In Part 2, I demonstrated that the orthodox left position in relation to Co-ops is both Ultra-Left, and at the same time essentially bourgeois – not surprising as Lenin showed that Ultra-Leftism is essentially a petit-bourgeois phenomenon. It is not true that Workers Co-ops are forced to take on the same Management forms and structure, or to make the same kinds of decisions as Capitalist enterprises. But, even were it true, so what? Will not a Workers State also face exactly those problems so long as it operates within a predominantly global Capitalism? Is that an argument then for putting off any revolution until the whole world or a large proportion of it can engage in a simultaneous uprising? We may just as well say, “The idea of a Workers State sounds attractive, but that state would face the same problems as the Capitalist States.” In fact, Lenin had to argue against such Ultra-Leftism amongst the Bolsheviks.
“Or take the Menshevik Vperyod of the same date, which contains among other articles the following “thesis” by the notorious Menshevik Isuv:
'The policy of Soviet power, from the very outset devoid of a genuinely proletarian character, has lately pursued more and more openly a course of compromise with the bourgeoisie and has assumed an obviously anti-working class character. On the pretext of nationalising industry, they are pursuing a policy of establishing industrial trusts, and on the pretext of restoring the productive forces of the country, they are attempting to abolish the eight hour day, to introduce piece-work and the Taylor system, black lists and victimisation. This policy threatens to deprive the proletariat of its most important economic gains and to make it a victim of unrestricted exploitation by the bourgeoisie.'
...Indeed, the Bolsheviks ought to present Isuv with a medal, and his thesis ought to be exhibited in every workers’ club and union as an example of the provocative speeches of the bourgeoisie. The workers know these Lieberdans, Tseretelis and Isuvs very well now. They know them from experience, and it would be extremely useful indeed for the workers to think over the reason why such lackeys of the bourgeoisie should incite the workers to resist the Taylor system and the “establishment of trusts”.
Class-conscious workers will carefully compare the “thesis” of Isuv ... with the following thesis of the “Left Communists”.
'The introduction of labour discipline in connection with the restoration of capitalist management of industry cannot considerably increase the productivity of labour, but it will diminish the class initiative, activity and organisation of the proletariat. It threatens to enslave the working class; it will rouse discontent among the backward elements as well as among the vanguard of the proletariat. In order to implement this system in the face of the hatred prevailing among the proletariat against the ’capitalist saboteurs’, the Communist Party would have to rely on the petty bourgeoisie, as against the workers, and in this way would ruin itself as the party of the proletariat” (Kommunist No. 1, p. 8, col. 2).'
... It serves as a good lesson for the workers, who know that it is precisely the vanguard of the proletariat which stands for the introduction of labour discipline, and that it is precisely the petty bourgeoisie which is doing its utmost to disrupt this discipline. Speeches such as the thesis of the “Lefts” quoted above are a terrible disgrace and imply the complete renunciation of communism in practice and complete desertion to the camp of the petty bourgeoisie.
... The workers, having grown out of the infancy when they could have been misled by “Left” phrases or petty-bourgeois loose thinking, are advancing towards socialism precisely through the capitalist management of trusts, through gigantic machine industry, through enterprises which have a turnover of several millions per year—only through such a system of production and such enterprises. The workers are not petty bourgeois. They are not afraid of large-scale “state capitalism”, they prize it as their proletarian weapon which their Soviet power will use against small proprietary disintegration and disorganisation.
This is incomprehensible only to the declassed and consequently thoroughly petty-bourgeois intelligentsia, typified among the “Left Communists” by Osinsky”
Lenin, Left-Wing Childishness
Moreover, the SWP argument (and not just the SWP, the same message could be found, as Tomlinson shows, from Mandel) displays a terrible pessimism in respect of the fundamental idea of Socialism itself. It essentially sees no advantages in terms of productive efficiency arising from workers ownership of the means of production whatsoever! It places the whole weight of the basis of Socialism on just one very unsteady leg – that of planning. Yet, there is no grounds within Marx, for such a belief. Marx made no such fetish for planning, no such claims for its necessity. The whole emphasis of Marx is, on the contrary, on the necessity of Workers Ownership of the means of production. Even Lenin and Trotsky did not place the whole of their emphasis on planning as the fundamental economic advantage for Socialism. How could they? Lenin introduced the NEP, and encouraged private western monopolies to invest in Russia, and was more than aware of the problems of trying to plan a complex economy.
“It would have to try to solve them by trimming the workforce, by pushing 'flexibility' and generally undermining the conditions that union action has achieved in the industry.” Why? Why could not a worker owned enterprise implement the transitional demand for a sliding scale of hours? Why could it not do what Engels says above a sensible Trades Union would have to do in such a crisis -
“In a commercial crisis the Union itself must reduce wages or dissolve wholly” - in order to preserve itself as an organisation ready to resume the battle. Indeed, given the examples quoted by Marx of the greater efficiency of the Lancashire textile Co-ops, or Connolly's example of the efficiency of the Ralahine Co-op,
why could not workers simply rely on that greater efficiency of the Workers' Co-op, to deal with the situation? Greater efficiency does not at all imply greater “exploitation”, it simply means that workers are able to come up with all kinds of innovative ideas to increase production, whilst lowering their workload, when they are conscious that such innovations directly benefit them rather than some Capitalist. This is the fundamental economic strength of Socialism, not planning.Forward To Part 4
Back To Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment