Michael, thanks for taking the time and effort to read and offer commentary on my paper, ‘differentiating socialism and communism,’. I enjoyed reading your critical reflections and here are my own in reply to yours.
Terminology
You state, ‘…there is no consistency in Marx’s and Engels’ usage of the terms.
This is not correct. Marx was consistent with his view that communism would replace capitalism. There is some argument to suggest that Engels was less consistent. However, he more often conflated socialism with the socialisation of the economy, as he did in his, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, when making his materialist case for a socialist science of capitalism.
Michael you state, ‘there are historical shifts in the use of the terminology, and these are important to understanding the present issue’, citing conviction of communists in Cologne 1852) after which ‘the Eisenachers used the term ‘social democratic’, to emphasise their insistence on political democracy’.
This may be one reason, but bear in mind the term ‘social’ in social democratic does not limit itself to ‘political democracy.’ It embraces the social and economic moment of democracy. However, the essential point is that the seeds are laid for a tussle between socialism and communism that originates from class struggle. As we know, social democracy was a loose hold all category presenting opportunities for a broad church of socialisms, some of which were potty-trained reformists, some genuine communists, fighting for communism and many walked the middle line, and subsequently fused within various parties ‘representing’ labour, but gradually as a means of compromising with capital.
You then state, ‘the ‘people’s front’ turn of Comintern led Trotsky to judge that the communist parties were now to the right of the left elements among the socialist parties…’.
This is true and confirms my point that socialism was not so much a mode of production but a mode of class conflict within capitalism. Moreover, what is equally true is that the Comintern in this period represented ‘socialism in one country,’ while those ‘left elements of the socialist parties’ at least represented international socialist aspirations. Nevertheless, the currency is now ‘socialism’ not communism. The latter remained beyond the pale in this period, indeed soon after Marx died.
First phase
Michael when you address the usages of socialism and communism in Marxist reflections on the ‘first’ (initial) phase’ of communism, your overall point gets tangled in jumps between historical periods. Interesting stuff we mostly know, but the point made gets lost, I feel.
Your point appears to be that Marx used the term socialism as a synonym for the first phase of communism ( would have to say fleetingly, because he more consistently used the terms initial phase of communism), later Lenin became lax by arguing both terms meant the same, before the slide into usage of socialism as a first phase, which then became caught in the headwind of ‘socialism in one country’, socialism as initiating in one country or more, but spread international by necessity, if it is to succeed? Good point!
Socialisation
Michael, we a have different grasp of the meaning of socialisation of capital and labour other than by engulfing small household production, peasants, and artisans. The latter are middling groups still very much alive and kicking today, in a capitalism over-ripe with socialisation. In which case they cannot be solely or even most importantly what Marx meant by socialisation, and the socialisation I was referring to in my short paper.
Marx writes at length in Capital V3 how capital transitions into a social power across society (more than intimate what Hilferding and Lenin would later develop as finance capital). The combined effect of concentration of capital into fewer hands and centralisation of capital in production, distribution and exchange, develops a dominant capitalist class that has increasingly less to do with any specific product or industry and much more interest in a) the running of the capitalist economy and state policy, and b) monitoring the risks to its rule posed by its arch enemy, the working class. The working class by the same forces also becomes highly collectivised, a political threat, the labour power it alienates as value to capital is a social power that requires containing. A point is reached where considerations about maximising profits (surplus value extraction) are joined by considerations about maintain control over the working class. All of which necessarily embroils the state in effecting class containment and class compromise. Brushing this away as statist, only confuses what is at stake.
In relation to the above you also state, ‘The capitalist class struggles for control of the socialised forces of production, in order to hold the working class in subordination and thereby maintain a flow of surplus value’ (by which I think you may mean maintain a flow of surplus value at a mass and rate necessary to maintaining profit rates?).
That is correct, capitalists do, but this in no way diminishes my point that the capitalist class will adapt to class-compromise forms of socialism to win this struggle. Nor does this adaptation eliminate the risk it will fail to maintain ‘a flow of surplus value.’ In fact, one of the principle causes for initiating the termination of social democracy from the mid-1970s, was the threat to flows of surplus value necessary to maintaining profit rates, posed by the partial suspension of commodity fetishism as a control over the working class, and the consequential politicisation of workers, demanding more use value, rejecting the logic that use values ought first to take the commodity form.
Michael, if we agree that capitalism has been ripe for worker revolution and transformation to communism for more than a century. And agree that the period up to the mid-1930s was a period of capitalist stagnation. And agree that the period between the 1940-70s revived capitalist growth and that this period heavily involved Stalinism/social democracy (SU/SD). And, finally, agree that the period post 80s to the present (post SU and SD) has been characterised by capitalist stagnation and financial parasitism. Then we can agree that ‘socialisms’ have prevented communism; socialisms are inherent to the class struggle against the working class.
Municipal socialism
You claim that I argue, ‘municipal socialism’ is…an ingenious capitalist device for preventing communism, rather than becoming able to play that role only after workers’ organisations themselves promoted it as a means of what were then called ‘palliatives’’.
I never wrote this. My point was that ‘municipal socialism’ (the development of public goods, public infrastructure), was necessary for capitalism: as industries, cities, town and so populations grew municipality was open to socialisation, which presented opportunities for class compromise and collaboration at local and national level. Much like the above points, a whole paper would be required to present the case. My paper was more about drawing together the broader trends and direction of travel, as I see it. Shelton Stromquistwrote an exceptionally good book on the struggle for control over the municipal space, ‘Claiming the City,’ a local politics and had international impact, and in which socialists and existing urban elites struggled to define this space as capitalist and or socialist.
SPD
Michael, you take issue with my reading of the SPD as a top-down bureaucratic party, bent on the evolutionary transformation capitalism into state socialism. And you claim this reading is contradicted by their perspective that capitalism would collapse and that they, the SPD, held a clear commitment to promoting self-organisation in coops and clubs and so on.
It is true that I should have phrased this is reading in less sweeping terms.
However, what remains true is that The SPD held contradictory views. The Erfurt Programme less than 20yrs later extended the range of immediate demands towards reforms that would benefit the working class if enacted. However, we should not forget that the broader context within the SPD and other Labour Parties in Europe operated, the Second International was one of opportunism. Kautsky was more puppet of the right than pope of the Marxist left. Theoretically he won some battles (with Bernstein). In practice he toed the line. The broader context within capitalist society was the development of monopoly capitalism embroiling the state, setting the scene domestically for class compromise to defeat the working class and internationally for Imperialism to transform and extent pre-existing colonial dominance.
Both internal and external contexts established the seeds for elevating the minimum programme into the politics of evolutionary social change and class compromise and subordinating the maximum programme (the means become all, the end becomes meaningless). We all know this. Just as we all know what occurred later, war credits, ostracising the Bolshevik revolution, putting down revolutionary momentum in Europe.
Gotha Programme
You state, ‘Comrade Kennedy says of Marx’s Critique [re Gotha Programme, pk]: “The strident, venomous, trenchant and blunt tone of Marx’s critique – usually reserved for the inhuman degradation of capitalism and the ruling class -arises here among fellow socialists because he sees in the programme the hallmarks of class treachery”…[is merely, pk] ‘the normal sharpness of Marx’s polemics among “fellow socialists”’.
It is a matter of interpretation and judgement. What is true is that Marx wrote with anger, but also irony and humour when exposing the limitations of bourgeois economic and political theory and practice, but he reserved his most trenchant criticism for those, left and right of the class spectrum whose actions threatened to dilute the power of the working class in their historic mission to overthrow the capitalist class and create a communist society. The tone of writing directed towards the Gotha Programme and what would become the SPD, clearly reveals Marx was of the view that this brand of socialism represented this sort of threat.
Transition
I wrote, ‘short of the working-class taking power, then socialism, as an unstable transitional relation with a missing pole of communism, will inevitably lead the working class back towards a declining capitalism.’
You wrote, ‘but what does the working-class taking power mean in this context?’ And that the nearest statement I made towards this was:
‘Socialism becomes the transition from capitalism to communism under the democratic rule of the working class, through communes and through the state. Which is to say, working class power, exercised through its network of communes and the state, will provide the means through which most of the population will be engaged in some form of administration and management and with the building of democratic control over every sphere of life: ‘the state and politics, work and economy’.’
You are not happy with this. You claim that I leave out the previous overthrow of the capitalist state order.
This is not true. My point is that the transition from capitalism to communism under the democratic rule of the working class, through communes and through the state overthrows the capitalist state order. And will provide the means for the population to engage in self-administration and management and the building of democratic control over every sphere of life: the state and politics, work, and economy. The latter will overthrow the capitalist economic order.
There is a whole lot more, which can be discussed in the CU. For now, I look forward to reading and responding to your ‘attempt to address the question of transition positively in the light of the negative arguments in last weeks and this article.’
Peter.
I think we have to be very careful with both these writers.
Indeed any.
As far as I know, Marx did not create a scheme whereby socialism was followed by communism. Others, perhaps Engels, Lenin, may have, but as far as I know Marx did not. If I am wrong there, I do not think it over impacts on the main thrust of my argument, which is that on one side of revolution we have capitalism. This capitalism may involve all sorts of apparent departures from pure profiteering by private, cigar smoking, top hat wearing capitalist “ pigs”, such as laws restricting certain practices, minimum wage, welfare, free education, health, unemployment benefits, pensions, nationalisation on a large scale, but the mode of production remains capitalist and the state continues to be a machine for the suppression of the subordinate proletariat.
The actual revolution itself cannot be carried out by any minority claiming to represent the working class, the people, the nation or any such formulation. The size of that minority is not the issue. We need to reject the formulation made by the author of this article during a recent Labour Left Alliance zoom that the class is the Party or the Party is the class. The Party consists chiefly of the advanced elements of the class who have come to class consciousness, the need for revolution, the need for the working class to take political power as the initial step to transform society. This level of consciousness is actively combatted by the ruling capitalist class, either obviously and directly through entities like political parties, or more covertly in the media, entertainment or otherwise, and many other channels.
According to Marx, this situation of class consciousness being relatively marginalized requires a revolutionary process to change. So the conscious minority will only be able to generalise its perspective within the context of an extreme situation of high class struggle. It is here that the working class over and over has created its own mass organs of struggle in the face of the inadequacy of those which exist more or less permanently under capitalism. But these organs, even if encompassing a large layer of the class do not automatically come to a revolutionary perspective, i.e. a recognition of the need to take power through the creation of a governing organ arising from the many instances of this self organisation.
But here the conditions can exist for a solution.
A revolutionary vanguard can here fight within these mass organs for the revolutionary perspective rather than a deal with the ruling class. It can fight for the taking of power by the mass self organisation of the class.
Now, the working class does not simply delegate its power to a Revolutionary Party, a recipe for a new ruling class. But through the exercise of proletarian democracy, delegatory democracy, the class conscious revolutionary vanguard can gain decisive influence within a central body thus created.
Thus, we see each of these elements are necessary, but in isolation, insufficient. The bulk of the working class does not become revolutionary simply through self-organisation for its own defense under the hammer blows of capitalist crisis. The Party cannot simply take power by whatever mechanism and dictate socialism from on high, socialism can only be implemented by willing masses working it out in the attempt.
However, in the interaction between the Revolutionary Party and the bulk of the class in the self-created organs of struggle, the elements of genuine proletarian political power are present.
So, no Revolutionary Party, no revolution. But that does not mean that a Revolutionary Party is a government in waiting, that the class simply vote in a Communist Party or a Party comes to power in any other manner. Proletarian democracy remains a necessity, members of any political party have no more right to be delegated, subject to immediate recall, to any central organ than any other person. The working class is not represented by any separate minority, it rules through delegates which are constantly subject to the will of the class.
This working class rule does not come from parliament, from winning majorities in elections or joining coalition governments to legislate for the power of proletarian bodies which can only arise in moments of high class struggle.
In his latest article, Capitalism as a Star Castle, Macnair seems to make the case for proletarian power;
“ These, I argued, illustrate the fundamental differences between the CPGB’s views of the transition period and those of ‘official communism’: we in the CPGB fight for radical democracy, while ‘official communists’ cling to bureaucratic-managerialist ideas; we reject ‘socialism in one country’, ‘national roads to socialism’, and alliances with (actually tail-ending) either the ‘democratic bourgeoisie’ (liberals) or the ‘national bourgeoisie’ (‘nationalists’) – all defended by ‘official communists’.”
However, phrases about “ radical democracy” and “ democratic republicanism” whilst rejecting the power of the workers own self – created organs, historically the councils, as he repeatedly does, mean no more than perhaps varying the face of the ruling class.
I agree with Ant’s comment above that “Marx did not create a scheme whereby socialism was followed by communism”.
Marx and Engels did not ever use the term “socialism” to describe a stage or phase before communism. For both of them, when they referred to their own concept of socialism, which may be termed scientific socialism, as opposed to other concepts of “socialism”, they meant the same thing as when they used the term “communism”.
[Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ ]
In the Communist Manifesto and subsequently they both criticised other concepts of socialism, which were advocated by various other writers and political opponents, as not being forms or concepts of socialism that would or could work, which in fact were inimical to the interests of the working class, so that they should not taken up or be aimed for by the working class.
Marx and Engels counterposed and fought for their own concept of “socialism”, which was the same as their own concept of “communism”.
In the Communist Manifesto, they also criticised other utopian forms or ideas of communism. Their communism was also different, for the same reason.
They took the best bits from the utopian socialists and utopian communists and rejected the rest.
Their concept of communism (which for them meant the same as socialism) was based on a rigorous analysis of existing society, i.e. of reality. This revealed that there were processes taking place within existing society (capitalism), which could be the basis for a future socialist=communist society.
They especially identified the existence and growth of the working-class, the grave-digger of capitalism as being of critical importance.
The role of the working class as the only force capable of bring about the revolutionary transformation of society from capitalism to communism (or, socialism) was, and is, fundamental to their concept of the new communist (or socialist) society.
In carrying through the revolutionary transformation from capitalism to communism, the working class would abolish itself and create a classless society: communism, or socialism.
Having read Mike Macnair’s latest article in the Weekly Worker, [See, Macnair, Capitalism as a star fort, Weekly Worker, 5.6.25. https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1541/capitalism-as-a-star-fort/#fn4 ] I posted this very brief comment to my own Facebook page. I am aiming to write a longer, fuller response.
Mike Macnair has a new article in the Weekly Worker which is said to complete “his three-part series on the transition from capitalism to communism.”
It doesn’t really touch on the transition except to postpone it to some distant future. More likely it will never happen as Mike thinks that “the most probable outcome” of the present situation is “human extinction through generalised nuclear exchange.”
“The second most probable is that no-one has the nerve to drop the bomb on the USA, and the result is generalised ‘Somalification’.”
Cheery stuff.
Mike seems to have absolutely no confidence in the ability of the international working class to confront capitalism and transform it.
Mike’s perspective is a wholly pessimistic one. Everything is negative.
He clearly sees little prospect of the working class coming to power and inaugurating communism, as argued by Marx.
He limits the goal towards which the working class should aim in terms of ‘radical democracy’. But this radical democracy does not extend to the economy. How radical is that, then?
After 4000 meandering words he concludes, “The solution to this problem is not proposals for more rapid and more general localisation. It is not ‘extending democracy to the workplace’. It is proposals for radical democracy as an alternative to the mixed constitutional/rule-of-law regime in the state, and to bureaucratic/managerialist regimes in the workers’ movement.”
In other words, it is not that the working class should come to power to break with the capitalist mode of production, but simply to change the way that the state presides over it.
Why on earth would that inspire the international working class?
I would also draw attention to this line in the “ star castle” article.
“In my opinion Trotsky is right. The primary ground for this view is that the idea of a contradictory interpenetration of capitalism and communism – both now, under capitalism, and after the capitalist political regime is overthrown – has in my opinion more explanatory power both in relation to the present and in relation to the failures of Stalinism, aka ‘bureaucratic socialism’, than the idea that the proletariat cannot make gains under capitalism, the idea of Stalinism as a stable exploitative regime, and the idea of a leap into Marx’s ‘first phase of communism’ as the remedy for this.”
I think again Stalinism is described as socialism. The use of the qualifying adjective “ bureaucratic” does not negate this. Stalinism was Socialism.
This is not the ( mistaken I think) description of a neither capitalist nor socialist regime, but a claim that it was a socialist regime.
Only very recently I was rebuked by Tina on a Cpgb “ communist forum” zoom meeting for saying the cpgb has not broken with Stalinism, that it upholds Stalinism as socialist, that well into the current decade it was describing Stalinism as socialist, and here again Macnair brings up the bureaucratic socialism label which Conrad also used at least into the current decade.
In my opinion, Stalinism was/ is counter revolutionary, a variant of. capitalism maintaining its essential features. There is nothing for the working class to defend here, no lesser evil. Nothing to spill blood over. To claim that socialism stands in the absence of proletarian power opens the door to all sorts of illusions in political alternatives based on introducing socialism through structures existing under capitalism.
Ant Pace says “I think we have to be very careful with both these writers. Indeed any.” And then bang, isn’t.
“I think again Stalinism is described as socialism.” Read it again carefully, comrade. He means, “the idea of a contradictory interpenetration of capitalism and communism” “has more explanatory power” than, amongst other things, a bureaucratic socialist interpretation, of the Soviet Union.
I am rereading and still think it is equating Stalinism with bureaucratic socialism.
I don’t read it as you say. Let others judge for themselves.
As I say, I regard Stalinism as a counter revolutionary capitalist variant.
Hi Sally.
Macnairs interpenetration of capitalism and communism is an alternative to Marx’s view of a transition from capitalism into Communism (a utopian leap in Macnair’s inimagination) It is the old social Democratic programme of the political revolution. Democratising the capitalist state. The SPD were were not able to complete this dmocratistion due to the barbarism of the Capitalist world war and the later unleasing of Fascism.
Macnair stands for the social democratic, artificial separation of politics and economics. So the party running the state doles out instalments of socialisation. The party imposes a limitation on the working class preventing them for taking economic power or socialising production. So the party substitutes for the class. But only the working class can build communism so it should be about the self emancipation of the working class facilitated by the party. But that’s utopian for Macnair. Macnair can see the end of the world in a nuclear war,but not the end of capitalism. Any abolition of capitalism is pushed into the far distant future. Generations away.
Ant is correct in understanding that the CPGB politics is not free of Stalinism or bureacratic Socialism,but that’s more Conrad than Macnair. The CPGB is a strange mixture of Stalinism and social Democracy. For example the odd fixation on the name CPGB.
Barry, I am not deeply aware of the Cpgb, but from the little I have read and seen, I am inclined to accept what you say re Conrad.
No, don’t be silly Barry Biddulph, I’m not engaging with that kind of rubbish. That’s just a list of your dead misconceptions and prejudices. No analysis, you don’t even bother to quote, it’s like you think there is some kind of ‘Barry has spoken in comments so back off’. Stop this depressing inchoate ‘facebook’ unmasking of ‘Stalinists’, intemperate cut and paste ‘facts’ that have nothing to do with unity even within themselves.
Sally Wells . There has been an ongoing commentary or discussion with Macnair and Conrad They have expressed their views and I hasve engaged with their many comments and articles including these comments which are part of a long series of comments. Your rant does not engage with my points or indeed their points.
Instead You have a cut and paste phraseology that you suck out of your own thumb. You write “intemporate,cut and paste “facts” that have nothing to do with unity even within themselves. “This does sound like rubbish. But, why dont you engage with the points I have made on facebook and on this site.
For example why dont you give a few examples of how I have misunderstood Conrad and Macnair. And then I can engage in debate with you and not regard you as silly. It seems to me that the CPGB and their supporters are getting rattled and are resorting to the politics of the playground to distract from the issues under discussion.
Btw, as regards misreading M Macnair, I was just accused of the same during today’s Cpgb “ communist forum” where I was told that my assertion that Mike does not agree with the power of the soviets/ councils or similar is because of my careless reading. I could not immediately come back with an appropriate quote, but perhaps any of you who are familiar with his lengthy work on Revolutionary Strategy can confirm.
For me this point is absolutely fundamental, and phrases regarding democracy which oppose the self created organs of the class are bogus.
Hi Ant. Check out Macnairs writing in the weekly worker on the politics of the transition from Capitalism to Communism. The trasition for Macnair is political democarcy not soviet or workers power. The revololution will be political in the first phase,the Socialisation phase or workers economic power will come later,much later.
He pushes communism into the far future as Peter Kennedy also points out. The first phase of the revolution will be based on Capitalism. The party in the democratised state will managed the mixed economy or capitalism. There will be some kind of temporary alliance with capitalists and the middle class. A social revolution, what other kind is there, in Britain, would be immediately starved out. He thinks you might as well jhave a revolution in the isle of Man.
Even if there is a revolution in France and Germany the odds are these revoltions will not survive either. Only world revolution will open the door to Communism. In short the view of Marx for a revolution to abolish capitallism staring in a national frame work,but being international in content is utopian. Communism remains an aspiration. And so on.
It’s a big question and what can be done in an isolated bastion is inevitably going to result in defeat whatever is done, should the isolation continue.
I think we have to think in terms of a relatively simultaneous revolution in the main centres at least, but what that exactly earns remains to be seen.
I cannot see the working class in power in any geographical area simply accepting we carry on as before, no great changes in its condition. I would think at the very least this would mean imposing immediate conditions on capitalism favouring the working class. I am not going to set out a blueprint. I think this will be the task of the moment and in the hands of the class.
I would not rule out in advance any measure, including large scale expropriations.
Would a “ small business” sector remain? I think it possible that we do not simply eliminate them, we don’t have to get rid of the window cleaners, little builders outfits, plumbers etc, but I think we can make them unviable, a bad choice because the socialised sector offers a far better deal. So they die out “ naturally”.
Who knows what capitalism I’ll be like a decade from now. Worse for most I would bet, but exactly how remains to be seen. Insisting on blueprints for socialist transformation at a date we do not know, in conditions we cannot predict, seems to be a way to prevent communist unity.
Anyway, all very vague, but I think the final decisions will be in the hands of the working class, and that requires the establishment of class wide organs which can only arise in the heat of class struggle.
Isn’t the subordination of soviet or workers power to the ‘political revolution’ in MacNair’s postponement of Communism to some far distant era merely a capitulation to both an albeit reformed parliamentary electoralism and reformist raprochement, however temporary, with the bourgeoisie?
For example;
Pg 154
“
It follows in the second place from a central lesson of the Russian Revolution, repeatedly confirmed elsewhere. It is the existing party organisations of the working class that can offer an alternative form of authority to the authority of the bourgeoisie: not the trade unions, and not the improvised organisations of the mass struggle such as soviets. Moreover, all states are party-states, shaped by the parties that created them and excluding the parties that opposed their creation.”
Pg 43
“Subsequent history confirms this judgment. Workers’ councils and similar forms have appeared in many strike waves and revolutionary crises since 1917. In none have these forms been able to offer an alternative centre of authority, an alternative decision-making mechanism for the whole society. This role is unavoidably played by a government – either based on the surviving military-bureaucratic state core, or on the existing organisations of the workers’ movement.”
Pg 44
“ I do not mean by this to glorify the bureaucratic outcomes of the dictatorship of the ‘revolutionary’ party either in Russia or in Cuba. The point is simply that the problem of decision- making authority is not solved by the creation of workers’ councils arising out of a mass strike movement. Hence, the problem of institutional forms which will make authority answerable to the masses needs to be addressed in some way other than fetishism of the mass strike and the workers’ councils.”
I remember many years ago Barry Bidulph telling me that that the revolutionary party is not a magic wand. Maybe he has forgotten… but yes, both the party, and the self created organs of the class are necessary if not sufficient in isolation. However, a revolutionary world party is, however, not an instrument of domination, but, on the contrary, a means for the political clarification and generalisation of the communist programme. This is a central lesson that the communist left drew from the failure of the Russian Revolution:
“There is no way for the working class to be free or a new social order to come about, unless it springs from the class struggle itself. At no time and for no reason should the proletariat surrender its role in the struggle. It should not delegate its historical mission to others, or transfer its power to others — not even to its own political party.” [Political Platform of the Partito Comunista Internazionalista, 1952]. Quoted from https://www.leftcom.org/files/2019-for-communism_0.pdf
Jack Conrad in his latest misrepresentation of the TAS contrubutions to the unity talks, fears TAS are maximalists on programme. TAS don’t accept the need for reforms. This is supposed to be about telling the truth to workers. Instead, it is a blant untruth. TAS are against reformism,but are in favour of reforms.
He mocks the TAS perspective of the possiblity of a revolution in Britain. This is utopia. Britain would be starved out snuffed out before you could say horse and cart which is where we would be if a revolution started in Britain. Back to the victorian age which is where TAS want to take us. These are aunt Sally’s. Silly claims Then he puts TAS feet to the fire for calling Macnair a miserablist. Well TAS didn’t actually say that, he concedes but carry’s on as if TAS did say that.
Conrad claimes Macnair was simply warning about the threat of Nuclear war and ecological disaster. Jack reminds us, after all, this is what Rosa Luxenburg said when she used the phrase: Socialism or Barbarism. But, unlike Macnair Rosa was optimistic she posed the alternative in 1918,our minimum programme is Socialism(communism)
Now Jack conrad talked about waiting for a European Revolution . Britain couldn’t start or inspire a revolution in Europe since Jack implies that international solidarity would not hinder capitalist counter revolution. But, Macnair wrote that even a European revolution was unlikely to succeed. It would take a world ripe for Communism,generations if not centuries. This sounds very gloomy and very similar to the Socialist Party of great Britain’s politics.
According to Jack Conrad the CPGB take inspiration for the programme of the political revolutiuon,the Democratic Revolution from the programme of Lenin and Plekhanov( RSDLP) in 1903. Now this programme was abandoned in 1917 and the Bolsheviks didn’t formulate a formal new programme until 1919. This is what two leaders of Bolshevism in 1919 said about the 1903 programme in 1919.
” When the programme of the RSDLP was elaborated by the second party congress,the strengh of the working class was small. That is why no one imagined that it would be possible to undertake the direct overthrow of the bourgeoisie. At that Time the best policy seemed to be to break the neck of of Tsarism. To win political freedom of association for workers and peasants –to establish the eight hour day and reduce the power of the landholdersNo one dreamed that it would be possible to realize the rule of the workers once and for all,or immediately to disposses the bourgeoisie of its factories anf workshops. Such was our programme in 1903.
Bukharin and Preobrazhensky go on to say that as early as 1905 the workers demonstrated their political maturity and it was innevitable the workers would seize the factories and overthrow the capitalists. So as early as 1905 workers went beyond the Democratic Republic of the old programme. Life or working class activity showed the programme had been left behind. This awareness was not realised until the April thesis. Marx had taught us we should study the existing conditions. But the the aim remains communism. But Jack Conrade was to stick with the limitation of the Democratic Republic,this old programme of 1003, when Britain is far more advanced in every sense from the predominantly Peasant Russian economy of 1903.
See Buharin and Preobrashensky,The ABC of Communism,Edited by EH Carr,Penguin books, 1970. p63.