tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22783027977093922572024-03-14T10:52:03.582+01:00ragged trousered philanthropistUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger317125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-58695543846618768792017-06-29T13:38:00.000+02:002017-06-29T13:38:13.626+02:00A World Without Money or PoliticiansJust received this pamphlet in the post. I shall be reviewing it for the Socialist Standard.<br />
<br />
Its author is my old coach at the Rugby Union club I played for here in Denmark.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiluosGBqAL1OPG3XghqT8zuXEPtr_MsGdXNU-g-y7_mnz7nvVoY7fYLypAuzaljlJLIpwhyphenhyphen-xiTS41IhRDIRjjaWbQTwgvEmQzh7n74qByILzlqFdV9jTUJyLR93f9r_YnQHi4C9LvnGv2/s1600/WIN_20170629_13_25_20_Pro.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiluosGBqAL1OPG3XghqT8zuXEPtr_MsGdXNU-g-y7_mnz7nvVoY7fYLypAuzaljlJLIpwhyphenhyphen-xiTS41IhRDIRjjaWbQTwgvEmQzh7n74qByILzlqFdV9jTUJyLR93f9r_YnQHi4C9LvnGv2/s320/WIN_20170629_13_25_20_Pro.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-83235155223294400232017-06-22T14:25:00.000+02:002017-06-22T14:25:00.463+02:00Know your place and keep silent (as if they listen anyway).Blah! Suffered more ill health, so wasn't up to blogging.<br /><br />I shall have to finish transcribing the Religion and Socialism pamphlet.<br /><br />The Grenfell disaster really does show how obscene Capitalism is. For goodness sake, 70+ people died because they were workers and accommodated in unsafe flats. The tenants were ignored when they raised concerns. Latest news is the materials in the building, upon combustion, created Hydrogen Cyanide. Those poor souls probably didn't stand a chance even if there was an alarm bell.<br />
<br />
The survivors and community are talking in class terms. After all, look at how some are treated and protected, notably at Kensington Palace, and others are left to worry about tomorrow.<br />
<br />
Worryingly, 600 buildings in Britain are similar to Grenfell. (PM May in the Commons.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-26812484784570982802016-03-04T12:20:00.001+01:002016-03-04T12:20:18.643+01:00Sorry boys and girls. I have had such a rotten tummy bug. I will post that pamphlet when I feel better.<br /><br />In the meantime "VOTE SOCIALISM" if you live in America. Hillary is just as useless and dangerous to the working class as Trump.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-81505894134641934862016-01-08T17:40:00.001+01:002016-01-08T17:40:39.665+01:00ApologiesI am sorry I haven't posted the Horace Jarvis pamphlet yet. I had to take a break for personal reasons. I shall complete posts within the next week or so.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-4946006564394188672015-10-26T09:41:00.001+01:002015-10-26T09:41:21.953+01:00Christianity and Socialism by Horace Jarvis - What is religion?<i>Gray's note: This is the first section of the pamphlet. I have altered the "Marx quote" Jarvis gave at the end to bring it into line with the standard translation found on marxists.org. They are certainly different -- Jarvis again not noting his source or indicating that he cut a paragraph out of that famous bit of "A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right."</i><br />
<br />
There are many who ask, why are socialists against religion? Why did Marx write:- "Religion is the opium of the people?"<br /><br />Those who think religion is necessary to mankind and that it has a salutary influence, are usually very vague as to what constitutes religion.<br />
<br />
Religion does not mean leading a good life; it is not sharing your possessions with the poor; it is not turning the other cheek when assaulted, or loving your neighbour. All these are problems of ethics and morality, so often confused with religion.. Christianity as well as other religions have their moral and ethical codes.<br />
<br />
When Matthew Arnold defined religion as "morality touched with emotion", he added to this confusion.<br />
<br />
Both Socialists and Christians may wish to help their fellows, and not harm anybody. They may try to be kind, courteous and considerate to the wishes of others - these are things which so many people think are religious principles. In fact socialists are doing their bit to better mankind in spreading the knowledge of socialism, and are often despised for it.<br />
<br />
Religion portrays itself as a system of absurd anachronistic beliefs - usually accompanied by threats to non-believers and promises of rewards for the pious. In some cases it seems to be a pathological condition (what disease is to the body, religion is to the mind), where the person suppresses his reasoning power in certain directions. He accepts statements from the Bible as being beyond dispute, statements he would reject completely if he read them elsewhere. No wonder religion has been defined as a "psychological purgative for imaginary sins."<br />
<br />
Religion is superstition running away from truth and afraid of being overtaken. This is because religion is based on belief. The many references to belief in the New Testament, makes it clear that "belief" is the basis of Christianity.<br />
<br />
Religion is not a revelation, but the product of evolution as all forms of ideas and culture. No matter if fundamentalists reject evolution, their religion and all it contains has been the product of evolution. Even the idea of God evolved. See Grant Allen's "Evolution of the idea of God."<br />
<br />
Originally, religion was a belief in the existence of supernatural beings, and the observance of rites and ceremonies in order to avert their anger or gain their good-will. "Corpse worship", as it has been tersely called, was the protoplasm of religion.<br />
<br />
Religion is woven like a threat into the texture of human society from the early times to the present day. It is based upon man's ignorance of natural forces and has been propped up by rulers a s a means of keeping slaves in subjection.<br />
<br />
Religion developed by primitive man to explain natural phenomenon such as storms, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. To the savage mind when the avalanche fell the rocks were angry; when the volcano belched forth destruction, the mountain was furious; when the ground rumbled and cracked then the earth was determined upon destruction.<br />
<br />
Savage man saw everythingin his own image. When his mental development had advanced a stage further it was the mountain spirit and the river spirit and the earth spirit that was angry, and he commenced to devise means to propitiate angry spirits.<br />
<br />
It was here the priesthood stepped in, the vague beginning of what was eventually to become the Church, that has harassed mankind across the ages, supported tyranny, and reaped much profit in the process. Priesthood became the imaginary bulwark of man against the forces of nature and society; and religion his refuge when life was too burdensome.<br />
<br />
In the early civilisations of Babylon and Egypt the priesthood was wealthy and powerful; chattel slavery and poor freeman toiled for its benefit. How powerful it was has been clearly shown by the treasures and manuscripts found in the tombs of the rulers. By holding out the threat of eternal damnation on the unfaithful the Egyptian priesthood accumulated vast wealth and property and stood behind the whips of the slave driver.<br />
<br />
Each new religion starting with the will of the oppressed has ended with the power of a new oppressor. Privileged classes learned early the value of religion and used it ruthlessly to support their domination.<br />
<br />
All religion is based on faith and faith is an illogical belief in the occurrence of the impossible. It is belief without evidence in a preacher without knowledge about things without parallel. Christian faith consists in believing when it is beyond the power of reason; it is believing in something which your common sense tells you must be wrong. All this is in direct opposition to socialism, and cannot possibly be reconciled with or incorporated into socialism.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 24px; margin-left: 79.9688px; margin-right: 79.9688px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
<i>Man makes religion</i>, religion does not make man. <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="04"></a>Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But <em style="word-spacing: 0.2em;">man</em> is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is <em style="word-spacing: 0.2em;">the world of man</em> – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an <i>inverted consciousness of the world</i>, because they are an <i>inverted world</i>. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual <i>point d’honneur</i>, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the <i>fantastic realization</i> of the human essence since the <i>human essence</i> has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle <i>against that world</i> whose spiritual <i>aroma</i> is religion.</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 24px; margin-left: 79.9688px; margin-right: 79.9688px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="05"></a><i>Religious</i> suffering is, at one and the same time, the <i>expression</i> of real suffering and a <i>protest</i> against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the <i>opium</i> of the people.</div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 24px; margin-left: 79.9688px; margin-right: 79.9688px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" name="06"></a>The abolition of religion as the <em style="word-spacing: 0.2em;">illusory</em> happiness of the people is the demand for their <em style="word-spacing: 0.2em;">real</em> happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to <i>give up a condition that requires illusions</i>. </div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 24px; margin-left: 79.9688px; margin-right: 79.9688px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: initial; background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-size: initial; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 24px; margin-left: 79.9688px; margin-right: 79.9688px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 1em;">
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">It is, therefore, the </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">task of history</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">, once the </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">other-world of truth</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> has vanished, to establish the </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">truth of this world</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">. It is the immediate </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">task of philosophy</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">unholy forms</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> once the </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">holy form</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">criticism of religion</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> into the </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">criticism of law</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">, and the </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">criticism of theology</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;"> into the </span><i style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">criticism of politics</i><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 16px;">.</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-49809966868513282612015-10-25T10:38:00.001+01:002015-10-25T10:38:51.381+01:00Christianity and Socialism by Horace Jarvis - Introduction<br />
<i>Gray's note: Jarvis doesn't note which version of the Bible, or publisher, he was quoting from nor make reference to editions, etc with other non-Biblical quotes.</i><br />
<br />
There are among religious people many good and sincere citizens who could be very useful to society, who are prepared to sacrifice everything for their principles. The Salvation and Church Army. Nuns, who renounce marriage and motherhood, and dedicate their lives to helping the poor, the aged or the infirmed. There are also hundreds and thousands of workers for churches, christian associations, and "do good societies", who hope to leave this world a better place than they find it, and who are seriously interested in peace and the betterment of the human race, and the alleviation of suffering.<br />
<br />
Christians often claim that their religion is a comfort in times of trouble, but in political crises (which are now continuous) and also in wars, they are in a hopeless philosophical position, like a ship without a captain in a stormy sea.<br />
<br />
Because of this they easily become victims of wily politicians and ruthless statesmen, and instead of helping to work for a better social world order, find themselves unintentionally supporting corrupt regimes and dedicating their lives to maintaining these systems. Their naive blindness to the real nature and background of religion prevents them from seeing clearly the material tasks of this life.<br />
<br />
"The greatest curse of humanity is ignorance. The only remedy is knowledge. Religion, being based on fixed authority, is naturally opposed to knowledge. Science needs investigation and criticism. Religion is opposed to both these." Robert Blatchford.<br />
<br />
Socialists who take a realistic view of man's problems, will look on the miracles of the Bible, the virgin birth, the resurrection, life after death and all the paraphernalia of religion as an obstruction to social progress. It is difficult to understand how any normally educated person can take it seriously, and hard to believe that thousands of people still consider stories that are the equivalent of Andersen's fairy tales, are true.<br />
<br />
Christians might do well to follow the advice of the Bible (1. Cor. 13.11) "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put aside childish things." So long as they are tied to the Bible, they can never put aside childish beliefs which prevent them from understanding socialism.<br />
<br />
It is quite obvious that if Christians are guided by the Bible and the priests, they cannot be expected to see through the much more skilful propaganda of the politicians, television, radio and newspapers, on life's more important matters.<br /><br />One must oppose religion because it stands in the way of socialism and the understanding the latter necessitates. A man under the influence of drugs and alcohol cannot be expected to make a good socialist; but if he can be freed from these, at least there is a chance.<br /><br />One cannot hope to change the world if the ideas that have made it remain unchallenged.<br /><br />"Philosophers up to know have merely interpreted the world; what we have to do is change it." Karl Marx.<br />
<br />
<i>To be continued. Next: What is Religion?</i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-2625782536759728512015-10-25T07:19:00.000+01:002015-10-25T07:24:27.080+01:00Religion and SocialismAs far as I am aware, nobody has published the text of Horace Jarvis' pamphlet <i>Christianity and Socialism</i>. Therefore I shall be reproducing it at about a section per blog. It is 80 pages long, in 20 "chapters" and looks (and feels) like the 1978 SPGB pamphlet <i>Questions of the Day</i>.<br />
<br />
The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always had the position that religion is not a personal but a social issue, therefore applicants for membership are not allowed to join if they have religious beliefs. There is a specific question on this in the membership test so applicants are in no doubts as to where we and where they stand.<br />
<br />
A book review from the <i>Socialist Standard </i>(November 1998) with some pertinent details:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;">Socialism and Religion</strong><br />
<span style="text-align: left;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: left;">By F. A. Ridley. Rational Socialist League, 70 Chestnut Lane, Amersham. 40 pages.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;">
</span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
This is a reprint, updated by the author before he died in 1994, of a pamphlet originally published in 1948.<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;">
</span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
On religion, it takes up a basically similar position to ours, derived from Marx: that religion is an expression of human alienation, of the fact that humans are not in control of their destiny but are the playthings of uncontrollable, impersonal economic and social forces and resort to religion to console themselves and to try to make sense of this. This is why, as Ridley puts it in a criticism of bourgeois non-political rationalists and freethinkers, "no amount of merely expository or destructive criticism—useful and necessary as such criticism is in itself—can finally destroy religion; only the coming of international socialism can do that, by abolishing the social antagonisms which necessitate its existence".<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;">
</span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
On socialism, however, Ridley is not so clear. Since he was a member of the old Independent Labour Party (ILP) who hob-nobbed with Trotskyists this is not surprising and explains his reference to that contradiction in terms a "workers state" existing in socialism.</div>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;">
</span>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></div>
He mentions our 1910 pamphlet Socialism and Religion which he says relied too much on Herbert Spencer's ghost theory of the origin of religion according to which the first gods represented the imagined spirits of dead heroes as they appeared in the dreams of their followers (fair enough). He also mentions a pamphlet, Christianity and Socialism, published by an SPGB member, Horace Jarvis, in the 1970s. This was published privately, partly because a pamphlet on religion was not considered by us to be a priority but also because it was more oriented towards textual criticism of the bible than a deeper Marxist analysis of the social and historical origins and role of the Christian religion. Even so, some Socialists have always liked that sort of thing. Jarvis, incidentally, before he joined the Socialist Party, had been a member of the Communist Party's front organisation, the League of Atheists, but left the CP when they dissolved this body so as to be able to attract religious support for the Popular Front policy they adopted in the second half of the 1930s.<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;">
</span><strong style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;"></strong>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<strong style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;"><strong>ALB</strong></strong></div>
<strong style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;">
</strong><span style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; text-align: start;"> </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-89629515454319195852015-10-24T11:12:00.001+02:002015-10-24T11:12:49.586+02:00The Nature of Capitalist Crisis<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Y7jQuvtW16-ysiY-GBqWV-A7AetApQTHrDrl15508nv54I1FGNgCnE0GaQng4EtMEQtZDsKlIpnPxvsgfBl5MsSWXPGSccofWkdyrdu6imUcI2qTTM52dd1AdgCXe5_pyvtav6NiMe3c/s1600/WIN_20151024_104235.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5Y7jQuvtW16-ysiY-GBqWV-A7AetApQTHrDrl15508nv54I1FGNgCnE0GaQng4EtMEQtZDsKlIpnPxvsgfBl5MsSWXPGSccofWkdyrdu6imUcI2qTTM52dd1AdgCXe5_pyvtav6NiMe3c/s320/WIN_20151024_104235.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Another of my recent acquisitions: the 3rd edition (1936) of Strachey's book, published by Victor Gollanz Ltd.<br /><br />I only knew of the book and its author from articles in the Socialist Standard, like the one in the picture.<br />
<br />
Strachey had a rather muddled political career. He joined the Labour Party in the 1920's. He left with Oswald Mosley, only to leave the New Party and join the CPGB when Mosley began drifting to overtly fascist politics, He then left the Communist Party, after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, for another spell in the Labour Party, where he held a few ministerial posts and served as MP for Dundee from 1943 til his death. He was a widely read author in the 1930's and helped Gollanz found the Left Book Club in 1936. (Details from Wiki, retrieved 24/10/15.)<br /><br />As for the SPGB's views on the issue, there is a plethora of material in my archive or at the SPGB website and/or in David Perrin's book on the Socialist Party.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-85911700346509983642015-10-23T08:47:00.000+02:002015-10-23T08:49:56.239+02:00Two Books by an American Socialist<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLtf2KztBHRGjexwEbzMt6HISQbgWze7uCTYRfOoBRMSCEIhJWr53CUUbdE0og2JoI_MTS4vmxrGyma7lwuYSeB4CxjiBrhS4JT1RFHYjKLLAxyz3yPcJpErFJBVfNP_eurlOiZYbiy-2_/s1600/WIN_20151023_083214.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLtf2KztBHRGjexwEbzMt6HISQbgWze7uCTYRfOoBRMSCEIhJWr53CUUbdE0og2JoI_MTS4vmxrGyma7lwuYSeB4CxjiBrhS4JT1RFHYjKLLAxyz3yPcJpErFJBVfNP_eurlOiZYbiy-2_/s320/WIN_20151023_083214.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Book Review</b><br />
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
"It is a rare treat to review a book that claims to be about socialism which is not bursting with misconceptions and illusions. Samuel Leight's World Without Wages is not only readable (which contrasts sharply with those academic "Marxist" tracts written in language that only the initiated can comprehend), but it is full of the kind of basic socialist arguments which every open-minded worker will want to know about. There are fifty chapters and two hundred and twenty-nine pages, so it is possible to read the book in stages, absorbing the case for socialism bit by bit.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Samuel Leight is a member of the World Socialist Party of the United States, a companion party of the SPGB. World Without Money is based on talks given by him on KTUC radio station in Tucson, Arizona. From the first page the writer loses no time in providing the basic message:</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
"Visualise with us a completely different economic, world-wide system of society. Within this system all the means of production and distribution that exist on the face of the earth will be owned and democratically controlled by the whole of society. Each person will stand in exactly the same economic relationship to the instruments for producing and distributing wealth. There will be no class owning and there will be no non-owning class—it will be a classless society. Goods and services will be produced and distributed solely for use and not for profit. People will contribute according to their individual ability, taking from society according to their needs. This means literally free access to whatever they require. Visualise then a system in which there will be no means of exchange, no money, no barter. A system wherein there will be no capitalist class paying wages, with no employers or employees. Such a system cannot operate in one country, as no one country is economically self-sufficient; nor can it be inaugurated until the vast majority understand its economic and social implications."</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Recognising that socialism is "possibly the most abused, misused, misunderstood term in the English language", Leight makes no assumptions about his readers' acquaintance with the terms he is using; the socialist case is explained with the kind of clarity that only a real desire to communicate can achieve. Academic writers on the Left—especially those of the New Left Review type—often deter working class intellectual interest by the use of pretentious jargon. By contrast, Leight's approach is that of classical, down-to-earth Marxism—Marxism according to Marx, not Lenin, Trotsky, Mao or Mugabe. The class struggle, recognition of which is the basis of the socialist movement, is clearly explained:</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
"In a society wherein the vast majority are non-owners of wealth production and distribution and a minority are the owners, a conflict of interest must exist . . . We acknowledge the absolute necessity of Trade Unions under capitalism, and we support the active participation of workers within the Trade Union movement in their attempts to safeguard, and improve, their wage levels and working conditions. At the same time we also fully realise the limitations of the Trade Unions . . . We are the sole advocates of the highest expression of the class struggle on the political field—the demand for the abolition of class society, together with the class struggle, through the establishment of socialism."</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
The key to capitalism's "closely guarded secret"—the appropriation of surplus value by the capitalist class—is well brought out in Chapter 22 on The Wages System:</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
"Most workers spend a lifetime blissfully unaware of the fact that as a class they are being legally robbed when they produce values equal to their pay cheques, but then continue producing excess values for the bosses."</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
There are chapters on war, human nature, Russian state capitalism, nationalisation, racism, ecology, charity, leadership, and the materialist conception of history—as well as chapters dealing with recent events in American labour history. Were this writer not a committed socialist he would have been convinced to become one by reading Samuel Leight's book. World Without Wages is distributed in Britain by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and costs £3.50, including postage and packing. Don't just buy a copy for yourself; buy one for your best friend and another for your worst enemy."</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Steve Coleman (Socialist Standard, April 1982.)<br />
<br />
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-61613296478210425532015-10-22T08:38:00.000+02:002015-10-22T08:39:21.022+02:00Non-Market Socialism book<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3Y7CPAqFItBGRhTcG_2PKlNxalYNjlpzdpPIddGb-ohIRKwL2hZUvt8gfsGEyFwjFKTuU7rZOEXgEZX-NCZoYtOnFKAucEXU1e-BOQYI9ub0iYDFOgGHIwXFSgejHnLmoNCz8qWlejzsd/s1600/WIN_20151021_223150.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3Y7CPAqFItBGRhTcG_2PKlNxalYNjlpzdpPIddGb-ohIRKwL2hZUvt8gfsGEyFwjFKTuU7rZOEXgEZX-NCZoYtOnFKAucEXU1e-BOQYI9ub0iYDFOgGHIwXFSgejHnLmoNCz8qWlejzsd/s320/WIN_20151021_223150.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
One of those non-party books where the SPGB case is covered. It was not without problems, though. The ex-members of Camden and N. W. London Branches registered criticism of what they perceived to be members flouting the hostility clause of the Object and Declaration of Principles of the SPGB.<br />
<br />
It is another of the books I picked up this month.<br />
<br />
A book review from the Standard.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<strong>Non-market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries</strong> - <em>Palgrave Macmillan, paperback – 7 Aug 1987 by Maximilien Rubel (Editor), John Crump (Editor)</em></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Faced with a social system which creates problems faster than its politicians can make promises, responses range from the stupidly complacent, to those whose self-righteous radicalism leaves no time for actually solving the problems they shout about. Would-be "leaders" the world over, rush to defend the indefensible. Political parties compete to run a system of organised poverty and obscene contradictions, which has built weapons to destroy humanity while millions starve. Most political debate is as irrational as the system of class division and profit which, in one form or another, it seeks to defend. It is therefore very refreshing indeed when a glimmer of social sanity shows itself through this dense fog of doublethink.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Just such an encouraging and exciting event took place late last year, with the publication of a book which is of significance. Until now, those historians who claimed to deal with the "labour movement" or the opposition to capitalism have focused, almost entirely, on the opportunists who have come to power by riding on the back of social discontent and perverting the idea of social freedom, through the Labour Party, the Communist Party or the Trotskyist fringe. Those who have upheld a clear and principled socialist alternative in the face of fierce hostility have all too often been relegated to a contemptuous footnote in small print, if they were mentioned at all.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Now the record has been set straight. Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries is a fascinating and compelling account which deals exclusively with those who have seen through the nonsense of the profit system and who have stood clearly for the abolition of capitalism in any of its forms, whether private or state controlled and its replacement by a system of production for use, with human needs being met through free access to all goods and services. Socialist ideas are explained in a historical context which makes them all the more powerful and urgent. Moreover, it is demonstrated that capitalism really does "produce its own gravediggers", as various groups at different times and places have independently reached (and continue independently to reach) the same conclusion - that since the problems of the working-class majority cannot possibly be solved through the reform of the capitalist system, therefore it must be replaced.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Following the pattern used in each of the chapters of the book, let us first set out the background and central idea put forward in this work, before summarising the content and moving on to weigh up its strengths and weaknesses as a book. Non-Market Socialism, edited by Maximilien Rubel and John Crump, published by Macmillan and available in paperback at £8.95, arose out of a conference of discussion and debate which took place in York in September 1984. The revolutionary basis on which the book develops is made clear from the formal dedication on the very first page, which states</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
"This book is dedicated to the men and women of the thin red line of non-market socialism who have kept alive the vision of socialism as a society of personal freedom, communal solidarity, production for use and free access to goods."</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<strong>Socialism defined</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
In Chapter Two, written by John Crump (who for some time was a member of The Socialist Party), four key features are outlined, as a definition of socialism which is to be used throughout the book. These are that:</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
"Production will be for use and not for sale on the market.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Distribution will be according to need and not by means of buying and selling.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Labour will be voluntary and not imposed on workers by means of a coercive wages system.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
A human community will exist and social divisions based on class, nationality, sex or race will have disappeared."</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Crump them goes on to elaborate excellently on all the implications of such a revolution in social relationships, dealing very clearly with all the common myths of "human nature" which have sometimes been used to obstruct such discussion. He also explains the historical emergence of the "Social Democratic" and Leninist movements which distorted and confused this fundamental concept of the socialist alternative. The way in which the Russian Revolution of 1917 established a regime of state capitalism is also clearly stated, with quotations from the Socialist Standard from that period to demonstrate how socialists were able to make such an analysis even then. Also in Crump's chapter, the whole notion of a "transitional society" between capitalism and socialism is explored and rejected.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
At this stage, the central thesis and claim of the book is explained. This is that there have been various movements which have stood openly for the socialist alternative as defined above, the five most significant such "tendencies" to be dealt with in detail in subsequent chapters. While agreeing on their object or aim, these movements have been in conflict over how to achieve that goal and over various other points of detail. Crump argues that such differences constitute a "periphery" which, at the present time, is less important than the "core" idea of defining socialism, introducing workers to this and encouraging them to adopt it as the only practical alternative to the exploitation of the capitalist system. We will consider this general thesis in more detail below but let us first take a look at the contents of the other chapters.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
A background survey which explores the nineteenth century origins of socialist idea is provided by Maximilien Rubel, a recognised authority and scholar of Marx, based in Paris, who has been in close contact with The Socialist Party. Rubel takes as his starting point the 1848 Communist Manifesto's list of categories of "Socialism" and finds there some early progenitors of both the modern idea of "market socialism" (of course, a contradiction in terms) and of the non-market alternative. He seeks to rescue from relative obscurity and rehabilitate into their deserved place of recognition such early socialist thinkers as Wilhelm Weitling or Flora Tristan and many others. In contrast to "vulgar materialism", Rubel presents the need for socialism as an "ethical imperative": a term whose use has been debated in the columns of the Socialist Standard when Rubel has corresponded with us on that issue. Finally, and with great eloquence, he demolishes the very damaging claims of the Bolsheviks to have established "socialism" in Russia, with their perversion of "Marxism" into a distorted religious ideology.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
In a chapter on "Anarcho-Communism", Alain Pengam develops further the rich heritage and background of ideas from which the modern socialist movement has developed, by focussing on those early anarchists who embraced most clearly the idea of abolishing property relationships. Déjacque, for example, wrote in 1858 that social revolution means that "Commerce . . . this scourge of the 19th century, has disappeared amongst humanity. There are no longer either sellers or sold" (p.64). Kropotkin is also extensively quoted on the need for the abolition of the wages system. Beyond this, however, Pengam struggles in vain to find any substantial threads of such a tradition extending into the twentieth century, referring for example to the military defeat during the Mexican Revolution of those anarchists who sought in vain to establish agricultural co-operative communes there.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<strong>World Socialist Movement</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
This brings us to Chapter Four, on "Impossibilism", which is written by Stephen Coleman and focuses on The Socialist Party itself. In a postscript to the book it is pointed out that the Socialist Party of Great Britain, "with a record of over eighty years' unbroken commitment to non-market socialism" is an exception to the general rule, whereby other groups proclaiming allegiance to the ideas of non-market socialism have tended to be rather more fleeting in their organisational existence. Coleman makes it quite clear in his chapter how and why that consistency of both organisation and principle has been achieved by The Socialist Party.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
The formation of The Socialist Party in 1904 is described, as is the formation of its similar predecessor, the Socialist League in 1884, both as breakaway groups from the Social Democratic Federation. From the League, William Morris is quoted on the need to "put an end for ever to the wage-system" so that everyone could have "free access to the means of production of wealth" (p. 85). There is also a brief description of the ideas of Daniel De Leon and of the Socialist Labour Party, with their notion of the need for "labour vouchers" in a socialist society clearly dealt with.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Coleman then goes on to produce an excellent, sweeping survey of the history and ideas of The Socialist Party and its companion parties in other countries, referred to as the World Socialist Movement. This is of great historical significance in itself, since until now we have been faced with an overwhelming silence from labour historians in relation to the unique and inspiring record of The Socialist Party, in putting forward a consistent case for socialism in a way which is now properly documented and described in this chapter. In fact, the only other book previously published dealing with The Socialist Party was produced in 1975 under the title of The Monument, and consisted of a series of (often inaccurate) anecdotes, failing to deal at all seriously with the development of socialist ideas.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
The work in question, on the other hand, sets this record straight. Using a wide assortment of examples, ranging from India to Canada, Britain and elsewhere we see how socialism was positively put and reformist compromise consistently opposed throughout the upheavals of these years. We read how both world wars were actively opposed, and how the Socialist Standard has been published every month without fail, despite the difficulties that have been involved.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
A careful reading of Coleman's chapter also shows that there are two false assumptions which emerge elsewhere in the book. First, in his introductory chapter Crump claims that The Socialist Party is separate from the other traditions referred to because it has a "parliamentary strategy" which is "anathema to the other currents of non-market socialists". In fact, it would be more accurate to state the emphasis of Socialist Party material has been democratic, concerning on the need for socialism to be established by a conscious majority, since means must harmonise with ends. Coleman contrasts the "parliamentarianism" of the reformists, which involves sending representatives to Parliament to run capitalism, with the socialist policy in which a socialist majority mandates recallable delegates in order to dismantle the state machine, from a position of control. Coleman tells the story of the socialist speaker who referred to socialism coming not just through the ballot box, but through the "brain box" and points out that</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
"it is clearly those who insist that ballot boxes and parliaments can play no part in the establishment of socialism and assert that socialism can only be established via industrial organisation alone, who are being dogmatic and historically fetishised in their thinking about the revolution." (p.94)</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Second, one might think from reading the introductory sections of the book that the various tendencies considered differ fro one another only in their ideas about how socialism is to be achieved. It is clear however, from looking at the closing section of Chapter Four in comparison with other chapters, that there is another important difference which distinguishes The Socialist Party in particular from those other tendencies. This is that The Socialist Party is alone in remaining organised on a significant scale and politically active in Britain today.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Possible exceptions to this, it might be argued, would be found under the heading of "Council Communism", which is dealt with in Chapter Five by Mark Shipway. It is, however, stated in the Postscript that "it is doubtful whether any 'orthodox' council communist groups exist today". Of the organisations which are then listed, the International Communist Current has been found in debate with The Socialist Party to adhere to a fundamentally Leninist position and the group Wildcat, of which Shipway is a member and which is reviewed critically in the December 1987 Socialist Standard, state that "we struggle in favour of strikes, riots and all other acts of rebellion against capitalism", which hardly suggests credibility in terms of democratic organisation.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<strong>Council Communism</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Shipway presents an historical account of the emergence of the Council Communist movement in the wake of the First World War, quoting extensively from Anton Pannekoek. Unlike other tendencies dealt with, the Council Communists were generally more preoccupied with a detailed discussion of how the revolution would take place - as far as they were concerned, through the setting up of workers' councils to rival the capitalist state - rather than focusing, in any detail, on what end result was to be achieved through this process. In the course of his analysis, Shipway accepts the somewhat suicidal notion of workers forming their own militias to rival the capitalist armed forces (p.117), refers somewhat confusingly to "periods of revolutionary turmoil" (p.108) and quotes approvingly the need for a party to "win the trust of the masses" (p.124). He states, rather hopefully, that Council Communist intervention in working class struggles "should" be based on nothing less that the final goal of communism, while recognising that this has not generally been the case. (p.124). Further, support is given to Pannekoek's emphasis on theories of economic breakdown (p.120) and to his rather obscure and vanguardist references to building up the "spiritual power" of workers (p. 122).</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<strong>Bordiga</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
In Chapter Six, Adam Buick presents a detailed view of "Bordigism", the movement named after the Italian Marxist Amadeo Bordiga, who died in 1970 after a great literary and political output. After an historical explanation of the succession of parties influenced by Bordiga's thinking, culminating in the International Communist Party, among others, Buick goes on to show how Bordiga's concept of socialism was explicitly based on the abolition of the market system and of all property relationships, including those of state capitalism.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
By quoting extensively from Bordiga himself, Buick methodically and clearly demonstrates just how emphatically capitalism in all its manifestations was understood and rejected by Bordiga. Many good examples of this are given, perhaps one of the simplest being that "where there is money, there is neither socialism nor communism, as there isn't, and by a long way, in Russia" (Bordiga, 1959, quoted on p.139).</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Buick also explains the paradox, that alongside this very clear revolutionary concept of the socialist alternative, the Bordigists have remained élitist in terms of political strategy, believing that socialist understanding on the part of the working class majority could be developed after, rather than before, socialism is brought about. This, again, relates to the underlying thesis of the book, because whereas Bordigist means of obtaining their goal can be seen in this chapter to stand at odds in many ways with their goal, it is argued by Crump in Chapter Two that this is "peripheral", since workers who are educated by Bordigism into revolutionary ends can themselves prove the Bordigists wrong in practice about the means required to bring this about. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that means often determine ends rather than the other way round and that of course ultimately the two cannot be separated. Buick implicitly recognises this fact by showing how the Bordigist conception of socialism itself is "non-democratic" and "technocratic", involving not full participation in the control of production but the appointment of experts to make decisions in the best interests of others - an angle which would perhaps be regarded with more cynicism by many workers in the 1980s than in former decades. Also, despite these reservations, there is clearly validity in Crump's point that Bordigism, together with the other movements considered, has definitely played a positive part in introducing workers to the idea of the abolition of the wages system and its replacement with a system of production for use.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
<strong>Situationists</strong></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Finally, the movement of "Situationism" is dealt with in Chapter Seven, again by Mark Shipway. The Situationist International was a small group based in France which produced a substantial amount of literature between 1957 and 1973 and which became widely known, out of all proportion to its numbers, as a result of the May 1968 "Events" in Paris. They were explicit in their opposition to modern capitalism, which they called the society of the "Spectacle", because of the passivity and alienation it produced and in their support for socialist revolution. Shipway clearly explains their theories of consumerism, with key texts by Guy Debord and Raoul Vaneigem, finding roots in Marx's theory of alienation and weaknesses in that Situationist was based rather narrowly on conditions in the post-war boom in France. What also emerges, however, is that they developed some very important cultural and psychological insights into capitalism which complement much of the more traditionally political and economic analysis focused on in the rest of the book. Finally, Shipway ends the book with a comment on reformism which appears rather at odds with the rest of the book:</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
"Of course it would be ideal if every time workers went on strike it was for the abolition of the wages system. But while this is not the situation in which revolutionaries presently find themselves, neither is it a reason for ignoring or abstaining from any struggle which starts out on the basis of ostensibly reformist demands." (p.169)</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
It is worth pointing out in relation to this that each author was separately responsible for his own chapter and clearly some have been more clear on such issues than others. A good reason, for example, why revolutionaries must abstain from struggles which start out "on the basis of ostensibly reformist demands" is suggested in a very clear passage by Crump in Chapter Two, in which he explains that there can be no halfway house between the two "all-or-nothing" options of world capitalism and world socialism:</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
"the means of production must either function as capital throughout the world (in which case wage labour and capitalism persist internationally) or they must be commonly owned and democratically controlled at a global level (in which case they would be used to produce wealth fro free, worldwide distribution) . . . the changeover from world capitalism to world socialism will have to take the form of a short, sharp rupture (a revolution), rather than an extended process of cumulative transformation." (pp.54,55)</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
In conclusion then, the detailed chapters on the five main tendencies which have supported the idea of "non-market socialism" suggest that the original thesis was to some extent a victory of hope over reason. In terms of practical and active organisation in 1988, and particularly in Britain, the organised movement for socialism is somewhat more unitary than this volume might suggest. Also in terms of developing a practical strategy for establishing socialism which takes due account of the importance of both majority consciousness and democracy and which recognises the need to relate means to ends, then again the "thin red line" is perhaps thinner than we might wish it.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Despite such reservations, those who have collaborated in the production of this book have effectively broken a silence of decades. We hope this will also generate further discussion and debate among that growing number of individuals and groups who have come to reject capitalism, in all its forms, and seek to develop a non-market alternative. It is a strong vindication of Marx's Materialist Conception of History that from a variety of times, places and backgrounds within capitalism workers have reached similar conclusions about the need to establish a new social system capable of meeting the needs of all. The fact that workers now continue to seek such answers shows that non-market socialism is both practical and urgent. Those who wish, then, to further their understanding of the movement for socialism are recommended to get hold of this book. In continuing such discussions, we are helping to ensure that the "thin red line" does not remain so thin in the immediate future.</div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia, Palatino, 'Palatino Linotype', Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20px; margin-bottom: 0.9em; margin-top: 0.5em;">
Clifford Slapper (Socialist Standard, January 1988.)</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-65847890874296982182015-10-21T21:35:00.001+02:002015-10-21T21:37:41.216+02:00Forum<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7g4IV6UZl6t-G0DgvJqhCpzM0XAnUvWWldz2cjN8f6McOtWDQFLdL2lIk9-2Vi9ikSahtFtaBolViqby1nxttUUJokzkjv0m4ySNsZEeZJmCvbpa7Yln0YScdLrwiEQ5T7YWcDSoy1KkJ/s1600/WIN_20151021_212524.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7g4IV6UZl6t-G0DgvJqhCpzM0XAnUvWWldz2cjN8f6McOtWDQFLdL2lIk9-2Vi9ikSahtFtaBolViqby1nxttUUJokzkjv0m4ySNsZEeZJmCvbpa7Yln0YScdLrwiEQ5T7YWcDSoy1KkJ/s320/WIN_20151021_212524.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
This is the only copy I possess. (No. 28, Jan 1955.) I don't know how long this internal discussion SPGB "newspaper" ran for.<br />
<br />
This copy discussed relative surplus value, crises a matter concerning Paddington Branch but was mostly concerned with the so-called "Turner affair." It rumbled for a while and Turner eventually left the Party.<br />
<br />
Details are available in the issue marking 100 years of the SPGB in 2004, in the article "Getting Splinters."Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-29106662723480046322015-10-21T12:33:00.003+02:002015-10-21T12:33:46.715+02:00One of the independently produced pamphletsHorace Jarvis was an SPGB member. The pamphlet wasn't official.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsA_VB0gNZw3O0SXn7ZDRWqjSHHqj-fNZSgRakoWMmIdYUKjBjkrMdYVp5HmDMwF96oM7SpMMACZ3woUu0ARNpUy2Rt4J7aRjduXrVFs26g1wFz3d_6bD8_GEfUI8rCGqLW1FIv3l4PrOv/s1600/WIN_20151021_122944.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsA_VB0gNZw3O0SXn7ZDRWqjSHHqj-fNZSgRakoWMmIdYUKjBjkrMdYVp5HmDMwF96oM7SpMMACZ3woUu0ARNpUy2Rt4J7aRjduXrVFs26g1wFz3d_6bD8_GEfUI8rCGqLW1FIv3l4PrOv/s320/WIN_20151021_122944.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-88655322088324766762015-10-21T12:07:00.000+02:002015-10-21T21:59:19.142+02:00Apropos Corbyn<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimNp06WxbNnmqJglI6HiSe9_ZWEmOX0sJqHDQfctHKZZLHEtU1oo9iWJy2Hgl_ZZRoi07CZ09RqYI50cVd2Y8STQPZxOnOiUNYT78qH2Yt5UpG3qtUxTOz2d4pyb69IJgMJEV6VG1qJ2vl/s1600/WIN_20151021_120334.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimNp06WxbNnmqJglI6HiSe9_ZWEmOX0sJqHDQfctHKZZLHEtU1oo9iWJy2Hgl_ZZRoi07CZ09RqYI50cVd2Y8STQPZxOnOiUNYT78qH2Yt5UpG3qtUxTOz2d4pyb69IJgMJEV6VG1qJ2vl/s320/WIN_20151021_120334.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Socialist Standard, November 1980.<br />
<br />
"Squabbling, back-stabbing, unprincipled: it doesn't matter who wins out, the Labour Party in practice will still uphold capitalism."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg24y5BmJbB_1WLCfL5n3gl3NdmQzssrRgKnsjpJ2-HV7v9aL4W2olywRYvB_fEMoqZ8rnV0D2BKgPfvvxJGWThGEXL54bdWdlCYi2kzdaarCHsbjfBp4iKjsMbh87_CQTQcGgzYw8de-HZ/s1600/WIN_20151021_215530.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg24y5BmJbB_1WLCfL5n3gl3NdmQzssrRgKnsjpJ2-HV7v9aL4W2olywRYvB_fEMoqZ8rnV0D2BKgPfvvxJGWThGEXL54bdWdlCYi2kzdaarCHsbjfBp4iKjsMbh87_CQTQcGgzYw8de-HZ/s320/WIN_20151021_215530.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
And from January 1982, a bit of Jurassic World",with Socdemosaur (Parasiticus moderatus) in battle with Toothess Labosaurus (Capitalist period).<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-61030023744538786932015-10-21T12:00:00.000+02:002015-10-21T12:00:02.324+02:00Oldies but Goodies (II)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9a6AKv4uTVVzroabl1JuLfq3TAslPaCz_yP6MxoLoRBdbnDiaJmB9zMlBxUTb_HJbqaPHYhAKGbTt_c2c7HiFjmyDKsHxPRrByi1rNt70qsvGFHZMzPL9donLqbad8cVCJGsF2J2xlDnm/s1600/WIN_20151021_115809.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9a6AKv4uTVVzroabl1JuLfq3TAslPaCz_yP6MxoLoRBdbnDiaJmB9zMlBxUTb_HJbqaPHYhAKGbTt_c2c7HiFjmyDKsHxPRrByi1rNt70qsvGFHZMzPL9donLqbad8cVCJGsF2J2xlDnm/s320/WIN_20151021_115809.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-8135409205365108212015-10-13T14:01:00.003+02:002015-10-13T14:01:57.401+02:00Oldies but Goodies<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjISkSID3ITAPFFxau9sNNB0eQfgIS6GkfsERDHv5t5eCUiNM9wLN5UncM22FHJxGCS0-foYpuGljL2uV3dxEdUcQxsdfvYjB8jnfg5XvrdiV20HIHNcw1qY2HXu0cC_zXOIhyB5EdLUE8X/s1600/WIN_20151013_135922.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjISkSID3ITAPFFxau9sNNB0eQfgIS6GkfsERDHv5t5eCUiNM9wLN5UncM22FHJxGCS0-foYpuGljL2uV3dxEdUcQxsdfvYjB8jnfg5XvrdiV20HIHNcw1qY2HXu0cC_zXOIhyB5EdLUE8X/s320/WIN_20151013_135922.JPG" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-78483980382804700122015-10-06T13:20:00.000+02:002015-10-06T13:20:21.403+02:00I visited Ernst this weekend. He shakes a bit, has difficulty with balance. An old home is calling. At 89, no surprise! He can't manage the steps. This charming lad met the SPGB after he fled his home of Vienna to London, a Jew, around the time of the Anschluss.<br /><br />I got a huge, heavy suitcase of books and SPGB material this weekend. He would rather have it go to an SPGB'er than a bin or 2nd hand bookshop.<br /><br />One book was Barltrop's "classic": the Monument.<br /><br />I ate dinner with him. He told me stories about e.g. Turner and Hardy, two remarkable speakers for the Socialist Party.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-38235086521562814632014-04-06T22:02:00.002+02:002014-04-06T22:02:36.162+02:00Look in the past postsOne feature of my neigh defunct blog is the bit of work I did publishing old SPGB material. Check the blog archive for interesting material on socialism from my party's viewpoint.<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-1272564062099802702010-03-30T08:21:00.003+02:002010-03-30T08:26:26.386+02:00More Quotes for the "Lenin Reader"The ever tireless Dave B has put <a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WSM_Forum/message/42925">the following</a> together; worth a gander and remembering for use in debates with Leninists and anti-communists alike.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-67150384213421901952010-02-06T12:53:00.002+01:002010-02-06T12:55:14.125+01:00the SPGB Executive Committee in session<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3SAbJjktk7E&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3SAbJjktk7E&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br />The Cadbury's Smash advert, with the laughing martians, is a true TV classic.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-3389018880800107842010-01-18T22:54:00.003+01:002010-01-18T23:00:28.698+01:00Building a World Socialist Consciousness<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0K_OcDQSFsA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0K_OcDQSFsA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVugdyq411I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVugdyq411I&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rBawAiwv8KA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rBawAiwv8KA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uSUB486lyDo&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uSUB486lyDo&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-51565426929033404982009-12-26T01:55:00.001+01:002009-12-26T01:59:29.368+01:00The End of TimeJust seen it! A review to come on 1st/2nd JanUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-67847865543168649482009-11-16T09:15:00.005+01:002009-11-16T09:50:48.049+01:00Who Review - the Waters of MarsI sat up, as per usual, waiting for the episode to be uploaded on the net. I am sure the BBC are annoyed at this sort of thing but for all us fans living outside Britain, it really is the only chance we get to see the show.<br /><br />Anyway....<br /><br />I didn't like this episode that much. There was the ever so tiresome running about; that annoying robot (Gadget, Gadget!), which - oh, quelle surprise! - gets souped up by the sonic screwdriver; the "monsters" were dribbling zombies; there's that guy from "Neighbours". I didn't like the bit with the Doctor wandering off as the Bowie Base crew were infected, one after the other, by The Flood and then coming back, in an almost deranged state, because he controls time as the last Time Lord.<br /><br />Phil BC at AVPS blog makes an interesting observation about how history is presented in this story. <a href="http://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2009/11/dr-who-and-waters-of-mars.html">Take a gander there</a>.<br /><br />I suppose I always want Mars base personel, who are under attack from Zombies, to pull out a BFG 9000 and zap the bastards. As Red Dwarf's Kryten might say: "An excellent plan, sir, except for two serious flaws - 1. we don't have any BFG 9000s ; 2. we don't have any BFG 9000s because they don't exist."<br /><br />Positives? I like the way the standard BBC quarry was made to look like Mars and the base had a nice design when compared to past stories. And in best Who and Star Trek tradition, the people on the base present a future vision of a unified human race.<br /><br />Only a few more weeks to go and it will be Xmas and the return of Donna, the Master, Ood and the closing moments of the Tennant era.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">**</span>****Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-888300118945886102009-10-25T03:36:00.003+01:002009-10-25T04:56:19.841+01:00Lenin on State Capitalism<blockquote>To the Workers Who Support the Struggle Against the War and Against the Socialists Who Have Sided With Their Governments<br /><br />And the war itself, which is imposing an unprecedented strain upon the peoples, is bringing mankind to this, the only way out of the impasse, is compelling it to take giant strides towards state capitalism, and is demonstrating in a practical manner how planned social economy can and should be conducted, not in the interests of the capitalists, but by expropriating them, under the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat, in the interests of the masses<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/dec/30.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/dec/30.htm</a><br /><br />The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P.(B.) APRIL 24–29, 1917<br /><br />Before the war we had the monopoly of trusts and syndicates; since the war we have had a state monopoly. Universal labour conscription is something new, something that constitutes part of a socialist whole—this is often over looked by those who fear to examine the concrete situation.<br /><br />The first part of the resolution concentrates on an analysis of the conditions of capitalist economy throughout the world. It is noteworthy that twenty-seven years ago Engels pointed out that to describe capitalism as something that "is distinguished by its planlessness" and to overlook the role played by the trusts was unsatisfactory. Engels remarked that "when we come to the trust, then planlessness disappears", though there is capitalism. This remark is all the more pertinent today, when we have a military state, when we have state monopoly capitalism. Planning does not make the worker less of a slave, but it enables the capitalist to make his profits "according to plan". Capitalism is now evolving directly into its higher, regulated, form.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/29g.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/29g.htm</a><br /><br />The Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P. (B.) APRIL 24–29 (MAY 7–12), 1917<br /><br />6 PRELIMINARY DRAFT ALTERATIONS IN THE R.S.D.L.P. PARTY PROGRAMME<br /><br />Monopoly capitalism, which has been developing into state-monopoly capitalism in a number of advanced countries with especial rapidity during the war, means gigantic socialisation of production and, consequently, complete preparation of the objective conditions for the establishment of a socialist society<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf2/6.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf2/6.htm</a><br /><br />Economic Dislocation and the Proletariat's Struggle Against It<br /><br />And only pedants, who understand Marxism as Struve and all liberal bureaucrats<br />"understood" it, can assert that "skipping state capitalism is utopian" and that "in our country, too, the very type of regulation should retain its state-capitalist character". Take the sugar syndicate or the state railways in Russia or the oil barons, etc . What is that but state capitalism? How can you "skip" what already exists?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm</a><br /><br /><br />The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It<br /><br />That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.<br /><br />And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class — in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs (Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.<br /><br />Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!<br /><br />For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?<br />Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.<br /><br />Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.<br /><br />For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.<br /><br />There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.<br /><br />Either we have to be revolutionary democrats in fact, in which case we must not fear to take steps towards socialism. Or we fear to take steps towards socialism, condemn them in the Plekhanov, Dan or Chernov way, by arguing that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that socialism cannot be "introduced", etc., in which case we inevitably sink to the level of Kerensky, Milyukov and Kornilov, i.e., we in a reactionary-bureaucratic way suppress the "revolutionary-democratic" aspirations of the workers and peasants.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Revision of the Party Programme<br /><br />War and economic ruin have forced all countries to advance from monopoly capitalism to state monopoly capitalism. This is the objective state of affairs. In a revolutionary situation, during a revolution, however, state monopoly capitalism is directly transformed into socialism. During a revolution it is impossible to move forward without moving towards socialism—this is the objective state of affairs created by war and revolution. It was taken cognisance of by our April Conference,which put forward the slogans, "a Soviet Republic" (the political form of the dictatorship of the proletariat), and the nationalisation of banks and syndicates (a basic measure in the transition towards socialism). Up to this point all the Bolsheviks unanimously agree. But Comrades Smirnov and Bukharin want to go farther, they want to discard the minimum programme in toto.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/06.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/06.htm</a><br /><br /><br />For Bread And Peace<br /><br />Capitalism had developed into imperialism, i.e., into monopoly capitalism, and under the influence of the war it has become state monopoly capitalism. We have now reached the stage of world economy that is the immediate stepping stone to socialism.<br /><br />The socialist revolution that has begun in Russia is, therefore, only the beginning of the world socialist revolution<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/14a.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/dec/14a.htm</a><br /><br /><br /><br />Session of the All-Russia C.E.C..<br />April 29 1918<br /><br />In regard to domestic issues, we see the same thing on the part of the group of Left Communists, who repeat the main arguments levelled against us from the bourgeois camp. For example, the main argument of the group of Left Communists against us is that there can be observed a Right Bolshevik deviation, which threatens the revolution by directing it along the path of state capitalism.<br /><br />Evolution in the direction of state capitalism, there you have the evil, the enemy, which we are invited to combat. When I read these references to such enemies in the newspaper of the Left Communists, I ask: what has happened to these people that fragments of book-learning can make them forget reality? Reality tells us that state<br />capitalism would be a step forward. If in a small space of time we could achieve state capitalism in Russia, that would be a victory.<br /><br />How is it that they cannot see that it is the petty proprietor, small capital, that is our enemy? How can they regard state capitalism as the chief enemy? They ought not to for get that in the transition from capitalism to socialism our chief enemy is the petty bourgeoisie, its habits and customs, its economic position. The petty proprietor fears state capitalism above all, because he has only one desire—to grab, to get as much as possible for himself, to ruin and smash the big landowners, the big exploiters. In this the petty proprietor eagerly supports us.<br /><br />What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation.<br /><br />I said that state capitalism would be our salvation; if we had it in Russia, the transition to full socialism would he easy, would be within our grasp, because state capitalism is something centralised, calculated, controlled and socialised, and that is exactly what we lack: we are threatened by the element of petty-bourgeois slovenliness, which more than anything else has been developed by the whole history of Russia and her economy, and which prevents us from taking the very step on which the success of socialism depends. Allow me to remind you that I had occasion to write my statement about state capitalism some time before the revolution and it is a howling absurdity to try to frighten us with state capitalism. I remind you that in my pamphlet the Impending CatastropheSee present edition, Vol. 25, pp. 319-65.—Editor. I then wrote. . . .<br />(He reads the passage.)<br /><br />I wrote this about the revolutionary-democratic state, the state of Kerensky, Chernov, Tsereteli, Kishkin and their confreres, about a state which had a bourgeois basis and which did not and could not depart from it. I wrote at that time that state capitalism is a step towards socialism; I wrote that in September 1917, and now, in April 1918, after the proletariat's taking power in October, when it has proved its capacity: many factories have been confiscated, enterprises and banks nationalised, the armed resistance of the bourgeoisie and saboteurs smashed—now, when they try to frighten us with capitalism, it is so ludicrous, such a sheer absurdity and fabrication, that it becomes surprising and one asks oneself: how could people have this idea? They have forgotten the mere trifle that in Russia we have a petty-bourgeois mass which sympathises with the abolition of the big bourgeoisie in all countries, but does not sympathise with accounting, socialisation and control— herein lies the danger for the revolution, here you have the unity of social forces which ruined the great French revolution and could not fail to do so, and which, if the Russian proletariat proves weak, can alone ruin the Russian revolution. The petty<br />bourgeoisie, as we see, steeps the whole social atmosphere with petty-proprietor<br />tendencies, with aspirations which are bluntly expressed in the statement: I took from the rich, what others do is not my affair.<br /><br />Here is our main danger. If the petty bourgeois were subordinated to other class elements, subordinated to state capitalism, the class-conscious worker would be bound to greet that with open arms, for state capitalism under Kerensky's democracy would have been a step towards socialism, and under the Soviet government it would be three-quarters of socialism, because anyone who is the organiser of state capitalist enterprises can be made one's helper. The Left Communists, however, adopt a different attitude, one of disdain, and when we had our first meeting with the Left Communists on April 4, which incidentally proved that this question from remote history, which had been long discussed, was already a thing of the past, I said that it was necessary, if we properly understood our tasks, to learn socialism from the organisers of the trusts.<br /><br />Only the development of state capitalism, only the painstaking establishment of accounting and control, only the strictest organisation and labour discipline, will lead us to socialism. Without this there is no socialism. (Applause.)<br /><br />The situation is best among those workers who are carrying out this state capitalism: among the tanners and in the textile and sugar industries, because they have a sober, proletarian knowledge of their industry and they want to preserve it and make it more powerful—because in that lies the greatest socialism.<br /><br />In Germany, state capitalism prevails, and therefore the revolution in Germany will be a hundred times more devastating and ruinous than in a petty-bourgeois country—there, too, there will be gigantic difficulties and tremendous chaos and imbalance. Therefore I do not see the slightest shadow of a reason for despair or despondency in the fact that the Russian revolution accomplished the easier task to start with—that of overthrowing the landowners and bourgeoisie—and is faced now by the more difficult socialist task of organising nation-wide accounting and control. It is facing the task with which real socialism begins, a task which has the backing of the majority of the workers and class-conscious working people. Yes, the majority of the workers, who are better organised and have gone through the school of the trade unions, are wholeheartedly with us.<br /><br />This majority raised the questions of piece-work and Taylorism—questions which<br />the gentlemen from Vperyod are scoffingly trying to reject<br /><br />If the Left Communists have not noticed this, it is because they do not see life as it really is but concoct their slogans by counterposing state capitalism to ideal socialism. We, however, must tell the workers: yes, it is a step back, but we have to help ourselves to find a remedy. There is only one remedy: organise to the last man, organise accounting over production, organise accounting and control over consumption<br /><br />First of all I must reply to Comrade Bukharin's speech. In my first speech I remarked that we were nine-tenths in agreement with him, and so I think it is a pity that we should disagree as regards the other tenth. He is one-tenth in the position of having to spend half his speech disassociating and exorcising himself from absolutely everyone who spoke in support of him. And no matter how excellent his intentions and those of his group, the falsity of their position is proved by the fact that he always has to spend time making excuses and disassociating himself on the issue of state capitalism.<br /><br />Comrade Bukharin is completely wrong; and I shall make this known in the press<br />because this question is extremely important. I have a couple of words to say about the Left Communists' reproaching us on the grounds that a deviation in the direction of state capitalism is to be observed in our policy; now Comrade Bukharin wrongly states that under Soviet power state capitalism is impossible. So he is contradicting himself when he says that there can be no state capitalism under Soviet power—that is an obvious absurdity. The large number of enterprises and factories under the control of the Soviet government and owned by the state, this alone shows the transition from capitalism to socialism, but Comrade Bukharin ignores this.<br /><br />Now we cannot help bringing up the problem of state capitalism and socialism, of how to act in the transitional period, in which you have bits of capitalism and socialism existing side by side under Soviet power. Comrade Bukharin refuses to understand this problem; but I think we cannot throw it out all at once, and Comrade Bukharin does not propose throwing it out and does not deny that this state capitalism is something higher than what is left of the small proprietor's mentality, economic conditions and way of life, which are still extremely prevalent. Comrade Bukharin has not refuted that fact, for it cannot be refuted without forgetting the word Marxist.<br /><br />I have given you the example of the workers' organisations that are doing it, and the state capitalism of other enterprises, other branches of industry; the tobacco workers and tanners have more state capitalism than others, and their affairs are in better order, and their road to socialism is more certain.<br /><br />And when they say, when Bukharin says, this is no violation of principle, I say that here we have a violation of the principle of the Paris Commune. State capitalism is not money but social relations. If we pay 2,000 in accordance with the railway decree, that is state capitalism.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm</a><br /><br /><br />"Left-Wing" Childishness<br /><br />If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the<br />"Left Communists" will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the "Bolshevik deviation to the right" the Soviet Republic is threatened with "evolution towards state capitalism". They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these "Left Communists" repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .<br /><br />If the words we have quoted provoke a smile, the following discovery made by the<br />"Left Communists" will provoke nothing short of Homeric laughter. According to them, under the "Bolshevik deviation to the right" the Soviet Republic is threatened with "evolution towards state capitalism". They have really frightened us this time! And with what gusto these "Left Communists" repeat this threatening revelation in their theses and articles. . . .<br /><br />It has not occurred to them that state capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs in our Soviet Republic. If in approximately six months' time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.<br /><br />I can imagine with what noble indignation a "Left Communist" will recoil from these words, and what "devastating criticism" he will make to the workers against the "Bolshevik deviation to the right". What! Transition to state capitalism in the Soviet Socialist Republic would be a step forward?. . . Isn't this the betrayal of socialism?<br /><br />Thirdly, in making a bugbear of "state capitalism", they betray their failure to<br />understand that the Soviet state differs from the bourgeois state economically<br /><br />The shell of our state capitalism (grain monopoly, state controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.<br /><br />It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as "state capitalism"? Between the fourth and the fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them. Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against both state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state capitalist or state socialist. This is an absolutely unquestionable fact of reality, and the root of the economic mistake of the "Left Communists" is that they have failed to understand it<br /><br />Those who fail to see this show by their blindness that they are slaves of petty-bourgeois prejudices. This is precisely the case with our "Left Communists", who in words (and of course in their deepest convictions) are merciless enemies of the petty bourgeoisie, while in deeds they help only the petty bourgeoisie, serve only this section of the population and express only its point of view by fighting—in April 1918!!—against . . . "state capitalism". They are wide of the mark!<br /><br />The petty bourgeois who hoards his thousands is an enemy of state capitalism.<br /><br />This simple illustration in figures, which I have deliberately simplified to the utmost in order to make it absolutely clear, explains the present correlation of state capitalism and socialism. The workers hold state power and have every legal opportunity of "taking" the whole thousand, without giving up a single kopek, except for socialist purposes. This legal opportunity, which rests upon the actual transition of power to the workers, is an element of socialism.<br /><br />State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward even if we paid more than we<br />are paying at present (<br /><br /> whereas not only will the payment of a heavier tribute to state capitalism not ruin us, it will lead us to socialism by the surest road. When the working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale production on a national scale, along state capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism will be assured.<br /><br />In the first place, economically, state capitalism is immeasurably superior to<br />our present economic system.<br /><br />To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have "the last word" in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned<br />organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words<br />in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.<br /><br />While the revolution in Germany is still slow in "coming forth", our task is to<br />study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and<br />not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our<br />task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter hastened the copying of<br />Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not hesitate to use barbarous<br />methods in fighting barbarism.<br /><br /><br />At present, petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia, and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-scale state capitalism and to socialism, through one and the same intermediary station called "national accounting and control of production and distribution". Those who fail to understand this are committing an unpardonable mistake in economics. Either they do not know the facts of life, do not see what actually exists and are unable to look the truth in the face, or they confine themselves to abstractly comparing "capitalism" with "socialism" and fail to study the concrete forms and stages of the transition that is taking place in our country. Let it be said in parenthesis that this is the very theoretical mistake which misled the best<br />people in the Novaya Zhizn and Vperyod camp. The worst and the mediocre of these, owing to their stupidity and spinelessness, tag along behind the bourgeoisie, of whom they stand in awe. The best of them have failed to understand that it was not without reason that the teachers of socialism spoke of a whole period of transition from capitalism to socialism and emphasised the "prolonged birth pangs" of the new society. And this new society is again an abstraction which can come into being only by passing through a series of varied, imperfect concrete attempts to create this or that socialist state.<br /><br />It is because Russia cannot advance from the economic situation now existing here without traversing the ground which is common to state capitalism and to socialism (national accounting and control) that the attempt to frighten othersas well as themselves with "evolution towards state capitalism" (Kommunist No. 1, p. 8, col. 1) is utter theoretical nonsense. This is letting one's thoughts wander away from the true road of "evolution", and failing to understand what this road is. In practice, it is equivalent to pulling us back to small proprietary capitalism.<br /><br />In order to convince the reader that this is not the first time I have given this "high" appreciation of state capitalism and that I gave it before the Bolsheviks seized power I take the liberty of quoting the following passage from my pamphlet The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It , written in September 1917.<br />". . . Try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!<br />". . . For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly.<br />". . . State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs " (pages 27 and 28)<br /><br />Please note that this was written when Kerensky was in power, that we are discussing not the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the socialist state, but the "revolutionary-democratic" state. Is it not clear that the higher we stand on this political ladder, the more completely we incorporate the socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviets, the less ought we to fear "state capitalism"? Is it not clear that from the material, economic and productive point of view, we are not yet on "the threshold" of socialism? Is it not clear that we cannot pass through the door of socialism without crossing "the threshold" we have not yet reached?<br /><br />From whatever side we approach the question, only one conclusion can be drawn: the argument of the "Left Communists" about the "state capitalism" which is alleged to be threatening us is an utter mistake in economics and is evident proof that they are complete slaves of petty-bourgeois ideology.<br /><br />If these concrete conditions are carefully considered, it will become clear that we can and ought to employ two methods simultaneously. On the one hand we must ruthlessly suppress[3] the uncultured capitalists who refuse to have anything to do with "state capitalism" or to consider any form of compromise, and who continue by means of profiteering, by bribing the poor peasants, etc., to hinder the realisation of the measures taken by the Soviets. On the other hand, we must use the method of compromise, or of buying off the cultured capitalists who agree to "state capitalism", who are capable of putting it into practice and who are useful to the proletariat as intelligent and experienced organisers of the largest types of enterprises, which actually supply products to tens of millions of people.<br /><br />But Bukharin went astray because he did not go deep enough into the specific features of the situation in Russia at the present time—an exceptional situation when we, the Russian proletariat, are in advance of any Britain or any Germany as regards our political order, as regards the strength of the workers' political power, but are behind the most backward West-European country as regards organising a good state capitalism, as regards our level of culture and the degree of material and productive preparedness for the "introduction" of socialism.<br /><br />Kerensky's friends, who, together with him, conducted an imperialist war for the<br />sake of the secret treaties, which promised annexations to the Russian capitalists, the colleagues of Tsereteli, who, on June 11, threatened to disarm the workers, the Lieberdans, who screened the rule of the bourgeoisie with high-sounding phrases—these are the very people who accuse Soviet power of "compromising with the bourgeoisie", of "establishing trusts" (that is, of establishing "state capitalism"!), of introducing the Taylor system.<br /><br />The workers are not petty bourgeois. They are not afraid of large-scale "state capitalism", they prize it as their proletarian weapon which their Soviet power will use against small proprietary disintegration and disorganisation.<br /><br />They have begun to learn steadily and cautiously with easy things, gradually passing on to the more difficult things. If things are going more slowly in the iron and steel and engineering industries, it is because they present greater difficulties. But the textile and tobacco workers and tanners are not afraid of "state capitalism" or of "learning from the organisers of the trusts", as the declassed petty-bourgeois intelligentsia are. These workers in the central leading institutions like Chief Leather Committee and Central Textile Committee take their place by the side of the capitalists, learn from them, establish trusts, establish "state capitalism", which under Soviet power represents the threshold of socialism, the condition of its firm victory.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm</a><br /><br /><br />The Tax in Kind (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)<br /><br />The alternative (and this is the only sensible and the last possible policy) is not to try to prohibit or put the lock on the development of capitalism, but to channel it into state capitalism. This is economically possible, for state capitalism exists—in varying form and degree—wherever there are elements of unrestricted trade and capitalism in general.<br /><br />Can the Soviet state and the dictatorship of the proletariat be combined with<br />state capitalism? Are they compatible? Of course they are. This is exactly what I argued in May 1918. I hope I had proved it then. I had also proved that state capitalism is a step forward compared with the small proprietor (both small-patriarchal and petty-bourgeois) element. Those who compare state capitalism only with socialism commit a host of mistakes, for in the present political and economic circumstances it is essential to compare state capitalism also with petty-bourgeois production.<br /><br />The whole problem—in theoretical and practical terms—is to find the correct methods of directing the development of capitalism (which is to some extent and for some time inevitable) into the channels of state capitalism, and to determine how we are to hedge it about with conditions to ensure its transformation into socialism in the near future. In order to approach the solution of this problem we must first of all picture to ourselves as distinctly as possible what state capitalism will and can be in<br />practice inside the Soviet system and within the framework of the Soviet state.<br /><br />Concessions are the simplest example of how the Soviet government directs the<br />development of capitalism into the channels of state capitalism and "implants" state capitalism. We all agree now that concessions are necessary, but have we all thought about the implications?<br /><br />They are an agreement, an alliance, a bloc between the Soviet, i.e., proletarian, state power and state capitalism against the small-proprietor (patriarchal and petty-bourgeois) element.<br /><br />By "implanting" state capitalism in the form of concessions, the Soviet government strengthens large-scale production as against petty production, advanced production as against backward production, and machine production as against hand production.<br /><br />Compared with other forms of state capitalism within the Soviet system, concessions are perhaps the most simple and clear-cut form of state capitalism<br /><br />But these are minor difficulties compared with the other problems of the social revolution and, in particular, with the difficulties arising from other forms of developing, permitting and implanting state capitalism.<br /><br />The most important task that confronts all Party and Soviet workers in connection with the introduction of the tax in kind is to apply the principles of the "concessions" policy (i.e., a policy that is similar to "concession" state capitalism) to the other forms of capitalism—unrestricted trade, local exchange, etc.<br /><br />But, unlike private capitalism, "co-operative" capitalism under the Soviet system is a variety of state capitalism, and as such it is advantageous and useful for us at the present time—in certain measure, of course.<br /><br />It resembles state capitalism in that it facilitates accounting, control, supervision and the establishment of contractual relations between the state (in this case the Soviet state) and the capitalist. Co-operative trade is more advantageous and useful than private trade not only for the above-mentioned reasons, but also because it facilitates the association and organisation of millions of people, and eventually of the entire population, and this in its turn is an enormous gain from the standpoint of the subsequent transition from state capitalism to socialism.<br /><br />Let us make a comparison of concessions and co-operatives as forms of state capitalism<br /><br />Take a third form of state capitalism. The state enlists the capitalist as a merchant and pays him a definite commission on the sale of state goods and on the purchase of the produce of the small producer. A fourth form: the state leases to the capitalist entrepreneur an industrial establishment, oilfields, forest tracts, land, etc., which belong to the state, the lease being very similar to a concession agreement. We make no mention of, we give no thought or notice to, these two latter forms of state capitalism, not because we are strong and clever but because we are weak and foolish. We are afraid to look the "vulgar truth" squarely in the face, and too often yield to "exalting deception''.<br /><br />We keep repeating that "we" are passing from capitalism to socialism, but do not bother to obtain a distinct picture of the "we". To keep this picture clear we must constantly have in mind the whole list—without any exception—of the constituent parts of our national economy, of all its diverse forms that I gave in my article of May 5, 1918. "We", the vanguard, the advanced contingent of the proletariat, are passing directly to socialism; but the advanced contingent is only a small part of the whole of the proletariat while the latter, in its turn, is only a small part of the whole population. If "we" are successfully to solve the problem of our immediate transition to socialism, we must understand what intermediary paths, methods, means and instruments are required for the transition from pre-capitalist relations to socialism. That is the whole point.<br /><br />Inasmuch as we are as yet unable to pass directly from small production to socialism, some capitalism is inevitable as the elemental product of small production and exchange; so that we must utilise capitalism (particularly by directing it into the channels of state capitalism) as the intermediary link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, and a method of increasing the productive forces.<br /><br />Those who achieve the best results in this sphere, even by means of private capitalism, even without the co-operatives, or without directly transforming this capitalism into state capitalism, will do more for the cause of socialist construction in Russia than those who "ponder over" the purity of communism, draw up regulations, rules and instructions for state capitalism and the co-operatives, but do nothing practical to stimulate trade. Isn `t it paradoxical that private capital should be helping socialism?<br /><br />Not at all. It is, indeed, an irrefutable economic fact. Since this is a small-peasant country with transport in an extreme state of dislocation, a country emerging from war and blockade under the political guidance of the proletariat—which controls the transport system and large-scale industry—it inevitably follows, first, that at the present moment local exchange acquires first-class significance, and, second, that there is a possibility of assisting socialism by means of private capitalism (not to speak of state capitalism).<br /><br />It is by presenting the question in this way (the Council of People's Commissars has already started, that is to say, it has ordered that work be started, on the revision of the anti-profiteering laws) that we shall succeed in directing the rather inevitable but necessary development of capitalism into the channels of state capitalism.<br /><br />The fight against profiteering must be transformed into a fight against stealing and the evasion of state supervision, accounting and control. By means of this control we shall direct the capitalism that is to a certain extent inevitable and necessary for us into the channels of state capitalism.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Report on the Tax in Kind<br />Report on the Tax in Kind Delivered at a Meeting of Secretaries and Responsible<br />Representatives of R.C.P.(B.) Cells of Moscow and Moscow Gubernia<br />April 9, 1921<br /><br />In the course of the argument with these comrades I said, among other things: State capitalism is nothing to fear in Russia; it would be a step forward. That sounded very strange: How could state capitalism be a step forward in a Soviet socialist republic? I replied: Take a close look at the actual economic relations in Russia.<br /><br />What is state capitalism in these circumstances? It is the amalgamation of small-scale production. Capital amalgamates small enterprises and grows out of them. It is no use closing our eyes to this fact. Of course, a free market means a growth of capitalism; there's no getting away from the fact. And anyone who tries to do so will be deluding himself. Capitalism will emerge wherever there is small enterprise and free exchange. But are we to be afraid of it, if we have control of the factories, transport and foreign trade? Let me repeat what I said then: I believe it to be incontrovertible that we need have no fear of this capitalism. Concessions are that kind of capitalism.<br /><br />What are concessions from the standpoint of economic relations? They are state<br />capitalism. The Soviet government concludes an agreement with a capitalist. Under it, the latter is provided with certain things: raw materials, mines, oilfields, minerals, or, as was the case in one of the last proposals, even a special factory (the ball-bearing project of a Swedish enterprise). The socialist state gives the capitalist its means of production such as factories, mines and materials. The capitalist operates as a contractor leasing socialist means of production, making a profit on his capital and delivering a part of his output to the socialist state.<br /><br />That is how we get state capitalism. Should it scare us? No, it should not, because it is up to us to determine the extent of the concessions. Take oil concessions. They will give us millions of poods of paraffin oil right away, and that is more than we produce ourselves. This is to our advantage, because in exchange for the paraffin oil—and not paper money—the peasant will give us his grain surplus, and we shall immediately be able to improve the situation in the whole country. That is why the capitalism that is bound to grow out of a free market holds no terrors for us. It will be the result of growing trade, the exchange of manufactured goods, even if produced by small industry, for agricultural produce.<br /><br />Let small industry grow to some extent and let state capitalism develop—the Soviet power need have no fear of that. We must face the facts squarely and call a spade a spade, but we must also control and determine the limits of this development.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/09.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/09.htm</a><br /><br />TELEGRAM TO SAMARKAND COMMUNISTS<br /><br />We have no fear of capitalism, because the proletariat has the power, transport and large-scale industry firmly in its hands and will succeed, through its control, in channeling it into state capitalism. Under these conditions, capitalism will help to combat red tape and the scattering of the petty producers.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/27.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/27.htm</a><br /><br />Third Congress Of The Communist InternationalJune 22-July 12, 1921<br /><br />On the contrary, the development of capitalism, controlled and regulated by the<br />proletarian state (i.e., "state" capitalism in this sense of the term), is advantageous and necessary in an extremely devastated and backward small-peasant country (within certain limits, of course), inasmuch as it is capable of hastening the immediate revival of peasant farming. This applies still more to concessions: without denationalising anything, the workers' state leases certain mines, forest tracts, oilfields, and so forth, to foreign capitalists in order to obtain from them extra equipment and machinery that will enable us to accelerate the restoration of Soviet large-scale industry.<br /><br />This freedom of exchange implies freedom for capitalism. We say this openly and<br />emphasise it. We do not conceal it in the least. Things would go very hard with us if we attempted to conceal it. Freedom to trade means freedom for capitalism, but it also means a new form of capitalism. It means that, to a certain extent, we are re-creating capitalism. We are doing this quite openly. It is state capitalism. But state capitalism in a society where power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of fighting it. It goes without saying that we must grant concessions to the foreign bourgeoisie, to foreign capital. Without the slight denationalisation, we shall lease mines, forests and oilfields to foreign capitalists, and receive in exchange manufactured goods, machinery, etc., and thus restore our own industry.<br /><br />Of course, we did not all agree on the question of state capitalism at once.<br /><br />What compels us to do this? We are not alone in the world. We exist in a system of capitalist states<br /><br />We admit quite openly, and do not conceal the fact, that concessions in the system of state capitalism mean paying tribute to capitalism.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/12.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/jun/12.htm</a><br /><br /><br />New Times and Old Mistakes in a New Guise<br /><br />The Mensheviks are shouting that the tax in kind, the freedom to trade, the granting of concessions and state capitalism signify the collapse of communism. Abroad, the ex-Communist Levi has added his voice to that of the Mensheviks. This same Levi had to be defended as long as the mistakes he had made could be explained by his reaction to some of the mistakes of the "Left" Communists, particularly in March 1921 in Germany[11]; but this same Levi cannot be defended when, instead of admitting that he is wrong, he slips into Menshevism all along the line.<br /><br />To the Menshevik shouters we shall simply point out that as early as the spring of 1918 the Communists proclaimed and advocated the idea of a bloc, an alliance with state capitalism against the petty-bourgeois element. That was three years ago! In the first months of the Bolshevik victory! Even then the Bolsheviks took a sober view of things. And since then nobody has been able to challenge the correctness of our sober calculation of the available forces.<br /><br />We need a bloc, or alliance, between the proletarian state and state capitalism against the petty-bourgeois element. We must achieve this alliance skilfully, following the rule: "Measure your cloth seven times before you cut." We shall leave ourselves a smaller field of work, only what is absolutely necessary.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/20.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/aug/20.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Fourth Anniversary of the October Revolution<br /><br />It appears that a number of transitional stages were necessary—state capitalism and socialism—in order to prepare—to prepare by many years of effort—for the transition to communism.<br /><br />we must first set to work in this small peasant country to build solid gangways to socialism by way of state capitalism. Otherwise we shall never get to communism, we shall never bring scores of millions of people to communism. That is what experience, the objective course of the development of the revolution, has taught us.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/14.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/14.htm</a><br /><br />The New Economic Policy<br />And The Tasks Of The Political Education Departments<br />Report To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Political Education Departments<br />October 17, 1921<br /><br />Even if all of you were not yet active workers in the Party and the Soviets at that time, you have at all events been able to make, and of course have made, yourselves familiar with decisions such as that adopted by the All-Russia Central Executive Committee at the end of April 1918.[2] That decision pointed to the necessity to take peasant farming into consideration, and it was based on a report which made allowance for the role of state capitalism in building socialism in a peasant country; a report which emphasised the importance of personal, individual, one-man responsibility; which emphasised the significance of that factor in the administration of the country as distinct from the political tasks of organising state power and from military tasks.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/17.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Seventh Moscow Gubernia Conference of the Russian Communist Party<br />October 29-31 , 1921<br /><br />When in the spring of 1918, for example, in our polemics with a number of comrades, who were opposed to concluding the Brest peace, we raised the question of state capitalism, we did not argue that we were going back to state capitalism, but that our position would be alleviated and the solution of our socialist problems facilitated if state capitalism became the predominant economic system in Russia. I want to draw your particular attention to this, because I think it is necessary to bear it in mind in order to understand the present change in our economic policy and how this change should be interpreted.<br /><br />The political situation in the spring of 1921 revealed to us that on a number of economic issues a retreat to the position of state capitalism, the substitution of "siege" tactics for "direct assault", was inevitable.<br /><br />The New Economic Policy was adopted because, in the spring of 1921, after our<br />experience of direct socialist construction carried on under unprecedentedly difficult conditions, under the conditions of civil war, in which the bourgeoisie compelled us to resort to extremely hard forms of struggle, it became perfectly clear that we could not proceed with our direct socialist construction and that in a number of economic spheres we must retreat to state capitalism. We could not continue with the tactics of direct assault, but had to undertake the very difficult, arduous and unpleasant task of a long siege accompanied by a number of retreats. This is necessary to pave the way for the solution of the economic problem, i. e., that of the economic transition to<br />socialist principles.<br /><br />I cannot today quote figures, data, or facts to show the results of this policy of reverting to state capitalism. I shall give only one small example.<br /><br />We see the development of state capitalist relations.<br /><br />and this is largely due to the improvement of production in small mines, to their being exploited along the lines of state capitalism. I cannot here go into all the data on the question<br /><br />are what we are beginning to obtain as a result of the partial reversion to the system of state capitalism. Our ability, the extent to which we shall be able to apply this policy correctly in the future, will determine to what extent we shall continue to get good results.<br /><br />shall now go back and develop my main idea. Is our transition to the New Economic Policy in the spring, our retreat to the ways, means and methods of state capitalism, sufficient to enable us to stop the retreat and prepare for the offensive? No, it is not yet sufficient.<br /><br />Since we are now passing to state capitalism, the question arises of whether we should try to prevent the methods which were suitable for the previous economic<br />policy from hindering us now.<br /><br />In the spring we said that we would not be afraid to revert to state capitalism, and that our task was to organise commodity exchange. A number of decrees and<br />decisions, a vast number of newspaper articles, all our propaganda and all the<br />laws passed since the spring of 1921 have been directed to the purpose of<br />stimulating commodity exchange<br /><br />Now we find ourselves in the position of having to retreat even a little further, not only to state capitalism, but to the state regulation of trade and the money system.<br /><br />The position which our New Economic Policy has created—the development of small<br />commercial enterprises, the leasing of state enterprises, etc.—entails the development of capitalist relations; and anybody who fails to see this shows that he has lost his head entirely. It goes without saying that the consolidation of capitalist relations in itself increases the danger. But can you point to a single path in revolution, to any stage and method that would not have its dangers?<br /><br />Next, the first lesson, the first stage which we had reached by the spring of 1921—the development of state capitalism on new lines. Here certain successes can be recorded; but there are still unprecedented contradictions We have not yet mastered this sphere of activity.<br /><br />A wholesale merchant seems to be an economic type as remote from communism as<br />heaven from earth. But that is one of the contradictions which, in actual life,<br />lead from a small-peasant economy via state capitalism to socialism.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/29.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/29.htm</a><br /><br />The Importance Of Gold Now And After The Complete Victory Of Socialism<br /><br />We retreated to state capitalism, but we did not retreat too far. We are now retreating to the state regulation of trade, but we shall not retreat too far. There are visible signs that the retreat is coming to an end; there are signs that we shall be able to stop this retreat in the not too distant future. The more conscious, the more unanimous, the more free from prejudice we are in carrying out this necessary retreat, the sooner shall we be able to stop it, and the more lasting, speedy and extensive will be our subsequent victorious advance.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/nov/05.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/nov/05.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Ninth All-Russia Congress of Soviets<br />December 23-28,1921<br /><br />That is why we have retreated, that is why we have had to retreat to state capitalism, retreat to concessions, retreat to trade.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/27.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/27.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Draft Theses on the Role and Functions of The Trade Unions Under the New Economic Policy<br /><br />In particular, a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control, are now being permitted and are developing; on the other hand, the state enterprises are being put on what is called a profit basis, i.e., they are in effect being largely reorganised on commercial and capitalist lines.<br /><br />2. State Capitalism in the Proletarian State and the Trade Unions<br /><br />3. The State Enterprises that Are Being Put on a Profit Basis and the Trade Unions<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30b.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30b.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Role and Functions of the Trade Unions Under The New Economic Policy<br />Decision Of The C.C., R.C.P.(B.), January 12, 1922<br /><br />In view of the urgent need to increase the productivity of labour and make every<br />state enterprise pay its way and show a profit,<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/dec/30.htm</a><br /><br />V. I. Lenin 597 To: L. D. TROTSKY<br /><br />Therefore, it would be perhaps extremely useful if you were to join open battle in the press right away, naming this Menshevik, explaining the malicious whiteguard character of his speech, and issuing an impressive call to the Party to pull itself together. The term "state capitalism" is, in my opinion (and I have repeatedly argued with Bukharin about it), the only theoretically correct and necessary one to make inert Communists realise that the new policy is going forward in earnest. But, of course, such malicious helpmates of the whiteguards, as all Mensheviks are, can pretend that they do not understand that state capitalism in a state with proletarian power can exist only as limited in time and sphere of extension, and conditions of its application, mode of supervision over it, etc.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/jan/21b.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/jan/21b.htm</a><br /><br /><br />ON THE TASKS OF THE PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIAT FOR JUSTICE UNDER THE NEW ECONOMIC POLICY<br /><br />The fighting role of the P.C.J. is equally important in the sphere of NEP, and here the P.C.J.'s weakness and apathy is even more outrageous. There is no evidence of any understanding of the fact that we recognise and will continue to recognise only state capitalism, and it is we— we conscious workers, we Communists—who are the state. That is why we should brand as good-for-nothing Communists those who have failed to understand their task of restricting, curbing, checking and catching red-handed and inflicting exemplary chastisement on any kind of capitalism that goes beyond the framework of state capitalism in our meaning of the concept and tasks of the state.<br /><br />We allow only state capitalism, and as has been said, it is we who are the<br />slate.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/feb/20c.htm</a><br /><br /><br />NOTES FOR A SPEECH ON MARCH 27, 1922<br /><br />3. (b) The test by competition between state and capitalist enterprises (both commercial and industrial; both Russian and foreign).<br /><br />4. ((State capitalism. "We" are the state.)) (c) "State capitalism." Scholastic versus revolutionary and practical meaning of this term.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/26.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/26.htm</a><br /><br />Eleventh Congress Of The R.C.P.(B.)<br /><br />The second, more specific lesson is the test through competition between state and capitalist enterprises<br /><br />The third, supplementary lesson is on the question of state capitalism. It is a pity Comrade Bukharin is not present at the Congress. I should have liked to argue with him a little, but that had better be postponed to the next Congress. On the question of state capitalism, I think that generally our press and our Party make the mistake of dropping into intellectualism, into liberalism; we philosophise about how state capitalism is to be interpreted, and look into old books. But in those old books you will not find what we are discussing; they deal with the state capitalism that exists under capitalism. Not a single book has been written about state capitalism under communism. It did not occur even to Marx to write a word on thissubject; and he died without leaving a single precise statement or definite instruction on it. That is why we must overcome the difficulty entirely by ourselves. And if we make a general mental survey of our press and see what has been written about state capitalism, as I tried to do when I was preparing this report, we shall be convinced that it is missing the target, that it is looking in an entirely wrong direction.<br /><br />The state capitalism discussed in all books on economics is that which exists under the capitalist system, where the state brings under its direct control certain capitalist enterprises. But ours is a proletarian state it rests on the proletariat; it gives the proletariat all political privileges; and through the medium of the proletariat it attracts to itself the lower ranks of the peasantry (you remember that we began this work through the Poor Peasants Committees). That is why very many people are misled by the term state capitalism. To avoid this we must remember the fundamental thing that state capitalism in the form we have here is not dealt with in any theory, or in any books, for the simple reason that all the usual concepts connected with this term are associated with bourgeois rule in capitalist society. Our society is one which has left the rails of capitalism, but has not yot got on to new rails. The state in this society is not ruled by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat.<br /><br />We refuse to understand that when we say "state" we mean ourselves, the proletariat, the vanguard of the working class. State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrain, and the limits of which we shall be able to fix. This state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers, the advanced section of the workers, the vanguard. We are the state.<br /><br />State capitalism is capitalism that we must confine within certain bounds; but we have not yet learned to confine it within those bounds. That is the whole point. And it rests with us to determine what this state capitalism is to be. We have sufficient, quite sufficient political power; we also have sufficient economic resources at our command, but the vanguard of the working class which has been brought to the forefront to directly supervise, to determine the boundaries, to demarcate, to subordinate and not be subordinated itself, lacks sufficient ability for it. All that is needed here is ability, and that is what we do not have.<br /><br />Never before in history has there been a situation in which the proletariat, the<br />revolutionary vanguard, possessed sufficient political power and had state<br />capitalism existing along side it. The whole question turns on our understanding<br />that this is the capitalism that we can and must permit, that we can and must confine within certain bounds; for this capitalism is essential for the broad masses of the peasantry and for private capital, which must trade in such a way as to satisfy the needs of the peasantry.<br /><br />We must organise things in such a way as to make possible the customar operation of capitalist economy and capitalist exchange, because this is essential for the people. Without it, existence is impossible. All the rest is not an absolutely vital matter to this camp. They can resign themselves to all that. You Communists, you workers, you, the politically enlightened section of the proletariat, which under took to administer the state, must be able to arrange it so that the state, which you have taken into your hands, shall function the way you want it to. Well, we have lived through a year, the state is in our hands; but has it operated the New Economic Policy in the way we<br />wanted in this past year? No. But we refuse to admit that it did not operate in the way we wanted. How did it operate?<br /><br />The machine refused to obey the hand that guided it. It was like a car that was going not in the direction the driver desired, but in the direction someone else desired; as if it were being driven by some mysterious, lawless hand, God knows whose, perhaps of a profiteer, or of a private capitalist, or of both. Be that as it may, the car is not going quite in the direction the man at the wheel imagines, and often it goes in an altogether different direction. This is the main thing that must be remembered in regard to state capitalism. In this main field we must start learning from the very beginning, and only when we have thoroughly understood and appreciated this can we be sure that we shall learn.<br /><br />First of all about state capitalism.<br /><br />"State capitalism is capitalism," said Preobrazhensky, "and that is the only way it can and should be interpreted." I say that that is pure scholasticism. Up to now nobody could have written a book about this sort of capitalism, because this is the first time in human history that we see anything like it. All the more or less intelligible books about state capitalism that have appeared up to now were written under conditions and in a situation where state capitalism was capitalism.<br /><br />Now things are different; and neither Marx nor the Marxists could foresee this.<br />We must not look to the past. When you write history, you will write it magnificently; but when you write a textbook, you will say: State capitalism is the most unexpected and absolutely unforeseen form of capitalism—for nobody could foresee that the proletariat would achieve power in one of the least developed countries, and would first try to organise large-scale production and distribution for the peasantry and then, finding that it could not cope with the task owing to the low standard of culture, would enlist the services of capitalism. Nobody ever foresaw this; but it is an incontrovertible fact.<br /><br />The position now is that we have to deal with an enemy in mundane economics, and<br />this is a thousand times more difficult. The controversies over state capitalism that have been raging in our literature up to now could at best be included in textbooks on history. I do not in the least deny that textbooks are useful, and recently I wrote that it would be far better if our authors devoted less attention to newspapers and political twaddle and wrote textbooks, as many of them, including Comrade Larin, could do splendidly. His talent would prove most useful on work of this kind and we would solve the problem that Comrade Trotsky emphasised so well when he said that the main task at the present time is to train the younger generation, but we have nothing to train them with. Indeed, from what can the younger generation learn the social sciences? From the old bourgeois junk. This is disgraceful! And this is at a time when we have hundreds of Marxist authors who could write textbooks on all social problems, but do not do so because their minds are taken up with other things.<br /><br />As regards state capitalism, we ought to know what should be the slogan for agitation and propaganda, what must be explained, what we must get everyone to understand practically. And that is that the state capitalism that we have now is not the state capitalism that the Germans wrote about. It is capitalism that we ourselves have permitted. Is that true or not? Everybody knows that it is true!<br /><br />At a congress of Communists we passed a decision that state capitalism would be<br />permitted by the proletarian state, and we are the state. If we did wrong we are to blame and it is no use shifting the blame to somebody else! We must learn, we must see to it that in a proletarian country state capitalism cannot and does not go beyond the framework and conditions delineated for it by the proletariat, beyond conditions that benefit the proletariat.<br /><br />Now that we are passing from the Cheka to state-political courts we must say at<br />this Congress that there is no such thing as above-class courts. Our courts must<br />be elected, proletarian courts; and they must know what it is that we are permitting. They must clearly understand what state capitalism is.<br /><br />This is the political slogan of the day and not a controversy about what the German professors meant by state capitalism and what we mean by it. We have gone through a great deal since then, and it is altogether unseemly for us to look back.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/mar/27.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Fourth Congress of the Communist International<br /><br />To begin with how we arrived at the New Economic Policy, I must quote from an<br />article I wrote in 1918.[2] At the beginning of 1918, in a brief polemic, I touched on the question of the attitude we should adopt towards state capitalism. I then wrote:<br /><br />"State capitalism would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs (i.e., the state of affairs at that time) in our Soviet Republic. If in<br />approximately six months' time state capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country."<br /><br />Thus, in 1918, I was of the opinion that with regard to the economic situation then obtaihing in the Soviet Republic, state capitalism would be a step forward. This sounds very strange, and perhaps even absurd, for already at that time our Republic was a socialist republic and we were every day hastily—perhaps too hastily—adopting various new economic measures which could not be described as anything but socialist measures. Nevertheless, I then held the view that in relation to the economic situation then obtaining in the Soviet Republic state capitalism would be a step forward, and I explained my idea simply by enumerating the elements of the economic system of Russia.<br /><br />set myself the task of explaining the relationship of these elements to each other, and whether one of the non-socialist elements, namely, state capitalism, should not be rated higher than socialism. I repeat: it seems very strange to everyone that a non-socialist element should be rated higher than, regarded as superior to, socialism in a republic which declares itself a socialist republic But the fact will become intelligible if you recall that we definitely did not regard the economic system of Russia as something homogeneous and highly developed; we were fully aware that in Russia we had patriarchal agriculture, i.e., the most primitive form of agriculture, alongside the socialist form. What role could state capitalism play in these circumstances?<br /><br />The question I then put to myself—this was in a specific controversy which had nothing to do with the present question—was: what is our attitude towards state capitalism? And I replied: although it is not a socialist form, state capitalism would be for us, and for Russia, a more favourable form than the existing one. What does that show? It shows that we did not overrate either the rudiments orthe principles of socialist economy, although we had already accomplished the social revolution. On the contrary, at that time we already realised to a certain extent that it would be better if we first arrived at state capitalism and only after that at socialism.<br /><br />For example, they made no mention whatever of that very important point, freedom to trade, which is of fundamental significance to state capitalism. Yet they did contain a general, even if indefinite, idea of retreat. I think that we should take note of that not only from the viewpoint of a country whose economic system was, and is to this day, very backward, but also from the viewpoint of the Communist International and the advanced West-European countries<br /><br />Now that I have emphasised the fact that as early as 1918 we regarded state capitalism as a possible line of retreat, I shall deal with the results of our New Economic Policy<br /><br />The state capitalism that we have introduced in our country is of a special kind. It does not agree with the usual conception of state capitalism. We hold all the key positions. We hold the land; it belongs to the state. This is very important, although our opponents try to make out that it is of no importance at all. That is untrue. The fact that the land belongs to the state is extremely important, and economically it is also of great practical purport. This we have achieved, and I must say that all our future activities should develop only within that framework. We have already succeeded in making the peasantry content and in reviving both industry and trade.<br /><br />I have already said that our state capitalism differs from state capitalism in the literal sense of the term in that our proletarian state not only owns the land, but also all the vital branches of industry. To begin with, we have leased only a certain number of the small and medium plants, but all the rest remain in our hands. As regards trade, I want to re-emphasise that we are trying to found mixed companies, that we are already forming them, i.e., companies in which part of the capital belongs to private capitalists—and foreign capitalists at that—and the other part belongs to the state.<br /><br />Firstly, in this way we are learning how to trade, and that is what we need. Secondly, we are always in a position to dissolve these companies if we deem it necessary, and do not, therefore, run any risks, so to speak. We are learning from the private capitalist and looking round to see how we can progress, and what mistakes we make. It seems to me that I need say no more.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/04b.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/04b.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Interview With Arthur Ransome<br /><br />How is it that although capitalism is the antithesis of communism, certain<br />circumstances are assets from the two opposite viewpoints? It is because one<br />possible way to proceed to communism is through state capitalism, provided the<br />state is controlled by the working class. This is exactly the position in the "present case".<br /><br />Let us proceed further. Is it possible that we are receding to something in the<br />nature of a "feudal dictatorship"? It is utterly impossible, for although slowly, with interruptions, taking steps backward from time to time, we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a path that leads us forward to socialism and communism (which is the highest stage of socialism), and certainly not back to feudalism.<br /><br />The real nature of the New Economic Policy is this—firstly, the proletarian state has given small producers freedom to trade ; and secondly, in respect of the means of production in large-scale industry, the proletarian state is applying a number of the principles of what in capitalist economics is called<br />"state capitalism ".<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm</a><br /><br /><br />To the Russian Colony in North America<br /><br />The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter's quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/14b.htm</a><br /><br />On Cooperation<br /><br />Whenever I wrote about the New Economic Policy I always quoted the article on<br />state capitalism which I wrote in 1918 ["Left-Wing" Childishness and the<br />Petty-Bourgeois Mentality; part III]. This has more than once aroused doubts in<br />the minds of certain young comrades but their doubts were mainly on abstract<br />political points. It seemed to them that the term "state capitalism" could not be applied to a system under which the means of production were owned by the working-class, a working-class that held political power.<br /><br />They did not notice, however, that I use the term "state capitalism", firstly, to connect historically our present position with the position adopted in my controversy with the so-called Left Communists; also, I argued at the time that state capitalism would be superior to our existing economy. It was important for me to show the continuity between ordinary state capitalism and the unusual, even very unusual, state capitalism to which I referred in introducing the reader to the New Economic Policy. Secondly, the practical purpose was always important to me. And the practical purpose of our New Economic Policy was to lease out concessions. In the prevailing circumstances, concessions in our country would unquestionably have been a pure type of state capitalism. That is how I argued about state capitalism.<br /><br />But there is another aspect of the matter for which we may need state capitalism, or at least a comparison with it. It is a question of cooperatives.<br /><br />Under state capitalism, cooperative enterprises differ from state capitalist enterprises, firstly, because they are private enterprises, and, secondly, because they are collective enterprises. Under our present system, cooperative enterprises differ from private capitalist enterprises because they are collective enterprises, but do not differ from socialist enterprises if the land on which they are situated and means of production belong to the state, i.e., the working-class.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm">http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htm</a><br /><br /><br />(hat tip Dave Balmer for compiling this; NB - check the references before using any of these quotes, as they are not presented in standard form)<br /></blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-44325987392099022582009-10-20T14:57:00.000+02:002009-10-20T15:00:30.508+02:00the Waters of MarsI am beginning to get excited. In a few weeks time, we will see the next Doctor Who episode. What will be revealed though? We know from the Easter Special (Planet of the Dead) that something is returning from the darkness and there will be four knocks . Four knocks= Sound of Drums= Master. The Waters of Mars can be played with to give Wars of the Master.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2278302797709392257.post-49977384997211341752009-10-03T10:08:00.000+02:002009-10-03T10:09:48.482+02:00Population, Environment and Socialism (again)The latest <span style="font-style: italic;">New Scientist</span> has <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/special/population">a feature</a> on population.<br /><a href="http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2009/06/worlds-population-is-projected-to-grow.html"><br />It confirms what we blogged about in June</a>: (female) education, gender equality and the eradication of poverty will play key roles in creating a stable world population. The Ehrlichs (famous for <span style="font-style: italic;">the Population Bomb</span>) argue that point.<br /><br />The articles also discuss other aspects of the population question. One of them, unintentionally, highlights a problem with the very framing of the issue - when is there a population problem? Well, when there are too few people about, for example! Reiner Klingholz <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327271.800-population-europes-problems-will-grow-as-it-shrinks.html">argues</a> that Europe is facing a problem of low fertility rate and ageing populace, which will trouble economies:<br /><blockquote><br />High population growth, such as that now taking place in many African countries, is not sustainable. But very low fertility rates are unsustainable too. <span style="font-style: italic;">It will be hard for countries with persistently low fertility to remain competitive, creative and wealthy enough to keep ahead of their country's environmental challenges</span>....[I]t is important to focus less on human quantity and more on human capacity; not on how many people there are, but on how productively they live their lives. Working life must be extended and Europe must invest heavily in education, as fewer young brains will have to deliver increased creativity and productivity. (My emphasis.)</blockquote><br />Note how the population issue gets a sort of nationalist slant to it and how it is directly linked to the interests of Capital.<br /><br />The population question obviously cannot be divorced from other issues (which does happen) such as changes in technology and production, as shown in <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327271.600-population-technology-will-save-us.html">this interview</a> with Jesse Ausubel. One such change could be the use of farming techniques that give higher yields whilst using less land. There is a whole vista of new possibilities which could be utilised to their full potential in a socialist society.<br /><br />Possibly the hardest aspect is that of consumption. It is becoming obvious that a large meat diet is taking a toll on the environment. However, socialists don't tend to make lifestyles a central part of their argument. Who are we to tell others what they should or should not eat? Rather, we limit ourselves to arguments along the lines of getting rid of capitalism so that the, at present, billion malnourished people around the world can actually get the luxury of thinking about what to eat.<br /><br />The population question is, in the final analysis, inextricably linked to how we live and how we could live. <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327272.700-the-real-problem-with-overpopulation.html">The editorial</a> puts it thus: "Critically, it ... means basing success on stability - recognising that economic growth at all costs, not population growth, is the real root of all evil." Economic growth is, frankly, production for profit and Capital accumulation. <span style="font-style: italic;">New Scientist</span> is not arguing for the abolition of capitalism, obviously; it is up to socialists to point out that capitalism cannot function without economic growth and, since that is the case, we need a different and sustainable mode of production.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0