This division between a perspective of socialism that arises as a consequence of reforms over a long period, which reflects a gradual and inevitable growing over of capitalism into socialism, as against a revolutionary perspective is what leads to the division inside the Russian Social-democratic Labour Party into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and a similar division arises in other socialist parties. In Britain, there was no equivalent socialist party, but a similar division arose inside the Labour Party with the revolutionary wing being represented by the British Socialist Party, which changes its name to the British Communist Party. The division reaches a climax with the collapse into social patriotism of the socialist parties at the outbreak of World War I, and the subsequent proletarian revolution in Russia, in 1917, and a number of other countries across Europe, in 1918.
The division between social-democracy and reformist socialism, thereby, becomes obliterated. The former socialist parties retain the aim of Socialism in their constitutions, but it becomes purely formal, a goal pushed out to a distant future, with their main focus being simply to get elected to government to push mere reforms aimed at ameliorating the condition of the workers within capitalism, and, even then, only within the confines of what capitalism itself can afford, at any one time. But, this underlying contradiction is not apparent to the large mass of workers whose political development had taken place contemporaneously with the rapid growth of the Second International.
That occurred as a result of the long wave expansion of the European economy from 1890-1914. When that expansion stops, and a period of crisis erupts, and becomes manifest in the 1920's, with an increased willingness of capital to confront workers, the old Economistic/reformist solutions of the previous period are no longer feasible. In the long wave uptrend, the demand for labour made it possible for unskilled workers to raise wages and living standards, and on the basis of it to unionise. Alongside these improvements, and greater socio-economic weight, went the development of their political organisation represented by the parties of the Second International. The size of the working-class, means that, as soon as workers obtain the vote, these parties rapidly advance the representation of the workers in parliament. Parties committed to merely passing reforms that ameliorate the condition of workers, via an extension of welfarism and so on, is simply an extension of the trades union consciousness of bargaining within the system. In reality, this development of the welfare state, and greater state intervention, planning and regulation is simply a reflection of that transformation in the nature of capitalism itself noted by Marx, Engels, Kautsky and Lenin. It strengthens the idea that a continued upward development leads to further such reforms, until capitalism itself is reformed away.
That delusion was smashed in 1914, and, after a short economic recovery, following the ending of WWI, it continues to be shattered in the following years. Something similar happened, in the 1970's/80's, after the 1949/74 long wave uptrend came to an end. In Germany, the effects are heightened by the imposition of the Versailles Treaty. But, in Britain, the effects are also soon felt as miners and other workers face mass sackings, cuts in wages and so on. In place of the conditions of the preceding period, when living standards rose without a great deal of struggle, now even prolonged industrial struggle, and the combined efforts of workers across industries, such as via the Triple Alliance, was not enough to beat back the attacks on living standards. Although it confirmed Luxemburg's critique of Bernstein, it also showed the limitations of her own semi-syndicalist ideas put forward in The Mass Strike, and her view that such spontaneous actions by workers leads them inexorably towards a socialist class consciousness. Again, the same limitations were exposed in the Luxemburgists' strategy in the 1970/80/s, when the mantra of the IS/SWP, of “more militancy” that had been enough in the previous period of expansion, was woefully inadequate in conditions of crisis and retrenchment.
In Italy, as workers faced this onslaught, they began to occupy factories, and establish workers councils across cities, mirroring the developments of the Russian workers in 1905 and 1917. But, now, they were confronted by armed fascist gangs, supplementing the forces of the state. As the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie unite against the industrial proletariat, as these struggles develop, the working-class is inevitably led to the question of why its parties are divided, rather than presenting a common front against their enemies. This brings out, in sharp relief, the distinction between the United Front, and the Popular Front. It was, in fact, set out by Marx, in a speech to the Communist League in 1850, in relation to the Revolutions of 1848. It is where Marx sets out the basis of Permanent Revolution. He notes,
“At the moment, while the democratic petty bourgeois are everywhere oppressed, they preach to the proletariat general unity and reconciliation; they extend the hand of friendship, and seek to found a great opposition party which will embrace all shades of democratic opinion; that is, they seek to ensnare the workers in a party organization in which general social-democratic phrases prevail while their particular interests are kept hidden behind, and in which, for the sake of preserving the peace, the specific demands of the proletariat may not be presented. Such a unity would be to their advantage alone and to the complete disadvantage of the proletariat. The proletariat would lose all its hard-won independent position and be reduced once more to a mere appendage of official bourgeois democracy. This unity must therefore be resisted in the most decisive manner... In the event of a struggle against a common enemy a special alliance is unnecessary. As soon as such an enemy has to be fought directly, the interests of both parties will coincide for the moment and an association of momentary expedience will arise spontaneously in the future, as it has in the past.”
This momentary alliance, is not a parliamentary alliance, but an alliance in action. It is the foundation of the United Front, and its mantra of “March separately, strike together.” In essence, by the 1920's, the social-democratic parties of the Second International were liberal bourgeois parties, whose ideology best represented the objective interests of large-scale, socialised capital itself. They occupied the same position that Liberal parties occupied in the 19th century.
No comments:
Post a Comment