Socialists in the US face almost the same problems that socialists in Europe face. Thirty years during which conservative social-democracy (neoliberalism) was dominant came to an end with the global financial crisis of 2008. It meant that the material conditions that underpinned it – essentially the ability to rely on ever rising asset prices, and the conversion therefrom of capital gains into revenues, as an alternative to generating revenues from the creation of new value – collapsed. In reality, the material conditions were themselves simply a mirage, amounting to nothing more than asset stripping, a huge unsustainable bubble that facilitated the operation of a global Ponzi Scheme.
Conservative social-democracy, such as that represented, now, by Biden, Starmer, Macron, Merkel, Sanchez, and so on, has no answer. To continue to try to pursue the same conservative social-democratic policy after 2008 – and between 2008-2010 it had to be abandoned entirely in favour of a return to Keynesian fiscal intervention, to stabilise the global economy, in conditions of near collapse – has only been possible by actively seeking to reduce global economic growth, via austerity, and to print money tokens, to buy up the worthless paper assets on such a scale that the yields on them, in the majority of cases, have now become negative! As each day passes, it becomes clear that this conservative social-democracy has no answer, and, as it tries to continue ruling in the old way, it simply illustrates its own bankruptcy; it creates ever greater levels of disillusionment, and that disillusionment has led to the growth of alternatives to it. The most notable growth has been amongst those reactionary trends based upon the petty-bourgeoisie that constitutes the second largest social grouping after the working-class. It constitutes about a third of the population. These reactionary trends are marked by their attempts to appear as anti-establishment, and “anti-capitalist”, as they seek to turn the clock backwards to a world in which the economy was dominated by such small producers, engaged in dog eat dog competition, and that this was reflected globally, by the domination likewise of nation states each engaged in such dog eat dog global competition.
What makes this petty-bourgeois opposition dangerous is not just the fact of its size – which as Marx pointed out is mitigated by its heterogeneous composition – but the fact that, in opposing the current state of things, and, in particular, the trend towards large transnational companies, and likewise transnational economic blocs, it cloaks itself in an aura of radicalism, of anti-establishmentism, and even of Socialism. It is, however, the kind of reactionary Socialism described by Marx in The Communist Manifesto, and critiqued by Lenin, in his writings against the Narodniks, in the 1890's, and early twentieth century.
At the other pole, however, this dichotomy has seen the return of progressive social-democracy in the form of Syriza, Podemos, the Left Bloc, Corbyn and Sanders and the DSA, a progressive social-democracy that has, likewise, been marginalised for thirty years.. But, compared to the rise of the reactionary, nationalist Right, the labour movement has been much less successful in building an alternative behind this opposite pole of attraction. Part of the reason for that is that this progressive social-democracy is itself inadequate for the tasks presented to it, just as is conservative social-democracy.
Large parts of the forces of progressive social-democracy, as seen by Corbyn and Sanders, is itself infected with the virus of economic nationalism. As a whole, it remains tied to the old Lassallean/Fabian notions of statism, notions that also cripple much of what claims to be the Marxist or revolutionary Left. In part, it is also a result of the fact that the owners of fictitious capital, whose longer term interests are served by this progressive social-democracy – as it boosts capital accumulation, and the profits required to pay revenues – are led to oppose it, because their short term interests, dependent upon the continued inflation of asset prices, are threatened by it. They continue, therefore, to try to ensure that the workers' parties are dominated by conservative social-democrats like Biden and Starmer, which, at best, creates the possibility of a short-term respite for them, at the cost of both further fuelling the growth of the reactionaries, and also of creating the conditions for another, even larger, financial crisis to that of 2008.
The abject failure of the Corbyn project in Britain, followed the cowardly desertion of the field of battle by Syriza in Greece. It proves once again the validity of Trotsky's statement that these petty-bourgeois forces can never create a Workers' Government that will work in the interests of the working-class, but will always fall back on the support of the bourgeoisie.
“But it was exactly because of this that the leadership of petty bourgeois democracy resisted with all possible strength the establishment of its own government. The experience of Russia demonstrated, and the experience of Spain and France once again confirms, that even under very favourable conditions the parties of petty bourgeois democracy (SRs, Social Democrats, Stalinists, Anarchists) are incapable of creating a government of workers and peasants, that is, a government independent of the bourgeoisie.”
Syriza failed to build any kind of European socialist movement that was the minimum required to provide the support needed to confront the forces of conservatism inside Greece, and that dominates the EU national governments, and, thereby, the EU itself. Having marched the Greek workers up the hill, and the Greek workers giving it their overwhelming backing in a referendum, it then marched them right back down again, opening the door once again for the Right. Corbyn, having mobilised hundreds of thousands of young workers, continually appeased the Right inside the LP, and in society in general. In doing so, and attempting to appease the reactionary nationalists, his own economic nationalism led him to promote the reactionary policy of Brexit, which stands in direct opposition to the internationalist policy required to build an EU wide socialist movement required even to pursue a progressive social-democratic agenda.
But, there is a positive element to the experience of Syriza, of Corbynism, and of Sanders in the US. As described above these new political forces that have developed on both Right and Left did not appear at this point in time purely accidentally, simply as the subjectivists would explain it as a result of some different set of “values” or ideas taking root in people's heads. They arose at this particular time, for the simple reason of the changed set of material conditions described above, the same change in material conditions that meant that conservative social-democracy could no longer dominate, and so the political centre, constructed around it, had to collapse.
It means society is faced with two choices. Either it suffers a catastrophic reactionary counter-revolution that seeks to turn social relations back to those of the 18th/early 19th century – represented by the Libertarians/Anarcho-capitalists (Tea Party in the US, Moggies in the UK), or else it moves forward on the basis of progressive social-democracy. There is one alternative to both these options. It is that to avoid either, the owners of fictitious capital, who constitute the dominant section of the ruling class, but who are tiny in number, utilise their control of the state, to suspend democracy and rule by the introduction of some form of Bonapartism. The removal of civil liberties with the active support of large sections of the labour movement, under cover of measures in response to COVID, provides them with a clear opportunity to follow that course if they feel the need.
The positive elements arising from the experience of Syriza, Corbyn, Sanders et al, is that they all created large mobilisations of newly radicalised youth, as well as pulling back into political activity some of the generation of '68, who had been marginalised over the last thirty years. In fact, at the time that Corbyn's nomination for Leader was made, I argued that the most important aspect of it, was the potential to build a movement, not whether Corbyn himself actually won. Indeed, I argued that the danger was that his campaign might become yet another example of cultism, of people looking for the next Messiah to lead them, rather than engaging in the required political work of building the labour movement once more from the grass roots upwards. Unfortunately, I was proved right on that too.
The opportunity that presents itself now, the task that lies ahead is to focus on precisely that building of a principled, and clear headed proletarian vanguard within the grass roots of the labour movement, and its organisations. Liquidating and diluting the ideas of Socialism in order to chase after the chimera of building some broad alliance, purely for the purpose of winning an ephemeral electoral majority is the opposite of what socialists should be doing at the moment. We have a golden opportunity to address directly all of these hundreds of thousands of newly radicalised young workers drawn into political activity, and who have just witnessed first hand the inadequacy of progressive social-democracy, in the form of Syriza and of Corbynism. The last thing we should be offering them is yet more inevitable disillusionment as a result of asking them to pursue a set of even more diluted social-democratic measures. We need to renovate the labour movement in North America and in Europe, and indeed across the globe; we need to rebuild it from the grass roots upwards.
The US elections – not just the Presidential and Congressional elections, but also the gubernatorial, state legislature and local elections offer a perfect opportunity to begin this process of rebuilding. The task of socialists in the US is to reject the idea that they have to abandon their politics, and subordinate themselves to the official campaign of the Democrats. On the contrary, they should go out with a clear political programme that demonstrates why they are calling for support for the Democrats despite the inadequacy of its conservative social-democratic agenda. They should set out why it is necessary to draw in many millions more into political activity, so as to create the conditions for the establishment of a real Workers Party, to sweep away the likes of Biden and Harris. The basic principle should be “Vote Democrat, but prepare to fight.” And, the role of socialists, now, should be to offer up the alternative Action Programme required to mobilise millions of workers for that fight. The conditions in which these elections are being fought, with Trump refusing to commit to a peaceful handover of office, and with thousands of right-wing, armed militia standing behind him, makes such an Action Programme even more vital. We need not just a Socialist Campaign for the US Elections, but also something akin to Trotsky's Action Programme for France, written in 1934.
No comments:
Post a Comment