Socialism and Communism

Bases & Purposes – Myths and Betrayals

What are the differences between Socialism and Communism? This question was always crucial in the politics of the Working Class, but also vital for the hostile denigrations of those who ruled, and intended to continue to do so.

But, the original, historical meanings, and their clear definitions by Marx, have been almost entirely lost after the betrayals of Stalinism, which, along with the denunciations of its Capitalist opponents, redefined “Communism” as the natural form of the Degenerated Workers State – delivered and maintained by Stalin and his like.

But, the differences, as arrived at by serious theorists of the Working Class Movements and professional and sympathetic philosophers like Marx and Engels, were clearly defined and had to be understood.

Communism was the projected ideal of the Economic System to replace Capitalism, and it was to be the result of a natural Social Revolution, so that such descriptions were of an as yet unachieved situation, so it was not a plan so much as a required direction, and also it would never be achieved in a single step! AS, it, at its heart, required the removal of Class Society, it would never be agreed to by the Capitalists: to them it was Hell on Earth! Also, it could never exist either during the revolution, or in any immediately following period when the Capitalist Nations of the World would strive to put it down, and return such a country to the Capitalist realm.

The revolution would have to form some sort of State to defend itself, so an intermediate system was defined, which would differ from Communism in important ways. This was Socialism!

The proposed Withering Away of the State – a cornerstone of Communism, could never be implemented while the country was under threat from both within and without. A State would have to remain in place to defend what had been gained in a successful Revolution.

For example, the Soviet Union never actually attained Communism, and never could, while it was alone in a hostile Capitalist World, and the evident dangers of that intermediate State, as such, could always be, and, indeed, were misappropriated by powerful leaders like Stalin, to totally undermine its intended purpose.

Stalin, along with other commissars and bureaucrats, built a powerbase within that State, which distorted it beyond recognition.

And, the enormity of the betrayal of this clique, also involved the abandonment of the objective of spreading the Revolution to other countries, by putting the survival of the current Soviet Union (and hence themselves and their privileges), above the requirements of the World Working Classes in the rest of the World.

Stalin betrayed the people of Spain in their war against the fascist Franco, and in Germany insisted that the Social Democrats were Social Fascists, and so allowed the easier rise of Hitler and Nazism, for he banned any sort of United Front in that country, against the common enemy.

So, clearly, many correct criticisms among the working Class of that despicable record, as well as the pervasive lies of the Capitalists enemy, must be swept away, and the principled meanings of these objectives re-asserted, and the real necessary Socialist Interregnum redefined and fought for.

Clearly, a successful Revolution MUST be capable of defending itself from remaining reactionary forces within (who would fight to the death to get the wealth and power back in the hands of their Class) – and also from without! Remember 14 Capitalist powers invaded Russia in an attempt to put down the Revolution. So, the Socialist State must have armed forces and an internal anti-capitalist Police.

Now, you can see the dangers!

Observe what happened in Egypt, in the Arab Spring, when to so-called neutral armed forces removed the elected President, and the top general took over as dictator, with the Army on his side. 

So, the control of both these forces would have to be paramount, and any moves within it against the Revolution’s aims put down ferociously, but also transparently and with the understanding of participating people in their democratic councils and Unions.

It is not by chance that successful Revolutions face their greatest threat from their own military forces. The English Revolution had its Cromwell - backed by the New Model Army that had defeated the King, yet acted to severely limit the extent of the revolution. While, in the French Revolution, its greatest general Napoleon was backed by the Revolutionary Army, to finally take power as Emperor.

A different threat in the Russian Revolution came from the bureaucracy and internal police, who were transformed from keeping order by not only seeking known reactionaries, but also anyone disagreeing with those currently in power too.

No revolution is the same in these developments, but they grow in proportion to the level of “perceived” threats to the revolution.

So, these forces must have an effective counterweight. Remember against the 1917 revolution were the vast Russian Army, but the Bolsheviks knew they had to win to their banner significant parts of this force to defend themselves. Also, a separate over-powerful police had always to be countered by other forces formed directly from working people – arranged via their own Councils or Soviets, who insisted upon the power to control the internal forces, and dismiss or even punish those who exceeded their given responsibilities.

Now, you cannot have tight and complete plans in these regards, formulated before the Revolution even started. But, you can have vital principles, which can exceed any and all donating of power to particular individuals or organisations.

The hierarchical system of democratic Soviets must have controlling power at every level of such forces, they MUST be subordinate to these organs of the people.

Socialists: Are you adequately equipped?

This is a message to Socialists in the Capitalist West; but it is also relevant to those in the newly Capitalist East too. What has been missing, largely due to the diversion of what we term Stalinism, is real Marxism. We need to equip ourselves to do again what Lenin and his comrades did in 1917.

We have had a massive slump on a worldwide scale, and it isn’t over yet. Capitalism is faltering and it should be our greatest opportunity, yet in spite of the Arab Spring uprisings, and the Revolution in East Ukraine, we are virtually invisible... And, without a socialist alternative, in the recent General Election in the UK the Tories got in, again!

What have you been doing? I’m afraid even 250,000 in London after the event is no good!

The Greeks have been demonstrating all the time, and got an anti-austerity party in, followed by a resounding “NO!” to the austerity merchants. Even, the Egyptians had a Revolution and occupied Freedom Square incessantly, yet ended up with a military dictatorship once again.

The problem, surely, is in understanding the processes involved. It is not enough to condemn Capitalism. You have to know what to do about it!

Do you call yourself a Marxist?

If so, what do you think that such a position is merely a political stance, or is it a philosophy? (In fact, the most sophisticated that Mankind has ever produced). But, do you know what it is and how to use it? I don’t mean tactics, and regular day-to-day activities, I mean do you use it to understand these situations, and, crucially, how can things be changed?

I am certain that literally all activists against Capitalism have no idea of the power of this philosophy! To get some idea of its range and power see SHAPE Journal, on the Web, where it has covered all issues from Politics to Science, Philosophy to Art, and many more.

Did you know that the greatest archaeologist, V. Gordon Childe, was a Marxist?

Did you know that Lenin wrote a book condemning the world famous physicists Poincaré and Mach for the Empirio Criticist stance, which was the immediate predecessor to the current idealist stance in Modern Physics?

Have you read “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man” by Engels?

Currently, SHAPE Journal addresses the Philosophy of Marxism in all disciplines, and has published 74 monthly Issues over the last six years, which has included over 450 articles, with another 250 posts on the SHAPE Blog. Have you seen them? They are all available for free from www.e-journal.org.uk 

And currently the main theorist on SHAPE is cooperating with others in the USA and India to bring about a replacement for the current, so-called Copenhagen stance in Physics.

Don’t you think, as a socialist, you should be addressing this body of current Marxist works, and even contributing yourself?

Jim Schofield

Democracy?

In the light of recent events in Egypt, where the country's first elected president, Mohamed Morsi, has been unseated from office in what many are calling a military coup, and others see as a continuation of the revolutionary process started in 2011 - it seems a vital time to re-evaluate exactly what we mean by Democracy, and what it's true role should be in a genuine Revolution.

_

Consider a political regime that you believe validates the repression of the majority of its people. What can be done to change the situation?

Well, it may be considered that the nature of how those in power originally achieved their positions, when it was initially transformed from the prior situation. They could have taken over by force of arms, say in a military coup, or via a popular uprising, or in more modern times, by a democratic vote. And, of course, if the establishment of the regime was either of the first two, and no democratic means of changing things were available, then those who are for change can only attempt to build a popular movement for the overthrow of the current regime. Yet, the actual physical removal of that ruling group by force is not considered to be correct, for whoever can marshal the mightiest force will win, and why should that be any better than what needs to be replaced?

No, it is usually considered to that some form of Democracy should be agitated for – a campaign to demand a democratic method of determining a government as the true representatives of the majority of the people.

A free and secret vote for candidates with no one being prevented from standing is usually considered vital. It has become the ideal of how a country should be governed, and regular elections will make it possible to vote out an unsatisfactory government, and vote in a better one.

But, does that ideal condition actually occur anywhere? And, is it ever enough to fulfill its original intentions?

The concept of Democracy was devised long ago, but not upon a countrywide scale at all!

It was certainly possible in a clan, a village or a City State perhaps. For then, the candidates might be well enough known for the electorate to make informed judgements. But, as the political units grew ever larger, and even became countries, those ideal arrangements and familiarity with everyone involved was certain to be lost.

The question became, “How can the ideal Democracy be scaled up to country-size, yet manage to maintain its necessary virtues?” And even further, “Was such a task even achievable?”

One model was suggested as the best way to maintain the qualities of Democracy. It was the hierarchical system. The lowest level of elections would still be small and local, where it would still be possible to know everyone involved, and choose with sufficient knowledge, the best person for the job. But, to deliver that the local unit would have to be small – a “Ward” covering a village, or clearly defined locality in a Town was one suggestion. But, what would be the role of the elected representative? Would he be like an elected Chief? That might cover purely local questions, but have zero effect beyond that constituency. Clearly, purely local leaders would have to represent that locality in some higher body, covering a large political unit – like a county or a City! But, then the questions on which the representative would have to vote, in the higher body, may never have been considered in the initial local election. And, clearly not everyone in the local Ward could be consulted and vote, for they might not know enough to make an informed choice.

The chosen representative must be trusted then, to make the best possible choices for those who had elected him or her. And clearly, the chosen candidate would have a crucial role in informing his constituents of the decisions pending in the higher body, and perhaps being mandated to vote in a certain way by his now better informed electorate.

So, an important modification to the local unit was its morphing into what became known as a council or soviet. And these bodies would have no restriction upon the size of the unit, but would have a vote in higher bodies proportional to their size.

Instead of a purely geographical determination, these soviets could cover a factory, or a department providing a particular service to a defined section of the community. A hospital would also be a very appropriate unit, which could deal with complex matters that the general public might be unaware of, AND, could even supply expert knowledge to a higher body, to inform its decisions in that area of expertise.

Clearly, above all this wide variety of local soviets would be a geographical Council, to which all local soviets of any size, could send their elected representatives.

While in a different direction, all hospitals (say) could send representatives to a higher body dedicated to that important set of objectives. As the layers in an ascending hierarchy got bigger and covering more responsibilities, they would have to elect people responsible to carry out the decisions of that body in particular areas – departments or “ministries” Clearly, with the particular specialist soviets, they could supply all who required it, with detailed information to both electorates and representatives who were in a position to make relevant decisions.

Clearly, what was meant to characterise these soviets and their upward and downward purposes, was meant to imbue the whole structure with relevant information. For without which appropriate decisions would be impossible.

But, even then, the current choices of representatives could not be guaranteed to do as the electorate wished. So, instant recall and a replacing election must be a right of the soviet over its representative in higher bodies, when the current incumbent was not doing what they considered to be necessary.

Indeed, this led to the callback of representative to a required discussion on particular issues, and perhaps even a mandating of the candidate, determining exactly how he should vote on a range of issues.

NOTE: But, that is not what happens in most so-called Democracies in the World today.

For not even the set of policies outlined before elections would be adhered to by an organisation (or Party) in power, and members of those organisations would actually be told how they should vote by their Parties, which even have policing members called Whips to ensure that they do as they are told.

And such a “mandating” is then top-down, and certainly nothing like the bottom-up mandates explained above.

Clearly, though such systems could easily gobble up too much time and too many people, and cut down the time for carrying out the major functions of the organisations. It could seem to be in danger of failing under the weight of too much time and too many decisions needing to be taken by such methods.

But, we are forgetting why this MUST be how real democracy is to be built. Once the various electorates had representatives that they knew they could trust, the number and intensity of these processes would decline, yet when a representative broke the conditions of their election, they could be easily removed. The system would militate against corruption.

Though, for this to be the case, these organisations would have to be functioning within a Socialist Society! Somehow, a better system than the mere election of your choice of candidates would be needed.

Once elected, the candidates should be given the confidence of the electorate, and either given a detailed mandate to carry out an agreed programme, or could come to the council for discussions and decisions. Any widespread dissatisfaction with the actions of the office holder must allow (with sufficient numerical support) a recall for immediate replacement.

Now, as can be seen, many of these features do not currently transfer to higher bodies in any present hierarchical system. The detailed information and control of elected members and officers are not instituted, when the council represents a substantial electorate, and immediate recall would not be considered to be practicable.

The problem has to be, “Just how will higher bodies be elected, and how will the electorate both be fully informed and keep control of their elected representative?”

Currently, when the system moves to a national level, most of the excellent qualities of the small, local unit certainly have been lost.

Of course, there is also a much more important difficulty. Yet, other quite separate and crucial considerations that must be addressed cannot possibly be avoided.

What quite separate organisations of Wealth and Power exist simultaneously with the democratic, political system?

Who owns the land, the factories, the mass media and most of the Wealth?

And, could these “alternatives” intervene in the apparently fair political structure?

The answer is a resounding, “Yes!”.

Even in the first democratic City States, which included Athens (Greece) and Rome (Italy), the wealthy could buy their way to effective power. “Greasing the Wards” or “Bread & Circuses” allowed the rich to buy off enough of the electorate to gain office and hence political power too. And, on a larger scale, with immensely bigger organisations and concentrated wealth, they could do a similar thing with the democratically elected representatives of the people.

And, it cannot be denied that in one form or another that this is the norm, even in the most lauded democracies of today. Power still resides substantially with wealth!

Now, at this point, the position of the generally accepted and indeed lauded leader must also be addressed. Giving everyone in a village an equal vote on all questions of policy cannot guarantee that the best decisions are always taken on behalf of the majority. It is more than likely that they will not know enough on all questions to make informed decisions. So, from the very earliest glimpses of a democratic system, the people soon learned to judge their friends and enemies within their village unit, and also to recognise greater knowledge and understanding in particular individuals. They gradually learned to differentiate between those who were out for themselves, and those who genuinely served their community. With more than a little luck, they could elect a leader or chief, who had all the necessary qualities to make the best decisions for the benefit of all. They are not rare people! You must have known many – from nurses to teachers, firemen to milkmen, and a thousand other occupations, wherein the greatest satisfaction comes from effectively serving the people in a way that makes things better for all. There are certainly those who ask for little more than to “do a great job”.

Now, choosing the best leader for a small group is relatively easy. And, if a mistake is made, the electorate simply informs that leader (via a Vote of No Confidence) and that they will choose someone else.

But, all these situations can be totally distorted by the above mentioned alternative power structures – usually based upon wealth and ownership.

The question arises, “Can you have Democracy in a society, which is drastically unequal in an economic and ownership sense?"

That surely has to be the key question to align with the ideal of political democracy.


For more on this subject, have a look at the latest issue of Shape Journal Marxism III.