the environment and neo-liberalism, in particular, the conservative thinker and economist, Friedrich Hayek.[1] Eric’s mature philosophy is best captured in his last three books: What’s Right (2003) [WR], Market versus Nature: the Social Philosophy of Friedrich Hayek (2008) [MVN] and Hayek versus Marx and today’s challenges (2009) [HVM].  Philosophy for an Exploding World: Today’s Values Revolution (1973) [PEW] is an early book where values are first discussed. What’s Left (1993) [WL] is largely an autobiography.

While these books have attracted a degree of favourable notice in Australia, they have not received the attention deserved by academics and activists or, indeed, a much wider audience. This essay attempts to correct this and stimulate the discussion he and others have tried to promote – a post-socialist, post-neo-liberal understanding of what needs to be done to achieve a fair and sustainable future for all.

 

Recognising values

 

To begin with a general overview: Aarons’s life reflects a gradual move from Stalinism to a more open Marxism and finally, as the CPA itself gradually declined and came to an end in 1991, an abandonment of revolutionary Marxism – class-struggle and historical materialism – for social democracy and humanism.

 

This trajectory is marked by his commitment to investigating the truth wherever it may lead and regardless of whom it may offend. The non-dogmatic approach was derived in part from his training in science – he received a first class honours degree from the University of Sydney – but was also supported by the CPA’s own independent stance towards Moscow and Beijing. The party was one of the first of the very few communist parties to condemn the Soviet Union’s invasion of Czechoslovakia at the time. 

 

The other aspect of this journey – and the one focussed on here - was the growing recognition of the critical role human values play in affecting the way we think and act, the key lesson being if we are to change the world our values must change as well.

 

Reflecting on his ‘discovery’ of values, Aarons writes

 

“I then began to understand that unless we articulated those values and incorporated them in our everyday activity and ideological struggles, any victories we pursued would never be achieved.” (MVN, 85)

 

To take a central concern of his, the environmental crisis, we need to value the natural environment not as something to be exploited with little consideration for present and future generations but as something to be respected, nurtured and enjoyed on that basis.  Just as much as our practices must change to meet this and other social challenges, so must our values undergo reform and development.

 

As opposed to those who would concentrate narrowly on analysis, strategy and organisation to bring about change, Aarons points to the role values play and the need to focus on ensuring the appropriate ones are there. For example, moral and ethical codes or principles must be adapted to handle the environment in a sustainable fashion. In recent years, the rights and wrongs of treating animals, managing land and dealing with waste have developed in response to the effects of neglect. As one indicator, where previously companies did not report on their environmental impact, nowadays many feel obliged – though not to full effect.

 

While some would grant the role of values as obvious, Aarons sees changing values as a project in itself, requiring not only real change to the institutions and practices that express them but, especially given the magnitude of the current crisis, a broad philosophical alternative grounding the new set of values. There must be a larger theoretical framework that would draw on our experience of socialism and neo-liberalism but replace them to host the values leading us forward. On top of the social revolution, then, there needs to be a values revolution which a new philosophy brings together. Indeed it is impossible to have a successful social revolution without a values revolution and no values revolution without a revolution in philosophy.

 

The primacy of politics

 

All of this is in direct contrast to those who would see history moving on a course all of its own either in a pre-determined or spontaneous manner. An example of the former would be Marxists such as Engels and Kautsky, and, some would say, Marx himself, where the productive forces of the economy are seen as the primary drivers of history leading us ultimately to a world of plenty.
 

“Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history.”

- Friedrich Engels, Speech at the Graveside of Karl Marx.

 

An example of the spontaneity theory would be represented in the neo-liberal thought of Friedrich Hayek. Here historical development is seen as a product of the ‘natural’, spontaneous activity of individuals. Attempts by governments to impose direction on the free market can only pervert this process of growth and prosperity, leading to disaster. Essentially, the only good government is a small one.

 

Neither of these options passes close examination, but more worryingly they would lead us down a course of destruction with their blithe message of ‘it will be alright on the night’ as long as we play along with the forces and not resist them. However what guarantee is there we won’t end up in a dead planet? There is no evidence given to show that either option corrects itself before it is all too late, just faith and a hope for the best.

 

Instead Aarons sees humanity capable of taking such active control through deliberate political action. It is politics rather than economics that is primary. All of which means for careful deliberation about our options and a real chance of turning things around we need a “new Social Philosophy” (MVN, 119) that would integrate key disciplines such as philosophy, history, economics, sociology, psychology and biology. In addition to an understanding of what is practically possible, a democratic organisation and a skilled leadership we need the theoretical perspective and values to steer our ship by.

 

Aarons concedes the task of constructing that philosophy is beyond him as it is probably beyond the ability of any other individual. On the other hand, it is certainly not beyond ongoing public dialogue and reflection.

 

This dialogue occurs in many locales, within many organisations and across a range of forums – on-line, print and face-to-face, here and overseas. Debates over privatisation, commodification, discrimination, inequality, steady-state economies, to mention a few, are not hard to find. However, to provide momentum for a positive alternative and the ability to set a visionary agenda, the process needs continuous consolidation.

 

In general, what would the new philosophy contain? Aarons provides a number of suggestions in his later writings and books. The following is a summary of a few key elements. Where required, some of Aarons’ points have been expanded on.

 

Social democracy, not socialism

 

To begin with, it is not socialism, defined commonly as the social ownership and control of the means of production and with it a command economy. While sharing the values of socialism such as freedom, egalitarianism, democracy, prosperity and unity, Aarons points to the proven inability of socialist societies to realise those values. This is not to neglect the many proud achievements of socialists but instead to say the socialist project itself has failed and appears unlikely to succeed by its own standards.

 

Aarons sees two basic reasons for the breakdown, both of them endemic to socialism. The first is the absence of competitive marketplaces and the consequent inability to gather information on supply and demand transmitted by market prices. Without the instantaneous information about supply and demand for goods set in the markets and provided in prices, central planning is blindfolded.

 

To try and overcome this, an immense task is set before planners. Estimates of supply and demand must be made to decide what is to be produced - how much, of what quality, where, when and for whom - if the entire range of politically agreed individual and social needs are to be satisfied, and then for the entire stock to be priced administratively for exchange and accountancy purposes.

 

Information must be collected of future demand by consumers for final goods and services together with their quantity, quality, timing and site of delivery. Consumers include not only households but schools, hospitals, defence forces and other public institutions. Information must be gathered from producers of what current stocks they have and future requirements for the energy, material, technology, processes and labour of all forms to provide the final goods and services for consumers. Then there are the needs of distributors for the necessary transport, warehousing, outlets and labour. The list goes on.
 

Moreover, that immense amount of information however good at the time of collection rapidly becomes out of date as the supply and demand situation changes over the period of the annual plan. As Aarons puts it, “[the] labour involved in such an exercise would then be largely wasted, while in contrast market-established prices are spontaneously generated and are more or less instantly available at negligible cost.” (HVM, 24-5)[2]

 

In addition, socialist planners encountered another difficulty – the quality of the data collected. Subordinates in a centrally planned economy with bureaucratically administered state firms were tempted not to transmit the information up the line or more often distort it for various self-interested or defensive purposes, such as avoiding blame for production failures. As a result, unreliability was the over-whelming experience of data collection in socialist economies.

 

The results were inefficiencies, poor quality and shortages on a grand scale with attempts by planners and managers to cover up the difficulties and shift blame for failing to meet targets. Both producers and consumers in socialist economies found that with central planning and administrative pricing “… neither the quantity nor quality of available goods met their requirements or needs.” (HVM, 25)[3]

 

Furthermore, things did not improve with attempts to reform under Khrushchev, Kosygin and Gorbachev. Nor did they improve with experiments such as market socialism and self-management as in Kadar’s Hungary and Tito’s Yugoslavia. None of these efforts could escape the shadow of the very system they were attempting to change. The contradictions remained in a different form with the standard of living in decline. The collapse when it came there and everywhere else provided the final judgement on the socialist economic model. The people were fed up with the entire system as were the many endeavouring to operate it.[4]

 

 

The social and the individual

 

Secondly, socialism, as the term itself denotes, emphasises the social above the individual. As Aarons puts it, “[socialism] sought to promote, almost exclusively the socially-oriented side in human nature.” (MVN, 87)

 

In an obvious sense this ranking has merit. Individuals would not survive let alone develop without a society and so individuals should not threaten the very basis of their existence. Likewise if external or internal threats to society are to be tackled, social cooperation – unity – is a must. Altruism and self-sacrifice are to be valued in this respect.

 

However, the primacy given to the social also leads to a suspicion of individualism as anti-social. Individualism in this sense is associated with private property and profit-seeking or more generally with anarchy. Whereas the public or communal sphere is good, the private sphere is suspect. Consequently, individualism lives in an uneasy relationship with socialism, at best to be tolerated and at other times to be attacked.[5]

 

While there are good grounds under capital’s rule to suspect anything smacking of the profit-motive, the effect is a bias towards the social and a broader inability to accept and, more importantly, value the natural tendency of all of us to be both self and other-oriented to one degree or another. This meant that policy, particularly economic policy as demonstrated in socialist countries, ruled out or marginalised private property and markets with disastrous social and economic consequences. More generally, individual expression itself was restricted. In the course of which core socialist values were scuttled.

 

On these two scores, socialism sets itself up for failure, leading to bureaucratic and despotic rule before inefficiency, shortages and corruption trigger its eventual collapse. Aarons presents the fall of the USSR, European socialist bloc countries and the rise of China’s red capitalism as evidence of these basic flaws leading to socialism’s demise. Other explanations such as under-development, lack of a democratic tradition, ‘mistakes’, personality cults, whatever, may have contributed but the two root causes for its collapse remain systemic to socialism.
 

Economic planning and markets

 

Instead of socialism, Aarons recommends a political settlement which would see markets restricted to defined areas of the economy and regulated for the common good, in other words, a mixed economy under social democratic rule. Markets - when truly competitive – can generate real-time price information and efficient production, stimulate innovation and harness the business spirit. The resulting cheaper goods and services together with the ability to choose amongst them can benefit everyone.[6]

 

Acceptance of markets does not mean being naïve about companies or industries acting to rig the system, particularly big ones. Instead it recognises markets as social and historical creations and as such can be made to serve interests broader than those of the market-players themselves.

 

To avoid human and environmental exploitation, companies – incorporated bodies of any sort, big and small - must be made accountable as corporate citizens to workers, owners and the communities they affect as terms of the settlement. One small step in this direction would be to make the governing bodies, boards, composed of all stakeholders not just shareholders.

 

Democratic government in turn would be accountable for the design and implementation of market processes, provide the necessary infrastructure, governance and ensure outcomes met social values.  Public measures such as full employment, progressive taxation and national savings programs would build prosperity and equality, iron out business cycles while directing investment towards a sustainable future. The best, though certainly not perfect, examples of this balance of market and planning being the Scandinavian societies.

 

“… [Human] consciousness and planning will be necessary now to an increasing extent. Or, as is sometimes said, a central task today is to ‘get the balance right’ between planning and the use of markets.” (MVN, 73)

 

Aarons goes some of the way towards setting out that balance by dividing up the economy according to the degree to which government involvement is needed to ensure the common good and where markets should be allowed to operate.[7] In terms of a scale, at one end of the formal economy you have (‘fast-moving’) consumer goods and services produced for the mass market, being subject primarily to supply and demand and which in large part should be left to the market to organise. Similarly the sector producing capital goods and services for the consumer goods industries – resources, industrials, materials, for example - should be able to use the marketplace.

 

At the other end, you have social infrastructure which includes not only hardware such as utilities, housing, roads, ports but software items such as education and health that need direct government involvement or assistance of one kind or the other, for example, day-care.

 

In between these two poles you have industries like information technology, telecommunications, media, finance, entertainment where a mix is needed of direct and indirect state intervention.

 

However you cut it, a broad set of principles is required from public debate to define the common good and determine how light or heavy government involvement should be and of what kind. Those principles structure the settlement between labour, capital and the community.[8]

 

Social justice

 

As standards on which to base such a settlement, Aarons makes a number of proposals about social justice in Market versus Nature which I briefly summarise below:
 

·         Mutual respect

·         No discrimination based on identity (e.g. race, gender, age) or disability

·         Sufficient minimum wage and social insurance

·         Equal access to the law, health care, education, communication

·         Proper support and training for those disadvantaged by business cycles

·         Full employment

·         Minimum inequality in wealth and income

·         Quality of work and life

·         Intergenerational justice, e.g. the environment to be left in as good as shape or better for the next generation           (MVN, 60ff)

 

All of these deserve support and ought to be found in a Bill of Rights together with others like fair elections, access to fresh water, air, a clean environment and the right to control one’s reproductive capacities – contraception and safe abortion.

 

According to Aarons, such principles, rules or standards express more general human values which found his social philosophy – care, integrity, honour, hope, love, fairness, compassion to name a few.  Beneath the hard, prescriptive language of rights, justice and morality, lies the softer tones of human values. Being general, values provide a common ground for interpersonal relations, political solidarity and direction and the basis for cooperation with a global reach.  This insight leads Aarons to explore human values further.

 

Values

 

To return to Aarons’ re-discovery of values: it is ironic that holding the core socialist values of freedom, egalitarianism, democracy, prosperity and unity, referred to earlier, compels him to drop socialism.  Yet this is what Aarons and others like him have done.  Indeed, it was a revelation that he refers to in his books.

“I concluded … that values, particularly as they were raised to the level of a more consciously held social philosophy, were a sounder basis than simply class for developing forms of unity. Values, in principle, embraced within themselves the class consciousness on which we had put previously put all the emphasis.” (WL, 190)

 

Values as he describes them in his earliest formation “involve the whole person”, combining “thought and emotions”, “are involved in what people actually do, not just what they say”, “are not necessarily held in some consciously articulated form, but may be adhered to unconsciously or perhaps subconsciously” and finally, values “refer to the most generalised attitudes as distinct from more particular reactions”. (PEW, 30)

 

Our personal values develop from the instincts inherited as infants to be shaped by our experience of the particular settings we live in and where pre-existing social values are encountered. But as Aarons stresses, values in turn dispose us to think and act in certain ways to realise them in the world. By motivating us to fashion the world as we would prefer it to be, values – quite literally - make life worthwhile.

 

As noted earlier, all of this is in direct contrast to a Marxism that relegates values to consciousness as a more or less passive player in the scheme of things. Instead Aarons sees values as bases from which understanding can lead us to think and act in one way or the other. In his case, he says his values didn’t change when confronted by the contradictions of socialism overseas and changes to Australian society but his understanding did as the Marxist world-view made less sense. The passion remained despite the theoretical misgivings.

 

While this values-perspective of Aarons’ philosophy provides a distinctive approach to politics it also raises questions and points to areas needing development. A few key points are touched on here.

 

Human nature

 

Aarons’ concern with human nature derives from his experience of many socialists presuming that human beings could be fashioned and perfected into new socialist men and women as we are basically communitarian at heart. The social potential is there under capitalism. All that is needed is the revolution to realise our essential nature under communism. Here is Maxim Gorky in his novel Mother.
 

“They will walk with open hearts, and the heart of each will be pure of envy and greed, and therefore all mankind will be without malice, and there will be nothing to divorce the heart from reason.”

 

Opposed to this conception of human nature is the pre-social egoist of neo-liberalist ideology, the abstract individual beloved by free-marketeers who sees the world in terms of self-interest alone. Capitalism is the natural economic order, the perfect home for economic man. Ayn Rand, author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, was a popular evangelist of one of the many versions of radical individualism.[9] Amongst her quotes include:

 

“If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.”

“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”[10]
 

Just as worrying is the use to which racists, sexists and homophobes use their versions of human nature to justify discriminatory practices and elitism of all sorts.  In this case there are different types of human natures and a supposed natural social order to correspond. Social Darwinism is another variation of this theme where society is seen as a type of evolutionary outcome in which the naturally superior rise to rule over those who are weaker in nature.

 

While it is easy to see the pitfalls of appealing to an abstraction reducing us all - or particular groups - to some simple type, the term ‘human nature’ nevertheless plays a persistent role in our everyday attempt to understand human similarity and difference as well as helping us to gauge expected behaviour. ‘Human nature’ is a concept that refuses to die however much criticised as un-scientific and ideological.

 

Here, Aarons’ approach is more than useful. Look at human nature not as a simple type be it self-centred or social or pleasure-seeking or rational or irrational or power-thirsty, whatever, but as a system of different and often conflicting tendencies that we all share. That is, humanity has no single common disposition that dominates and trumps all the rest but as individuals we share a common set of tendencies pulling us one direction or the other. As discussed earlier we are neither self-directed nor other-directed but both. Collectively, we are neither the sociopaths of neo-liberalism nor the saints of socialism.

 

Having said that, the question remains to what extent are humans capable of radical change as suggested by some socialists? Is our nature fixed in certain key respects or are we completely malleable? Are we cricket balls or pieces of dough? Again the answer is both.

 

In terms of needs, we all need safety and security. We have elementary physical needs – food, warmth, water, sex, rest - as well as a set of basic psychological and social needs such as respect, self-esteem, autonomy and love. In this sense our nature is fixed. On the other hand how we meet those needs takes many forms. The ways in which people satisfy their needs, the various types of objects and activities, appears limitless. In this sense our nature is adaptable.

 

So human nature is fixed and fluid as well – but only to a certain extent. There are limits not only in terms of things available, food, clothing and shelter, for example, but the manner and degree to which our needs can be satisfied at any one time and over a period of time. In our daily lives, most of us recognise such limits without unnecessarily frustrating ourselves or risking our health and future, ‘doing the best we can with the sense we have’.

 

Undermining this, however, is the unsustainable level of environmental exploitation and pollution being driven on by consumerism, capital accumulation and population growth. Meeting the limits to growth requires reviewing not only production and consumption but distributing the burdens and benefits equitably on a global scale. It is these environmental limits and the social challenges they present that will test the limits of our human nature.

 

Aarons’ social philosophy then does not assume an ideological platform of what our true nature is nor its ideal habitat but alerts us to contending human needs and values that must be managed in ever-changing, complex situations. Needless to say no one theory of society or history is going to do the trick of understanding and solving problems all along the way. Instead a culture of listening or openness is required to develop and maintain effective, enjoyable social systems – at work, at home, in the arts, at play, in the community.

 

The ghost of Marx

To be expected, Aarons’ social philosophy represents his considerable experience of Marxism in addressing local and international developments and in particular the role of class-struggle as an explanation or the explanation of social and historical change. As Australia became more prosperous after WWII, it appeared that class-struggle had lost its sting and while inequalities remained they became bearable with an improved standard of living. The many changes in daily life such as television, consumerism and suburbanisation as well as the move towards a service-sector economy changed not only the composition of those who ‘sold their labour-power’ but their consciousness as well. The rise of social movements added to the cast of political agents, complicating matters while overseas, socialism became more and more an acquired taste. Put simply, when it came to buying Marx, you weren’t getting what it said on the tin.

 

At the same time, we are currently seeing the world economy stumbling over the contradictions of debt-funded capitalism (why not provide everyone a decent income instead?), a North-South divide that Dickens or Balzac would have easily recognised (for “third-world city”, read “slum”), a suite of global crises – water, food, oil, environment – that has doomsday science-fiction writers playing catch-up, the ‘dark’ factories of robotised manufacturing spreading everywhere, the extension of precarious employment in all its forms, and to top it off, each year, a global concentration of unimaginable wealth and power earnestly mounts the stage to preach gospel at Davos.

 

If the march of history set down in historical materialism appears obscure, class-struggle in its many shapes and sizes doesn’t. Exploitation by the owners of capital whether it is found in the details of the labour theory of value or not remains the reality if not the language of the great majority in the world today. More recently, by focusing on income inequality, the Occupy Movement brought attention to classes and exploitation on a global scale.

 

In Aarons’ case, class-analysis or some such similar understanding of social forces is by and large left to others, while he focuses on the environmental and spiritual crisis brought on by the market and its ideological companion, neo-liberalism. There is a weakness here which is exposed when we try to identify the forces and strategy for change. Where are the troops? Who is to lead the charge, how and where?

According to a values-approach, we must look to the subjective-side of the coin for the answer, those who are aware and concerned about the direction of history, who share core values. As values are certainly necessary to prompt action, this is unexceptionable and marks a start. However values are generalised attitudes, preferences; they need to be informed by analysis, understanding. Moreover, progressive values need to be developed in the general population. Values must have the required quality or intensity, and those holding them need to be organised, resourced and led skilfully.

 

All of this Aarons and others like him would agree with, yet there is little indication of where we find the tools for this job particularly when class - or something similar - is absent from the discussion. In this sense the ghost of Marx returns to remind us neither philosophy nor morality can replace social analysis. In the rush away from Marx, important instruments have been left behind.

 

For example, it was one of the strengths of the communist movement that a discussion of strategy was preceded by an identification and assessment of the social forces at play – classes, movements, organisations, technological developments, and the like – to lead to what business planners term “scenario development”.  While the algorithms of traditional Marxism may not be suitable, some such assessment must be put in its place for a political vehicle or vehicles to drive the analysis and strategy. 

 

Critically, such analysis must face the need for the world to be run on a steady-state economy. What would it look like? What would be the rules for the market and the market-players? What form would capital accumulation take, if any? What type of growth would be allowed and what should be encouraged?

 

While the mixed economy in steady-state terms could not be called socialist it would represent the best of socialist values. It would be different from anything we have experienced before, requiring distinctive social and political systems underpinned by a changed set of values. These questions are not new but were foreseen with some interest by John Stuart Mill many years ago.

“...[A] stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the art of living, and much more likelihood of it being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on."

- Of the Stationary State, Book IV, Chapter VI in Principles of Political Economy: With Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy.

 

How we transition to this and the low carbon economy of the future necessitates a clear social analysis of the type mentioned for a ‘battle plan’ to be prepared, perhaps one centring on a nation-wide project involving capital, labour and government similar in grand vision to the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme. In this respect, Labor’s ‘Clean Energy Future’ is a small but important step in the direction of such a deeper and wider transformation of society.

 

Any such analysis would also have to consider other basic concerns such as jobs and general standard of living and build from there. Environmental issues while applying to all of us form only part of the panoply of matters that are found in the world today. More immediate for the great mass of humanity are the core everyday concerns of work, pay, food, housing, health, education and family. Focussing principally on dangers to the environment runs the danger of not being to able to mobilise effectively. To build an effective unity, the links must be drawn between the traditional concerns of labour and broader social, environmental matters. Aarons’ new social philosophy is to be expressed here.

 

In conclusion, only certain aspects of Aarons’ work have been considered but in the hope that they will stimulate further reading, discussion and activity. His writings provide a human scale to social and political reform that is engaging and practical, devoid of the windy metaphysics and turgid argot of others. They certainly deserve more attention in these uncertain times.

 

---

[1] Philosophy for an Exploding World: Today’s Values Revolution (Brolga, Sydney, 1972), What’s Left (Penguin, 1993), What’s Right (Rosenberg, 2003), Market versus Nature: the Social Philosophy of Friedrich Hayek (Australian Scholarly Publishing, 2008), Hayek versus Marx and today’s challenges (Routledge, 2009).

[2] Perhaps computerised data systems somehow could be devised to update national supply and demand information on a real-time basis and then somehow automatically set prices for each and every good and service. But why bother when markets do this at no charge?

[3] The classic work detailing the problems of socialist central planning is Janos Kornai’s The Socialist System (Princeton University Press, Princeton 1992).

[4] Socialism or forms of it may provide a necessary temporary solution such as in immediate post-revolutionary situations or in wartime, but as a long term position it presents more difficulties than remedies. The modern Cuban experience is a case in point. The overthrow of the corrupt Batista regime and the nationalisation of industry and rich land-holdings enabled Cubans to establish an important measure of control over their destiny. However, even as the devastating impact of the Special Period in which Cuba saw a loss in Soviet subsidised export finance has come to a conclusion, more market-based solutions are being explored in the face of bureaucratic stagnation. 

[5] Socialists sometimes try to identify the social with the individual. ‘Under communism, the social shall express the individual and the individual shall express the social.’ This type of conceptual trick while attempting to remove the tension is potentially authoritarian for who is to decide when the individual is out of step with the social? If the individual can only recognise his or her individuality, only the social has the knowledge to recognise itself and therefore the authority to ensure the convergence.

[6] This does not mean that monopolies are necessarily less efficient than companies operating in competition. Economies of scale, for one, may be achievable by a company, private or government-owned, in a monopoly situation. This depends on the industry or economic sector where so-called natural monopolies may be found or at a particular time or conjuncture, for example, in the early stages of industrial development as Australia experienced.

[7] For the purposes here, households and civil society or the community sector made up of not-for-profit and voluntary organisations – unions, faith groups, charities, clubs, political parties, community associations, advocacy groups and the like – are not considered. The importance of households and not-for-profits to the economy needs constant reinforcement. In addition, the importance of the (financial) independence of civil society to democracy itself cannot be over-estimated.

[8] Besides indicating the level of government intervention, the scale also doubles as an index of the degree of commodification involved in every-day life, how much of our life requires buying and selling things. 

[9] The former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman, Alan Greenspan, for one, admired her from an early age, even attending her funeral.

[10] These quotations are taken from the website http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html.

Superannuation and Dividend Imputation the Key for Delivering in the May Budget

above:  Gonski is crucial for moving closer towards educational equal opportunity

If Labor wants to win in September it needs bold new initiatives – without ‘robbing Peter to Pay Paul’.  Reforming superannuation concessions and dividend imputation may provide Labor with the ‘warchest’ it needs to ‘break through;’ to disengaged voters.   Labor also needs to deliver in the immediate term as well – as voters may be sceptical of commitments only for the ‘distant future’.

 Tristan Ewins,  March 2013

As the May Federal Budget approaches and Liberal state governments increasingly move to sabotage the Federal Government’s Gonski proposals purely for political purposes – it seems increasingly likely that if Gonski is to succeed the Federal Government must ‘pick up the entire tab’.  The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) will also involve a heavy cost, and Labor simply cannot deliver without progressive reform on the revenue side.   More unpopular austerity – as in the case of Sole Parents – which saw disgust and cynicism amongst parts of the electorate – is not a viable option. And in any case it simply should not be part of the Labor ethos –‘to take from Peter to pay Paul’ – seeking to spin these matters to create only an illusion of overall progress.

Mark Kenny, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald explains how resort to superannuation investment has become a prime means of tax avoidance for high income groups.. Hence:

“High-income earners simply have greater scope to save and thus evade the 46.5 per cent marginal tax rate on income by sending it into super. The result is that what is saved on the aged pension budget through self-funded retirement winds up being less than what the superannuation policy costs in tax revenue foregone.”

(Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/for-richer-or-poorer-class-warfare-opens-on-a-new-front-20130208-2e3jp.html#ixzz2MMN0j7MX)

Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute has been one of the most determined critics of the existing system of superannuation concessions. In August last year he put the argument that while those concessions cost the public $30 billion in late 2012, they will cost $45 billion as early as 2015.  This is well in excess of the entire Aged Pension budget – which was only $25 billion in 2012.  And in 2012 $10 billion of these superannuation concessions were going only to the top 5 per cent income demographic.    Denniss has argued:  “We estimate, for high income earners, up to 60 per cent of their lump sum is actually the contribution of the taxpayer.”    http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3568235.htm

The ACTU, meanwhile, has urged the Government to target the top 10 per cent income demographic.  And were superannuation concessions revoked for that top 10 per cent group, at an estimate it could bring in over $15 billion -  enough for the government to fund Gonski and the NDIS without having to depend upon the Conservative states.  (nb: though NDIS will cost more over the years as the full program is phased in)   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/treasury/wealthy-in-wayne-swans-sights-on-superannuation/story-fn59nsif-1226572182403

Yet even as Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party condemn Labor for considering revoking concessions for some of the most privileged, they are committed to withdrawing superannuation tax breaks for low paid workers. Bill Shorten has pointed out that the restoration of a 15 per cent tax rate on these Australian workers will affect 3.7 million people, including 2.1 million women.  It could cost these workers $500 a year: which is not inconsiderable for those on low incomes.  This is blatant hypocrisy from Abbott.

See:http://ministers.treasury.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2013/002.htm&pageID=003&min=brs&Year=&DocType

So what should Labor do?  Gonski and NDIS are potentially landmark reforms which appeal strongly to Labor’s base. Withdrawing superannuation concessions from the top 10% income demographic would make these policies affordable regardless of the Liberal states’ spoiler tactics.  And withdrawing Labor’s unjust policies on Sole Parent payments could moderate the backlash from this callous and self-destructive decision.

But arguably Labor needs a more robust electoral war chest in order to ‘break through’ to a cynical electorate which has already ‘turned off’ in parts of the country. 

Another area of potential reform is Dividend Imputation  - which the Henry Tax Review considered axing a few years ago.  Dividend Imputation seeks to eliminate so-called “double taxation” of investments by providing credits on dividends.  This is fine for small investors – but should the wealthy be receiving a massive tax break as a consequence?   Especially when the Company Tax rate has been cut again and again for decades. 

Writing for ‘The Age’ Nicholas Gruen pointed out late in 2012 that the Dividend Imputation system costs the government in excess of $20 billion a year!  That being the case he went so far as to suggest getting rid of the entire system; demonstrating that the benefits of the system in spurring additional investment are minimal anyway. A spare $20 billion annually – on top of rescission of superannuation concessions for the wealthy – invested in health, education, aged care, welfare, infrastructure, and foreign aid – could work wonders!  It could also help Labor balance the budget over the course of the economic cycle without further callous austerity.  (indeed, quite the opposite!)  http://www.smh.com.au/business/dividend-imputation--20bn-for-the-taking-20120917-262h2.html

Even were the dividend imputation rate only incrementally reduced, an initial reversion to a 75 per cent imputation credit could bring in over another $5 billion; and a 50 per cent rate – argued for in the early 1990s by economist, John Quiggin, could bring in over an additional $10 billion.  

Finally,  the Greens have argued for lifting the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) rate to 40 per cent, eliminating loopholes and removing “generous accelerate depreciation provisions.”   This, they argued, could raise $26 billion our four years.   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/greens-disappointed-with-mrrt-result/story-fn3dxiwe-1226573649144

‘Doing the math’ this would translate into an additional $6.5 billion a year on average.  

Nonetheless it is quite possible that Labor has ‘done a deal’ with the miners. If so it is a fundamental matter of democracy that this ought be made known to the public. The alternative is the kind of ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’ referred to by political scientist, Robert Michels – whereby political and economic elites determine agreements ‘behind the scenes’ – cutting ordinary citizens out of the equation.  (the anathema of democracy) Yet at the same time trust is an extremely valuable thing in politics – and even if Labor has made the wrong call on any deal, it would be understandable were they to remain true to that commitment. 

The Greens are thinking of ‘holding Labor over a barrel’ over the MRRT. And ideally the tax does need to revert to its original form as intended by the Henry Tax Review.  But if this is politically impossible the Greens must co-operate with a Labor Government that makes big progressive social initiatives possible through thorough-going reform of superannuation concessions and dividend imputation.

To put all this in perspective the Australian economy today is valued at approximately $1.4 Trillion. The Gonski package – crucial for the very viability of our state school system into the future – and to the opportunities of hundreds of thousands of students - will cost about $6.5 billion a year to implement.  And the NDIS – crucial to some of our most vulnerable Australians and their families - is assumed to being going to cost at least $15 billion a year when ‘fully operational’ in 2018.  (but only phased in gradually)

See: http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2012/11/campaign-rejects-ndis-cost-%E2%80%98scaremongering%E2%80%99#

But what else can Labor do to ‘break through’ ahead of September; with the May Budget perhaps being its last opportunity to bed down such major initiatives?

For a long time this author has argued for reform of Aged Care.  It is an issue that effects many of us. Even the younger among us will have family who may need care in the future.

The unnecessary acuteness of suffering experienced by many aged Australians is a matter of national shame.

For those needing low-intensity care there must be high quality, affordable options available.  The  2012-13 Aged Care Reforms proclaimed the end of  'Living Longer. Living Better.'  This must include those with low care needs as well as those needing high level care.

Residents in high intensity care need privacy – they need their own rooms if they so desire.  They need heating and air-conditioning, dental care, facilitated interaction, quality food, and ‘changes of scenery’ - perhaps including access to gardens.  In the future some of those who remain alert and in need of mental stimulation could do with access to information technology.   There are also problems with staff to patient ratios, including a need for more registered nurses.

More generally there is a need for more robust career paths for aged care workers; with better training being complemented with better wages and conditions.  This will also improve the quality of care experienced by aged residents.

For those older Australians wanting to stay at home – and well enough to do so –  there is a also need for regular interaction to ward away the loneliness from which so many suffer. And Families and Carers also need additional support in order to make home care viable.  Staying at home is only an option for many with significant support, and the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association has long argued support services here are under-funded.

A minimum additional annual $5 billion devoted to Aged Care would be a start (though certainly not the ‘final word’) in working towards these ends; while also beginning a phase-out of user pays mechanisms that hit average and working class families. Working class and middle income Australians should not be forced to sell their family homes (using the equity in the home - even incrementally,) with an effective regressive ‘flat tax’ in order to secure care for their loved ones.  All the more so while there are massive tax breaks for quite wealthy Australians that go into the tens of billions

The NDIS will care for some of our most vulnerable – but not all of them.  Care for the Aged is just as crucial.

In order to ‘break through’ to cynical Australians who have ‘switched off’ from Labor, the government needs big initiatives that capture the public’s imagination. The government needs to mobilise the welfare sector, labour movement and other social movements behind it with a raft of measures unprecedented in our time.  Yet another dilemma is how to find ways of actually delivering to the public between now and September in such a way as to avoid cynicism about ‘distant’ promises. 

By withdrawing superannuation concessions for the wealthy and reducing dividend imputation Federal Labor can amass a very substantial war chest.

One thing is clear.  Without substantial reforms bringing in the revenue for the coming May Federal Budget Labor will be left with very limited options.  ‘Business as usual’ will not win Labor the election.

The Policy of the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association can be found via the URL below;  They generally lead the way in campaigning for the rights of aged Australians, including those in need of care:

http://www.cpsa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41&Itemid=82

Reflections on the democratic Marxism of Karl Kautsky

above:  A lithograph of the 'Red Pope' Karl Kautsky

What follows is an essay which attempts to identify the defensible and valuable legacy that the democratic Marxist Karl Kautsky provided for the Left during the pre-1914 period.  It is largely based upon a reading of his seminal ‘The Road to Power’. (1909)

 

The author further attempts to discern what ramifications Kautsky’s works during this period might have also for the current day – around 100 years later.

 

The following essay also compromises a brief, edited segment (in-progress) of the author (Tristan Ewins’)  (as yet uncompleted) PhD thesis on Third Roads and Third Ways on the Left 1848-1948.  

 

Debate is very welcome!!!

Work-in-Progress;  Tristan Ewins Feb 2013 

There are many themes addressed in Kautsky’s work that provide the basis for a defensible legacy; and others that are perhaps less defensible.  This brief essay is mainly derived fro a reading of Kautksy’s  1909 work ‘The Road to Power’, with some consideration of ‘The Erfurt Program’ (The Class Struggle), as well as ‘On the Morrow of the Social Revolution’, and “The Social Revolution’. (1903)  However we do not draw here upon Kautksy’s seminal debate with Lenin which occurred following the 1917 October Bolshevik Revolution.  (including Kautsky’s ‘The Dictatorship of the Proletariat’; and Lenin’s “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky’)

 

In Kautksy’s favour it is to be noted that Materialism and determinism are still widely considered respectable philosophical positions: and Kautsky is quite radical and unyielding in his adherence to such a perspective.  And yet intuitively that position remains problematic – as how could consciousness and will arise out of a purely material (ie: mechanical) process?  Herbert Marcuse had dared to posit a ‘great refusal’ of the most marginal and oppressed as creating a new historic agent for revolution.  The idea that such minorities could lead a revolution is suggestive of a radical voluntarism. And yet liberal capitalism has – to a significant degree - again ‘adapted’, co-opted and neutralised these elements.

 

It is probably fair to argue that (from a Marxist perspective) ‘something went wrong’  in the evolution of capitalism -  such that the system evolved in a way which neutralised the very critical elements it had given rise to: the enlightened and revolutionary working class who – according to Marx and Kautsky - were supposed to be the system’s ‘gravediggers’.  The question, here, is whether Kautskyan determinism and materialism are helps or hindrances under such circumstances.  Critical theorist Theodore Adorno would have it that a capitalist ‘culture industry’ lulls and deceives us into passivity; and decades since he made such observations psychological manipulation via mass culture appears more pervasive and powerful than ever.  In addition to that, the decline of mass factory labour – the phenomenon of ‘post-industrialism’ – also contributes to the demobilisation of the working class, and the decline of a distinct class consciousness.

A Kautskyan (pure materialist) outlook might hold the position to hopeless.  Again: this might begin to look like “a bad totality with no way out”. (Beilharz)  And yet again: perhaps the new information technology provides the material basis for ‘levelling the playing field’ somewhat in the contest of ideas.  And a moderate voluntarism – which accepts our grounding based on experience, but holds some prospect for the human imagination and for collective free human will, might suppose these provide a ‘potential way out’.  Kautsky would reject suppositions of free will and unbound human imagination. But perhaps he would appreciate the new technology as a ‘material grounding’ for hope; and for ‘asymmetrical political struggle’. 

 

And it is also notable that relative abundance creates ‘new’ (ie: relative) needs.  While Kautsky foresaw limits to social education in his own time, today there are the material means to provide education not only for the labour market, but for active and critical citizenship, and for well-rounded human beings.  The question of whether workers and citizens can be mobilised around the defence of ‘newer’ established rights (pensions, leave, education, health); or even inspired to fight for new social conquests (eg: a standard 32 hour week) is an open one.  Perhaps there is no guarantee of success as much as there is no guarantee of failure.  Kautsky found it difficult wrestling with the prospect of uncertainty in response to Revisionism.  But today radicals face the imperative of fostering hope even without the old teleological certainties of the old Marxism.

 

The question of ‘economism’ versus ‘political socialism’ is also interesting to approach in light of Kautsky’s work. Kautsky is often accused of ‘economism’ for his insistence – following Engels – that the ‘economic base’ determines the cultural and political ‘superstructure’ ‘in the last instance’ – but with ‘relative autonomy’ during the interim.  Indeed, Marxism itself is often more broadly accused of ‘economism’ by comparison with ‘political socialism’.  Perhaps it is this important qualification (re: relative autonomy) which makes the Kautskyan position more nuanced than is commonly supposed.  Interestingly, Kautsky maintains the distinction between trade union and social democratic consciousness precisely because the struggle over wages and conditions alone is not enough to resolve capitalist contradictions.  Insofar as the State provides an obstacle, the precondition for transforming the economy is the political transformation of the State – and hence the economic and the political struggle are necessarily intertwined.   But undoubtedly Kautsky does underplay the importance of political, religious and cultural motives driving great struggles, and largely reduces those struggles to the context of the class struggle and evolving mode of production.

 

In a world today where the very idea of class struggle faces stigmatisation Kautsky is adamant that not only that the working class must struggle; but that the antagonisms between it and the bourgeoisie cannot be resolved except for revolution.  Antagonism is a recurring theme for Kautsky in the context of a presumption of class struggle: placing him in stark relief as against modern social democratic ideologies that seek social peace based upon social amelioration.  Again: here revolution for Kautsky did not mean ‘violence’, ‘chaos’, ‘insurrection’ – But simply qualitative change; the achievement of a new constitution one way of another (preferably through non-violent class struggle) with the consequence of a democratic state, and a democratic economy.  Kautsky allows for the possibility of gradualism in the social revolution as also supposed by the reformists, but stands firm on the qualitative nature of the change he is pursuing for the State and the economy.  And given his assumption of the State’s class nature, he sees political revolution (ie: the proletariat achieving a dominant position within the State) as the necessary prerequisite for such qualitative change.  Though we might suppose that the very process of the working class ‘achieving a dominant position in the State’ could also comprise a struggle lasting decades.  (or in a fashion contrary to Kautsky’s optimism, indeed we may now question whether we will ever reach that goal)

 

Modern ‘Third Ways’ dispute the need for ‘revolution’; indeed the bulk of third way theorists and practitioners today would consider the very idea ‘absurd.’  Indeed they largely abandon any radical redistributive agenda – arguing for social and economic ‘inclusion’ as the means of conciliation.  In practice this means amelioration for the most marginal and oppressed.  And indeed the corresponding policies matter a great deal to the excluded, the impoverished, and the marginalised themselves.

 

But the logic of capitalism is generally towards greater intensity of exploitation, and conciliation must also mean lasting peace (ie: an end to Imperialist war) if it is to be substantial.  Rather Kautsky looks towards a socialist future where there is universal conciliation and social peace – not on the basis of a compromise settlement – but on the grounds of the elimination of the antagonisms caused by exploitation, capitalist contradictions and Imperialism. 

 

But Kautsky’s confidence  for the future seems to have been misplaced in retrospect.  And Bernstein’s endeavour for partial conciliation based on universal citizenship, and social as well as liberal rights - could form a bulwark against violent ideologies.  (eg: fascism)  Yet citizenship does not end the class struggle.  Rather it establishes a framework and a foothold for that struggle – which can prevent an escalation into ever greater violence and repression – and hence the corruption of the very emancipatory ambitions which drive socialist movements. 

 

But this does not exclude great struggles between great social forces.  It has been argued that the corporatist structures that ultimately developed in Sweden are notable as they effectively transposed the class struggle to a different (institutional) level.  This has been theorised at length by Swedish sociologist, Walter Korpi in his ‘Power Resources’ approach. 

 

Here, though, Kautsky’s vision of such great struggles seems well adaptable to a Gramscian vision of ‘wars of position’ – waged over the course of decades through the various strongholds of civil society.  Although the promise of social peace has great appeal for many; and can provide the vehicle for reform agendas – albeit agendas which do not involve the definitive resolution of capitalist contradictions.  Provisional ‘settlements’, here, are important in the context of such organised class struggle spanning decades.  But in a world where the ‘teleological guarantees’ of the old Marxism appear discredited a ‘historic compromise’ which provides dignity and security, and environmental sustainability – would certainly be a step forwards.

 

But this brings us to the theme of imiseration and class bifurcation.  Here Bernstein appears to have been largely vindicated.  Exploitation – in the sense of surplus extraction - has become more and more intense – but technological and productive advances have created relative abundance even amidst gross and unnecessary waste.  The issue of environmental sustainability throws this state of affairs into question, but nonetheless there is now the scenario of relative prosperity even amidst more and more intense exploitation.  (although shifts in the world economic order may change this so far as the West is concerned) Yet class bifurcation does remain a  tendency; a tendency which operates alongside different tendencies towards social differentiation, and the re-emergence of ‘middle’ or ‘intermediatory’ classes in different forms as capitalism revolutionises and modernises itself constantly.

 

In retrospect the very idea of a Marxist theoretical orthodoxy suggests a position which is closed to adaptation in response to evolving circumstances.  Though Kautsky himself would probably point to the materialist conception of history: and argue that in that theoretical approach there already existed the framework and means necessary for adaptation.  Kautsky’s supposition of ever greater economic crises appeared to have been vindicated with the Great Depression; and yet he also failed to predict the rise of fascism – emerging from the same crises he had presumed would usher in socialism.  This raises the question:  was there a problem with the materialist conception of history, or was it merely the way it was applied by socialist theorists?   Various theorists (Steger, Berman etc) have argued that Kautsky’s materialist determinism was a recipe for passivity with its assumptions of ‘inevitable’ change.  As we have already considered, therefore, perhaps a position between radical determinism/materialism and radical voluntarism is most appropriate – recognising limits to the individual will; but holding out hope for human agency, and the motivating assumption that “yes, we can make a difference”  Or in other words, following Berman ‘structure and agency condition each other’.

 

And yet if ‘orthodoxy’ means fidelity to enduring principles and concepts, Kautsky has left a defensible legacy in his own defence of the insights of Karl Marx.   Tendencies towards monopoly, intensified exploitation, alienation, crises of overproduction and the correspondingly desperate attempts to expand the world market, class struggle, falling rates of profit,– all remain with us today as by-products of modern capitalism.  And the ‘secret’ of surplus value – identified by Marx and popularised by Kautsky – still implies in its functioning a devastating moral critique of capitalism; while also comprising the means of capitalist systemic reproduction. 

 

If ‘revisionism’ takes not the form of necessary adjustment to changing circumstances, but rather abandoning crucial insights for the sake of ‘intellectual fashion’, then perhaps there is something to be said for ‘orthodoxy’.  Kautsky’s championing of enduring Marxist concepts and categories therefore remains a defensible legacy even today.  Though nonetheless it would be fair to suggest that the Marxists of Kautsky’s time could not possibly predict the future trajectories of modern capitalism’s development.  Some basic, vital systemic dynamics – as identified by Marx and promoted by Kautsky – remain. (as we have just observed above) But in other ways capitalism keeps evolving, adapting, mutating – surviving where Marxists assumed socialist transition was necessary, ‘inevitable’; for Kautsky “the only thing possible”..

 

Writing in opposition to “the violence of Austrian anarchists” (we observe, here, the philosophy of ‘the propaganda of the deed’, the policy of assassinations etc)  Kautsky once wrote;

“Social Democracy is a Party of human love, and it must always remain conscious of its character even in the midst of the most frenzied political fights”. (Kautksy in Steenson, p 80)

 

In his biography of Kautsky, Steenson depicts a man “very sensitive to human suffering”; the kind of man who fought for the rights of unwed mothers and their children and condemned the hypocrisy of those who separated them, institutionalising the children. Kautsky’s concern for human suffering was not merely abstract.  Steenson relates that this disposition of Kautsky’s was later to “cause him to baulk in the face of  the apparent necessity for revolutionary violence.”  (Steenson, p 80)

 

Kautsky’s position on violence was especially important given  the era of ‘War and Revolution’ which was to follow the publication of his seminal ‘The Road to Power’.

 

But that would involve a deeper assessment - beyond the frame of this short excerpt from my developing PhD thesis. It is enough for now to note a complexity in Kautsky that is often unrecognised in works condemning his “passivity” – stemming from his philosophical materialism. ‘Fatalism’ was sometimes a consequence of Kautsky’s interpretation of historical materialism.  But in practice no man did more than Kautsky to popularise Marxism in the pre-1917 period.  Rather than ‘writing Kautsky off’, perhaps it is better to let  him speak for himself.   And while we have not quoted him at length in this excerpt, it is to be hoped I have provided an accurate impression of his work, and that work’s relevance – especially those works of the pre-1917 period.   (though his later works were of equal historical imporantance…)

 

Bibliography

Kautsky, Karl  “The Class Struggle” (Erfurt Program),  The Norton Library, Toronto, 1971

 

Kautsky, Karl “On the Morrow of the Social Revolution”, The Twentieth Century Press, Clerkenwell, 1903

Kautksy, Karl, “The Road to Power – Political Reflections on Growing into the Revolution,  Humanities Press, New Jersey, 1992 

Kautsky, Karl  “The Social Revolution”, The Twentieth Century Press, Clerkenwell, 1903

 

Sheri Berman on ‘Democratic Revisionism’ and interwar Social Democracy

 

 above:  Sheri Berman's 'The Primacy of Politics'

 

The following is an engagement with Sheri Berman's book on European Social Democracy and what she calls 'democratic revisionism'.  The question of relative independance of the political sphere from the economic base is considered in depth; including the 'mututal conditioning of structure and agency upon each other'.  There are implications for Australia as well: notably the potential for progressive parties to mobilise against the 'veto' of capitalists on public policy. But at the same time - even while acknowledging the potential of democratic socialism,  the reviewer (Tristan Ewins) argues that the power of this 'veto' should not be understated.

 

Tristan Ewins

Jan 3rd 2013

 

In her work “The Primacy of Politics”, political scientist Sheri Berman compares what she refers to as “orthodox Marxism” with “democratic revisionism”, starting with Eduard Bernstein, but ultimately finding expression with Western social democracy.  Swedish social democracy is seen to have been the most successful instance; enjoying a hegemonic period spanning decades and a legacy that remains vital today. 

 

Berman’s book deals with a number of opposing and mediating themes.  Marxian  historical materialist determinism (with its alleged implication of political and economic ‘passivity’) is contrasted with what Berman sees as an economically activist and politically voluntarist disposition on the part of ‘democratic revisionism’.  Radical and revolutionary negation emerging from the logic and spirit of class struggle – and based on the interwar “Marxist orthodoxy” -  is opposed to reformist agendas based on class collaboration and conciliation.  Working class internationalism is contrasted against the promotion of ‘national community’ and ‘national solidarity’. Swedish social democracy in particular is praised for making that ground – of national community and solidarity – their own – effectively denying it as a rallying point for the Swedish far right. 

 

Here, ‘orthodox Marxism’ is held by Berman to be consistent with the perspectives of those such as Kautksy, Rudolf Hilferding, Otto Bauer and other Social Democratic politicians during the interwar period. (for instance, Leon Blum)  Emerging with Kautsky’s popularisation of Marxism in the late 19^th century, this perspective remained influential for many European social democratic parties through the immediate post-WWII period. 

 

Again: according to Berman, the ‘orthodox Marxist’ viewpoint was marked by belief in class struggle; a fatalistic and passively-inclined materialist and economistic determinism; and hence the downplaying of the potential for political action to shape economic outcomes.  Hence Berman notes how Leon Blum in particular distinguished between “the ‘exercise’ and the ‘conquest’ of power”; (Berman; Pp 100- 101)  Apparently this is meant to be another example of orthodox Marxian ‘passivity’.  And we have observed in earlier chapters how there is at times some substance to this charge – eg: in the Kautskyan notion of social democrats being history’s ‘midwives’ rather than history’s makers.  (ie:  revolutionary; but not revolution-making) 

 

And yet perhaps Blum’s distinction is useful after all.  Berman pretty much rules out widespread economic socialisation – depicting it as ideological and of little practical value.  But perhaps the reality, here, is self-containment on the basis of a presumed effective ‘capitalist veto’ on the economic policies of social democratic governments. 

 

Hence there is more to the ‘conquest of power’ that an electoral majority.  There remains the challenge of overcoming resistance to democracy embedded in the state apparatus of force; of the cultural “fortresses and casemates” spoke of by Gramsci; and the power of global capital – with the threat of capital strike, economic destabilisation etc.  In modern capitalist liberal democracy there has even developed a kind of “double-think” – an Ideology of democracy existing alongside open recognition of the effective ‘veto of capital’.   (although the Nordics certainly show that even in this context there is room to move if labour organisation is strong enough)

 

By comparison with the ‘orthodoxy’, however, Berman posits a specific and unique social democratic ideology – what she calls “democratic revisionism” – based on economic and political activism: rooted in “the primacy of the political”.  For Berman modern social democracy is synonymous with this “democratic revisionism”, and not with the Marxist orthodoxy which was ultimately outflanked on both sides – by revisionism on the Right and radically voluntaristic Bolshevism on the Left.

 

For Berman the Marxist orthodoxy failed at the crucial moment; that is, the interwar period, including the Depression and the rise of fascism.  Berman depicts ostensibly Marxist Socialist parties – in the tradition of the pre-WWI International - resigned to the inevitable ‘working through’ of capitalist contradictions to the point of revolution; as opposed to a struggle to significantly ameliorate human suffering within the framework of capitalism itself. 

 

Berman provides a host of examples to illustrate her point, but here we will mainly concern ourselves further with the experience of Swedish social democracy in the inter-war and immediate post-war period.

 

Berman depicts Socialist parties – in the interwar and immediate post-war period – as imposing upon themselves an “ideological purity” for which practical action for the sake of their constituencies were forsaken.  In defence of those ‘orthodox’ elements, however,  it is worth noting that it was in their efforts to avoid opportunism, and hence the disillusionment of their working class base,  that social democratic parties in the ‘orthodox’ tradition tended to avoid cross-class collaboration and compromise. Especially, for this reason they avoided taking part in coalition governments with bourgeois parties. This practical consideration was at least as powerful as any yearning for “ideological purity” – and critiques of Marxist social democracy need to allow for such motives.
 

Yet it is true that in his time Kautsky himself adopted a quasi-“mechanistic” Marxism which, while recognising “willing” human beings (but not ‘free will’), nonetheless discerned a nexus between universal suffrage and the rise to dominance of the industrial working class. Indeed, this was a nexus which – it was assumed – rendered socialism inevitable – assuming the prerequisite of a democratic political revolution.  Yet Kautsky’s very emphasis on the necessity of political revolution dispels Berman’s (any many others’) effective accusation of bland and undiluted economism, even though the ‘orthodox’ did suppose the primacy of the economy ‘in the last instance’.

 

And yet in the crucial interwar period Berman has a point that economistic fatalism could only play into the hands of the fascist enemy.  Where liberals and socialists ought have compromised with practical economic action in the face of Depression, ‘political stalemate’ saw desperate and bitter Germans turn instead to so-called ‘National Socialism’. As Berman argues, in Germany and Italy it was fascism that took up the mantle of economic activism, as well as ‘class-transcending’ and collectivist visions and rhetoric of national community.  But by contrast when Swedish Social Democrats took the ground of “national community”, cross class solidarity and economic activism, it was they and not the fascists who emerged triumphant.

 

As we will see, Berman appreciates the role of Ernst Wigforss – the Swedish politician, self-taught economist and political scientist, in ‘anticipating Keynesianism before Keynes.’   Berman further looks to Wladimir S Woytinsky and the German unions during interwar/Depression period – who also independently (ie: before Keynes) came up with a plan to stimulate the German economy; creating “socially useful” work with “competitive wages”.  Berman contrasts Woytinsky’s plan for “deficit financing” and economic stimulus with the “full-fledged ‘socialist’ strategy adopted by the SPD Left – in the form of a plan devised by the Austro-Marxist Rudolf Hilferding.  (Berman, p 112)

 

As Berman observes; Hilferding’s plan rested on moves towards economic planning and socialisation; including “nationalisation of banks, insurance…, key industries, [with] state control of monopolies, the expropriation of large estates; a shortened work-week; work sharing; and a limited work-creation program financed through increased taxes and a forced loan.” (Berman; p 112) 

 

But for Berman apparently Hilderding’s approach comprised an example of the ‘orthodox viewpoint’ of class struggle and economic socialisation – a vision which failed to address peoples fears or “stir their imagination”.  (Berman, pp 114-115)
 

Yet Berman’s characterisation could just as well be turned in the other direction: that the non-socialist parties would not compromise and actually deal with the Depression in a rational and necessarily socialist manner.  The visions of Wigforss and Woytinsky, here, resonate with our relatively vivid historic political memory of the social-democratic Keynesian ‘golden age’.  But the democratic socialism of Hilferding was never given a chance.  We will never know, now, what its outcome in Germany would have been.

 

Despite this, however, Berman tellingly observes an “orthodox” Marxian social democratic mainstream ‘caught off guard’ in Germany by the rise of fascism in response to the Depression. Crisis they had anticipated: but fascism they had not anticipated. As expected, class struggle intensified with the Depression.  But the lure of Nazism proved more powerful than the appeal of both the SPD and of the Communists; and in 1933 the Nazi vote had risen to almost 44 per cent.  ( Pp 109-111) and see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

 

Either Hilferding’s approach or Woytinsky’s approach may have significantly ameliorated the life experiences of impoverished and fearful Germans. But Berman effectively argues that it was Hitler’s playing upon humiliation, bitterness and desperation in the context of an appeal to national community, ‘belonging’ and solidarity that proved decisive.

 

The lesson suggested by Berman is as with the title of her book: “the primacy of politics”; of the power of the political imagination; of political mobilisation, strategy and action – as compared with what she calls ‘fatalistic doctrines’. (ie: specifically, the Marxist “orthodoxy”)   Hence the difference between Germany’s turn to fascism and Sweden’s turn to social democracy was to a significant degree a matter of subjective Swedish social democratic strategy and tactics. 

 

Berman is a voluntarist: but a democratic one – unwilling to embrace what Steger has referred to as “the extremes ends and means calculations” embraced by the Bolsheviks.

 

And yet Berman’s voluntarism is not unqualified.  As she concedes towards the end of ‘The Primacy of Politics”:
 

“Those who study Ideology tend to focus on either agency or structure.”  

 

Yet in reality

“structure and agency work together to shape the development of ideologies….”   (Berman: pp 201-203) 

 

As individuals we have free will: including the potential to come together collectively; to organise politically to reshape national economies – and ultimately the global economy. Indeed, this was the hope of Marxist Social Democracy,  and of Berman’s ‘distinct’ and ‘political’ Social Democracy. (ie: of post-war Western European and Nordic Social Democracy)  But this is no mean feat.  Capitalism as a supra-individual, supra-national phenomena develops its own logic – much of which was identified by the Marxists who Berman rejects.  Structure and agency condition each other.

 

Again we return to the arch-revisionist Bernstein who Berman herself sees as the originator of “democratic revisionism.”  Hence we reproduce this crucial quote from Bernstein again:

 

“The fall of the profit rate is a fact, the advent of over-production and crises is a fact, periodic diminution of capital is a fact, the concentration and centralisation of industrial capital is a fact, the increase of the rate of surplus value is a fact.”   (Bernstein, Pp 41-42)   

These phenomena – observed by Bernstein – remain in the logic of capitalism and the processes of its ongoing systemic reproduction. Social Democratic counter-cyclical demand management helps ‘iron out’ the business cycle; and where they remain robust welfare states protect the vulnerable from the ravages of capitalism in the context of relative abundance even amidst great waste.  And yet capitalism remains wasteful, unstable, undemocratic and unjust.

 

Berman observes of modern social democracy: that it started with Bernstein and other like-minds - who claimed to revise Marxism – but ultimately “Social Democracy represented the final and full severing of socialism from Marxism.”  (my emphasis) (Berman, P 200)

 

This ‘severing’ is presented as some great victory; some triumph; a “liberation”(!)  But perhaps the rejection of Marxism has become just too fashionable. 

 

There is an objective need for a distinctive social democratic ideology. Distinct, that is, from revolutionary Marxism; occupying the relative ‘Centre-Left’ – of well-intentioned social reformers; armed with what Berman called a “democratic revisionist” critique of capitalism; of those willing and able to reform capitalism and ameliorate the suffering of the oppressed in the here and now.   And contra Berman’s apparent dismissal of the strategy of socialisation, historic social democratic mixed economies provide an object lesson in how a ‘hybrid economy’ can meaningfully aspire to – and to some degree achieve – ‘the best of both worlds’. 

 

Also a more radical and modern variant on this theme this could potentially provide the benefits of a mix of co-operation and planning; of competition and ‘free markets’; including the role of natural monopolies and the place of a democratic mixed economy in righting market failure (including the current European Depression and European/American debt crisis),  alleviating alienation and injecting democracy into otherwise plutocratic economic regimes. Crucially, there is a need to break out of a neo-liberal capitalist paradigm for which systemic imperatives of growth and profit-maximisation have been decoupled from questions of the ‘Life-world’ (Habermas)   Hence, for instance, the capitalist drive to raise retirement ages even in the midst of relative abundance.

 

And yet mainstream Social Democracy has widely become so technocratic and opportunistic that it can no longer inspire or mobilise.  There is talk of a ‘Centre-Left’: but what does that mean today?  There are appeals to class reconciliation – yet while this can provide a powerful rationale for a universalistic welfare state (eg: Sweden) so often this is but a veil behind which follows the disenfranchisement of workers and the oppressed. 

 

In the past (For instance in Australia with the ‘Accord’ process) there has been a kind of corporatism – which originally had potential, but ultimately included the organised working class only during its period of decline; containing and co-opting it during the crucial period of neo-liberal transformation . There is deregulation of labour markets in the sense of protections: but intensification of regulation in the sense of denying industrial liberties and rights.  The welfare state and progressive and corporate taxation are wound back and the vulnerable stigmatised and vilified. All these can be construed as a kind of ‘corporate welfare’ - assisting in the process of intensifying the rate and intensity of exploitation to restore profits.  And again these developments are consistent structural imperatives in capitalism – enforced globally with the complicity of the great existing and emerging world powers.

 

In response to these developments it must be observed, therefore, that there remain criticisms of capitalism arising from the Marxist tradition - suggested by Bernstein himself many decades ago – which remain as accurate as ever – but which are widely considered ‘unspeakable’ because of the power of dominant Ideologies and their sweeping dismissal of that Marxist tradition in all its great diversity. 

 

Berman is right that structure and agency interpenetrate however.  A social democracy which borrows from Marxism in both its moral and structural critique of capitalism; but which maintains a voluntarist sense of the potential for political strategy and political will – is also necessary today.  Indeed – the political and economic demands of the modern day require a plurality of social democracies; and in this vision there remains a place for the insights of the broad Marxist tradition as well as distinct positions on today’s strategic and relative ‘Centre-Left’.  Certainly ‘Marxism’ does not hold all the answers – let alone the “revolutionary Centrism” of about a century ago.  But the Marxist tradition in all its great plurality deserves a rigorous and critical reassessment – discerning those insights which hold weight today despite the verdict of the dominant Ideologies. 

 

Rehabilitating the outlook of class struggle is one crucial imperative.   And all the more so because overwhelmingly the corporate world embraces the neo-liberal Ideology; and is not interested in robust social democratic corporatism. And so the poor and the working class can only depend on that which they strive for through their own efforts – through industrial and civic organisation and activism.  The prospect of civic peace and reconciliation is alluring and powerful: but given the logic of capitalism; and the interests and Ideology of the capitalist class – it is often chimerical.

 

Because structure and agency interpenetrate and co-determine each other, the old Marxist Orthodoxy has its limits; and the potential of so-called ‘political socialism’ or ‘democratic revisionism’ needs to be taken into account. And yet despite the potential of these trends considered by Berman, she does not sufficiently consider the implications of the effective ‘veto’ exercised by monopoly capital.  She supposes a rigorous voluntarism, and ‘manyfold possibilities’ for reformist social democracy.  But she does not tackle the question of how the ‘capitalist veto’ on policy is to be overcome.   But that is the question we MUST address if we are to establish a genuine democracy in the place of default ‘dictatorship of capital.’

Bibliography

 

Berman, Sheri, ‘The Primacy of Politics – Social Democracy and the Making of Europe’s Twentieth Century’,