Date: 28 Apr 96 19:55:00 +0200
From: DAVE-AT-PARABOL.cl.sub.de (Dave Hollis)
Subject: The search for the holy grail


I hope the following article will provoke a fruitful
discussion. It is provocative but not offensive to
any person in particluar.

Regards,
Dave

--------------------snip--------------------------------------------




Inside or Out - Is that really the point?
The never ending search forthe Holy Grail



A question that recurs more and more often is whether socialists should
work within or without the traditional organisations of the Labour
movement.  In my opinion, this question is falsely posed.  Inside or
outside, the more important question is whether any workers'
organisation is capable of realising its aims without first
degenerating.  What chances are there that any organisation - be it
within or outside the traditional organisations of the working class -
will stay true to its aims, stay intact and carry through its aims
successfully?

We only need to glance at the trade unions and the social democratic
parties to see that they have strayed far from their original aims.  The
same is true for other, somewhat newer, organisations that consider
themselves to be on the left.  The German PDS and the Greens are a case
in point.  The re- cent announcement by the leader of the German metal
workers union, Klaus Zwickel at their con- ference that he would fight
for a `Bündis für Arbeit' [1] , is an excellent example of how far such
or- ganisations have fallen.  The above proposal also came as a surprise
to the delegates.  Although it was not debated beforehand, very little
opposition was voiced against it.

In what follows I have deliberately ignored the question of what any
such organisation stands for.  I don't think it matters, for all
organisations, whether there aims are revolutionary or reformist, oper-
ate within the constraints of the capitalist system.  More of this
later.

Of course, there is another important question:  whether the Labour
Party, or any currently existing social democratic party for that
matter, was, is, or even will be the `traditional' party of the working
class?  In the case of the future, there is no guarantee either way -
circumstances will dictate an out- come, no more, no less.  Comrades who
point to the past and state that workers always turn to their
traditional questions in times of troubles have been convincingly
refuted, at least in my eyes, by Dave Backwith's article[2] . Given the
developments taking place in most European social democratic parties,
the more poignant question must be:  are we not seeing the end of
traditional social democracy as we know it - at least in Europe?


Spontaneity and Organisation

A number of the arguments following are based on a text by Paul Mattick,
Spontaneity and Organi- sation[3] . The article was written to stress
that workers' organisations degenerate and therefore spon- taneity is so
important.

If we look at the history of workers' organisations, it is easy to see
that all those who attained a powerful position within capitalism, one
can see that they all supported the status quo.  I am not talking here
about what they said but what they did.  Even the bastion of the Second
International, the SPD, was a reformist party right from the word go.
The conditions in which the SPD operated quite literally engendered the
formation of reformism and revisionism.  If we look at the history of
the SPD, there are a number of examples that illustrate the what I mean.
For example, the debate on the question of the Mass Strikes after the
Russian revolution of 1905.  Although the left won the day at the SPD
Party conference in 1905 at Jena, it altered nothing of the reformist
practice of the trade unions.  Another well known example is the voting
for the war credits by the SPD deputies.  Despite the well-known
resolution passed at the Second International and the fact that the
party led demon- strations and organised activities almost right up to
the vote in the Reichstag, it did not stop the parliamentary party
voting for the war credits.  In passing, it is a nonsense to talk of a
`betrayal' by the leaders of the SPD.  The leaders were not opposed by
the majority of the membership, had they done so, events would have
taken a completely different turn.

In all these cases one can see the division between resolutions on paper
and what actually happened in practice.  This split also manifested
itself in a division between the leadership and the rank and file in all
levels of the party.

The same goes for other such parties with the exception, perhaps, of the
Bolsheviks, who never had the `luck' of being able to do political work
for any length of time under legal conditions.

Whatever the circumstances, workers' organisations - be they
revolutionary or not - operate within capitalism and have, if they wish
to attain any influence whatsoever, to occupy themselves with the
`problems of every day life'.  Concrete answers to concrete questions
will be expected and these - if the organisation does not want to remain
completely on the sidelines - will be reformist by defini- tion.
Depending on how often such questions are dealt with by a workers'
organisation, a tendency will develop towards social integration.  It is
by no means surprising that trade unions, in general, are an excellent
example of opportunism and realism, i.e.  of social integration.

The case of the Bolsheviks is interesting because it proves, in a
negative sense, the point.  The his- tory of the Bolsheviks is by no
means as simple as we have been led to believe.  It was by no means
linear.  The February revolution took place without the Bolsheviks.
Their history was also the his- tory of factions, the Bolsheviks had
there left and right wings, and after the February Revolution there were
even three factions:  the left, right and centre.  Only in the period
between the revolutions could the Bolsheviks grow rapidly, and were
helped in their work considerably by the joining of the party by the
Interdistict group and a number of the Menshevik-Internationalists.  To
attribute the success of the Russian Revolution just to Lenin's
organisational principles and his political position is historically
incorrect.  Lenin took up the same position as was held by the left wing
of the Bol- sheviks and, implicitly, also Trotsky's theory of the
Permanent Revolution.  See, for example the April Theses.


Right of Recall

One argument that is put forward as being a solution to the opportunism
and betrayal of the leaders of the workers' organisations is the right
of recall.  This idea, taken from the Paris Commune, is, on paper,
excellent.  It is easy to see, however, that such an organisational
measure is not going to stop the social integration mentioned above.
This integration is not only the fate of a leadership but also that of
the members of an organisation.  The members, also, do not live, work
and be politically active in a vacuum.

The right of recall also requires for it to work a membership that is
prepared to exercise it.  As obvi- ous as this sounds, it is a problem
that cannot be ignored.  As long as a political organisation is suc-
cessful there is no `need' to question the activities of the leaders.

It is important to note that psychological aspects also play a decisive
role.  This is just as true of a trade union or a Labour party branch as
it is of the leaders of such organisations in their relations with the
membership.  The acceptance of authority, be it right or wrong,
blindness to other argu- ments, `one happy family', etc.  are all traits
that one can find even in mass organisations.  Smaller, `revolutionary',
organisations also have put up in the past with leaders whose political
wisdom and personal behaviour left an awful lot to be desired - and this
despite the `right of recall'.  In the latter case we are talking about
sects, i.e..  organisations based on belief in which psychological
aspects play the main role.  That said, many of these traits can also be
found in any trade union or Labour party branch and, for that matter, at
all other levels of such an organisation.  In my opinion, the big- gest
sect of all in many countries is undoubtedly the Church.


The Building of `Revolutionary Alternatives'

Anyone wishing to building a real, `revolutionary', alternative to the
official organisations of the working class, must ask themselves how
they are going to get round the problems mentioned above.  Whether such
an organisation is built from within or in competition to the official
organisations, the same problems will apply.  How will `revolutionary
purity' be maintained?  How will the leaders be kept in check?  And so
on.

Meanwhile I am of the opinion that such questions cannot be solved by
organisational means.  Fol- lowing Paul Mattick, I see, at the end of
the day, the only hope being the spontaneous activities of the workers.
Whether this enough can only be decided by events themselves.  We, too,
can also play a role here.

In general, unless organisations form spontaneously around particular
issues and events and quickly dissolve themselves in representing
workers' interests they will tend to reformism and integration in the
structures of capitalist society.

Of course the question remains:  whether and to what extent one should
work in the trade unions and the Labour Party.  It is difficult to
answer the question simply.  In my opinion one can differen- tiate
between trade unions and social democratic parties.

As I indicated above, trade unions tend to degenerate the fastest.  That
said, contrary tendencies are also at work.  New members join or new
factory organisations are formed, and other members leave or such
organisations fall apart.  Struggles take place and they can change the
composition of the organisations in question.  To what extent and for
how long cannot be obviously said in advance.

With this in mind I feel that it would be totally incorrect to boycott
the trade unions.  I think it is clear to most people that the trade
unions are reformist organisations.  Regardless of what state they may
well be in, they are, in general, the organisations to which workers
turn to when they wish to defend or better their conditions.

The question of the social democratic organisations is much more
difficult to answer.  In the modern sense of the term the social
democracy is reformist and, so to speak, a part of the system.  Since
the collapse of the Stalinist states, however, a process that has
undoubtedly been at work for decades has now become apparent:  the
social democracy has become more and more openly counter- reformist.

Nevertheless, the question as to whether it is correct to work in the
social democracy is very diffi- cult to answer.  I don't think it can be
judged by just reading its party programme or looking at what it says or
does.  These are, of course, necessary conditions.  In any case it is
also necessary to investi- gate how the party is seen, where it seems to
be going and what possibilities are available to influ- ence these
processes.

The British Labour Party and the German Social Democratic Party are two
interesting cases in point.

The LP has undoubtedly profited from the political ineptitude of the
Tories.  However, the LP has donned the clothes of the Tories and is,
politically, almost indistinguishable from them.  For many workers,
however, an awful lot hope has been invested in the LP and they are
undoubtedly seen as a welcome alternative to the Tories.

The position of the German SPD is somewhat different.  In contrast to
the LP, the SPD not only plays an opposition role, but also a leading
role in a number of state governments.  In terms of its program, and
above all else its practice, it is almost indistinguishable from the
conservative parties, the CDU, CSU and FDP.  Workers do not view the SPD
particularly positively.  The recent state elections underline this
fact.

It can be seen from these two cases that it is difficult to find a
simple answer.  Those who have cor- rectly seen what a negative role
these parties play and have drawn the conclusion that what is needed is
a `revolutionary' or a left-reformist alternative have achieved very
little.  This is not sur- prising.  Do such alternatives currently have
a broad basis?  I fear not.  I have no wish to investigate the reasons
for that here - that is worth a number of articles in its own right.  It
is sufficient here to recognise the fact and pose the question as to why
this is so and how it can, or will, be changed.

What remains then for us to do?  Surprisingly, more than one thinks.
Passivity is inappropriate.  We should seek to develop in the old
society the forms and culture we want in the new one.  In any or-
ganisation in which we participate it is important to strive for
methods, adopt structures and above all encourage a culture of the
utmost democracy, of active and equal participation.  None of these
things are foolproof and, in the long run, will stop an organisation
>from degenerating.

Rather than trying to build a single `true' workers' party or
organisation, we should accept that the working class, huge and varied
as it is, will develop different organisations for different purposes in
different times and places.  Instead of trying to subordinate
`spontaneous' organisations to any self- proclaimed vanguard it would be
better to accept this as a fact of life and look to advance socialist
ideas whenever and wherever it is possible and useful to do so.

Learning from History

Although I believe that spontaneity will play a key, if not decisive,
role, it can be seen from the above that one should play an active role
in events.  However, I feel that this is not enough.  It is also
necessary to learn from history.  The collapse of Stalinism and the
ensuing discrediting of socialism as a system in which the workers play
the leading role in society, has forced us to start to re- appraise the
past.  History has more often than not been bent and falsified to fit a
particular line.  An understanding of the past allows us to avoid
mistakes in the present, avoid chasing false goals, stop us repeating
various mythologies and warn of dangerous processes.  It is necessary,
however, to al- ways ask oneself under what conditions events took place
and continually to bear this in mind.  History does not repeat itself,
although in many cases developments may well take a similar turn.  We
should leave the idea that so-and-so event leads to so-and-so reaction.
Consciousness does not work like that.  If we bother to investigate the
past, we will see that it never did so.


Alternative Culture

Spontaneity, although by definition unpredictable, is determined by what
has gone before.  A part of this is the experience workers have had up
to know.  One very important aspect is what culture is prevalent in the
workers' organisations and in the working class in general.  Not only
the culture of self-activity and self-government but also a critical and
honest appraisal and re-appraisal of the past is just as important.

In this context we must stop treating the works of various Marxists (or
anyone else for that matter) like a modern-day bible.  People who do so
are sectarians in the true sense of the word.

We can accompany the workers, we can learn from them.  Perhaps we will
notice that we are not so different from them - perhaps.

It is patently obvious that there is more to life than to learn the
lessons of the past.  The problems we face today also require answers.
We also need to develop ideas for the future, both for the middle and
long term.  What steps need to be taken and with whom are questions with
which we will regu- larly be faced.  A starting-point for this is the
understanding of the transitory nature of workers' or- ganisations.

Those who produce their papers or bulletins, think they have all the
answers, build their `revolutionary' organisations and dream of
repeating what happened in Russia in 1917, perhaps with certain
amendments, may wish to contradict me.  I hope they do so, for my part I
can only wish them well in their search for the Holy Grail.


Notes
-----

1. If the companies guarantee not to sack anyone for three years, make
300000 additional jobs available, and employ 30000 long-term unemployed
and increase the number of places for apprenticeships by five pro-cent a
year and the government promises not to cut unemployment benefits, the
money for job-creation schemes and social security payments, then Klaus
Zwickel would fight in the IG Metall that the union would only fight in
the next pay-round for an increase only at the rate of inflation and
allow long-term unemployed to be employed for less than the union rates.

2. New Labour, Same as it ever was?, New Interventions, Vol.  6, No.  3

3. Spontaniety and Organisation, in Anti-Bolshevik Communism, Paul
Mattick, Merlin Press, 1978, P117-137

## CrossPoint v3.11 ##



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---