Marx and Soviet anti-fascism – a tenuous link

Tweet

The Soviet role in the war was unique and heroic, but the ‘socialism’ it built bares little relation to Marx’s revolutionary ideas, says Joe Gill 

On the 132nd anniversary of the death of Karl Marx, communists and marxists commemorated the great thinker's contribution to social ideas and for a new society in various ways.

Some gathered at his grave and drew a link between his life's works and the struggle against fascism that ended in a costly victory in 1945, led by the Soviet Union, which paid a terrible price in millions of lives to defeat nazism.

But in reading the Morning Star's editorial on the day, I had a terrible sinking feeling. The leader stated that only one of those states fighting the nazis was socialist: the USSR. It continued: “The Britain that fought the genocidal racist regime in Germany itself ruled a vast empire and treated many of the peoples it kept prisoner as subhumans."

While this was undoubtedly true, it can, in some ways, also be said of Stalin's Soviet Union - officially according to its 1936 constitution, the Soviet Union upheld the highest democratic ideals. In reality by the late 30s, it was a dictatorship in which neither the working class or any other class enjoyed full democratic and social rights.

This was discovered by visiting delegations of trade unionists, who were shocked at working conditions in factories, and was recognised by the writer of the introduction to the 1948 centenary edition of the Communist Manifesto published by the US communist party, which contrasted the ideals of Marx with the realities of the Soviet Union in which basic human rights were lacking.

 The editorial paints a picture of the battle against fascism that upholds the Soviet Union as a model of socialism that directly inherited the ideas of Karl Marx. This is profoundly misleading. Marx, as a synthesiser and revolutioniser of the ideas of English political economy, French socialism and German philosophy, did not envisage, nor would have uncritically approved of the USSR under Stalin (I suspect he would have hated it).

 It is true that the anti-fascist alliance was a triumph that also, via the victories of the Red Army, introduced millions of workers to the ideas of socialism. But the post-war division of Europe did not fulfil those dreams. The carve-up created a series of satellite states that built a deficient model of socialism.

That model lasted 40 years – and required the intervention of Soviet troops on two occasions to suppress rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslavakia - before collapsing under a weight of economic and political stagnation. It is difficult to argue that this version of the dictatorship of the proletariat was the one that Marx had in mind.

For the sake of left unity and progress in Britain we should not resurrect false utopias but stick to analysing the complex reality of 20th century history, in which the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin, represented an iron wall against nazism, but ultimately also a negative example (we can cite the prevalent use of terror, cult of personality, forced collectivisation, slave labour, national chauvinism) that held back socialist advance and distorted the states that were created in its mirror image.

We are still living out the legacy of that inheritance in terms of negative views of socialism, that are not simply the result of anti-communist propaganda. Of course, there are examples from the era that we can uphold as better versions of the model. Yugoslavia, Cuba and Vietnam, as independent revolutions with their own national and social base, were able to circumvent the worst excesses of bureaucratic dictatorship and imbue the construction of socialism with more humanity. The Chinese revolution, under Mao, exhibited examples of the best and worst.

 But it is in new thinking and participatory models of socialism and democracy along the lines attempted today in Latin America, that hope lies, and perhaps here in Europe too in the coming years.

Breaking Bad to Benefit Street

Tweet

Benefits Street has inevitably touched a nerve. I saw a bit and found it compelling - not as an indictment of welfare or the people on the street but as an indictment of society as a whole.
Charlie Brooker's column sparked some interesting comments, like the one I've quoted in full below. We are in a conundrum. The problem thus far with attempts at replacing 'irrational' capitalism is that we have not found a way to overcome 'irrational' human urges by the powerful few to game every system designed to create more fairness and a better life for all. The media would have us believe the problem is Benefits Street - poor people 'gaming' welfare. But the rich are gaming the system to the tune of billions. So too are bankers, who charge us billions for the free creation of debt money, which we guarantee anyway.

The more we look at ourselves as a specie, the more we can see that as intelligent apes, we are not primarily 'rational' even though we have the capacity to be rational and, more importantly, selfless. The problem with appeals to rationalism is that they need not be ethical. Secular enlightenment produced imperialism, justified slavery and the right and left wing atheist dictatorships of the 20th century.
All human societies require rules - legal or religious - that bind human behaviour and prevent abuses. Totalitarian dictatorships allowed unlimited abuse by leaders who were, in the worst case scenario, acting out a kind of Walter White version of will to power. Breaking Bad's White claimed to be doing it for his family, Hitler did it for Germany, Mao and Stalin did it for the new socialist state they had built.

Sometimes I just yearn for the all powerful priest-king who can rule for the benefit of all, and punish the greedy wrongdoers, while ensuring everyone is part of the plan. Why? Because I actually think we are often happier knowing a father (or mother) figure is there to keep an eye on things, and to ensure justice prevails. Mythical rulers (even bad ones) give us a sense of belonging and meaning, being part of a community.

Our system of 21st century capitalism adheres to a form of competitive savagery, something that in the past was exercised through inter-tribal war. But such wars, although apparently common, were a million miles from the total war of modern times. Meanwhile our more gentle and communal nature was exercised within and amongst friendly communities where everyone was part of a kind of extended family (see David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years.) More than 90 per cent of human history saw us live as primitive communists, sharing the little we had. War and debt (and the trading of slave captives) changed that, starting some 6000 years ago.

Capitalism and imperialism have spread an alternative idea of our 'true' natures, built on the self-justification of gentleman pirates and merchant adventurers. Darwinian science has been used to try to show that this is our true natural state.
Our rulers need to continually reinforce the idea that rather than being a community or a group of communities, as nations we are involved in a global competitive race in which success is measured in GDP growth and corporate profit. That is true, as far as it goes, but the measuring is now decoupled from human welfare.
How do we recreate human sympathy for our fellow man and woman, including those on Benefit Street? Can we afford to care for others in a planet of 7 billion, in a globalised economy? The newspapers and the Tories demonise migrants and welfare claimants - divide and rule - while imposing permanent austerity. Hate and fear must be stoked, in Britain as in North Korea.

*****

"The "hard truth" is that the state has effectively declared war on society for the benefit of the rich. While the rich are protected (given open, free and unlimited access to all the best that our civilization has to offer; free to exercise their money power without responsibility or restraint), the rest of us are lectured about the virtues of personal responsibility and austerity.
However, if we really want to understand what is happening, not only to UK but in the capitalist world in general, then we have to look beyond monied individuals (who should nevertheless be held to account) and look at the whole picture.
As a world economic system capitalism is inherently and increasingly crisis prone: that's its “natural” state. In fact, since the 1970s the rate of crises has speeded up with crises regularly occurring throughout every decade. So, what does that mean for contemporary capitalism and the future of the welfare state.?
According to David Harvey: A crisis is “(a)n irrational, rationalizer of an irrational system; the irrationality of the system right now being masses of capital and masses of labour side by side in the midst of a world that is full of social need.
How stupid is that?
The rationalization that capital is looking for is the re-establishment of the basis for the extraction of surpluses: to re-establish the profit rate. The irrationality in which they (capitalists) are going about this is to actually suppress these possibilities by suppressing labour and suppressing the circulation of capital.
As socialists there is another way of rationalizing; the big question is how to take all that equipment and all that labour and put it together so that it meets human need? That is the rationality that we should be looking for right now, at a moment of crisis, at a moment of opportunity to think about the transition to socialism”.
Make no mistake, austerity is a class project the aim of which is to roll back the advances made by working people for the further enrichment of the ruling class. Austerity isn't intended as a short/medium term measure, it is, as Cameron said, forever.
Surrounded by the opulence of the Guildhall’s grandest room, Cameron addressed 900 rich and well-pampered guests enjoying a sumptuous banquet, courtesy of the City of London Corporation. He used the annual speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet to declare that the devastating austerity being imposed by his government will be “permanent.”
Chancellor George Osborne’s Autumn Statement announced further billions in spending and welfare cuts. The “recovery” hailed by Osborne is actually the slowest in more than 100 years, with the economy more than 3 percent smaller than before the 2008 crash.
The UK economy has only been able to remain afloat through a guarantee of cheap money via the £375 billion of quantitative easing that been made available to the banks. This could rise to as much as £425 billion.
Through the progressive commodification of the means of social reproduction (education, health, welfare, etc.), the neoliberal state has engineered a social catastrophe. The goal is to finally destroy what remains of the Keynesian welfare state that emerged during the long post war boom, and replace it with a neoliberal "workfare" state.
Whereas the role of the state in the Keynesian model was to try to extend the social rights of its citizens, the "workfare" model is concerned to provide welfare services that benefit business, both national and international. The net result is that the needs of the individual/society will take second place to capital accumulation forever.
Permanent austerity is a class project under taken by states on behalf of the rich. It is class war pure and simple.

Behind the Bo Xilai trial - a battle for the future of China

Tweet

The polarization of rich and poor is the backward culture of slave owners, feudal lords and capitalists, while common prosperity is the people’s just and advanced culture. The Western culture from the British bourgeois revolution in 1640 has had a history of more than 370 years. They often championed the slogans of “freedom, democracy, equality, and fraternity.” However, they have never mentioned “common prosperity”—a topic that concerns the fundamental interests of the vast majority of humanity. Only the communists, with their down-to-earth materialist courage and selfless spirit, write “common prosperity” on their own flag. As comrade Hu Jintao proclaimed at the CCP’s 90th anniversary conference, we must steadfastly pursue the path of common prosperity! We firmly believe, sooner or later, the whole humanity will take on the road of common prosperity.

These are the words of former Chongqing party boss Bo Xilai before his recent expulsion from the Chinese Communist Party and the announcement that he would face justice for corruption and abuse of power. You will not have read these words anywhere in the western media because our corporate media is not interested in enlightening us about Bo's ideology or political practice. On the contrary, the message we are being fed constantly is that China's road to capitalism is near completion - and irreversible and that Bo was an ambitious opportunist. (Remember everyone - There Is No Alternative.)

While these charges against Bo may have substance, are we to believe that Bo was unique in China in using his office for personal or family benefit? Surely, the example of Chongqing as an alternative to the onward march of capitalism in China - and within the CCP - is the real reason for his downfall. In the upcoming congress starting on 8 November, a new leadership will be annointed. The congress includes representatives of China's new class of billionaires. The net worth of those attending is reported to be an eye-watering $98 billion - contrasted with the paltry $7 billion worth of the US Congress and senior US officials. It seems that China's new leadership are likely to pursue a fully fledged turn to capitalism, with the new bourgeoise likely to produce 'liberal' figures who will support a turn to liberal democracy, the figleaf for full-blown neoliberalism the world over. Any attempt to resist such a process is painted by CCP 'reformers' as a desire to return to Maoism and the Cultural Revolution.

The following extract is from an essential analysis of the Chongqing model in the context of China's reform process and the struggle for the country's future from the Monthly Review.

Previously a municipality of Sichuan province, Chongqing gained provincial jurisdiction status in 1997. With a huge rural population (70 percent of 32 million in 2010) and a rugged geography in China’s southwest interior, Chongqing is a microcosm of China. It not only faces some of the country’s most profound socioeconomic challenges but also manifests all the pitfalls of neoliberal capitalist reintegration, including a criminalized economy. In late 2007, Bo, who had gained local governance experience first in the city of Dalian and then in Liaoning province prior to becoming China’s Minister of Commerce in 2003, was sent to lead Chongqing as its party secretary.
Chongqing still prides itself as China’s wartime capital and a center of global anti-fascist struggles between 1937 and 1946. It was turned “red” by literally soaking in the blood of Communist martyrs in the fierce struggles between the Communists and the Nationalists around the time of the PRC’s founding in 1949. Later, Chongqing was built into one of China’s Cold War–era major inland military-industrial bases. This cultivated a strong working class, who had been on the forefront of anti-privatization struggles until the mid–2000s. As China’s newly established metropolis during the reform era, Chongqing shouldered some of the heaviest social dislocations burdening China’s post-Mao development and modernization, with not only the resettlements of Three Gorges Dam migrants but also the care of the elderly and the children left behind in depressed rural villages by migrant workers moving to the coastal regions. Partly because of this, since 1997 the central authorities have given Chongqing more leeway to experiment with integrating urban and rural development. Bo, an ambitious, charismatic, and strong-willed “red princeling” (he is the son of a revolutionary leader) who had a significant power base among China’s political and military elites, was trying to reclaim China’s revolutionary legacies to win popular support in a bid to return to Beijing for a higher political office. This particular configuration of socio-historical, geopolitical, as well as biographical forces gave rise to the Chongqing Model.4
The model’s cornerstones were an enlarged public sector and a focus on social welfare.5 As an August 8, 2012 Foreign Policy article put it, it was “a daring experiment in using state policy and state resources to advance the interests of ordinary people, while maintaining the role of the party and state.”6 Specifically, the local state significantly enlarged its role in the economy through the creation of eight major investment firms that operated as marketized entities but served the purpose of equitable development. Similarly, a state investment firm, rather than private capital, took control of the massive “poor assets” of more than 1,160 state-owned enterprises from the Mao era, restructured them, and developed them into viable businesses. As a result, Chongqing’s state-owned assets grew exponentially. Chongqing took aggressive steps in bridging the urban-rural gap, enabling as many as 3.22 million rural migrants to settle in the city with urban citizenship entitlements in employment, retirement pensions, public rental housing, children’s education, and health care. Beginning in 2009, under a program known as 10 Points on People’s Livelihood, Chongqing spent more than half of all government expenditures on improving public welfare, particularly the livelihoods of workers and farmers.
In these ways, Chongqing put into practice the CCP’s slogan of pursuing people-centered development. In fact, there was nothing radical in these policies—if they were measured against official rhetoric. The effort to strengthen the public sector, for example, remains consistent with China’s constitutional commitment to build a “socialist” system based on the primacy of public ownership. Rather than oppose capitalist reintegration, Chongqing aggressively courted global capital. For example, in a plan to build Chongqing into Asia’s largest manufacturing center for notebook computers, transnational corporations from HP to Acer were attracted to establish operations there. Bo’s leadership even lured the super-exploitative IT manufacturer Foxconn to relocate 200,000 of its 500,000 Shenzhen jobs to Chongqing.7 However, there was a key difference. In Shenzhen, Foxconn was allowed to disembed itself from society by forcing workers to live in factory-supplied, military-barrack-style dorms. In contrast, Chongqing provided cheap public rental housing to Foxconn workers. This allowed it to break away from the “global labor arbitrage” pattern and re-embed transnational capital in society.8 Meanwhile, in an effort to solve the employment problem, Chongqing implemented a massive microenterprise program to support rural migrants and university graduates to establish businesses in the urban areas. In short, as Philip Huang observed, the Chongqing Model attempted to find a way that allows the complementary growth of state, transnational, and domestic private sectors in a mixed economy.9

Waving the Flag of Common Prosperity

Meanwhile, Bo, in a move that was highly counterintuitive to liberal expectations for political liberalization, reinvigorated the Maoist practice of mass line political communication in an attempt to reign in the CCP bureaucracy and capture the hearts and minds of Chongqing’s residents. The core concept is “common prosperity.” In a 2011 speech, Bo, citing Hu Jintao, argued that “common prosperity” is what defines the “advanced direction” of a communist culture:

The polarization of rich and poor is the backward culture of slave owners, feudal lords and capitalists, while common prosperity is the people’s just and advanced culture. The Western culture from the British bourgeois revolution in 1640 has had a history of more than 370 years. They often championed the slogans of “freedom, democracy, equality, and fraternity.” However, they have never mentioned “common prosperity”—a topic that concerns the fundamental interests of the vast majority of humanity. Only the communists, with their down-to-earth materialist courage and selfless spirit, write “common prosperity” on their own flag. As comrade Hu Jintao proclaimed at the CCP’s 90th anniversary conference, we must steadfastly pursue the path of common prosperity! We firmly believe, sooner or later, the whole humanity will take on the road of common prosperity.10

Furthermore, Bo argued that “common prosperity” is not just an ideal or an end point; rather it is the motivating force that runs through the entire developmental process. Just as neoliberal reformers have selectively cited Deng to justify class polarization, Bo cited the Deng who warned against the danger of the reform taking on the “evil path” of capitalism if it had created social polarization and engendered a new capitalist class. Bo even modified Deng’s developmental doctrine to argue that “the people’s livelihood is the ironclad truth.” Against those who continued to espouse the neoliberal “trickle down” theory by pitting “making the cake” against “dividing the cake,” Bo insisted that these two aims can be mutually reinforcing. Most significantly, he argued that the CCP could not wait for too long before dealing with the problem of social polarization, because then vested interests would be too powerful and it would be no longer possible to make any change. Speaking to the central leadership’s overriding concern with social harmony, Bo maintained that it was not the result of “control”; rather, only common prosperity would serve as the soil that nurtures the fruits of social harmony.11