ANTI-CAPITALIST SECTARIANISM (Part 2)

In part 1 of the evidence base for the full characteristics of sectarianism the opinions of Marx and Engels on the phenomena were presented. In this second part I will present the views of Lenin and Trotsky. Given that both Lenin and Trotsky were themselves extremely sectarian on many occasions their views on the question may seem a strange inclusion. However, sectarians often recognise the phenomena in others, whilst remaining blind to its manifestation in themselves.

The views of Lenin and Trotsky on this issue are therefore well worth consideration, particularly as the contemporary followers of Lenin and Trotsky frequently emulate them in this regard. They too use the term sectarian to describe people or groups they disagree with whilst manifesting many of the characteristics themselves. A careful reader will certainly recognise this fact.

Lenin on sectarianism.

In a letter responding to `The Socialist Propaganda League’ of the USA, Lenin made a point in relationship to ‘immediate demands’;

“We preach always that a socialist party not uniting this struggle for reforms with the revolutionary methods of the working class movement can become a sect, can be severed from the masses , and that is the most pernicious menace to the success of the clear-cut revolutionary socialism.” (Lenin, Letter to the Secretary of the Socialist Propaganda League’ published in ‘Lenin on Britain.’ Pub. Moscow. 1959 page 254)

Skip over the evangelical term ‘preach’ for a moment and focus on; ‘Anti-capitalist groups can become sectarian and this is a pernicious menace!’ We should note a further point which is stressed here by Lenin. In the case of reform or revolution it is not a question of either/or. According to Lenin, this kind of dualistic contrast is falsely put. Rather, it is a question of addressing both.

Without raising the question of the need for revolutionary transformation within reformist struggles those involved accommodate to reformist moods. Without engaging in struggles for reforms the group becomes an idealistic sect. Without such a synthesis, Lenin concluded, the danger – indeed the pernicious menace! – of sectarianism would be ever present. To overcome the dangers of this circle mentality Lenin suggested;

“There can be no dogmatism where the supreme and sole criterion of a doctrine is it’s conformity to the actual process of social and economic development; there can be no sectarianism when the task is that of promoting the organisation of the proletariat, and when therefore, the role of the ‘intelligentsia’ is to make special leaders from among the intelligentsia unnecessary. ” (Lenin, Selected Works. Moscow. Vol. 1. page 298.)

The use of the term ‘doctrine’, as with the previous term ‘preach’, is somewhat suspect for it does not coincide with the view of Marx or Engels concerning the non-dogmatic theory they espoused. This represents one of many fundamental contradictions in Lenin, which I have dealt with in other articles. [see Marxists versus Marx: and 'The Party; Help or Hindrance'.] Nonetheless, the point he makes concerning sectarianism is accurate and quite clear.

Along with stating the need for theory to conform to the ‘actual social and economic process’ – the only insurance against idealism and dogma – no simple task, one requiring patience – we find a suggestion for an antidote to sectarianism. It is the task of an anti-capitalist intelligentsia, to promote the self-organisation of working people, and in the process make themselves redundant. In a letter to Iskra arguing for `openness’ and the discussion of differences to safeguard party unity, Lenin took up the anti-circle theme once again.

“Indeed, it is high time to make a clean sweep of the traditions of circle sectarianism and – in a party which rests on the masses – resolutely advance the slogan: MORE LIGHT! – let the Party know EVERYTHING, let it have ALL, ABSOLUTELY ALL THE MATERIAL required for a judgement of all and sundry differences, reversions to revisionism, departures from discipline, etc. More confidence in the judgement of the whole body of party workers! – they, and they alone, will be able to curb the excessive hot-headedness of grouplets inclined to splits; will be able, by their slow, imperceptible but persistent influence, to imbue them with the `good will’ to observe party discipline, will be able to cool the ardour of anarchistic individualism and, by the very fact of their indifference, document, prove and demonstrate the triviality of differences exaggerated by the elements tending toward a split.” (Lenin. Complete Works. Volume 7 page 116. Emphasis added R.R.)

Also ignore for the moment Lenin’s emphasis on ‘party discipline’ the imposition of which caused many party members to commit genocidal atrocities at the behest of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. Within this quotation there is much that is specifically addressed to the Russian situation but there is also a considerable amount which has a wider geographic and historical significance.

For example:- ‘more light’ – ‘transparency’ – as the modern idiom would describe it. Think of the recent cover-ups of all political groups including those on the left; the need to cool the ardour of extreme individuals; (these individuals of ‘force and ability’ again), hot-headed grouplets inclined to splits needing curbing. There is more – much more. In the preface to a collection of letters published in 1907, for example, Lenin added:

“Marx and Engels taught the socialists to rid themselves AT ALL COST of narrow sectarianism, and TO JOIN with the working class movement so as TO SHAKE UP the proletariat politically.” (Lenin. Complete Works. Volume. 12 page 373. Emphasis added. RR)

Lenin in this passage used the prestige of Marx and Engels among the Russian anti-capitalists, in order to bring their weight, as well as his own, to bear upon the struggle against Russian sectarianism. He makes the case that anti-capitalist sectarianism should be got rid of – AT ALL COSTS! How many contemporary anti-capitalist groups are doing this? They haven’t even begun systematically analysing the phenomena.

In spite of the views of Marx and Engels; in spite of the experiences of working class struggles; in spite of all this, Lenin, with all his authority within the revolutionary movement of Russia, was still having to argue forcefully against sectarianism – only ten years before the successful Bolshevik revolution! Lenin was able for a time to counter some aspects of this sectarian tendency within a narrow faction, but as I describe elsewhere, he was not able to eliminate entirely its influence within Bolshevism.

Trotsky on sectarianism.

Leon Trotsky, is probably the most maligned revolutionary thinker of the 20th century. It was a situation which occurred because he had the misfortune to be the outstanding Soviet oppositional figure during the reign of Joseph Stalin. This made certain that Trotsky’s role would be distorted and reviled as far as it was in the power of Stalin to do so, and for a time that power was considerable. With the death of Lenin a struggle opened up for who should take his place as leader of the Party. Suffice to say for the purposes of this article that Stalin won, and Trotsky lost in the struggle for power and influence.

Trotsky, both before his expulsion, and after settling outside the Soviet Union, began to try to rally those individuals and organisations who were able to see that the Soviet Union was going drastically wrong. The organisational framework which Trotsky and his supporters initially chose to try to rally that opposition to Stalin, was known as the International Left Opposition. It was at this time that he decided to again describe the phenomenon of sectarianism. It was in connection with problems encountered by the German section of the Left Opposition, Trotsky noted that;

“…the Opposition is developing under the conditions of a continuing revolutionary ebb that breeds sectarianism and ‘circle’ sentiments.” (Trotsky. Writings 1930/31 Pub. Pathfinder. page 140)

Aware of the dangers of isolation, and the lack of understanding of the methods and principles of Marx and of course, Bolshevism, Trotsky wrote extensively of the need to overcome them within the ranks of the Left Opposition. Well aware that sectarian characteristics were already developing within his group, Trotsky wrote;

“Whether we are a sect or not will be determined not by the quantity of the elements who are at present grouped around our banner, nor even by the quality of these elements (for we are very far from the point where all are of the highest quality), but rather by the totality of the ideas, the program, the tactics, and organisation our particular group can bring to the movement.” (Trotsky. Writings 1930-31 Pub. Pathfinder. page 252. emphasis added RR)

For those who have studied the full range of sectarian characteristics it will be obvious that the ‘totality of the ideas, the programme, the tactics and organisation’, Trotsky refers to was steeped in sectarianism. Yet even with his considerable ability and standing within this grouping, Trotsky did not rule out the possibility of the organisation to which he belonged becoming what he considered a sect. Indeed, he outlined a few of the factors upon which such an outcome would depend.

In the above noted volume and its supplement, Trotsky wrote of the sickness within the newly formed Left Opposition and of the danger of looking foolish before the working people of the world. He also wrote of the need for honesty and openness including an honest attitude to one’s own mistakes. How often do we come across that? These themes continued in the later Volume of 1933-34 for, as problems, they continued to flourish. In writing on the conditions under which the French League was founded after the disintegration and decomposition of the French Communist Party, Trotsky noted:

“..its inner life represented a series of crises that never reached the level of principles but distinguished themselves by extreme bitterness and poisoned the atmosphere of the organisation, repelling serious workers despite their sympathy for the ideas of the Opposition.” (Trotsky. Writings 1933-34 Pub. Pathfinder. page 88)

Ring any bells? Although this quotation does not specifically mention the word sectarianism, Trotsky is certainly describing many of the effects and symptoms of this phenomenon. The quote identifies the clear symptom of bitter internal crises which never reach the level of principles. It notes they are self-destructive and more often than not are ultimately revealed to be based on defence of leadership status or competing leadership bids. Later, in response to what he considered a mistaken use of the term ‘sectarian’, Trotsky offered the following pertinent description:

“Sectarianism presupposes a narrow, homogeneous group, bound internally by deep and unshakeable conviction, despite the contradictions between this conviction and historical development.” (Trotsky. Writings. 1933-34 Pub. Pathfinder. page 296)

A ‘narrow’ group bound together by an ‘unshakeable conviction’. Such is the clear verdict of Leon Trotsky. It is a verdict which is in line with that of Marx, Engels and Lenin. The volumes of Trotsky’s writings contain a comprehensive insight into the problems caused by the reverses in the international situation right up to and beyond crucial developments in Germany. It was in the 1930′s that the conduct of the German Communist Party, under direction from the Stalin-dominated Comintern, effectively split the opposition to Hitler.

The results of this split removed the possibility of effective and sustained opposition to the development and success of German Fascism. It is precisely during this critical period that Trotsky returned to the subject of sectarianism. Prompted by an article in an American publication called ‘The Marxist’, Trotsky took the author to task for writing – “If the workers carry through…”. Trotsky pointed out that:

“The sectarian is satisfied with logical deduction from a victorious revolution supposedly already achieved. But for a revolutionist the nub of the question lies precisely in how to render an approach to revolution easier for the masses…. “If the workers carry through…” a victorious revolution, everything will of course be fine. But just now there is no victorious revolution; instead there is a victorious reaction.” (Trotsky. Writings 1939-40 Pub. Pathfinder. page 50)

Of course everything had been far from fine after the ‘victorious’ Russian revolution – another blind spot for Trotsky, but Trotsky, and at this point, was still concerned to help anti-capitalist working people negotiate the bridge, the path, the complex road, between where things were then and where they could eventually lead.

Yet this ‘good shepherd’ leading the helpless working class sheep to revolution was a concept imbued with sectarian characteristics and it was this form of leadership which Trotsky considered essential for those opposed to the capitalist system. Trotsky explained that this was the importance of a Transitional Programme accepted at the founding conference of the Fourth International in 1938. However, in relation to that programme he went on to note another characteristics of sectarianism:

“Small wonder that the sectarians of all shadings fail to understand its meaning. They operate by means of abstractions – an abstraction of imperialism and an abstraction of the socialist revolution.” (ibid. page 50/51)

Trotsky had identified a further characteristic which is of the utmost importance. It is the interesting observation that anti-capitalist sectarians are prone to operate by means of abstractions, – “shibboleths and panaceas” in Marx’s terms. Thus, they can fail to understand the meaning of their ‘own programme’. This observation is worth repeating, for it seems unlikely at first reading. Sectarians can actually fail to understand the meaning of their own programme!

Ask most sectarian group members about their detailed programme and then sit back and listen to the subsequent waffle. As we have noted previously, Engels considered they can also turn the anti-capitalist critique of Marx into dogma – and most of them have done so! Trotsky’s observations on these aspects of sectarianism were also in line with Lenin’s warning not to separate or otherwise confuse ‘immediate demands’ from a revolutionary perspective.

The issues and views considered so far have given us sufficient material to begin to understand the problem of sectarianism in some detail. We have noted evidence of Marx and Engels combating sectarianism in Germany, Britain and America in the second half of the 19th century and we have studied a selection of Lenin’s contributions opposing the phenomenon in Russia in the first quarter of the 20th century. We have also indicated that Trotsky found aspects of sectarianism a serious and critical problem in France, Germany, Britain and America in the period 1920-1940. We also know it is alive and well in the 21st century. We would be naive, foolish or both not to give it lengthy and serious consideration.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2013.)

ANTI-CAPITALIST SECTARIANISM (Part – 1)

Previous articles I have published concerning sectarianism have been in the form of summaries of the basic characteristics of this trend. For this reason they have lacked the evidence from which these summaries have been drawn. Despite this obvious lack the articles have received a considerable number of views from visitors to this site. For these reasons and because it continues to be a persistent problem within the anti-capitalist movement (not to mention the Abrahamic religions of the world) critical-mass will contain articles focussing upon the evidence from which the previous articles are derived. This first part will consider the contributions of Marx and Engels on the question.

Marx and Engels on anti-capitalist sectarianism.

Although a great deal of the work of Marx and Engels was given over to theoretical and analytical works, it was a fundamental principle of their lives that when possible they also engaged in practical and organisational issues. The famous 11th thesis on Feuerbach, by Marx, announced an important conclusion – the point was not to just interpret the world but to change it. This was a conclusion to which both Marx and Engels, adhered. Indeed, it was Marx’s contention that every `step of real movement’ gained by the working and oppressed peoples – provided it was not at the expense of another section of workers within the world – was, ‘worth more than a dozen programmes’. The term ‘real’ requiring further qualification. This view led Marx and Engels to engage in supporting the practical anti-capitalist struggles of the working classes for solidarity throughout the world.

The importance of practical association led them, among other things, to support the foundation of the first International Working Men’s Association. These practical struggles and organisational problems within working class politics brought them into contact with many forms of sectarianism, and the effects this had upon the working class anti-capitalist struggle. Referring to one, Ferdinand Lassalle (a prominent German socialist of the mid 19th century), but applying it to other sectarians, Marx noted:

“Moreover, like everyone who maintains that he has a panacea for the sufferings of the masses in his pocket, he gave his agitation from the outset a religious and sectarian character. Every sect is in fact religious.” (Marx/Engels Selected Correspondence. Pub. Progress Publishers. page 201)

Every sect is in fact religious! The link between religious sectarianism and political sectarianism was strong enough for Marx to draw the conclusion that the nature of sectarianism always contains a religious element. This is because sects, even political sects, are largely based upon various forms of ‘belief’. Sectarians consider they have the solution, the ‘key’, the ‘cure’ – or panacea as Marx termed it – for the problems of the working people. These solutions are usually in the form of doctrines, principles or guidelines which they insist working people need to follow. Sectarians are usually extreme individualists, who feel themselves to be intellectually superior to those around them.

As a consequence the sectarian ‘elect’, whether religious or political, have an exaggerated view of their own importance and value, an exaggeration which arrogantly equates themselves with the ‘guardians’ and oracles of the needs and humanist aspirations of the whole of society. Interestingly, it is an arrogant self-importance and fanaticism which rarely originates from within the working and oppressed classes, even if on occasion it takes root there. Such sectarians have the answers in their bible’s, pockets (or pamphlets) – if only ordinary people would take notice! Marx contributed a further comment on the characteristics of political sectarianism:

“…The sect sees its raison d’être and it’s point of honour not in what it has in COMMON with the class movement but in the particular shibboleth which distinguishes it from the movement.” (Ibid. Marx to Schweitzer 13/10/1868. Marx/Engels Selected Correspondence page 201)

This is an important point when considering the problem of solidarity of working and oppressed people in struggle against the capitalist system. The point of honour of the political sect and its reason for existence is not what it has in common with the workers and the broader anti-capitalist movement, but what ‘trade mark’ or shibboleth distinguishes it from the movement. These trade marks also serve to distinguish between sects themselves. Thus when political sectarians urge solidarity and unity among the working classes (or among other groups) they invariably mean unity in accordance with their own sectarian principles. Useful solidarity with and among the working class is seen by the sect as ultimately dependent upon the working class and the anti-capitalist struggle accepting and following their ‘party line’. This, for them, is the only solidarity worth having.

Working people, particularly those organised in trade unions, and community groups are treated as just so much raw material to be moulded and shaped by resolutions and demands. From the exaggerated importance of their own ideas and policies it will come as no surprise that sectarians are highly motivated to define, not only differences between themselves, other groups and ordinary working people, but also to define and discover ‘superior’ intellectual positions for themselves. To them such dogmatic distinctions are important.

So sectarians are not just out to be different – but superior! Consequently they are usually intolerant of alternative viewpoints. Thus, these highly motivated and often talented individuals, who aspire to leadership of the rank and file, cannot resist the temptation to utilise their energies and talents to discover and expose shortcomings and ‘weakness’ in other people, particularly rival leaders. The targets for such destruction, are not just those belonging to the classes of oppressors, but include other political groups ostensibly fighting for the same thing. They also manifest the same destructive intolerance to potential rivals within their own group and, of course, any solidarity of the working and oppressed masses, with other groups.

Marx went on to point out that where sects developed in the early stages of the workers’ struggles, it was usual for them to merge, and enrich the general anti-capitalist movement, but he made a clear distinction between those early stages and later ones. In the case of Lassalle, what was actually being demanded was the opposite of merging; that the class movement:..’should subordinate itself to the movement of a particular sect.’ Marx then stated positively that:

“The INTERNATIONAL was founded in order to replace the socialist or semi-socialist sects by a really militant organisation of the working class……The development of socialist sectarianism and that of the real working-class movement always stand in inverse proportion to each other. Sects are (historically) justified so long as the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historical movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity all sects are essentially reactionary.” (Ibid. page 253.)

It couldn’t be stated any clearer than that. The first International was founded in order to be rid of sectarianism, to replace sectarian groupings with a real organisation of the anti-capitalist working class. Further, in Marx’s opinion, anti-capitalist sectarianism and the real working class movement always stand in inverse proportion to each other and all sects are essentially reactionary!

These are the considered judgements of Marx on the question of sectarianism in 1868. The date is important. This was no impatient or youthful dismissal of sectarianism by Marx. It occurred after the research, drafting and publication of Capital Volume 1. Nor, as we have seen, was this an isolated condemnation. Even twenty years earlier, Marx and Engels had asserted in the Communist Manifesto that anti-capitalists;

“…. do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.” (Communist Manifesto. Peking edition page 49)

For over two decades, Marx and Engels had identified sectarianism as a problem. They argued that anti-capitalists should not try to shape and mould the proletarian movement; they shouldn’t set up sectarian principles of their own and demand that everyone else agrees to them. We have read that Marx argued that after a given stage of the working class movement, sects were essentially reactionary and that stage had been clearly passed by the publication of the Communist Manifesto. Marx was not alone in spearheading this attack upon sectarianism. Engels frequently characterised sectarians as either ‘narrow-minded people’ who want to stir everything into one ‘non-descript brew’, or on the other hand those who want to ‘adulterate’ the workers’ movement. In a circular from the General Council of the First International, Marx and Engels described the effects of sectarianism.

“Individual thinkers provide a critique of social antagonisms, and put forward fantastic solutions which the mass of workers can only accept, pass on, and put into practice. By their very nature, the sects established by these initiators are abstentionist, strangers to all genuine action, to politics, to strikes, to coalitions, in brief, to any unified movement.” (Marx. The First International. and After’. Pub. Penguin. page 298)

‘Strangers…..to any unified movement’! In addition to putting forward fantastic or ideal solutions to the mass of workers, sectarians of that period were also strangers to all genuine action. Marx here clearly uses the term genuine action and unified movement to differentiate between those actions urged by sectarians, in pursuit of their own fantastic solutions, and those undertaken by workers struggling against capital. This characteristic arises because these thinkers are convinced of the correctness of their ‘ideal’ solutions and see the real struggle of workers as muddle-headed, mundane or full of compromises.

When workers start to struggle independently, the sectarians always exert much energy in attempting to gain acceptance of their own particular analysis. They stubbornly (dogmatically) insist on the ‘correctness’ of their line. The language of sectarians is often revealing. They promote strategies which the working class or anti-capitalists ‘must’ follow (for theirs are superior strategies to the ones ordinary people could come up with) in order to succeed. The tactics they outline are the ones which workers ‘need’ to adopt (for they are the only realistic ones) in order to win the struggle or achieve the allotted task.

The respective roles of sectarian groups and working people are clear in the language contained in the slogans brought to each and every struggle. The leaders will lead, and the workers will follow. Each group’s sectarian line, no matter how fantastic, has to be fought for and followed, either openly or covertly, in each and every struggle of the working class or anti-capitalist movement. Sectarian groups will compete fiercely with each other at meetings of workers in order to have their particular line adopted. Meetings called to arrange solidarity become bogged down, and get nowhere, as representatives of sectarian groups compete to shape and mould the policies of those in attendance. The group’s line becomes paramount, the actual anti-capitalist struggle becomes secondary.

When a sectarian group is successful in getting workers to adopt their particular line or strategy, then there is much inner group rejoicing, self-congratulation and even gloating. The effects of the ‘line’ on the workers’ struggle, or the end result of the particular dispute or issue, matters little in comparison to this. The particular workers’ struggle could fail, but if the line of the sect had been accepted, then the outcome would be seen as positive. What matters to these would-be leaders of the working masses is evidence of increasing influence over workers, not the progress of the workers’ anti-capitalist struggle itself. Marx and Engels also accurately noted that sectarians tend to be ‘noisy’, ‘self-glorifying’, ‘boastful’ ‘arrogant’ ‘repulsive’, ‘bigoted’ and ‘capricious’. Sectarians come in for some more severe criticism by Engels in connection with inappropriate calls for unity. Thus he noted that:

“It is for this reason that the biggest sectarians and the biggest brawlers and rogues shout loudest for unity at certain times…..The movement of the proletariat is bound to pass through various stages of development; at every stage part of the people get stuck and do not join in the further advance; and even this alone is sufficient to explain why the `solidarity of the proletariat’ is in reality everywhere being realised in different party groupings, which carry on life and death feuds with one another, as the Christian sects in the Roman Empire did amidst the worst persecutions.” (Selected Correspondence. page 266/268)

So, according to Marx and Engels, sectarians were also frequently ‘brawlers’ and ‘rogues’. Again the link is made between religious tendencies within political forms of sectarianism. Engels also made clear that he had experienced sectarians shouting the loudest for unity at certain times, only to undermine it later. In a reference to English sectarianism and their theory, Engels also noted that :

“Anglo-Saxon sectarianism prevails in the labour movement, too. The Social Democratic Federation, just like your German Socialist Workers’ Party, has managed to transform our theory into the rigid dogma of an orthodox sect; ” (lbid page 449.)

Yet another aspect of anti-capitalist sectarianism is identified: the characteristic of transforming the flexible guidelines of revolutionary theory into a rigid dogma. In other words, sectarians, even those who call themselves Marxists, are quite capable of transforming the effective method espoused by Marx and Engels into a useless dogma. In particular we can note that according to Marx and Engels, sectarians justify their existence by the use of particular slogans or `positions’ (shibboleths) and they turn theory into dogma. They are essentially religious, and as soon as the working class is capable of independent movement, sectarians become profoundly reactionary.

Anyone who has come into contact with modern sectarians cannot fail to recognise that modern day 21st century sectarians and the groups to which they belong replicate to a greater or lesser extent the characteristics identified by Marx and Engel’s in the 19th century. It cannot escape the considered attention of those who try to understand the current wave of religious sectarianism in many parts of the world, that they share many of the characteristics and motivations that are manifested in the political variety. Characteristics which are listed in the article; ‘Sectarianism and the question of a general strike.’  

See also ‘The subtle characteristics of sectarianism’.

Roy Ratcliffe (June 2013.)

 

WOOLWICH! ELITES IN DENIAL.

Being ‘in denial’ is a concept I first encountered in regard to a friends developing alcoholism. In that particular form it refers to a persons denial of their excessive and out of control drinking. They deny what is obvious to all. However, once encountered as more than a simple noun, this behavioural concept is immediately recognisable as applicable to other experiences and other areas of social and political life. Denying an unpleasant characteristic or unfolding situation is also the province of those who cannot (or wish not to) own up to being centrally or tangentially involved in any unpleasantness, particularly when this unpleasantness is extreme. The aftermath of the recent horrific events at Woolwich has illustrated this phenomenon and once again ramped up the level of denial.

There must be therefore at least fifty shades of denial currently leaving the mouths or pens of the economic, financial, political and military elites. Very few if any of the bourgeois elite spokespersons or commentators can utter what more and more people are starting to realise – that the capitalist mode of production and the system of patriarchy are fundamental problems facing humanity. For the purposes of this article I wish to draw attention to two obvious states of denial that have intersected over the recent brutal incident on the streets of the UK. The incident in question was the recent horrific killing of a soldier by radicalised followers of Islam. It has become clear that the events leading up to this atrocity are not simple but complex. However, almost immediately following it, the two forms of denial were projected into the public domain.

The first form arose from comments emanating from the neo-liberal political elite in the UK and the US. This ‘official’ political source was anxious to disconnect this barbaric act from the West’s barbaric attacks upon innocent citizens of other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen etc.) committed during the so-called war on terror. The second form of denial came from the UK elite within the religion of Islam who wished to disconnect this barbaric act from their religion. Both sources quickly dismissed out of hand crucial pieces of evidence. The unequivocal public utterances of the perpetrators of this heinous event made clear that a) it was retaliation against the West’s actions in the east, and; b) was conducted in the name of Islam and Allah.

The ‘war on terror’ is actually – a ‘war of terror‘.

On being briefed about the horrific incident, David Cameron, the British Prime Minister on May 23 (2013) declared that the blame for it:

“..lies purely with the sickening individuals who carried out the attack.”

“This afternoons attack in Woolwich is a sickening, deluded and unforgivable act of violence. (Boris Johnson.)

These two extracts are enough to encapsulate a substantial part of the entire UK political elites (Left, Right and Centre) responses to these events. The key word in the first quote is ‘purely’. Of course the individuals are to blame for the attack, but the insertion of purely, clearly signals the political elites denial strategy. So does the lack of any reference to the possible motives for such an ‘ unforgivable act of violence’ – in the mayor of London’s comment which follows it. What other unforgivable acts of UK and US violence does he and his leader avoid mentioning?

The so-called war on terror could be more accurately designated as a ‘war of terror’ since the numbers and volume of personnel and armaments used against the targets and the communities they live among are astronomical in comparison. They far exceed the resources and casualties wielded against, and inflicted upon, those of us in the west. Massive shock and awe, is the Western elites default position when it goes after those who dare to oppose it, and shock and awe is what these defenceless communities regularly get.

The justified horror we feel when innocent citizens are killed and maimed on our streets in the UK and the US has been felt nearly everyday over the last decade in Iraq, Afghanistan and more recently in Libya, Yemen and Pakistan. In fact, sometimes the innocent citizens of these countries feel justified horror more than once per day. For this reason only the most bigoted or unthinking people can fail to recognise that such a war of targeted extermination would not create feelings of anger, resentment and eventual retaliation. Particularly when the West’s violence includes a circle of ‘collateral damage’ and a second, minutes-later strike, to eliminate those who rush to help. How sickening is that?.

Indeed, the UK governments security chiefs have more than once, recognised this very fact of revenge in copious documents readily available to the government. So Cameron, Johnson. Clegg, Miliband. Obama and the rest of the elite know this is the case. Indeed, after the terrible slaying of the soldier Lee Rigby, the perpetrators stayed at the scene of the crime and announced their motives. They stood around and spoke to passers by and asked their words to be filmed and recorded. Here a couple of crucial sentences.

“..because David Cameron (the) British Government sent troops to an Arabic country……I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. Remove your governments – they don’t care about you.” (Michael Adebolwale and Michael Adebolajo. 22 May 2013.)

So the link between the West’s atrocities in the Middle East, North Africa etc., and the killing was unmistakably in the minds of the perpetrators of this brutal act. Now let us consider whether there is any connection between Islam and the Woolwich killing.

Islam, killing and holy war.

There have been many claims from politicians and Islamic representatives during the past weeks, that violence and killing has nothing to do with the religion of Islam. Here are just two examples.

“There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.” (David Cameron.)

“…The actions of the perpetrators are totally against the religion of Islam and the example of the prophet Muhammad.” (Sheikh Abdul Qayum. 24 May 2013.)

Elsewhere, (‘Religion – is – Politics’) I have demonstrated that all the three Abrahamic religions commenced as forms of political governance and have retained the textual instructions and thus the original ideologically based political ambitions in their scriptures. Islam is not alone in having violent textual directives at the very core of its ideology. Nor is it the only religion advocating killing members of other religions. It is a verifiable fact, that the sacred texts of Christianity and Judaism are littered with examples of killing in the name of God and numerous threats of barbaric punishments. However, since the Woolwich events it is Islam that is currently under the microscope again, so here are a few extracts from the Qur’an.

“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified of their hands and their feet should be cut off on the opposite sides…..” (Surah 5 v 33.)

If a devout believer considers that there are those who ‘wage war’ against Islam and are making mischief in the land’ then a choice of punishments are allowed by the Qur’an. This and many other such directives are the scriptural basis for the Islamist clerical pronouncements concerning the permissiveness of atrocities against those they perceive as making war against them. It is also the Islamic textual basis of those who carry out these acts, whether against British and American soldiers or young school children such as Malala Yousafzai. Within the Qur’an, there are over a dozen such direct courses of action on killing, almost 100 on various forms of hurting, harming and fighting and over 200 advocating retribution. Another example;

“Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them.” (Surah 22 v 39.)

We can see from this that the right to resist war and oppression, which is now embedded in International secular Law, is also found in the Qur’an in the form of a justification for ‘holy-war‘. This again is undoubtedly a Surah which will be imprinted upon a resolute believers consciousness. Note that it doesn’t specify what kind of fighting is allowed in such ‘war’ and so it is up to the believing reader and/or cleric to fill in this blank space. This next example introduces a ‘just cause’ permission to kill and this is granted to any surviving heirs of someone killed unjustly.

“And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is killed unjustly. We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided.” ( Surah 17. v 33.)

So when we witness members of the Islamic religious community saying or writing that Islam does not condone murder of revenge killing, they are in a state of denial about the basis of their religion – if not about themselves. What they should say and what many undoubtedly mean – is that they are against murder and revenge killing! If they openly said this it should be genuinely applauded. However, this of course should cause them to question the foundations of their religion. Like it or not, a religion based solidly upon the complete sacredness of the Qur’an, does advocate, allow and justify murder along with revenge killing. So when one of the perpetrators of this attack declared;

“We swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.”

He was merely expressing what both perpetrators knew from their studies of the Qur’an. Studies, no less, which were gained by attendance at circles organised by one Imam or another. In other words they and Imams who support them were merely echoing the spirit and letter of numerous sections of the Qur’an. To deny the connections in both cases is deny the obvious – it is to be in denial!

Defend Muslims but not Islam.

Many on the left have failed to distinguish between defending a human being and defending an ideology. Revolutionary-humanist anti-capitalists cannot condone this failure to rise above bourgeois ‘identity’ politics. It may sound an irreconcilable contradiction to argue for defending Muslim working men and women, yet rigorously and vigorously criticising their religion of Islam, but it is not. The contradiction is reconciled by recognising that human beings are not identical with any ideology they may have been indoctrinated with. It is also clearly possible to recognise that ideologies (religious or not) are forms of mental and frequently physical forms of enslavement.

As human beings those workers and poor currently attached to the religion of Islam are oppressed, exploited and marginalised by the capitalist mode of production. But they are also oppressed and exploited and marginalised by a religion and a religious elite, which demand submission to religious authority and denies many human rights to its members. At its roots and in much of its practice, Islam is a fiercely patriarchal religion which dominates and exploits at all levels the womenfolk, the children and the ordinary members attached to it.

Such religious domination and oppression may be administered lightly in some cases and violently in others – but oppression and exploitation is always at its core – as it is in all religions. So too is its flagrant hostility to other religions and those of no faith. This aggressive hostility and control may have diminished for a time, and even for considerable periods as with the Umayyad Caliphate in southern Spain etc. But muted or open, hostility and competition for the patriarchal governance of communities remains an essential part of Judaism’s, Christianity and Islam’s ideological foundations.

For this reason, we should defend Muslim communities against the attacks of state and the neo-fascists of all persuasions but make it clear (to them and others) we are defending them as oppressed and exploited members of the human family and are definitely not defending Islam or any other such archaic ideology. For it is an ideology which seeks to keep women as second-class citizens, promotes child marriages, violently discriminates against gays and lesbians, issues death Fatwa’s against those who criticise and promotes governance by ‘belief’ in an invisible, unknowable, therefore for all intents and purposes a non-existent male.

Finally. It is has become clear that many Muslims, particularly young Muslim’s have celebrated acts such as this and other such revenge attacks upon the UK and the US over the last decade. However, they should understand this is not the way to end their oppression or the capitalist mode of production which is economically, financially, politically and militarily at the root of their and other peoples oppression. Indeed, such despicable and inhuman acts only weaken organised opposition against the capitalist mode of production and allows the pro-capitalist political and military elite to brandish their weapons of death even more vigorously. There is a need for oppressed and exploited everywhere to elevate their human identity over any religious, national, cultural, gender, age forms of identity and unite to work toward a post-capitalist future where all human beings have sufficient necessaries to live a contented and fulfilled life.

Roy Ratcliffe (May 2013.)

[See also Religion and violence'  'The Shooting of Malalah Yousafzai 'Religion versus Women's Rights' and 'Humanity at a cross-roads'.]

 

GUANTANAMO: A pinnacle of depravity!

Over the past 100 years there have been many examples of how brutal, heartless and depraved some members of the human species can become. It seems there are no extremes to which some of our citizens will go if they can be persuaded it is to support a higher cause – such as my ‘nation‘; ‘religion‘ or ‘race‘.

The totalitarian horrors of Stalinism and the KGB gulag mentality, the concentration-camp tortures of the Nazis along with the Nakba and slow genocide  against the Palestinians by Israel are notable examples. They are evidence that the ruthless 19th century Imperialist ambitions of the capitalist and state-capitalist elite had not diminished one iota. With the destruction of institutionalised Stalinism and Fascism, the pinnacles of organised depravity are now being scaled by the often opposed elites of neo-liberal capitalism, Zionism and fundamentalist religion.

On the one hand we have the targeting of civilians by the patriarchal agents of religion who car-bomb cafes, schools and places of worship and on the other the patriarchal agents of capital and colonialism who bomb and drone-target civilians from a mile or so high. Among these multiple Himalayan-scale peaks of inhumanity and depravity stands the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It is a peak which only just manages to overshadow the ugly escarpment of Abu Ghraib.

Both instances shine a light on the inhuman persona of the armed agents of control paid for by the neo-liberal representatives of capital.  Of course, driving a bomb-loaded vehicle into a crowd and detonating it with scarce regard for young, old, women or men is one form of organised depravity.  Sitting at a computer console on one side of the world whilst guiding an armed drone to drop lethal weapons on far-away wedding parties or shoppers is nevertheless another.

Both activities take the development of a high degree of calculated inhumanity which many would class as evil, but these cases are not forced to confront face to face what they have done. The suicide bomber does not have to witness the deaths and disfigurements his or her act has caused. Nor does the gung-ho ‘space-invader’ cavalier sat in a darkened room triggering the weapons of his drones. They are far removed from the sight of shattered and disfigured bodies of the innocent men. women, and children who they have just cut to pieces and who then lie dead or wounded at the scene.

Not so those state agents of industrial capitalism at Guantanamo.  At Guantanamo the US states armed men and women daily face those they have water-boarded, sleep-deprived, shot and beaten. In this factory, at the end of each shift, they purposefully keep them alive and shackled so they can do it all again to them the very next day. In Guantanamo, therefore, evil takes a slightly more banal form.

The banality of evil.

The banality of evil is a term which has often been used to describe institutionalised acts of barbarity and depravity which have become routine.  That is to say those forms of barbarity which through repetition and mass-production are no longer exceptional but have become mechanised and methodical.  Guantanamo is only a small, but significant part of a huge neo-liberal military enterprise designed to kill on an industrial scale. Guantanamo is a small production sub-unit of this industry of death and has been designed and constructed to manufacture a particular end-product.

The stages and processes set into motion by this industrialised military sub-unit were designed to obtain just one commodity – information. The production process chosen for this particular information extraction process involves inflicting harm, pain, discomfort and fear which is applied to the raw material from which this information is drawn. The admitted tools or ‘instruments’ (the means of production) used in this manufacturing process are leg-chains, handcuffs, tables, stools, chairs, towels, water, numerous blunt objects, sleep deprivation and incessant noise.

Like any other manufacturing establishment there is at Guantanamo a well developed division of labour in its production process. Thus there are those who do the torturing, those who cook their meals, those who do the paper work, those who guard the base, those who do the cleaning, the maintenance and repairs. Most of the personnel involved can therefore distance themselves somewhat from the routine acts of torture. They can just focus on their small function in the system without accepting that they are a necessary part of a depraved production process.

Whilst all such cogs in this ‘factory of torture’ can use the rationalisation that they are just ‘following orders’, those not involved in applying the instruments can also comfort themselves with ‘I am only doing the; cooking, repairing, record-filing, driving etc‘. However, there are two job specifications in this unit of conveyor belt torture which are at the blunt – or sharp – end of this manufacturing ‘system’.

The two sets of ‘skilled’ workers in this disgusting and barbaric production process are first; those who turn the raw material of humanity into the final product of information, and second; the medical staff who salvage the raw material when it has been ‘worked-over’ to total exhaustion. Using the above-noted instruments of production the torturers apply them to their chosen captured human beings and after an appropriate period of production, the medical staff ensure that the raw material is sufficiently recovered to be ‘prepared’ to start the next shift.

The detainees in this way are no different than ‘slaves’ in this forced production process – they have no choice. The fact that these human subjects may be innocent of any wrong-doing is of no interest to those who work at the factory, their job is simply to obtain information.  Just like the capitalist mode of production they imitate, the senior military managers are also unconcerned as to the authenticity of the source of their captured raw material supplies. Nor are they concerned with the pollution – in the form of disgust and anger – which spills out of this nefarious industry and percolates around the world.

The skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers in this military factory of torture are often presented as being the modern part of a heroic tradition of courageous principled defenders of their respective communities.  But this is far from the truth. Modern combatants in this neo-liberal industry of death prefer to confront unarmed or lightly armed opponents with all the advantages of superior weaponry, superior armour and multi-dimensional back-up. One-to-one equal combat such as duelling or boxing is shunned like the plague.

At Guantanamo this disproportion is displayed in malignant detail. Detainees are doubly shackled, individually outnumbered and utterly powerless, whilst their torturers and their assistants ‘process’ this human material in well-armed, well-equipped, well-fed, well-rested teams. The inhumanity and cowardice displayed by this disproportional relationship between detainee and guards; between oppressor and oppressed at Guantanamo extends even to the latest developments at this nefarious production unit.

Forced feeding.

After years of abusive treatment many of the detainees in Guantanamo have resorted to one of the few methods of protest open to them. Unlike other enslaved persons, they cannot escape so they have gone on hunger strike.  Some having given up hope of any chance of release and with nothing to live for have decided it is best to die – in one of the only ways open to them. Others, hoping to stimulate world-wide protest against the inhumanity of Guantanamo, have joined them.

The response to this decision by the managers of this information processing factory has been typically cruel and banal. Although they have no further use for them – all the possible information has been wrung out of them – they have ordered the ‘work-force’ to force feed these unwilling victims. The work-force has duly obliged.  Since the victims have chosen not to eat, force feeding amounts to further torture. They have to be tackled and held down by several healthy strong guards, strapped securely to a chair so they cannot move, a rubber tube forced up their noses and down into their stomachs while a liquid is poured down the tube.

Such is the banality of this evil that although the detainees are of no further use in the information extraction process, the ’industry’ owners will not release them, nor let them die. The reason is not hard to grasp. They know what they do is despicable and are afraid of released prisoners publicising what has happened and taking legal action. They are also afraid of them dying because they will have to be released for burial and a public enquiry into the circumstances of death would be likely.

In either event the Nuremberg defence of ‘we were only following orders’ will be challenged and full disclosure of orders and practices at the Guantanamo torture factory will undoubtedly be required. As a result, such evil must be hidden away from view as much as possible and what is known must be rationalised as eloquently as can be achieved.  For this reason – in the twisted minds of those who staff the unit and oversee it from afar – torture must be continued – but now for a different purpose! And as a further consequence it must be excused by the usual sickening political-style ‘spin’.

Under the impact of the spreading knowledge of the hunger strike the managers of this torture industry have recently employed spokesmen to field public and media questions concerning the circumstances of forced feeding. Aping the political spin-doctoring mode, one such military spin-doctor explained not long ago that the forced feeding was a ‘humane act which was necessary to save lives which they were bound by their humanity to do’ (that is my own paraphrase).

What a bare-faced cheek! What gall to dress up illegal capture, enslavement and torture in the terminological clothing of caring humanity. What a bicameral state of mind these apologists for and executioners of depravity must be in. One cannot help wondering if such workers ever take this particular rationale home. Eg. “What did you do today/this month daddy? “Oh I helped to save the life of someone who wanted to die?” “Why did he want to die daddy? “Mm. Lets watch TV son.”

An interesting twist.

What a noble profession these death industry workers are engaged in. It must take some slick rationalisation and well-hewn double standards to kill and torture in the name of peace and justice and then go to sleep at night. But there is a further twist to this particular US pinnacle of banality and depravity. The President of the United States is the senior military commander of this industry of death. As such he can order the killing of foreign or domestic citizens without any due process of law.

So he could if he so wished order the ending of torture and the closure of Guantanamo. But he hasn’t. Of course as the first black president he would risk condemnation from many people who opposed this (along with other things) and might even dent his future career prospects a little so this may be bothering his mind somewhat. However, what isn’t bothering his mind is the following. What is going on at Guantanamo – under his watch – is many of the things that happened to his black brethren slaves in America not very long ago.

Black slaves in America in the 18th and 19th centuries were also captured illegally, double-shackled, transported, beaten, tortured, force-fed, kept in pens, humiliated, separated from their partners, children and friends and forced to produce – in that case cotton, tobacco and sugar. Yet isn’t that exactly what a black President is allowing to happen to brown-skinned Arab men in the 20th and 21st centuries in order to produce a different product – information?

The process is remarkably the same; capture them by force from afar, transport them in shackles, pen them up and then brutally force them to produce what the neo-liberals want. To end the torture and depravity of slavery in Europe and America it took many years of campaigning and changes in the means of production. Sadly it seems it will take as long for this new form of depravity to be ended. Guantanamo is just one pinnacle, Abu Ghraib, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan are others – a full list would be a long one.

Guantanamo also demonstrates the fact that just because one section of humanity has been brutally treated as raw material for another, it does not mean that all members of that section will learn humanity or humility. Obama, a fortunate member of a previous oppressed people, shows the same lack of humanitarian concern for the enslaved inmates of Guantanamo as do the Israeli Jews for the Palestinians.

The ruling elites – from wherever they are drawn – can see no further than their own immediate interests. In the case of Guantanamo, it is in the immediate interests of the North American neo-liberal elite, of which Obama is now part, to keep open this publicly funded information processing unit. This is despite the fact that the fall-out from its existence fuels anger, resentment and (along with other atrocities such as  invasions, occupations and drone strikes) equally depraved acts of revenge.

Memories are long and because oppression, exploitation and such barbaric depravity have become the norm it will consequently take a long time for forgiveness and peace to enter this world.  The results of this elite-led inhumanity is something we all have to presently live with and because of this hopefully more of us will come together to work against it.

Roy Ratcliffe (May 2013)

THE 1926 BRITISH GENERAL STRIKE.

Previously I have dealt with the often sectarian nature of calls for general strikes. [see 'Sectarianism and the question of a General Strike'.] In a later article I presented a brief over-view of the UK social and economic ferment around the early inter-war period (1918 – 1922). [see 'General Strike: Myth and Misconception'.] In that second article the main organisation structure for mass working class opposition to the needs of capital were based around an ‘official’ alliance of the three largest concentrations of workers, the Miners, the Railway workers and the Dockers. That agreement for mutual support became popularly known as the ‘Triple Alliance’. It is a period well worthy of study for it represents the closest analogue to the present crisis of capitalism. However, the failure of that alliance – under circumstances which were favourable to success – did not end the difficulties faced by working people. Indeed the failure made them worse.

In this third concluding article on this question I shall consider the events around the famous, (or perhaps in some ways the infamous) 1926 General Strike. Having faced a weakened ruling elite between 1918 – 1922 and lost, the working class in the post Triple Alliance period, suffered wage reductions and increased working time. Under the capitalist mode of production, wage reductions and longer working hours increase the surplus-value produced by workers and pocketed by the owners of Capital for further distribution as profits, interest and taxes. Industrial capitalists and pro-capitalist politicians at the time needed this increase in surplus-value because world competition and the effects of the first world war, had significantly reduced the post-war rate and mass of surplus-value in the UK. That situation along with high levels of surplus finance-capital was the underlying socio-economic basis of the heightened inter-war class struggles dealt with in the previous articles. But that short period of struggle was only the beginning of the dire situation for workers.

The failure of these mass-based struggles meant that the organised workers, post 1921, conducted their defensive struggles on a sectional basis – and with very little success. The arrest and black-listing of union activists involved in the triple alliance movement weakened the left and strengthened the right wing in the trade union movement. The Union elites, many of whom had backed down in face of government threats and promises, retained their exalted positions within the trade union movement along with their ideas of peaceful reformist progress. During this period the middle-class intellectuals in the Independent Labour Party (ILP) produced their own contribution to the reform of capitalism entitled ‘Socialism in our Time’. The report recommended a minimum wage and nationalisation of key industries. This was exactly the bourgeois form of ‘socialism’ that Marx had warned against in 1848. In fact when partially implemented later in 1948-50 this form of ‘socialism’ was the means of rescuing and resuscitating capitalism. However, that was in the future; meanwhile in 1925 the situation was still bleak.

A) 1925 – Manoeuvres and preparations

Despite the previous Triple Alliance debacle, the idea of a mass strike did not completely die out. Even after the earlier defeats an element of fantasy rhetoric and wishful thinking still surfaced in trade union debates. For example, A. B. Swales of the Amalgamated Engineering Union at the TUC conference in 1925, thought the collapse of capitalism was nigh and perhaps getting carried away during his speech, stated;

“…at last there are clear indications of a world movement rising in revolt and determined to shake off the shackles of wage slavery.”

Such hopeful thinking was not entirely without basis, for there was indeed rising class conflict throughout Europe. In Russia this ferment had been transformed – at least initially – into workers revolution. Some of the left delegates to the 1925 annual TUC conference, hoping for the best, could not have known what totalitarian direction the events in Russia had already taken. Nor could they perhaps anticipate that the mistakes made in 1919 – 1921 would be so quickly repeated when they passed a resolution calling for a general strike. Although the fact that the resolution was referred to the right-leaning General Council for further consideration, may have caused a few utterances of ‘Oh no! – Not again’ for some of the more critical delegates.

Outside of the conference hall it was the continuing conflict between the miners and mine-owners which continued to focus attentions of workers and government alike. The quarrel came to a head during the summer of 1925 and a 1,000 strong conference of mine workers union delegates met and agreed to take decisive action. The main thrust of this action was to be in the form of an embargo on the movement of coal to begin on July 31st. On hearing of this decision the government backed down, met the union leaders and agreed to initiate a serious inquiry on the mining industry. A Royal Commission was therefore set up to examine the problems obstructing development in the mining industry. The commission was typically dominated by businessmen and senior civil servants – not all of whom were unsympathetic to the mine workers. Six months of waiting and marking time for the miners and workers followed this announcement whilst the Royal Commission deliberated. In contrast the government was quite active during this period.

Indeed, government officials behind the scenes were very busy setting up an Organisation for the Maintenance of Supplies (OMS). It was an organisation for recruiting and deploying volunteers to do exactly what it said on the tin so to speak – maintain the supply of essential materials and goods! This organisation plus the Emergency Powers Act of 1920 as supplemented by Circular 636, together with a number of government initiated conferences, formed the main basis of the governments preparations for a possible general strike. In contrast the TUC did next to nothing to prepare for such an eventuality. After some months the Royal Commission Report on mining was published, a Report which satisfied neither the mine owners of the miners. The mine owners wanted longer hours for the same wages, the miners wanted more money for the same hours. In other words it was still – stalemate!

B) 1926 – Just eight days of action.

After numerous unsuccessful meetings between miners representatives and mine owners reps, it was clear that no compromise was possible. For this reason on the 28th April the miners attended a further delegate conference to decide yet again what action they should take. The day after this rank and file conference a meeting of executive members of the effected trade unions also took place. These two meetings followed the previous months of more formal encounters, mainly between Trade Union leaders and government representatives. Against this background of deadlocked negotiations, the mine owners decided to assert their control and institute a ‘lock-out’ to commence on April 30th. Yet meetings between Trade Union leaders and government and mine owners representatives continued.

During one such meeting the Prime Minister Baldwin declared an end to the talks. His stated reason was because printers at the Daily Mail had refused to print a Monday issue unless an unfavourable editorial was altered. The withdrawal of the government and the threatened lock-out, forced the reluctant TUC general council to go through with the threatened general strike. It was set to start from midnight May 3rd 1926, and it did. The following day no trains ran, the docks were still, no buses moved and no newspapers appeared. In addition, building workers struck as did those in iron and steel, chemical, print, road transport, electricity and gas workers. The general strike was on.

     a) Workers strike organisation.

With  thousands of workers out on strike, many more expressed a desire to join in and support the struggle, but were held back by their union leaders. Nevertheless, a wide range of local workers action-groups were quickly formed around a core of strike requirements. These activities were, picketing, publicity, transport, communications, entertainment, meetings and permits for work and movements. Throughout the country, 54 of these strike groups took the name of ‘councils of action‘, 45 adopted ‘strike committee’ as their title, 15 were designated ‘Trades Council Committees‘, nine, ‘emergency committees’ and eight bore miscellaneous names. Typically, each union leadership gave differing guidelines and instructions to their union members. This lack of cohesion was further complicated by the fact that local strike committees were not allowed to communicate directly with the TUC but had to go through their own trade union executives.

Obvious problems of continuity and lack of consistency thus emerged throughout the country and exposed the weakness of sectionalism and the reformist and half-hearted perspective of the trade union leadership. For example, the co-op movement offered to give strikers credit or vouchers during the strike, but the unions would not guarantee to settle the amount owed when the strike was over. Nevertheless, the strike continued to develop with 1.25 million workers being directly involved after a couple of days. Meanwhile, the TUC did all it could to keep control of the movement and to stifle local initiatives. During numerous local actions, many activists were arrested by the government and a growing awareness of this resulted in many of the most prominent local activist changing their place of sleeping every night. Despite such avoidance measures, over 3,000 workers were arrested during the period of the strike.

In spite of provocations and arrests the strikers in general were well organised and in high spirits. Each town and district of large cities took part in meetings, demonstrations, recreational activities, concerts and picketing operations. In addition most local groups were busy issuing permits, preventing the smooth operation of normal ‘official’ activities, ensuring their own and publishing local bulletins. However, in a number of places violence occurred when police attempted to prevent the strikers from controlling the movement of vehicles and the distribution of food. At Glasgow, Doncaster, Leeds and Barnsley violent disputes broke out over the running of buses and transport. In several areas of London violent clashes between police and strikers took place as they did to a lesser degree in other parts of the country.

However, despite the rank and file initiative and creativity within each area and locale it was the undisputed control the Trade Union leadership that was to determine the subsequent outcome. TUC officials and union heads, for example, were keen to deny government accusations that they were challenging the power of the state. Indeed, they were not, for during this period, they were frequently engaged in secret talks with government. On at least one occasion at a posh mansion belonging to a South African mine-owner between the 6th and 10th May they were busily discussing with a government intermediary. At this clandestine meeting a memorandum was agreed – but with no formal guarantees. This memorandum was eventually rejected by the miners leaders on May 11, whilst the strike was still growing in strength. Despite these unsatisfactory outcomes, at 12.20 on Wednesday May 12 a deputation from the TUC met with the Prime Minister and agreed to call off the strike.

       b) The governments organisation.

As noted above the Emergency powers and the organisational framework to break the strike were already in place during 1915 and these swung into assertive action during the months of March and April 1926. The government by this time had 99 volunteer service committees, a force of 226,000 special constables, mounted police and armed soldiers to guard convoys. Strike breaking volunteers came forward from offices, ex-army personnel, students, rugby and cricket players, banks, city of London financiers, society ladies and managers of the various parts of industry and commerce. Further numbers of volunteers were recruited from businessmen, civil servants, local government officers, and unemployed workers. As the strike took hold these volunteers drove trains, buses, unloaded ships, warehouses, drove trucks, ran canteens and published the governments propaganda. The latter mainly through the medium of the ‘British Gazette’ – a broad sheet directed against the strike. A typical statement in it read;

“The country will break the strike or the strike will break the country.” (British Gazette May 6 1926.

In addition to arresting and jailing activists, the police confiscated typewriters, duplicators and were told by the OMS instructions to be as vigorous with their truncheons as they needed to be to contain and defeat the strike. Under the Emergency Powers Act the government also assumed the right to seize, land, buildings, food, vehicles, docks, railways, coal, petrol, electricity, gas and water supplies. Public meetings were prohibited, premises searched and fraternising with the troops was declared a punishable offence. Trade Union officials were threatened with arrest and threats to sequester union funds were made. Advice was sought by the government to have the Strike made illegal, but this was not pursued. Despite some set-backs and lack of ability of the strike-breaking volunteers, with all the power of the state and the pro-capitalist classes, the governments preparations were able to dwarf those of the Trade Union bureaucracy.

The aftermath.

The BBC quickly announced the end of the strike over the radio and the TUC sent out telegrams to the local union offices calling off the strike – after just eight full days. In these communications the TUC deceitfully suggested that the miners situation was going to be resolved and for this reason the strike was no longer necessary. The rank and file greeted this news with dismay, disbelief, anger and frustration. Some decided and tried to go back to work whilst others refused and wanted to carry on. Employers were now free to take back those they wished and refuse those they thought unsuitable. Many workers were only taken back on condition they left their unions. Others had to sign a paper admitting they had broke their contracts. In this way new and therefore reduced contracts were forced upon large numbers of workers. Six months after the strike had been called off, 45, 000 railway workers had still not been accepted back at their workplaces.

Calling off the strike was considered by most workers and activists as another grand betrayal. Once again the working class had shown solidarity, initiative, good humour, discipline, organisational ability and stoicism, only to be sold out. Betrayed by a leadership which had one foot in ‘respectability’ along with ambitions for future parliamentary careers and peerages. By the11th May the strike was still spreading and indeed the engineering workers followed instructions to come out as the ‘second wave’ on the 11th. The date is important. The TUC leaders already knew in their own minds they would probably call the strike off the very next day but let the engineers strike. Many of these subsequently lost their jobs and livelihood as victimisation took hold of all employers organisations and managers. The blacklist was extended generally and many workers never regained their former employment and had to accept any type of work they could find.

The miners had now been abandoned, albeit reluctantly by the workers in other industries. Now it was every worker for themselves. No working class job was secure now this capitulation by the leadership had taken place. The miners held out for another four months before hardship began to create a sporadic drift back to work – on any terms the employers would offer. A breakaway miners union was formed in the midlands to co-ordinate this and speed it up. Eventually those miners who were accepted back at their pits had to agree to longer hours and lower pay. At the national level, the government later introduced the Trade Disputes and Trade Union Act of 1927. This Act declared sympathy strikes and assertive picketing illegal, it made future political levies subject to voluntary contributions and severed the civil service unions and associations from links with the TUC.

Conclusions.

This whole history and that preceding it during the 1918-1921 period of class struggle, reveals the extent of the forces those engaged in general strike are taking on. For this reason the period deserves serious study. It also demonstrates that the simplistic slogan ‘unity is strength’ in practice, is nothing more than a useless abstraction. Strength depends upon what kind of unity is achieved. The top-down form of trade union unity allows ’leaders’ to direct, misdirect, undermine, restrict or even totally betray working class struggles. Trade union based unity has proved more often than not, to be a weakness rather than a strength.

Indeed, essentially the same pattern is currently being played out in Europe, particularly Greece. It will continue to do so in the US and the UK, whenever such large-scale actions occur. Governments, trade union officials and political parties of the ‘left’ and those calling themselves ‘socialist’ in the 21st century will do what they did in the 20th. In any social uprisings and challenges to the capitalist system they will ally themselves with bourgeois-liberal elements and betray the struggles of workers and oppressed. This is because they are a structural part of the ‘system’ they believe in and are a permanent part of the problem. Socialism for these people is nothing more than capitalism with a few paltry benefits – welfare capitalism for a privileged few.

The only kind of unity worth having is that built on solidarity between and among the working and oppressed themselves. And even here, the form of solidarity and unity needs to be developmentally appropriate to the varying purposes intended and the results required. Superficially, it may seem that a country-wide unity organised from a command type centre is the most appropriate form. However, idealised assumptions such as these – as we have seen – rarely materialise as imagined. The vast majority of workers and oppressed in such struggles are therefore rendered dependant upon the centre and charismatic leaders – both of which can easily be corrupted or removed.

Given the depth and breadth of the crisis capitalism is currently undergoing the unity needed is that based on the self-activity and self-governance of the working and oppressed. In the struggle for such solidarity there is a need to constantly assert and explain to those in struggle the systemic bankruptcy of the capitalist mode of production and the sterility of trying to reform it. In addition the case needs to be made for the potential and necessity of a post-capitalist perspective guided by a revolutionary-humanist outlook.

Roy Ratcliffe (May 2013.)

RELIGION – IS – POLITICS!

The recent pronouncement (May 2013) by Justin Welby, Archbishop of Cantebury, that UK television ought to give a high profile to religion, raises an important question. His elite male desire to have religion “stitched into our public life” brings to the fore what tends to get overlooked in the countries of the west. It is that at their root, most religions are patriarchal ideologies that seek to govern the thinking and actions of those who come within their respective spheres of control. In other words organised religions are actually a form of politics.

When western politicians claim that ‘religion should be kept out of politics’ and western theologians assert that ‘politics should be kept out of religion‘ this indicates a tacit recognition of a hard-won truce – in the west – between the competing desires of both these elite’s to exclusively govern their particular communities. However, as we know, the west is only a special and relatively recent case, and as we now see vividly manifested in the Middle East, religion is actually one of the oldest forms of politics.

The fierce struggles in Europe against religious governance during the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment periods, finally created a bifurcation between the two sets of competing elites. The male political elite began to govern their communities according to secular law whilst the male religious elite continued to govern theirs according to ancient texts – but after the Enlightenment within a restricted sphere.

However, this split between secular politics and religious politics is less clear-cut in other countries – particularly in the Indian sub-continent and the Middle East. There, the battle between religious and secular forms of elite male governance still rages. In Iran the conflict, has been won by the religious elite – at least for the moment. In Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, the struggle ebbs and floes, but continues. The current fundamentalist religious movements exerting themselves by bomb and/or ballot-box in the Middle-East, North Africa, Afghanistan etc., represent an aggressive return to the primary political core of religions – particularly the three Abrahamic ones.

Interestingly in Europe and the UK there is also the beginning of a re-emergence of that particular struggle. It comes via calls for Shia Law to take precedence over secular decision-making – for some sections of our European and UK communities. It is time, therefore, to recognise that organised religion – at its core – is not simply a private spiritual matter, but another form of politics. It is therefore an issue of increasing public importance. On the surface, the question may appear simply as a choice between decisions based upon ancient books, or upon ballot boxes. But it is actually more than this.

Left unchallenged such a choice resolves itself into a question of which set of elite males should govern and regulate the conduct of communities, societies and nations. This is because ‘patriarchal power’ is the sun around which these two competing forms of earthly governance orbit and neither have brought peace, justice or equality, let alone gender equality. As we shall see in the next section political governance by male elite’s is hard-wired into the DNA of all three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Later we will see a mirror image of this patriarchal aspiration reflected in secular politics.

Religion: Politics by another name.

The neglect of serious biblical studies – even among those of ‘faith’ – leaves most people with a casual and naïve understanding of religious ideology. In fact theoretically and practically, religion is about earthly governance so religion is a form of politics. In this regard it is the existence of threats and punishments which identifies any ideology as concerned primarily with politics and governance. The three Abrahamic religions are therefore replete with threats and punishments. Reading the Torah/Old Testament quickly reveals that ‘in the beginning’ was not just light – but governance.

Genesis clearly expresses that the imagined first couple, Adam and Eve were to have no say in what they could and could not eat or how they would live. They were duly punished for gaining knowledge. The author/s of Genesis and the other books of the bible clearly did not wish humanity to be self-governing, democratic or even knowledgeable. Later, Genesis suggests that the whole of humanity, except Noah, was punished because they did not follow the dictates laid out for them. Noah is even promoted to governor general of the whole planet;

“And the fear of you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the earth and of every bird of the sky:” (Genesis 9 v 2.)

Later still, Abram is said to have, circumcised every member of his family and household. No, discussion, no contradiction, no alternative and no vote on the matter was to be allowed. The inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, who refused to live according to such dictates, were duly wiped out. The true political import of such narratives is missed if only their authenticity or historical credibility is discussed. In each case, the texts are purposeful, polemical narratives used as political weapons in order to establish at least three hierarchical-based objectives.

First, to establish and confirm an exclusive, collective community. Second, to gain and maintain leadership control of that collective community by a governing male elite. Third, to promote and consolidate the attributes and objectives considered desirable by that governing elite, which by sleight of hand they present as the word of God.

“But if you will not harken to the voice of the Lord your God, and do not observe and do all his commandments and his statutes which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you…..The Lord shall send upon you ruin, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed, and until you perish quickly; because of your evil doings, because you have forsaken me.” (Torah/Old Testament. Deut. 28 v 15 and 20.)

The real political essence of this passage (and countless others) is the demand to ‘do’ (ie obey) all the commandments and statutes’ which are decreed by the religious elite. The demand, in typical totalitarian fashion, is backed up by threats of punishments up to and including total destruction of those who resist. The narratives of Exodus and Leviticus are also full of rules and regulations that were to be forcefully imposed upon tribal members by the leaders of the tribe. What these texts demonstrate is the aim of an elite to govern every aspect of personal and community life. One further example;

“They will bow down to you with their faces to the earth. And lick the dust of your feet.”…”And your descendants shall posses nations.”..”.the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish.” “You will eat the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast.” (Isaiah 49 v 23; 54 v 3; 60 v 12;61 v 6.)

What is clear is that these are not spiritual concerns. They are political aspirations and fantasies. Although they were never realised, the patriarchal political nature and essence of Judaism did not atrophy or become extinct. Jewish women and the Palestinians have born witness to how this aspiration to govern others still virulently operates. The desire to become a political power governing human conduct is also clearly evident in the Christian Gospels.

“Where is He who has been born King of the Jews?…In Bethlehem…For out of you shall come forth a ruler.” (Mathew 2 v 2-5 and 6.)

The gospel narrators at this point were not anxious to gain a mystical interpreter of theology – they wanted much more. Because religion is essentially politics, its political nature did not (and still does not) disappear even when its advocates are forced by circumstances to play a subordinate role. Recall the empire-wide Christian governance achieved on the back of the conversion of the Roman Emperors, Constantine and Justinian to Christianity. This was a hegemony that led to Europe-wide community domination and oppression throughout the middle ages by successive Popes, and their religious/political lieutenants. It also led to the infamous bloody crusades to assert domination over the Middle East. Next consider the political foundation of Islam, which calls for submission and obedience to men, particularly elite men.

“O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything refer it to Allah and the Apostle,..” (Surah 4 v 59)

This is clearly an instruction to submit to a form of earthly governance controlled by Muhammud and ‘those in authority‘, which is not restricted purely to spiritual matters. The ’anything’ in this quotation applies to all aspects of communal living. The above, and many other instances in the Qur’an are political directives aimed at the total governance of human communities by a male elite. From the conquest of Mecca in 630 CE, through the armed establishment of the Islamic Empire in the 9th to the 13th century, the politics of Islam governed all aspects of life with rigorous detail and ruthless determination. For;

“Allah has promised to those of you who believe and do good that He will most certainly make them rulers of the earth as He made rulers those before them…” (Surah 24 v 55)

Here we have the third, Abrahamic monotheistic ideology, not only emphatically aspiring to the complete political governance of human communities already incorporated within their control, but ever hopeful of jurisdiction over those who as yet remain outside it.

An important point arises here. The racist nature of some of those who criticise Islam, particularly in the West, is revealed by their partiality. They correctly recognise the political nature of Islam and its frequent ruthless suppression of opposition, but do not criticise Judaism and Christianity for this identical political aspiration and practice. Nor do they criticise Christianised liberal democratic capitalist politics for its immorality, corruption and support for exploitation of the worlds’ people and environment. Religion in the west, is no less a form of male politics, even though it has become a subordinate and colluding partner with another form of hierarchical male domination – politics via the ballot box.

Politics: A new form of religion.

In western countries in particular, politics has become an alternative universal absolute. For some people, ‘faith’ in politics has replaced ‘faith’ in an invisible higher power. Politics has, like religion, become seen as something universally and eternally good – whose existence is rarely questioned – even if its honesty is. Political parties have even taken on the form and some of the content of religious denominations and sects. Like religions they are dominated by male hierarchies, who decide rules along with acceptable ‘norms’ for their membership. They also promise future benefits to mankind – under their leadership – and continually preach the ‘good news’ to members who duly attend conferences to listen.

Some political parties are more democratic than others, and like Protestant Congregationalism and Presbyterianism, allow a varying degree of participation to members. But again like religion, it is generally a form of participation, restricted to financially supporting the elite and serving them practically. Unfortunately, this is not the worst aspect of politics, for political parties create and encourage an attitude of unwarranted ‘belief’. Belief in ‘the party’, in spite of any contradictory evidence; ‘belief’ in the leadership, in spite of obvious failings; and ‘belief’ in the party dogma and ideology – without question. It becomes, a religious type commitment.

Take for example the words of Trotsky’s 1924, speech to the 13th congress of the Russian Communist Party; ”..in the last analysis, the party is always right…‘right or wrong, this is my party”. This statement is so close to a form of nationalistic passion or religious zeal as to be an adequate indicator that even the politics of the ‘left’ is effected by this ‘absolutist’ phenomenon. That a fervent anti-capitalist and highly intelligent intellectual such as Leon Trotsky can succumb to such political ‘intoxication’ shows how powerfully this secular ‘universal absolute’ has become – and he was not on his own to fetishise ‘the party’!

Nor is it something now relegated to the past. For was this sentiment (my party right or wrong) not powerfully exhibited by some members of the SWP in the recent troubling events? Unfortunately it is not restricted to this one UK sectarian organisation but infects most of them. Indeed, as Marx long ago wrote; “Every sect is in fact religious”. Yet there are still many contemporary anti-capitalists who unquestioningly accept (ie ‘believe’ in) the absolute necessity for a political party to deliver the oppressed from exploitation by the capitalist classes. The party in this perspective is seen as a missionary type project whose elite will guide and lead the workers to a new-Jerusalem salvation.

This ‘belief’ in the ‘party’ exists despite the evidence that political parties are the problem not the solution to the problems facing the working and oppressed classes. And it is here that the distinction between belief-based ideas and evidence-based ideas becomes starkly apparent. Advocates of belief-based ideas accept only evidence that supports their beliefs and reject evidence that does not. Even highly intelligent anti-capitalists will trawl through copious amounts of material in order to extract evidence that confirms what they already believe. They rarely, if ever, search out or trawl through historical material to find evidence that contradicts their views. This partisan research method distinguishes between those who say they follow Marx and those who actually follow Marx’s advice on research and politics. For example;

“Hence too, a revolution with a political soul, in accordance with the limited and dichotomous nature of its soul, organises a ruling stratum in society at the expense of society itself.” (Marx in ‘Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 3 page 205.)

Marx’s negative appraisal of politics and the political mentality was the other side of the coin so to speak of his oft-repeated advocacy that “The emancipation of the working class, must be achieved by the working classes themselves.” It also coincides with his decision not to co-operate with people who stated that the workers must be “..freed from above by philanthropic persons from the upper and lower middle classes.” These opinions rarely get an airing on the ‘left’ nor are they seriously considered by those who continue to ‘believe’ in the Leninist project of creating a ‘vanguard’ party to emancipate the working class. This is despite the fact that Leninism from 1917 and beyond did in fact organise a ruling stratum in soviet society at the expense of workers of soviet society.

To sum up.

The fact that religion and politics are ideologies of patriarchal governance should be obvious from their ideas and their practices. They both promote an acceptance of governance by elite males, to the detriment of women and all those below them. This governance is perpetuated by three elements. First: hegemony in thinking. Second: threats of possible punishment. Third: by actual punishments. The latter two explain the viciousness with which people, who seriously oppose their rule, are treated. Whilst some kinds of political governance may be marginally better than religious, the political elite’s still use the armed bodies of the state to club, pepper-spray, taser, kettle, gas, arrest and imprison demonstrating workers, anti-capitalist activists and other protestors against their rule.

In many non-western countries these enforcement elements are not always adequately provided by the state and therefore patriarchal vigilantes fill in the gaps. The meaning of religiously inspired shooting or beheading of women and men who do not accept governance by fundamentalist males is both to directly punish and harm the victims but also to reinforce conformity and fear among others. The bombing of polling stations and different religious communities by fanatics from other religions has the same purpose and the purpose is political. If religious community hostilities were simply about esoteric spiritual matters, disputes would be conducted in words only and agreement (or disagreement) would be reached without bloodshed.

Neither is it, as some people imagine, that religious hostility is political hostility in which spiritual matters have been unfairly introduced to confuse or justify the actions of combatants. An element of that may be occasionally true, but religiously inspired hostilities are always political hostilities, precisely because religion has always been and continues to be a form of patriarchal politics. Once again, (ie in the 21st century) religion is trying to become the new politics and the old politics has, for all intents and purposes, become a moribund religion. Neither offer real material benefits, except to their elites. They are both parasitic on their respective communities promising a better future under their leadership, but delivering worse.

To gain a future fit for all sections of humanity, without discrimination, without exploitation and oppression, the capitalism mode of production will have to be superseded and all forms of patriarchal governance – religious and political – relegated to the dustbin of history. An awareness of these two needs will take time and experience to spread widely among communities. Old habits and deference are too well ingrained to be instantly overthrown for self-activity and communal organisation.

Nevertheless, every new mode and every new paradigm of thinking has its pioneers. Among the young people of the 21st century, there are many such future trailblazers untainted by religious dogma or political sectarianism. It is these present and future generations of humanity in the east and the west, who face the task of combating the patriarchal ideologies of religion and bourgeois politics. It is to be hoped that the developing crisis will speed this process on.

Roy Ratcliffe (May 2013)

[See also ‘The shooting of Malalah’ ; ‘Religion versus Women’s Rights’; ‘Clinging onto Patriarchy’ ; ‘The Party (help or Hindrance)’ and ‘Leaders or Facilitators’ at http://www.critical-mass.net ]

CULLING THE MIDDLE CLASSES.

Round one.

The last three decades of hegemony by neo-liberal economists and their political allies have seen the ruthless devastation of the organised working class and the virtual annihilation of the small business class – in all advanced capitalist countries. The once large-scale trade union movement of skilled and unskilled workers, attacked by economic rationalisation and the capitalist state, has been shrunk to a fraction of its pre- and post-Second World War numbers. Its political and social influence has consequently also been radically reduced.

Running almost parallel with this deliberate onslaught against the working class has been the less direct, but no less thorough impoverishment and demise of the small business section of the middle-class. Part of this sector (retail) has been replaced by mega super-markets and internet shopping. Another part (component supply) has been largely replaced by small to middle businesses based in foreign ‘export processing zones‘ (EPZ‘s). A final segment was devastated by bank miss-selling of interest rate swaps and other financial instruments. This continual culling of its members along with their economic base has also reduced the social and political influence of the small business section of the middle-class.

These 20th century developments were the first stage in an ongoing process of assault on the middle and white-collar classes. We are now witnessing a second stage in the culling of the middle-class section of capitalism. The logic of pre-2008 and post-2008 stages of the capitalist mode of production was, and is, to find ways to invest the increasing amounts of surplus finance-capital created by the economic process. Enormous amounts of money-capital could not, and still cannot find direct or indirect investment opportunities in existing industrial and commercial projects. An alternative source of investment was needed and under capitalism, it still is.

That was the primary economic motive for the privatisation of state assets begun under Thatcher in the UK. However, a further consequence of the 20th century privatisations was the reduction of the numbers and salaries of the middle ranks of management and workforce. Now, in the 21st century, austerity measures have accelerated the process of ‘shaking out‘ this particular ‘state-employed’ section of the middle class. The planned further reductions of public spending and further privatisations will continue this process.

Round two.

Neo-liberalism represents the political and economic domination of society by the big-business, banking and bond-holder sections of capitalism. However, as a minority, they do not act alone. It is the political class and the armed forces of the state, which act as the willing agents of these financial sections. It is the politicians and their intellectual servants in universities and think-tanks who must devise means of achieving the economic and financial interests of finance-capital. It is these pro-capitalist intellectuals who also invent the justifications and rationalisations to present these sectional interests as being for the general good.

Hence the latest plans to introduce the ‘mutualisation’ of more state assets. Mutualisation is privatisation with a fig-leaf to cover up the more offensive parts. Those workers who manage to keep their jobs after mutualisation, will be given some ‘shares‘ in the private company. Shares which in the continuing crisis will probably be worth next to nothing. Hence also the constant mantra of there being ‘no alternatives’ to the current model of UK and European crisis-solving. We are told there are no alternatives to austerity, low interest rates and quantitative easing (printing money). This is despite the obvious fact that there is a clear example of an alternative.

Iceland, a finance-dominated country, for example, found the only way to temporarily save its capitalist base – as a whole – from the current capitalist crisis. It did so by repudiating the sovereign and bank debt, jailing the bankers and officials who caused it and legally restricting the freedom of banks to do the same again. Of course, the Iceland example is not an alternative which will ultimately benefit present and future generations of blue and white-collar workers, the poor and the unemployed. Nor is it an alternative which will overcome the fundamental contradictions of the capitalist mode of production.

However, it is an alternative which protects the non-financial sections of the capitalist class, larger numbers of its middle-class supporters and does not require a home grown scapegoat. The failure to even suggest such a course of action for the countries of Europe, the UK and the US, demonstrates the allegiance of the right-wing political class to the finance sector of capital. This failure also highlights the poverty of political thinking within traditional left-leaning political elites in Europe. No ‘left’ politician has even hinted at such a possibility. Even Syriza in Greece, has not promoted such radical measures as the Icelandic pro-capitalists have already implemented.

The ‘Poverty of Politics’.

In Europe, UK and North America none of the mainstream political parties seem to have accepted that the present crisis requires radical solutions. Unlike the Icelandic pro-capitalists which recognised radical measures were necessary and swiftly took them, the political elite in the UK and elsewhere are stuck in a reformist time-warp. Their current policy debates reflect an entrenched neo-liberal orthodoxy together with a compromise mentality, both of which matured during an earlier relative affluent period of capitalist expansion.

Their talk of the need for ‘economic growth’ in a situation of global warming and general over-production of commodities, waste, pollution and skill sets, is an indication of being unable or unwilling to think out of the box. They individually and collectively demonstrate a paucity of imagination and a scarcity of rigour. As the saying goes; ‘they have as yet to wake up and smell the coffee‘. Over nineteen million (19.2m) unemployed in Europe with approaching 60% for those below 25 are clearly not enough human sufferers to galvanise them into some form of radicalism.

In addition to these present numbers, the higher education establishments in all countries are massively over-producing graduates relative to the number of jobs available to them under the capitalist system. This fact alone, if none of the others, should have disturbed the numerous slow-firing neurons in the brains of the capitalist political and economic elites. For it amounts to a mammoth social problem which faces current and future generations. Where are these educated white-collar workers; lawyers, doctors, accountants, economists, computer specialists, teachers etc., to find employment under a capitalist system that doesn’t need or want that many?

Already many graduates, as with large numbers of skilled white and blue-collar workers, are having to accept low-paid, mind-numbing jobs, stacking shelves or chasing non-existing jobs. We can see, if we care to, that it is not just an economic, financial and ecological crises which now faces humanity. It is also a large-scale cultural crisis – which raises questions of what societies are for and how they should be governed. Furthermore it is a crisis which cannot be solved on the basis of the present economic system nor with the current poverty of political thinking.

A further indication of the deficiency of political thinking among the pro-capitalist elite is demonstrated by recent comments by Conservatives in the UK. Ken Clarke announced that those who join or vote for UKIP (a new right-wing political party in the UK) are stupid and racist. William Hague considered them ‘clown-like’. Their fellow Tory conservative Boris Johnson argued that UKIP and Conservative voters think exactly on the same lines, whilst Conservative Norman Tebbit says he doesn‘t blame Tory voters if they vote UKIP.

Boris Johnson and Norman Tebbit are probably correct, but calling people ‘clown-like’ and stupid say’s more about the persons who use such terms than it does of those so described. Many 20th century European commentators thought the strutting Hitler and Mussolini clown-like, but they turned out to be much more astute and dangerous than that. And of course, even extreme right-wing voters are not stupid, when they vote for the Tories or UKIP. They and others less extreme are voting for measures they think will produce the best results for themselves. Their decision may be selfish, or in some cases based upon insufficient knowledge or understanding, but they are not stupid – and they may not all be racist.

It should be obvious that many people in the advanced countries, already acknowledge, in one way or another, that there is a radical problem with the present economic and social system. I suggest they are also aware that radical problems require radical solutions. In the UK, for example, there is a general recognition that Cameron, Clegg and Miliband are weak-knee’d dilettantes who exist primarily to please the bond-holding money markets. And this negative perception extends to many of their traditional supporters. In France it is estimated that up to 75% of the population have a similar view of the self-styled ‘socialist’ Francois Hollande. A comparable case can be made for the existence of a general dissatisfaction with mainstream politicians in the rest of Europe and North America. As ex Vice President, Al Gore in the US declared on Wednesday May 1st;

“The Congress is incapable of doing what the American people want.“

The reason? Gore put it down to – ‘the influence of big money’! In the circumstances of such wide-spread dissatisfaction, it cannot be surprising that changes in voting and thinking habits will start to occur. It is to be expected that the ongoing crisis will cause an erratic yet increasingly radical shake up of all politics and political forms. This is the reason for the growth in support for parties such as UKIP, and other right-wing parties as well as the loss of support for the mainstream parties of self-serving political posturing. This is also the reason for the currently unsuccessful campaigns (with the exception of Syriza in Greece) to create radical parties of the ‘left’ in the UK and elsewhere.

People who pursue radical solutions are not stupid. They may be basing their decisions on flawed criteria and understandings or have mistaken the symptoms for the cause. However, in doing so they are not alone. Indeed, dealing with the symptom and overlooking the cause, is a commonly wielded intellectual and cultural inheritance, derived as it is from bourgeois modes of thinking. For this reason, the present crisis-fed radical and erratic ferment, represents a challenge for anti-capitalists. The challenge is to articulate alternative criteria and reasoned arguments. It is simply not good enough to write people off on the basis that if they don’t yet agree with us – they must be racist, stupid or both.

And this propensity for politically-driven intellectual poverty is not just applicable to the right-wing, but can regularly infuse the political left’s psychology. The example of the ‘party-building Stalinists in the 1930’s refusing to support non-communists in opposing the Fascists comes eerily to mind in this regard. But almost identical political poverty exists in the contemporary UK phenomena of several separate defensive campaigns against the cuts. A number of alliance groups have been set up by competing sectarian groups, who have then distanced themselves from those they don’t control – each sect considering the other as beyond the pale.

The ‘Politics of Poverty’.

It is the above-noted ‘poverty of politics’ which also gives rise to it’s mirror image – the ‘politics of poverty‘. The politics of poverty began with subtly and systematically blaming the victims of the capitalist mode of production. Because not all citizens of each country can be successfully exploited by the capitalist system it leaves many citizens unemployed or under-employed. This (first cause), has led – in the ex-imperialist countries – to the introduction of welfare benefit systems. Under the pro-capitalist ‘politics-of-poverty’ speak, these victims have been transformed from a symptom, into a cause and are now labelled – ‘scroungers‘. In other countries the same capitalist lack of employment dynamic has given rise to a second and related symptom – unemployed working people seeking employment in countries other than their own. So these two sets of victims of the global capitalist system have become cast as the scapegoats for the systems own failure.

In other words both these categories of victims of the capitalist system have become transformed by all the mainstream politicians and media into the reasons for some or all of the problem of the capitalist mode of production. This pro-capitalist ‘politics of poverty’ is everywhere producing an atmosphere of nationalism and racism, directed against the poor and unemployed victims of capitalist economic practices. This nationalist and racist atmosphere, which arises as any other such divisive odour from the putrid economic base of the capitalist mode of production, is the gaseous fuel which drives the machinery of mainstream politics – including UKIP and the other far right political groupings.

Yet preventing or reducing immigration as all political parties now suggest doing, will not cure the problems of unemployment, of over-production, of speculative financial crises, of tax-avoidance, of obscene bonus payments, of taxing bank accounts, of pollution and of ecological destruction. Nor will leaving the EEC ease the problems for the UK, as UKIP suggests. UKIP and the far right politicians in all countries of the world, including the Islamist political parties, are all advocates of capitalism and trying to deal with the symptoms of capitalism will not prevent or cure the problems. The predicament which faces those who intend to vote for them, but are not racists or extreme nationalists, is that they will be just helping to make things worse, not better.

To repeat the reasons for such a conclusion! Capitalism cannot profitably employ all the citizens of any country of the world. Historically, it never was able to and it was unable to do so before EEC immigration policies were introduced. For this reason capitalism cannot even remove absolute poverty let alone relative poverty. Under the capitalist mode of production poverty, pollution and ecological destruction will always be with us. And the capitalist elite will do their best during this crisis to ensure that ordinary people bear the most severe burdens. That way also, more of us will sooner or later become victims and then by the ‘politics of poverty’ – if it is not seriously challenged, – it will become our turn to be blamed for becoming a burden.

Creating a humane alternative.

From a revolutionary-humanist perspective, each country needs to employ all its people, without over-producing commodities, or causing pollution and ecological destruction. Employing all citizens of working age at radically reduced working hours and an equalisation of the wealth produced have become an existential necessity for the welfare of the planet and the majority of its inhabitants. The ‘economic growth’ so beloved of the current batch of politicians and economists is not something the planet can sustain – under any system – without catastrophic consequences. Under the capitalist mode of production that is exactly what will happen whilst large numbers of the world‘s population continue to exist in absolute or relative poverty and conflict. The system needs changing in favour of a more humane post-capitalist alternative.

The last time the capitalist system collapsed to the extent it is currently heading toward, the working classes, marched, demonstrated, rebelled and begged. The middle-classes however, played a reactionary role. The small-business and shop-keeper mentality along with the petite-bourgeois prejudices of the professional classes allied itself to nationalist and racist agenda’s. They either stood aside, joined or voted for those fascist parties which flourished on political programs of blaming the victims. These were political program’s which in turn were harnessed to the needs of 20th century capital for armed expansion.

The consequent world war (the 2nd) essentially for the control of world markets and raw material resources, witnessed the mass execution of large sections of humanity distributed as they were on two competing amalgamations of capital. The ‘Allied Powers’ of UK, France and the US and the ‘Axis Powers’ of Germany, Italy and Japan – all dominated by the need for capital augmentation. The 20th century crisis of capitalism and the poverty it engendered was resolved by wholesale destruction, not of the capitalist system, but of large swathes of humanities poor and oppressed. Upwards of 60 million. That is how the last great episode of the politics of poverty was played out.

In the 21st century however, the ingredients and social composition of the middle-classes is different. Many of them have been and currently are, employed in non-profit-making industries and services before their salaries and pensions have been raided. Others – the young graduates – were heading for such employment only to have their aspirations dashed not by the machinations of immigrants or ‘foreign’ cultures, but by those of the capitalist elite. This double-mugging and subsequent culling of the middle-classes, the white and blue-collar workers and their collective offspring is a logical economic consequence of the capitalist mode of production. It therefore has radicalising implications and consequences.

The supporters of all these erratic and unstable radicalising groups need confronting with the history and the economic reality of the capitalist mode of production, not with contemptuous taunts of being ‘stupid‘ or ‘racist‘. The majority of these citizens are better educated and more culturally integrated than their 20th century counterparts and they have the benefit of hindsight. All of which creates the possibility of them becoming revolutionary rather than reactionary. They need to be won to the anti-capitalist struggle by rational argument and appropriate examples of solidarity not impatiently written off before the struggle has seriously begun.

[see also 'The five fold crisis of capitalism' and 'Crisis: so what else can we do'. ]

Roy Ratcliffe (May 2013.)