In 1924, the faction fight between Stalin and Trotsky is given its framework by the debate over Permanent Revolution, as against Stalin's newly minted theory of building Socialism In One Country. As Trotsky describes, Stalin chose this field of battle, as he needed to find something upon which he could claim his own heredity from Lenin, whilst claiming that Trotsky was outside that lineage. The reality was that, after the 1905 Revolution, which had validated the ideas of Permanent Revolution, everyone had operated on the basis of it, i.e. the idea that the working-class could come to power, in countries like Russia, where conditions were not fully developed, and where the bourgeois national revolution had not taken place.
The question was not, in reality, about whether the working-class could come to power, but whether having done so, it could proceed to construct Socialism. This latter point is quite different, and everyone accepted that, in backward countries like Russia, further development towards socialism would only be possible on the basis of revolutions in the advanced countries, which would then come to the assistance of the proletariat and peasantry in those less developed economies.
The idea that Socialism could not be created in a backward economy, or solely in an advanced economy, was well rooted in Marx's theory as set out in Capital, and the concept of the social division of labour. As Marx describes, capitalism is inseparable from this social division of labour, in which production of commodities is increasingly broken down into their components, with different components being produced by different enterprises, but also that each enterprise is dependent upon every other enterprise in the economy. By the 19th century, this social division of labour extended not just within each national economy, but on a global scale, and this was one of the great achievements of capitalism, as far as Marx was concerned, in creating a global economy.
Backward economies could exist as self-sufficient national or even regional economies, because they are based upon direct production of a very limited number and range of products by peasant producers. But, its precisely that which limits the potential for such economies, and keeps their population in a state of poverty and backwardness. It can certainly provide no basis for Socialism, which requires a considerable development of the productive forces, which only arises as a result of capitalist development.
As another example of the interlinking of economies across the globe, Trotsky points to the relation between Britain and India. India provided the raw materials, and foodstuffs required by Britain, whilst Britain provided manufactured goods, including capital goods for India. But, this example, Trotsky says, is illuminating for another reason, linked to that above. India, as a less developed economy, was far less dependent on the global economy, and global social division of labour than was Britain.
“Every backward country integrated with capitalism has passed through various stages of decreasing or increasing dependence upon the other capitalist countries, but in general the tendency of capitalist development is toward a colossal growth of world ties, which is expressed in the growing volume of foreign trade, including, of course, capital export. Britain’s dependence upon India naturally bears a qualitatively different character from India’s dependence upon Britain. But this difference is determined, at bottom, by the difference in the respective levels of development of their productive forces, and not at all by the degree of their economic self- sufficiency. India is a colony; Britain, a metropolis. But if Britain were subjected today to an economic blockade, it would perish sooner than would India under a similar blockade. This, by the way, is one of the convincing illustrations of the reality of world economy.”
What Britain has done, via Brexit, of course, is to voluntarily impose upon itself such an economic blockade, if only partially. The whole drive of world development, as Trotsky describes, is to the further extension and integration of the world economy, and this is a massively progressive development, required for the creation of Socialism. It is a development that involves the continual reduction in borders and barriers between economies. The development of the EU was an historic development in that regard, and probably the most progressive development in Man's history, voluntarily uniting 500 million people in a single market and political union. It has been mimicked by similar developments across the globe with the development of Mercosur, ASEAN, and now ACFTA and so on.
But, via Brexit, Britain has voluntarily imposed a partial blockade on itself, cutting itself off from this process of global economic, social and political development, and greatly weakening itself and its prospects, as well as unnecessarily impoverishing its people. Already, we are seeing that act of self-harm causing increasing problems at borders, and British industries having to move their operations overseas to avoid being sent out of business by the restrictions that Brexit has imposed on them.
The debate over Brexit has simply resurrected these old debates over Permanent Revolution and Socialism In One Country. The Stalinists, and their fellow travellers, who pushed the idea of Brexit, simply offered up the old reactionary ideas of Stalin over Socialism In One Country. It infected the debate inside the Labour Party, with Corbyn tagging along with that reactionary stance. That the Tories supported Brexit is, of course, no surprise, because they represent that backward looking petty-bourgeoisie that would be quite happy languishing within a backward, nationally based economy, in which they are protected from competition, and in which they make their profits by an increasing oppression and exploitation of workers whose conditions continually fall behind those of their European counterparts.
The only difference between the arguments of Stalin in 1924, and the Stalinists today is that Stalin was talking about the construction of Socialism, whereas his modern day counterparts talk only about the introduction of various radical social-democratic measures within the national context. The latter may or may not remove the likelihood of military intervention, but it is no less utopian and, thereby, reactionary. Capitalism outgrew the nation state more than a century ago, and the idea that measures can now be taken purely within a national context leading to some kind of slow growing over of capitalism to radical social-democracy, or even Socialism is absurd.
The central question facing the working-class today, as Marx described in The Communist Manifesto, is the property question. It takes the form today of the question of democratic control over the large-scale socialised capital that now dominated an characterises the capitalist economy. The question we face is over the control of all of that capital. On the one hand it is the collective property of the associated producers, as Marx describes in Capital III, Chapter 27, and yet control over it rests not with its owners, but with a specific group of creditors, i.e. shareholders. This bizarre anomaly means that those shareholders take decisions not in the interests of the capital itself, i.e. of the specific business, but in the immediate interests of themselves and their share holdings.
As huge asset price bubbles have been inflated over the last thirty years, those immediate interests are seen as being the maintenance of such bubbles, with huge amounts of profits going to buy up shares and so on, rather than going into real capital investment. It has seen recently, for example, Elon Musk buying $1.5 billion of Bitcoin and agreeing to take Bitcoin in exchange for cars. The motivation is that with rapidly rising inflation, and more to come as a result of even greater money printing, to cover government spending resulting from lockdowns, Bitcoin might act as a store of value, or even an appreciating asset. Yet, Bitcoin has no value, and its current bubble will inevitably burst potentially bankrupting Tesla.
Instead of using profits for such reckless gambling, they should be used for real capital accumulation, thereby protecting the future of the company. But, the only people who have a long-term vested interest in doing so are the workers and managers within the company itself. A progressive social-democratic government would change company law removing the right of shareholders to control capital they do not own, and hand that right to the actual owners of that capital, the workers and managers within the company. But, any national government that did so would immediately see a flight of capital at the very least. The only basis upon which such policies could be adopted is, at least, an EU wide basis, but then its not hard to see that if the EU were to introduce such laws, it would face real opposition from the US, China, Japan and elsewhere.
This again is the whole point of Permanent Revolution as against Socialism In One Country. Taking control is only the start not the end point. Without the prospect of any revolution quickly becoming internationalised, attempts to build Socialism In One Country are doomed to defeat, and will only lead to further demoralisation and set back of the workers' cause. Brexit by dividing British workers from workers across the EU has set back the cause of the working class by years, and the sooner it is reversed the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment