Lessons For The Left
Lesson 4 - The Central Question Is The Property Question (i)
“In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.”
(The Communist Manifesto)
A problem with Paul's approach, and one that afflicted his “Postcapitalism” too, is that he begins from the perspective of distribution, rather than production. As Marx says in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, distribution relations are determined by productive relations. And productive relations can only be determined by examining the property question, the question of who owns and controls the dominant form of property. As a result, Paul's approach also suffers the same problem as that of the Narodniks criticised by Lenin – that of schema mongering, and subjectivism, the same weakness can be seen in the ideas put forward by Varoufakis in his recent novel. The reality is that, unless you own and control that dominant form of property, you can come up with whatever schemas you like, you have no ability to implement them, and because the state is the state of the ruling class, the class that does own or control that dominant form of property, that state will only implement measures that further its interests. Paul also makes the error, here, of confusing the government with the state. So, he says, for example,
“But state is so central to the neoliberal project that, for four decades, no anti-neoliberal party has been allowed to control it.”
This reflects a fundamental lack of understanding, on Paul's part, of what the state is, and a confusion of the state with government. No governmental party controls the state, not even a bourgeois-liberal party. Governments are simply a facade that hide the true class nature of the state, and its dominant role. Its why, for example, under Tsarism, the Tsarist government did not control the Russian state, which, from around 1870 on, was itself already a capitalist state acting in the interests of Russian capital. Its why, in the 18th and 19th century, whilst British governments were controlled by a Tory Party that continued to represent the interests of the old landed aristocracy, interests that were hostile to the interests of capital, the state itself was a capitalist state, and acted in the interests of capital. The idea that simply by electing a government that is the same as taking control of the state is dangerous bourgeois reformism, again of the type promoted by social-democracy and Stalinism. It is the fatal mistake that was made by Allende in Chile.
The Narodniks sought to build a form of peasant or small producer socialism in Russia. They too thought that if they could get the state to implement a series of measures and schemes, then it would be possible to create such a society as an alternative to capitalism. Lenin discusses a number of these Narodnik schemes, such as proposals for development of the Don, which have a similarity to the proposals put forward by Paul, and by various progressive social-democrats for a Green New Deal, and so on. Lenin pointed out to the Narodniks that if the state really were a “People's State” that acted on behalf of society, then many of the descriptions of the plight of the majority of the people, would surely have led it to pursue many such actions that would improve the plight of the people. But, it didn't. Why not? Because the state is not a “People's State”, it is not some class neutral mechanism or tool, to be used for the benefit of society, but is a class state, whose purpose is to defend and enhance the interests of the ruling class, and of the dominant form of property. And, in Russia, although the Narodniks did not want to admit it, that dominant form of property was capital.
And, the dominant form of property in Britain, and across the globe is still capital, states are capitalist states that act in the interest of capital, whatever the complexion of any particular government. Any government that seriously tried to change that would face the opposition of that capitalist state, as Allende discovered. Sowing the illusion that it is only a matter of getting a radical Labour government elected, is a dangerous illusion that would lead to disaster for workers. It is to get things the wrong way up.
“... instead of treating existing society (and this holds good for any future one) as the basis of the existing state (or of the future state in the case of future society), it treats the state rather as an independent entity that possesses its own intellectual, ethical, and libertarian bases.”
(Marx – Critique of the Gotha Programme)
Any government that is going to make serious attacks on the existing productive relations can only do so effectively if that government is merely an index of the development of the class consciousness of the working-class. It must be the case that the working-class, in its large majority, has arrived at the conclusion that it must exercise ownership and control over the means of production, and that it proposes to do so by legislative means if possible, by other means if not. It requires that they have attempted to develop cooperatives on a wide scale, and recognised that, to defeat the opposition of the ruling-class, they must have control of the state, and/or that, as in the 1920's, they have recognised the need for workers' control of production, and that, again, to implement that, on a society wide scale, requires the creation of at least a Workers' Government, and in reality a Workers' State.
Lenin points out that many of the schemas and proposals that the Narodniks brought forward would, in fact, only benefit the development of capital in Russia, and some of those ideas would, indeed, be pursued by the state. But, others that did not promote the interests of capital would simply be ignored. Much the same can be said of the specific proposals put forward by Paul. For example, he argues for a Green New Deal, and argues the need to “de-carbonise the economy”. In fact, the state is already adopting measures to that end, because capital itself recognises that the days of fossil fuels are numbered. Large scale state spending to this end will, in fact, benefit large-scale capital that is looking to develop technologies and consumer products based upon precisely that. Car producers, for example, know they must move rapidly to the production of electric cars, but a big constraint on the development of the market for electric cars is the requirement for an adequate charging network. Existing energy companies are moving into that market too, but a large commitment by the state to subsidise the development of a widespread charging network will greatly enhance the profits of both energy companies, and car companies.
Paul's other proposals are:-
- End the dominance of global finance
- Reduce inequalities of wealth, income and opportunity
- Raise well being across a wide range of indicators
- Radically redistribute power and defend democracy.
- In foreign policy, it would end military interventionism and support for foreign dictators; and promote reform of the multilateral global order to enhance peace, security, co-operation and the rule of international law.
This is simply a pious wish-list of the type put forward by the Narodniks. Decarbonise the economy is something that big capital is already doing. It poses no threat to neo-liberalism, but does to small capital for whom all such measures amount to yet more costs and red tape. Its why the Brexiters, and Trumpists who represent the interests of that petty-bourgeoisie are the ones hostile to it, not the representatives of big capital. To the extent big capital can get large state backed investment in such projects they will be laughing, as such subsidies go straight to their bottom line. But, assume that this was not the case that decarbonising the economy is inimical to the interests of large-scale capital. What that then means is that any country that attempts to move in that direction would immediately put itself at a competitive disadvantage. How on Earth does Paul think that a Britain already suffering all of the additional costs and disadvantages arising from Brexit, is also going to prosper by putting itself at a further competitive disadvantage to its neighbours in the EU, by pursuing such a course of action? It would be suicidal. Fortunately, decarbonising is not alien to the interests of big capital.
The same is obviously not true in relation to ending the domination of global finance, depending on what is meant by it. The owners of fictitious capital certainly are not going to sit back peacefully and see their control over socialised capital and the state removed. And the state is the state of the owners of that fictitious capital, whichever government is in office. The actual functioning capitalists, the day to day professional managers and administrators, organised in the white collar unions, however, are a different matter, as was the case in the late 60's and early 1970's. But, that is a tactical question in relation to the political revolution required to bring about such a change, which certainly is not going to come from the election of a “Left Government”.
The idea that you can decrease inequalities by government decree shows Paul has really learned nothing from Marx. These inequalities are a product of the productive relations, and social relations that arise on the back of them. You can only deal with the inequalities if you first deal with the property question, i.e. with the question of who owns and controls the dominant form of property, i.e. capital. Again a left government cannot do that. Inequality of income stems from the laws of capital, and is not some arbitrary and subjective matter, as Paul seems to think, that can be changed by government decree, or tax and spend policies. Wages are the phenomenal form of the value of labour-power, and the value of commodities is objectively determined by the labour required for their production, which, in turn, dictates the objective determination of surplus value/profits. This isn't changed by having part of the wage paid as a social wage by the capitalist state.
Raising well-being is a function of the civilising mission of capital, but, as such, is determined within constraints set by it. Power is a function of the ownership and control of property, and the ruling class are not going to give it up just because a “Left Government” asks them to! As far as foreign policy is concerned, a “Left government” might seek to abide by those objectives, but the state would not, and in such conflicts the state always wins. Every socialist party prior to WWI proclaimed their pacifism and opposition to war. Every one ended up siding with their own ruling class when that ruling class and its state drove ever onwards to it.
Radical redistribution is not possible within capitalism, as Marx demonstrated. Moreover, what is the alternative to neo-liberalism (conservative social-democracy) within such a capitalism? It might be progressive social democracy, which requires industrial democracy, which itself requires a political revolution, which involves far more than just a change of government, or else it might be a reactionary alternative based upon the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie. Paul's “broad alliance” against “neo-liberalism” does not make clear which of these we are to pursue, though the implication is the former, but in that case, we are talking about much more than simply a strategy based upon electoralism.
Paul says,
“We can build platform co-ops, promote municipal socialist initiatives like the Preston Model, form open source software collectives, social centres, credit unions etc… but they will always be under pressure from rent-seeking monopolists and privateers unless we control the state. The same is true for climate change: to decarbonise an economy rapidly you need state power.”
That is absolutely true, but as seen earlier, Paul confuses controlling the state with being in government. In reality, controlling the state involves first being the dominant economic and social class. Its on that basis that the ideas of this revolutionary class become the dominant ideas in society, and which thereby determine the ruling ideas advanced by the state. That is why the Property Question is central.
The reality is that the dominant form of property is already socialised capital, and that socialised capital is the collective property of the workers and managers in each enterprise. The main question that has to be asked is why do the owners of that capital not have control over it, and why is control instead exercised by shareholders who do not own that capital? The form of the property question today amounts to the question of industrial democracy. And, it is the most significant question, because it also reflects the contradiction between the two forms of property, and their owners. On the one hand socialised capital, real, industrial capital, the collective property of the associated producers; on the other hand, fictitious capital, shares, bonds and their derivatives, which is the form of private wealth of the dominant section of the ruling class, and through which they exercise control of the capital they do not own.
Marx and Engels, of course, whilst recognising this very problem still argued for workers to establish cooperatives, because of the educational role they played. Today, with around £6 trillion of workers funds invested in pension funds which they are also not allowed to democratically control, we could immediately raise that question. Control over those funds would give workers and their organisations considerable means by which to finance the extension of their own cooperatives. Even that would be fiercely resisted in the courts, which in itself would be a valuable political lesson for workers. But, the reality is that, precisely because the dominant form of capital today is large-sale, socialised capital, there is no need to simply extend, on a piecemeal basis, the cooperative sector.
Paul says,
“The state’s central role in neoliberalism means the economic model created in the past 40 years cannot be dismantled from below.”
That is true, but the question is what action from above and below is required to achieve that, the series of bourgeois liberal reforms proposed by Paul certainly do not. Its true that trying to build individual co-ops will provide no solution, though building a large cooperative federation would offer great potential, especially where workers' pension funds were put under workers' control and mobilised accordingly. But, the truth is that there is no need to build such cooperatives individually.
Cooperatives are merely one form of socialised capital, a form in which it is obvious that the control over the capital should be exercised by the workers, and is. But, as Marx describes, a joint stock company, what today we call a limited company or corporation, is also a form of socialised capital, whose capital is owned collectively by its workers, just as much as in a worker cooperative. The difference is that, in such a company, the workers do not exercise their rightful control over that capital. Instead, that control has been appropriated by shareholders. So, we do not need any act of expropriation by the state, we do not need the state to nationalise this capital – which simply turns it, in any case, into state capital – or to buy out the shareholders. All that is required is that the law be changed to remove the unjustified control exercised by shareholders, and to give the rightful control over such companies to their workers.
If you want to see what the basic action of a Left government, or a Workers' Government should be, it is that simple piece of bourgeois-democratic, company legislation, to take away control of huge swathes of capital, by a specific group of creditors, and to hand control to where it should rightfully belong, the collective owners of the company, the associated producers within it.
And, we can point to the fact that even the bourgeoisie recognise that shareholders should have no right to control these companies. Moreover, going back to the 19th century, in Germany parliaments gave workers the right to elect representatives to company boards. In Germany today, workers elect half the members of company boards. The Bullock Report in the 1970's proposed the same thing in Britain, as did the EU's Draft Fifth Company Law Directive. Of course, the real purpose of these laws was to incorporate workers whilst real control still resides with shareholders, who continued to have representation on these boards that their position did not warrant. But, it is a simple step from pointing to the existence of such worker representation to the logical extension to the demand for industrial democracy, for the workers and managers in companies to appoint their boards and determine policy.
That is all the more the case given that the experience of the last 30 years has shown the way that shareholders act in their own short-term interests, and not in the interests of the company itself, and in so doing have created serial asset price bubbles, and the destabilising effects of financial crashes, along with a deliberate holding back of economic growth and development of the productive forces. In other words they act in the interests of their own form of property – fictitious-capital – which is inimical to, and antagonistic to the actually dominant form of property – socialised industrial capital. As Marx put it,
“The credit system, which has its focus in the so-called national banks and the big money-lenders and usurers surrounding them, constitutes enormous centralisation, and gives to this class of parasites the fabulous power, not only to periodically despoil industrial capitalists, but also to interfere in actual production in a most dangerous manner — and this gang knows nothing about production and has nothing to do with it. The Acts of 1844 and 1845 are proof of the growing power of these bandits, who are augmented by financiers and stock-jobbers.”
(Capital III, Chapter 33)
No comments:
Post a Comment