communist left

본문

유럽 극우주의 망령 되살아난다

경제위기가 불러낸 ‘인종전쟁 공포’… 이민자 겨누다

제2차 세계대전 이후 극우주의의 망령을 떨치고 공동체를 꿈꿔온 유럽에 '인종전쟁' 공포가 되살아나고 있다.지난 20여년간 유럽 극우세력의 인종 증오 범죄는 이슬람 무장단체의 테러 못지않을 정도로 확산돼 왔다. 국제반테러리즘센터(ICCT) 조사에 따르면 1990년 이후 유럽에서 극우 범죄로 희생된 사람은 249명으로, 같은 기간 유럽에서 이슬람 극단주의자들의 공격으로 숨진 희생자 규모(263명)를 넘어설 기세다. 네오나치 단체 등이 '인종전쟁'까지 준비하고 있다는 우려도 제기되고 있다. 영국의 싱크탱크 인종관계연구소(IRR)가 최근 펴낸 보고서에 따르면 독일, 덴마크, 체코, 헝가리 등 일부 유럽국가에서 극우주의자들이 자체적으로 민병대를 조직하고 무기와 폭발물 등을 비축하고 있는 증거가 포착됐다.
 

헝가리의 시민경호대(CG)나 체코의 노동당수호군(WPPC) 등이 대표적인 네오나치 계열의 민병대이다. 시민경호대는 지난해 3월 집시 거주지를 2개월간 점령하는 과정에서 도끼 등으로 무장한 채 밤낮으로 마을을 행진하며 주민들을 '더러운 집시'라고 모욕하고, 학교에 난입해 어린이들을 괴롭히는 등 온갖 무법행위를 저지르기도 했다.

경제위기의 직격탄을 맞은 남유럽에서는 이민·망명자, 서유럽에서는 급증하는 무슬림, 동유럽에서는 집시를 상대로 한 극우세력의 폭력과 살인이 일상이 됐다. 여기에 극우 정치인들의 묵시적인 선동과 물밑 지원까지 더해져 극우 범죄는 더 조직적으로 세력화하고 있다.

유럽 극우정당들은 경제살리기 정책 대신 분열과 증오를 낳는 반(反)이민 정책을 내세워 대중들의 분노심을 자극하고 있다. 고실업, 빈부격차 확대, 복지 축소 등의 정부 실책을 모두 이민자 탓으로 돌리고 있는 것이다.

최근 그리스에는 '경제위기로 붕괴된 유럽의 미래를 보여 주는 축소판'이라는 평가가 나올 정도로 이민자를 겨냥한 도를 넘은 광기가 넘실대고 있다. 니코스 덴디아스 아테네 공공질서장관은 "이민자가 그리스를 침공했다."며 이민자를 암적인 존재로 규정하고, 대대적인 검거작전에 앞장섰다. 그만큼 그리스 사회는 인권 탄압에 무감각해졌다.

그리스 전역에서 지난 7~8월 두달 동안에만 200건의 이민자 폭행 사건이 발생했다. 올 상반기 전체로는 500건에 이른다. 지난달 그리스·터키 국경지대 배치 경찰은 전달보다 5배 많은 2500명으로 대폭 늘었다.

특히 지난 6월 네오나치 계열의 황금새벽당이 6.9% 지지율로 의회에 입성하면서 이민자 탄압은 더 극렬해졌다. 황금새벽당이 이민자 협박과 폭행, 살인을 일삼는 지하 범죄세력과 결탁하고 경찰을 매수해 이를 방조하도록 했다는 증언과 의혹이 쇄도하자 유럽평의회의 인권 담당 위원인 닐스 무이즈니엑스는 "황금새벽당은 유럽의 나치당"이라면서 그리스 정부에 정당의 합법성에 대한 조사를 요청했다.

나치당의 집권으로 유럽에 전쟁의 상흔을 안긴 독일에서도 과거의 기억은 희미해지고 있다. 한 주가 멀다 하고 유대인 묘에 나치 문양이 그려졌다거나 터키인들이 운영하는 케밥 식당에 벽돌이 날아들었다는 뉴스가 터져 나온다. 외국인이라는 이유만으로 버스 정거장에서 얻어맞거나 "꺼지라."는 욕설을 듣는 건 다반사다.

독일에서는 1990년 통일 이후 인종 증오와 관련된 살인사건이 180건이나 자행됐다. 올 상반기에만 하루 평균 34건의 인종 차별 범죄가 발생했다. 네오나치 단체는 오히려 더 번성하고 있다. 2009년 5000개였던 네오나치 단체는 2010년 5600개, 지난해 6000개로 매년 수백개씩 늘고 있다. 폭력에 가담한 극우주의자 규모도 2010년 9500명에서 지난해 9800명으로 일년 새 300명이나 늘었다. 극우 시위 역시 같은 기간 240건에서 260건으로 증가 추세다.

독일에서도 네오나치 단체와 극우 정당 간의 커넥션이 확인됐다. 지난달 23일 서부 노르트라인베스트팔렌주의 극우단체 3곳의 근거지로 추정되는 건물 146곳을 압수수색하는 과정에서 극우 정당인 민족민주당(NPD)의 선거 포스터 1000여장과 무기가 쏟아져 나왔다. 독일도 극우 범죄와의 전쟁에서 패배하고 있다는 평가를 받는다.

독일 일간 슈피겔은 극우주의를 눈감아주는 사회적인 풍토와 이들의 위협을 심각하게 받아들이지 않는 당국의 안이한 태도를 독일이 네오나치를 뿌리뽑지 못하는 원인으로 꼽았다. 2000~2007년 외국인 이민자 9명과 경찰 1명을 살해한 극우단체 NSU의 범죄가 지난해 11월 밝혀졌을 때도 경찰이 그간 극우 세력의 범행 가능성을 무시해 왔다는 비판이 제기된 바 있다.

인종 증오 범죄가 범람하자 유럽 각국 정부의 책임론도 대두된다.

특히 그리스는 구제금융을 받은 만큼 유럽 전체에 빚을 갚아나가야 하는데 이로 인해 그리스 정부뿐 아니라 유럽 각국이 그리스가 긴축 조치를 이행하는 한 이민자 탄압을 '사회적 비용'으로 여기며 기꺼이 감내할 것이라고 영국 일간 가디언은 꼬집었다. 이 같은 파시즘의 대가는 정부부채보다 더 가혹할 것이라고 전문가들은 우려하고 있다.

물론 평범한 사람들의 일상까지 송두리째 파괴한다는 점에서 유럽에서도 극우 범죄에 무관용 정책이 필요하다는 자성의 목소리가 쏟아져 나오고 있다. 반(反)인종차별유럽네트워크 소장 마이클 피봇은 "유럽 대륙 전역에 퍼져 있는 인종차별 정서는 사람들이 살고 있는 경제적, 사회적 상황과 긴밀히 연관돼 있다."면서 "각국 정부가 국민들의 삶의 질을 더 높여야 한다."고 말했다.

정서린기자 rin@seoul.co.kr

본문

1934년의 프랑스 전환(French Turn)

-꼬뮤니스트 노동자 조직(CWO)

1934년에 국제 공산주의 연맹으로 알려진 트로츠키주의자들의 운동은, 트로츠키가 전 역사에서 가장 심각한 전환점이라고 묘사했던 것을 수행했다. 그의 프랑스 셕션을 시작으로, 트로츠키는 제2인터내셔널의 당과 유사한 조직들에 가입하도록 그의 추종자들에게 재촉했다. 스탈린주의의 실패에 대한 트로츠키의 해결책은 사회민주주의로의 복귀였다. 이것은 노동자계급이 1914년~1926년 시기에 싸워왔던 모든 것과의 단절이었다. 그것은 제국주의 세력을 지원하라는 뜻이었고, 제국주의 전쟁을 지원한 구 노동조합으로 돌아가란 뜻이었으며, 1917년 이후 혁명기에 공산주의자들과 노동자들을 대량 학살로 이끌었던 이들에게 돌아가라는 뜻이었다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 그 전술은 다른 섹션에 곧 퍼졌고, 미국, 영국, 스페인에서 눈에 띄게 그러했다. 몇 세대에 걸쳐 트로츠키주의자들이 사회민주주의의 정치적 조직들을 강화시킨 트로츠키주의자들의 입당주의란 생각은 명백히 프랑스 전환에서 탄생했다.

프랑스의 트로츠키 조직은 1934년 여름, 프랑스에 사는 트로츠키로부터 강한 압력을 받아 결정적 전환을 하기로 결정했다. 1년 전, 이탈리아 공산당 좌익 분파의 동지들은 트로츠키주의자들에 의해 논쟁에서 관료적으로 축출되었다. 그들은 트로츠키와 그의 추종자들의 궤적을 예상했으며, 그에 반대하여 논쟁을 벌였다. 잡지 [빌랑]에서 우리 동지들은 트로츠키 전략은 본질적으로 프롤레타리아 혁명 파도의 쇠퇴를 분석해 보려는 우리의 노력을 대체하려는 반동적 대용물이라고 논쟁했다. 1933년 9월의 글에서 그들은, 사회민주주의자들의 좌익에 대한 트로츠키의 접근 방식은 2와 3/4 인터내셔널을 향한 움직임으로 가는 것으로 평가했다. 그들은 트로츠키가 좌익 사회민주주의자들과 함께 새로운 공산당을 건설한다는 목적으로 공동 사업을 주창함으로써 엄청난 오류를 저지를 것이라고 주장했다.

트로츠키주의자들과 대조적으로 좌익분파의 접근은 명확히 물질적 기반이 없을 때, 대중정당을 만드는 조직적 전략을 세우기보다, 그 시기의 본질에 대한 이해와 분석의 필요성의 문제를 제기하려 한 것이다.

프롤레타리아트는 반혁명적 중도주의의 성공을 거스르지 못하고 패배한 댓가로 1927년 고통 받았다. (역사적 과정은 공산당 내의 한 개인에 의해 지도될 수 없다는 것을 강조하기 위해 많은 추가 조항이 필요하지만 스탈린주의는 오늘날 더 정상적인 속기물일 수 있다.)

오늘날 인터내셔널의 처음 4차례 당 대회에 기초하여 새로운 당을 만들길 바란다고 얘기하는 것은 역사를 10년 전으로 되돌리는 것이다. 이것은 그런 당 대회 이후에 일어났던 일들을 이해하지 않으려는 것이며, 결국 새로운 당들은 그들의 고유한 역사적 환경속에 위치시키지 않기를 바라는 것이다. 우리가 미래에 새로운 정당들을 위치시켜야 하는 환경은 프롤레타리아 권력의 행사로부터 얻은 경험에 의해, 그리고 세계 공산주의 운동의 경험에 의해 이미 정의되어 있었다. 처음 4번의 당 대회는, 이 일에 관해서만은 매우 심도 깊은 조사와 비판의 대상이 되어야 할 것이다. 우리가 앞의 이야기를 종교적 교의로 받아들인다면 우리는 다음과 같은 결론에 다다르게 될 것이다. 즉, 레닌의 죽음, 혹은 트로츠키의 제거는 수많은 나라에서의 자본주의 승리의 원인이었고, 소련과 인터내셔널에서의 중도주의 승리의 원인이었다고 말이다.

그라나 빌랑의 저자들은 사회민주주의를 바라는 트로츠키주의자의 시도는 결국 불명예스럽게 끝날 것임을 알았다. 트로츠키주의자들이 1938년에나 스스로 알았던 그점을 그들은 미리 내다보았던 것이다. 상황의 미성숙함 [다른말로, 역사적 시대의 이해부족]은 이제 겨우 성장하는 2와 3/4 인터내셔널이 Trotskyists International Left Opposition이라는 딱지를 붙이는 정도일 것이라는 강력한 가능성을 암시해 준다.

트로츠키와 그의 추종자들에게 프랑스 전환과 제2인터내셔널주의자와 자본의 분파인 다른 정당들에 대한 방향전환은 통일전선 즉 혁명적 파고의 쇠락기(1920~1922)동안 코민테른의 정책으로 발전된 정책의 좀 더 실제적인 적용이었다. 1930년대 동안, 스탈린주의자와 트로츠키주의자 모두 비슷하게 그 위치에서 반혁명적 결론에 이르렀다.

이 점에서 트로츠키와 트로츠키주의는 이탈리아 좌파의 프롤레타리아적 흐름이 되는 것을 그만뒀다. 빌랑은 다음과 같이 발표했다.

“루비콘 강을 건너 사회민주주의와 결합한 그와 그 당파에 맞서 철저하고 용서 없는 투쟁을 펼칠 필요가 있다.”

1년 전 스탈린은 공식적으로 소련을 도적들의 무리(레닌), 즉 국제연맹에 가입시켜 경쟁하는 제국주의 무대 위로 되돌려 보냈다. 그의 목적은 간단했다. “동쪽으로” 라는 히틀러의 목적도 명확했다. 스탈린은 소련에 대한 공격이 피할 수 없다는 것을 깨달았고, 프랑스, 영국과의 동맹을 이뤄내려 시도했다. 이에 대한 코민테른의 역할은 1935년 7차 당 대회를 열어, 1928년 이래 사회민주주의에 반대하는 임시변통적 급진주의를 역사책에 위임하는 것이었다. 이는 사회주의자를 (부르주아)민주주의의 친구로 명명할 뿐만 아니라 모든 자유주의자, 발본주의자, 혹은 서유럽의 반파시스트 정당까지도 친구라는 이름을 붙여줬다. 통일전선은 이제 인민전선에서 그 극에 달했다. 여기서 이탈리아 좌익분파의 대응은 코민테른과의 어떤 연결도 끊은 것이었다. 그리고 7차 당 대회는 존재하는 모든 공산당들의 묘비를 세우는 것이었다고 말한다. 그 동안, 트로츠키는 인민전선을 통일전선의 오용이라고 규탄했으나 그가 인민전선의 근본적 기반, 즉 파시스트의 위험으로부터 소련의 방어라는 원칙을 받아들였기 때문에 그의 주장은 설득력이 없었다. 그리고 그 1차 세계대전 이후의 혁명적 격변기 동안, 파시즘에 기반을 깔아준 세력이 바로 트로츠키가 그의 추종자들로 하여금 입당하도록 했던 –사회민주당- 명확히 바로 그런 조직이었던 것이다.

히틀러의 출현 이후 반파시즘은 – 다른말로 자본주의 제국주의의 특정부분에 대한 반대는 부르주아 민주주의와는 또 다른 측면들을 지원하는 것을 의미했다. 이것은 스페인, 중국, 그리고 궁극적으로 2차대전 중에 전 세계적으로 그 모습을 드러냈다. 이것은 자본가 권력의 전통적인 욕구를 숨기는 이데올로기였으며, 그들로 하여금 수백만의 프롤레타리아를 그들의 군대로 내모는 것을 가능하게 한 이데올로기였다. 우리가 보았던 것처럼, 트로츠키는 소련의 방어라는 견지에서 이 십자군의 지원을 주장했다. 그의 살해 후 1년, 소련은 마침내 그들이 추구했던 것, 즉 서구 제국주의 권력과의 동맹(미국의 민주주의의 수호를 포함 한)을 이루어냈다.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

오늘날에 트로츠키주의자들의 분파들이 그렇게 많은 것은, 트로츠키주의의 중요한 구성요소를 구성하는 데 모순이 많음을 보여주는 증거이다. 그리고 객관적으로 이들의 무리지음은 부르주아 정치기구의 좌익을 의미한다. 그들은 프롤레타리아트의 해방을 대표하지 않고 새로운 지배자가 될 국가자본주의자들의 질서를 대표한다. 객관적으로 그들은 사회민주주의나 스탈린주의당의 좌익으로 기능하며, 이 당들이 혁명적인 정치적 입장의 공격을 받지 않도록 보호하며, 무엇보다 중요하게 이 당들이 노동자계급의 눈에 진실성이 있는 것처럼 보이게 한다.

트로츠키주의자들의 정치적 실천의 특징 중 하나는 그 경향인, 많은 분파의 경향으로 분열된 운동의 도움을 받아, 다양하고 서로 다른 반혁명적 이해관계와 유행, 조류에 그들의 정치를 적응시키는 것이다. 즉 혁명적 원칙의 유연한 적용이 아니라, 반혁명 정치로의 변화무쌍한 적응만이 있을 뿐이며, 프롤레타리아 대중에게 가장 큰 혼란을 심어주는 역할을 할 뿐이다.

프롤레타리아트는 오직 지도력이 부족할 뿐(지도력의 위기)이라는 선언을 맹종함으로써. 그들은 혁명정당의 부활을 위한 실제 조건을 깨닫는 데 실패한다. 이 조건은 프롤레타리아트 대중의 투쟁과, 당 강령의 명확화에 대한 객관적 필요속에 있다. 이러한 기초적인 조건들을 인지할 수 없었기에, 트로츠키주의자들은 프롤레타리아트가 과거에 이미 취한 혁명적 교훈의 길을 다시 거슬러 올라가 추적하지 않고서는 그들의 역사적 궁지에서 탈출할 수 없다. 만약에 그렇게 한다면 그들은 자신들의 근본적인 혼란들을 포기해야 할 뿐만 아니라. 트로츠키주의 그 자체의 반혁명적 본질을 깨달아야 하기 때문에 그들은 트로츠키주의자임을 포기해야 할 것이다.

본문

Homage to Il Jae Lee

We have recently been saddened by the news of the death in hospital of comrade Il Jae Lee, a militant of the Left Communist Group in Korea: he was 89 years old.

Il Jae was born in 1923 in the town of Daegu, in what is now South Korea but which was known at the time by its historical name of Chosun. At the time, the whole of Korea was a Japanese colony valued for its raw materials and agricultural wealth, destined to support the war effort of Japanese imperialism. Official Japanese policy was to reduce Korean culture to the status of a folk curiosity; at school, children were required to learn Japanese, and Il Jae spoke Japanese fluently.

In the midst of the war, not yet 20 years old, he was already taking part in workers' struggles. With the departure of the Japanese occupying forces in August 1945, the country was reduced to chaos and in many places the workers took control of production themselves in what Il Jae described as workers' councils (the Changpyong, or Choson National Workers' Council) – though in the conditions of the time it was impossible for such councils to do much more than produce the bare essentials of life in a war-shattered country.

Il Jae joined the Communist Party in September 1946, and was a leading member of the general strike that broke out in Daegu during the same year. With the suppression of the workers' struggles by the US occupation authorities, Il Jae joined the partisans fighting in the south of the country, being wounded in the leg in 1953.

In 1968, under the dictatorship of Park Chung Hee, he was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment for his continued political activity. His health was permanently damaged by his time in prison, and his face still bore the marks of the torture he suffered there. In 1988 he was released on probation, which did not stop him from involving himself immediately in political activity in Daegu. He became a leading member of the Korean Trades Unions in 1997.

For a young worker to enter the Communist Party in 1946 was perfectly natural. But no matter how sincere and courageous many of its members undoubtedly were, the Party in Korean was in effect no more than the tool of Russian and Chinese imperialism, then at the end of the Korean War, of a particularly grotesque and barbaric caricature of Stalinism: the hereditary dictatorship of the Kim family.

Had this been all there was to his life then we would not be writing this homage: history is full of heroism in the service of bad causes. But Il Jae was truly remarkable in being able, as he neared his 80th year, to call into question the struggle of a lifetime. In 2002 he became active in the Socialist Political Alliance, a new group which was beginning to introduce the ideas of the Communist Left into Korea. When a delegation of the ICC travelled to Korea in October 2006 to take part in the International Marxist Conference organised by the SPA, we met comrade Il Jae. In the debates during the conference, while we disagreed with him on many questions – notably the possibility of reviving the trades union as an organisational form for workers struggle – it was clear to us that we were in the presence of a real internationalist: above all on the key question of North Korea, he rejected any support for that odious regime.

In our discussions with him during his last years, comrade Il Jae was concerned above all with two questions: the international unity of the working class, and in Korea, breaking down the barriers between workers on permanent contracts, casual workers, and the immigrant workers from Bangla Desh and the Philippines who are beginning to appear in Korea. The latter question made him break with the recognised unions, although he still had not given up the hope of using the union form of organisation. He attended the ICC's 17th Congress in 2007, and had hoped to accompany an ICC delegation to Japan in 2008: sadly his declining health made it impossible for him to do so.

Comrade Il Jae Lee was an indomitable fighter for the proletarian cause whose spirit remained unbroken by hardship and prison. He remained an internationalist to the end of his life. Above all, he had the moral courage to continue searching for the truth, even if this meant calling into question the ideas for which he had fought and suffered in the past. The working class is poorer for his loss: it is richer for his example.

by   ICC  <http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201207/5046/homage-il-jae-lee>

본문

Sexual freedom is impossible under capitalism

We are publishing here an article written by one of our very close contacts in collaboration with ICC militants.  We want to salute the comrade’s willingness to contribute to the ongoing discussions and clarification of one of the burning social issues of the time—gay “rights”-- from a working class perspective.  We also want to express our appreciation for the focus the comrade chose to give in writing this article.  We think it is refreshing to approach the issue from the angle of human emotions.  We also agree with the comrade’s political understanding and argumentation.  We invite all our close contacts to work in collaboration with ICC militants to write about issues of concern for the clarification and emancipation of working class thought.

The “debate” over whether gay and lesbian people should enjoy the “right” to legally marry and draw from such legal recognition all the financial benefits granted to heterosexual married couples –survivor’s benefits among the most hotly contested— has long been one of those hot button issues the ruling class periodically pulls out of its hat, most notably around election time.  In this article we would like to highlight the hypocrisy of the ruling class left, center, and right in taking up the issue from either a “humanistic” point of view—the left’s and center’s—or a moralistic/religious standpoint on the right.  The Obama administration likes to show itself as “liberal” and “progressive,” hence its call to reverse the anti-gay marriage laws passed at the state level (most recently by referendum in North Carolina), without, however, attempting to make gay marriage a constitutional “right.”  The right needs to satisfy the fears and quell the insecurities of its particularly conservative electoral base, hence the Republican Party to-be-nominee Mitt Romney’s anti-gay marriage stance.  The whole “debate” is really a ploy by the Obama administration to appeal to the youth and “independent-minded,” besides the gay electorate itself, and push Romney to discredit himself with the Evangelists if he does not clearly and forcefully come against gay marriage.  Romney’s further move to the right risks further alienating the undecided and independent sector of the electorate.  It is clear that this legalistic posturing is completely hypocritical.  It aims at utilizing a situation which is certainly experienced as dramatic and humiliating by gay and lesbian people by fueling divisions, animosity, and further misunderstandings for the purpose of political gains.  Further, the at times vehement opposition to gay marriage expressed by the rights should not confuse us as to the fact that the legalization of an aspect of personal life would do nothing to challenge the established system of capitalist exploitation.

Today, if you turned on the television set and surfed over to any mainstream bourgeois news channel, chances are headlines about the “debate over gay rights” might assault the screen. It is interesting how the bourgeois media is insistent on highlighting our personal human differences, in showing us where we disagree the most as people. But the bourgeoisie and their mouthpieces in the press are highly hypocritical. Especially when “partisanship” is so frowned upon in the current political climate. Now, certain factions of the ruling class claim to support gay marriage. Even further, they claim to do so out of a sense of deeper humanism, often referring to the gay rights struggle as a struggle for “equality” or “civil rights.”

It is at this point we have to ask: “equality” in the name of what? And for which people in society? Is “marriage equality” even an appropriate working class demand? Is sexual freedom even possible under capitalism? As workers, we have to say the answer to both of those questions is negative. Building a world free of homophobia and heterosexism, where each individual is viewed and treated as a human being, rather than a category, is impossible under capitalism.

For some time now, elements of the bourgeois political class have advocated the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Often times their arguments are coded in language that appeals to workers. They say that legalizing same-sex marriage would improve the quality of life for gay and queer workers, as they would gain access to insurance benefits, divorce and property rights, etc. But under capitalism, human relations are reduced to a matter of exchange.  Emotions are nothing but mere commodities and finances to the bourgeoisie. So we can see the economic need of legalizing same-sex marriage, but what about the concept of marriage itself within capitalism?

Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto that, “The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” They later continued, “The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family relations...On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie.”

So according to Marx and Engels' definition of marriage under capitalism, we can begin to understand that “equal marriage rights” is a term which only applies to those who can afford the benefits of marriage. Rights which only apply to the propertied classes, the people who can even afford to legally marry in the first place. Marriage is fundamentally about property rights and inheritance. It has historically defined which people the ruling class deemed acceptable to own property, and even which people could be owned themselves! Originally of course, marriage meant the possession of the wife and her property by the husband. In the eyes of the bourgeoisie marriage is not at all about mutual respect and love—it's about possession, ownership, and property rights.

But why do we need a ruling class to tell us what marriage is and who we can and cannot marry? As we previously said in Internationalism #130 and in other places in the ICC press, a communist society would instead “be a society beyond the family in which human relationships will be regulated by mutual love and respect and not the state sanction of law.”

The bourgeois democratic state and its agents never pose the questions surrounding gay rights in terms of human need. What are the needs of gay and lesbian folks? Or even the basic needs of human beings in general? There is no question that the repression of the gay and queer community is real. We see homophobia, heterosexism, and patriarchy manifested everywhere in capitalism; anyone saying otherwise is simply in denial. The bullying of gay and queer youth for example has recently been referred to as an “epidemic” in the bourgeois media. Many of these traumatizing events where gay and queer people are bullied lead to depression, and in some cases even suicide.

But does the bourgeoisie focus on solving these issues? What about parliamentary legislation? Do any of the bills and amendments touch on any of these social issues? No! The debate is almost always framed in the context of religion, or moralism. Especially in the mainstream media, especially in the rhetoric of the ruling class. For all the vaunted talks—all the legalistic gibberish—about “human rights,” receiving the capitalist state’s approval and recognition under the guise of the law can do nothing to extirpate centuries long religious and moralistic bigotry. Religious people are “blamed” for their backward attitude, which further contributes to the polarizing, witch hunt-like atmosphere. In situations like these, legalizing same-sex marriage only helps portray the capitalist state as a “just” and “beneficent” entity.

If there is even a grain of sincerity in the ruling class' support of same-sex marriage, it comes from their need to distract workers and immerse them in the circus of electoral politics and legalism. Of course it is true that growing support of sexual freedom is part of humanity developing a deeper scientific understanding, and a greater sense of general human solidarity. But the ruling class cares nothing about these things, and why should they? If you have money your rights are never at risk, or up for debate. “Marriage equality” does not equal a good relationship or economic equality; it equals further class domination from the bourgeoisie.

Social struggles which only partially address the fundamental problems of capitalism, while expressing real social problems that exist in our society, distract the working class from revolutionary tasks and discussions. We have discussed already how the bourgeoisie can become fixated on the debate over gay rights, almost to the point of obsession. But this fixation happens among so-called “revolutionaries” as well.

Many people use language exclusively directed at workers in order to “organize” them around what is in essence a cross-class, broad social issue. The argument that gay rights will bring us “closer to full equality” is completely irrelevant, when it is a basic tenet of communists that full equality is impossible under capitalism. Why as revolutionaries should we be fighting to get “closer” to an egalitarian society? We need to stand against all of capitalisms injustices at once! Many of these same “revolutionaries” would call the legal and electoral decisions in favor of gay marriage rights “victories” for the workers. But these victories do nothing but bolster the appeal of bourgeois civil society.
 

The politics of legalism and democratism have nothing to offer the working class. True human emancipation can only come from working class revolution. Workers should always support gay and queer people themselves, especially in a society where they are alienated and ridiculed in such terrible ways. But we have to remain careful of the bourgeois campaigns which surround these debates. Often times they distract and mislead us from our ultimate goal—ending all forms of repression and exploitation for everyone on earth.

Jam 06/11/12

<출처 :  ICC >  

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/201206/5004/sexual-freedom-impossible-under-capitalism

본문

 Two Texts on Communisation

Below are two texts on the subject of communisation. The first is by Mac Intosh of Internationalist Perspective. The second an open letter to IP by Maxime of the CDP. An expanded version of Mac Intosh's article will appear in Internationalist Perspective 57.

Communization Theory and the Abolition of the Value-Form

A theory of the value-form as the basis for an understanding of the logic of capital, its historical trajectory, and its contradictions, is integrally linked to a theory of communization. Communization is inseparable from the abolition of the value-form and of capital as valorizing value, and its Akkumulationszwang, its compulsion to accumulate. Communization entails the abolition of the proletariat, the class of waged-workers, whose abstract labor is the source of value. Socialism or communism is not the self-affirmation of the proletariat or worker’s power, and the creation of a republic of labor. The development of value-form theory, based largely on the publication of all the manuscripts that Marx had assembled for his critique of political economy, an undertaking that has only been completed over the past several decades, has also transformed the understanding of socialism or communism that existed within the Second and Third Internationals, as well as in the historical communist left (both the German-Dutch and the Italian left, the council communist and the Bordigist traditions).

The path towards a theory of communization in which value and the proletariat are abolished began with Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) in which the theoretical bases for the formation of a unified Social-Democratic Party in Germany, based on a vision of a “free state,” were subjected to a withering criticism, and in which Marx first outlined his conception of a lower and higher stage of communism. For Marx, in the lower stage of communism, “just as it emerges from capitalist society,” still stamped by its structures and social forms, “the individual producer gets back from society … exactly what he has given to it.” (1) In short, the worker, after deductions for the social funds and expansion of the productive forces, receives the full value of his/her labor: “Clearly, the same principle is at work here as that which regulates the exchange of commodities as far as this is an exchange of equal values. … a given amount of labour in one form is exchanged for the same amount in another. (2) For Marx, then, the value-form will preside over both production and distribution in the lower stage of communism, and only in its higher stage “can society wholly cross the narrow horizon of bourgeois right and inscribe on its banner: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs!” (3) Communization, then, as the abolition of the value-form in all its modes, would be preceded by a post-capitalist stage in which the law of value still regulated production and consumption. However radical, in the eyes of most socialists, Marx’s prescription was in 1875, today, in a capitalist world where the reproduction of the proletariat is threatened by the capitalist social relation, and the very existence of the value-form, such a vision is completely inadequate.

While Marx did not specify the precise form in which labor-time would determine production and distribution in the lower stage of capitalism, the revolutionary wave that unfolded in 1917 led to the insistence of the Bolsheviks that the dictatorship of the proletariat, whatever its specific political forms, would also be based on the continuation of waged-labor; that the distribution of products to the working class would be via a wage and money. It is here, that a debate arose within the historical communist left, different from the debates over the question of party or workers councils as the organ of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a debate in which Amadeo Bordiga insisted – against Lenin and Trotsky – that the continued existence of wages and money was a mortal threat to the proletariat, and would reproduce capitalist social relations. Two important documents of the historical communist left over the period between 1930-1970, grappled with the question of the value-form and communist production and distribution: The Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution, a collective text of the GIK (the German-Dutch left) published in 1930, with an important “Introduction” by Paul Mattick to its republication in 1970, and Jacques Camatte’s Capital and Community, written in the aftermath of ’68, within the political orbit of the Italian left (Bordigism). (4)

The Fundamental Principles advanced the idea that communist production and distribution would be based on labor-time accounting (the average socially necessary labor time), with the distribution of products to the workers – whose proletarian condition would be universalized – taking place through a system of “labor vouchers” (Empfangsscheinen or bons de travail), strictly based on the number of hours worked. In contrast, then, to the normal working of the capitalist system, where the market allocates labor and determines value through exchange post festum, in communist production and distribution this determination could rationally be determined by labor time as a measure of value without the intermediary of exchange. This, then, was a system, as Mattick acknowledged in his Introduction, in “which the principle of the exchange of equivalents still prevails,” in which, we maintain, the value-form still shapes social being, in which, as Marx, acknowledged in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, “equal right still constantly suffers a bourgeois limitation,” (5) and labor itself (travail, Arbeit) remains proletarian labor. Mattick, however, also found the GIK’s text to be outdated in some respects, superceded by the very trajectory of capital itself, by the prodigious development of the productive forces between 1930 and 1970, through which goods and services could be produced in such abundance that “any calculation of their individual shares of average socially necessary labor time would be superfluous,” and humankind might proceed directly to what Marx had called the higher stage of communism. (6)

Camatte follows Marx in distinguishing a lower, socialist, and a higher stage of communism, and insists “communism cannot be achieved from one day to the next,” (7) a position based on Bordiga’s claim that there are three post-capitalist stages: the dictatorship of the proletariat, the stage of socialism, and communism. For Camatte, the valorization of value must immediately cease, which he claims is the task of the dictatorship of the proletariat, yet he acknowledges that everyone has to work (“he who does not work, does not eat”), that the proletarian condition must be universalized, that human existence, which in capitalism was mediated by capital, “now is mediated by work.” (8) Moreover, Camatte acknowledges that an “economy of time” will continue to regulate what has now become communal production; that all labor will now be reduced to abstract labor, (9) and that such labor will retain the form of waged labor under the dictatorship of the proletariat, though “…the basis of the phenomenon is not the same. In capitalist society, wage labour is a means to avoid restoring the whole of the product to the individual who produced it. In the transitional phase, wage labour is the result of the fact that it is not possible to destroy the market economy from one day to the next.” (11) But the removal of the traditional capitalist veil does not eliminate the value-form, or the subjection of humankind to its laws of motion. Indeed, the very reduction of all labor to abstract labor, the very universalization of the proletarian condition and its modes of labor, risks the perpetuation of capital and its social relations. Moreover, that prospect is not removed by Camatte’s insistence that the labor vouchers that the worker will exchange for goods and services cannot be accumulated, are “valid for a limited period and is lost at the end of this period if it is not consumed,” (12) thereby preventing a restoration of capitalism. The question is not that of a restoration of capitalism, but rather its continued existence through that of value determined by labor time, and abstract labor, on the bases of which capitalism had never been abolished. For Camatte, it is only at Marx’s higher stage of communism that: “All forms of value are therefore buried; thus labour no longer has a determined form, there is no alienation.” (13)

The question raised by communization theory as it has developed over the past several decades is whether the social imaginary of a period of transition, of lower and higher stages of communism, has not become – at this historical stage of capitalism – one more obstacle to the communist revolution, to communization. (14)

Communization theory, as it has been articulated by pro-revolutionaries over the past several decades can perhaps be summarized in the following terms, in an essay by Bruno Astarian: Communization as a Way out of the Crisis

Communization does not mean that communism will be established by waving a magic wand. It will be established through a process of struggle, with advances and retreats by the revolution. What it means is that the actions undertaken by the revolutionaries will aim at the abolition of work and of value … here and now. When the revolution attacks capitalist property, it does not do so in order to vest the proletariat with the ownership of the property that it did not previously own, but in order to put an end to all forms of property immediately.

In short, the value-form, and the labor [travail, Arbeit] linked to it, must be abolished by the revolution, not as the culmination of a period of transition, as the historical communist left had maintained. Moreover, while communization is the immediate goal of the revolution, Astarian points out that: “We must not confuse immediacy with instantaneity. When we say immediacy of communism, we are saying that the goal of the proletarian revolution no longer consists in creating a transitional society, but in directly establishing communism.” For Internationalist Perspective, what is crucial here is not the specific content of the work or activity that must be immediately transformed, e.g. food or clothing, medicine or houses, will need to be produced. What must be immediately abolished is the reduction of that activity to the abstract labor, and its measurement by socially necessary labor time, that is the historically specific mode in which work has existed in capitalist society. And that, of course, also entails the abolition of a mode of distribution of goods and services by way of labor time, through a form of wage [le salariat] or even labor vouchers. It is in the very course of a revolutionary upheaval, then, and not at the end of a period of transition, that communization occurs. As RS in SIC 1, insists: “The revolution is communisation; it does not have communism as a project and result, but as its very content.”

Indeed, in the revolution itself, the abolition, not just of capital and labor, but also of the proletariat must occur. This is how BL puts it in SIC1: “In this struggle, the seizure of the material means of production cannot be separated from the transformation of proletarians into immediately social individuals: it is one and the same activity, and this identity is brought about by the present form of the contradiction between the proletariat and capital.” It is not, then, some variant of utopian thinking that has led IP to see communization as integral to the revolutionary upheaval itself, but rather the very logic of capital, its specific historical trajectory, and the nature of the capitalist crisis at the present historical conjuncture: the impossibility of the reproduction of the proletarian condition by capital apart from the massive expulsion of proletarian labor from the economy, the creation of a vast planet of slums, and impending ecological catastrophes, all attendant on the perpetuation of the value-form. It is those very real historical and material conditions, which have made communization the immediate task of revolution today.

But what of the abolition of work, which is integral to most theories of communization? Work, as proletarian labor, work as abstract labor, work as it has historically developed and been instantiated by capitalism, must be abolished. Work in its historical form, and the capitalist social relations in which production and distribution is based on average socially necessary labor time, in all its forms, must be immediately abolished. But anti-travail [anti-labor] must be accompanied by a vision of human activity, praxis, which encompasses the realm of production, freed of its historical (including its capitalist) integument. This text is not the place to even begin an elaboration of that theoretical task, but its broad outlines do need to be at least indicated. Communization is not the cessation of production. Quite the contrary! It is the beginning of the self-production of human beings, the auto-production of communist social relations. Human action has not been limited to labor, travail, Arbeit, under the constraint of exploitative and class relations. There is a distinction, then, between techné, poiésis, work, and labor, between the labor of the slave, the serf, the proletarian, and the work [oeuvre, Werke] of the social individual. It is precisely that set of distinctions, between labor and work, and the possibilities to be created by communization which pro-revolutionaries need to begin to explore: production, work, beyond labor. Mac Intosh

Open Letter from Maxime to Internationalist Perspective, echoing the contribution of Mac Intosh on communisation

As I said in a small email prior to IP's "conference" at Arezzo, Mac Intosh appears to engage IP - or emphasize its engagement - in a direction that I approve because it is also mine. Unlike most groups and individuals that we have agreed to call the ultra-left current, this text (it quotes Bruno Astarian, Roland Simon and Bernard Leon [BL] ) attests to a consideration of the positions of those it is also conventional to call the "communisateurs". My belief is that everything that comes from this perspective is not necessarily to be accepted in full or as is, but this vision without a doubt, for me, provides some of the most stimulating reflections on revolutionary theory . The communisateur milieu, I can only state, is much more fertile, far more dynamic than the heirs of the communist left, which sees the newly emerging developments in the evolution of capitalism through the old schemas and categories of political analysis more or less slightly retouched. I think we ( pro-revolutionaries, to use your words) have an interest in fostering the discussion -- even if it entails polemical elements -- with the communisateurs. I noticed that you have already taken the initiative (most recently through your exchange with the Greek group Blaumachen, for example) and that's to the good. The refoundation of communist theory, that I dare claim, for me, as for you, today represents the most urgent task of the “friends of the classless society,” as our Berlin comrades say, cannot be limited to a confrontation with the current designated as the communisateurs (“Théorie communiste” (TC) and those close to it: Blaumachen, Riff-Raff, Léon de Mattis [Denis], BL, etc., all contributing to the new publication SIC., as well as Bruno Astarian and the Dauvé-Nesic group, “Trop Loin.” That refoundation requires what other circles of reflexion contribute too, such as “Exit” and “Krisis,” and the editors of “Temps critiques,” (our dear friend of the Reseau, JW). With the communisateurs, they share the view that the crisis of the late 1960s and the beginning of the next decade heralded a new age of capitalism and its economic production of value, in which the communist revolution, or communisation, can no longer be seen, as before, in the figure of the revolutionary subject emerging in direct continuity with the antecedent vision (whether Marxist or even, for that matter, anarcho-communist).They draw the conclusion that in general the revolution can not be just a matter of proletarian class struggle. This stuates these last elements clearly outside the circle of communisateurs. JW, in particular, considers as absurd the dialectical position that supports TC's conception of the proletarian struggle as that of a fragmented class acting against its own class nature, which ties it to capitalism (I grant that “Master” Jacque's claims about R. Simon are quite thin). Even if perhaps through habits of political atavism, for my part I remain committed to the vision of revolution as the task of the class struggle, I do not think that the debate with these currents can be closed and I leave open in my own mind the problematic that they articulate.

In closing this letter, I want to add that on the theory of communisation, it is mainly the version of TC to which I refer here. This is just the beginning, and we will now continue the struggle.

Is communisation [just] a luke warm [or inconsequential] invention? At first glance, one might ask what is the originality of the communisateurs, because neither their general definition of communism nor the identification in the figure of the proletariat (and its class struggle), as the acting-subject of the revolution differ from those of classical Marxists - including those of the Left Communists. The very term communisation that these neo-Marxist little ugly ducklings use basically designates nothing else than good old communist revolution, that is to say the process of revolutionary transformation of the capitalist world in the direction of a classless society without hierarchy, without a state, an economy, and therefore without value and abstract labor, etc. Like traditional Marxists, the communisateurs in addition say that communism will not be accomplished with a magic wand (citing Bruno Astarian), in an instantaneous realization from one day to the next. I would also add that for them, the beginning of communisation, which has not yet begun, will depend on an acute crisis of capitalism, ideas that, here again, will not shock the common understanding of revolutionaries. Does the change in terminology, then, represent some kind of sectarian coquetry? Would this invention correspond to a rediscovery of luke warm water? We must clearly answer these questions not because the conception that the communisateurs have of the process of revolutionary transformation - of communisation - is actually far from that of the great vehicle of Marxism.

It must be remembered that, for the classics, the communist revolution (or communisation) takes place in necessary stages in which the accomplishment of one stage would be the condition necessary for the following one. The first step amounts to wresting the means of production from the hands of the capitalists, the second is to establish a transitional society termed "socialist", where the production and distribution of goods are socialized; at its end, begins the establishment of communism, which itself can take some time. Communism thus appears as the implementation of a program whose unfolding, in its whole duration, has been designated by Marxists as the “period of transition.”

The specific vision of communisation that the communisateurs promote clearly diverges from such a point of view. It rejects all programmatism and specifically spurns the goal of an intermdiary stage socialism (or the " lower stage of communism" to cite Marx' words). If communism is not fully realized at a single blow, the beginning of its construction, the communisateurs insist, will open from the very beginning of the revolutionary process. In fact, the goal and the path merge for them because, they say, it is directly the production of communism that destroys capitalism. And as the communist process is essentially the abolition of classes, the abolition of the capitalist social relation reciprocally linking proletarians to a class of capitalists must also immediatly occur. According to the vision of the communisateurs, the revolution is, indeed, the opposite of an affirmation of the proletariat ; it is opposed to the vision of an abolition of classes resulting in their absorption into the proletariat.

So here we perceive very clearly the gap between the communisation of the communisateurs and the Marxist advocates of the "period of transition," which undoubtedly rests on the program of the maximal affirmation of the proletariat as a prelude to its own demise. Mac Intosh relates quite faithfully the theoretical position of the communisateurs when he writes: "Communisation entails the abolition of the proletariat, the class of wage-workers, whose abstract labor is the source of value. Socialism or Communism is not the self-affirmation of the proletariat or workers' power, and the creation of a republic labor. "

Is the theory of communisation of the communisateurs legitimate? Why, after all, would it be better than the old conception of revolution? We can not even advance by claiming that the facts have demonstrated the falsity of the latter conception, because we have hitherto known only embryonic examples of a revolutionary process. On the other hand, the new theory remains to be tested.

The pioneer communisateurs in the years 1968-1975, roughly began from the conviction that the classical theory, based on the vector of the affirmation of the proletariat, was at best inadequate, at worst, wrong. For the young communisateurs, the failure of all previous revolutionary attempts, from 1871 to 1968, ocurred in the final analysis because of the non-recognition of the limits of proletarian affirmation and even because that very affirmation worked against the révolution. The communist left, and first of all certain theorists of the council communists tradition, had certainly seen that the instruments in which the Marxists usually saw the rise to power of the labor movement (unions, class parties , reformist parliamentary representation …), that is to say, the growth of proletarian affirmation, had produced just the opposite of the desired effect, but these communists stopped there by simply replacing the failed instruments with the affirmation of workers 'councils, of the self-organization of struggles, workers' autonomy, etc., retaining, therefore, what according to the communisateurs, was the source of the failure. These communisateurs, largely politically born around 1968 - as indeed many others of my generation - understood the global wave of struggles of that time as the point of rupture with "affirmationism" and the swan song of the old workers movement too.

But all that was not enough to give the new theory of communisation the true legitimacy that the mere recognition of the failure of the old vision could not bring. If a theory is false, this does not mean, in effect, that any theory that replaces it is accurate. The anti-affirmationism of the communisateurs in the immediate aftermath of "1968", expressed by the idea that the proletariat must begin to abolish itself in undertaking the revolutionary process at its outset (and in 1975 the "communist tendency" of Berard, arising from a break with the ICC also said this), contained an ambiguity at its very heart: was this a theory finally revealed in full by revolution and which could have been formulated in any revolutionary upheaval, or was this a theory could only arise on the basis of the modern development of capitalism? Admittedly, the communisateurs discovered this problem in the second half of the 1970s. They found the answer thanks to the profound restructuring of its system that capitalism initiated following the famous "oil shocks," the critical peak of the crisis of the “Fordist” mode of regulation -- on the bases of which capitalism had functioned since the 1920s - 1930's - which began around 1967. This restructuring, developed until the late 1980s, and uprooted all the bases of proletarian affirmation, explained the communisateurs. One of its main characteristics was to liquidate the "labor movement", reducing the proletarians virtually to individuals in confrontation with the powers of capitalism. Therefore, communisation according to the communisateurs appeared not so much as a better theory of revolution, but as the only possible theory that is adequate to the new era of capitalist accumulation. They presented it - and still do so today - as the revolutionary communist theory of our time, the time of a proletariat irreversibly fragmented.

The perception of fragmentation by the communisateurs differs from that of IP in that, unlike IP, the former (at least until now), do not have not a sense of the "recomposition of the workers movement," of the" labor movement "in other words.

Maxime

Paris, May 31, 2012
 

Notes

1. Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Programme" in Karl Marx, The First International and After (Penguin Books), p. 346.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., p. 347.

4. While Camatte’s text is largely devoted to the trajectory of the value-form based on a reading of Marx’s unpublished manuscripts (The Grundrisse, and “The Results of the Immediate Process of Production”), its chapter on “Communism and the intermediary phases between capitalism and communism,” like the Fundamental Principles of the GIK, grapples with the issue of communization. Camatte’s treatment of this issue has its own basis in texts by Mitchell (Jehan) in Bilan in the 1930’s, and especially in texts by Bordiga starting from the late 1940’s through the ‘60’s.

5. Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, p.346.

6. Mattick’s picture of that abundance seems far too optimistic today, especially in light of decades of “development” based largely on the growth of fictitious capital and financial bubbles, while the reproduction of the proletariat has been violently threatened, and ever-greater masses of workers are being permanently expelled from the production process. While such questions are, indeed, important, they do not preclude a vision of revolution in which communization, understood as the abolition of the value-form and the proletarian labor to which it is yoked, cannot be put off until a higher stage or the completion of a period of transition.

7. Jacques Camatte, Capital and Community (Prism Key Press, 2011), p. 261.

8. Ibid., p. 265.

9. Ibid., p. 272.

10. Ibid., p. 266.

11. Ibid., p. 279.

12. Ibid., p.288.

13. Ibid., pp. 297-298.

14. One question that seems to be a diversion, though much ink and paper has been expended in discussing it in the pro-revolutionary milieu, is when communization, as opposed to a period of transition, became an historical possibility for the proletariat. Was communization possible in 1789, in 1848, in 1871, in 1917, in 1936, etc.? Communization did not occur then, and while we can discuss why it did not, the task today is to confront the historical necessity for communization in the present epoch, and the dangers that confront the collective worker in a capitalist world that survives its present crisis.

본문

본문

Marxism: best defence against media manipulation

British broadcasters win a High Court ruling against the police, a former Murdoch editor is arrested and the Leveson ‘inquiry’ into Press Standards meanders on: JJ Gaunt peeks behind the headlines and reviews two recent books critical of the media

On an 1886 tour promoting marxism and working class organisation in America, Eleanor Marx and Edward Aveling took time out to ridicule and denounce the US press in general and the Chicago Times and Chicago Tribune in particular for their lynch mob coverage of the trial of eight anarchists who had been fitted up by the state of Illinois and faced execution following the infamous Haymarket bomb incident.   

More than 125 years and many technological leaps later, modern mass media remain at root little more than megaphones amplifying the ruling class’s ‘values’, its lies, its propaganda, when they are not simply selling its commodities.

Much effort is expended on the part of the ‘fourth estate’ to deny this reality and turn it on its head. Commenting on the High Court’s May 17 decision to overturn a Crown Court judge’s order to hand over unseen footage of the violent police eviction of ‘travellers’ from Dale Farm, Essex in 2011, ITN (Independent Television News) chief executive John Hardie said: "This landmark decision is a legal recognition of the separate roles of the police and independent news organisations. We fought this case on a matter of principle - to ensure that journalists and cameramen are not seen as agents of the state ...”  Lawyers for other interested parties – they included the BBC, BSkyB and Channel 5 –  had said their clients risked being seen as “coppers’ narks” (police informants) if they had complied with the original order. That would never do, as M’lud wisely agreed.

It also won’t do to have the working class and the rest of the population tune-out of the Murdoch ‘Hackgate’ scandal of criminality, bribery and corruption with the erroneous impression that the media, police and politicians are ‘all in it together’.

It’s to restore public faith in the media mafia that the Leveson Inquiry into Press Standards has been protracted long after the original British state objective of clipping Murdoch’s UK activities had been achieved. (1) With hoards of ‘witnesses’ either denouncing the ‘Evil Empire’ (viz ex-Sunday Times editor Harold Evans) or clumsily attempting to defend the indefensible (viz the testimony of the News International clan itself or the self-serving testimonies of former PM Blair and current Culture and Media Secretary Jeremy Hunt), the ‘inquiry’ has turned into a modern Inquisition to exorcise the devil Murdoch, the better to redeem the rest of the media.

In the same manner, it’s to demonstrate the state’s due ‘impartiality’ and incorruptible nature that the very particular friends of PM David Cameron -  former News International golden child Rebekah Brooks and her husband Charlie, Cameron’s old school chum - were arrested and charged with the very serious offence (with apologies to AA Milne) of perverting the course of justice. (2)

Understanding the media: Marxism not moralism

These recent events featuring the UK state and its media apparatus are of course merely moments in an historic pattern – one long recognised by critics of the capitalist system. As Marx and Engels often argued, the ruling class’s particular interests are falsely presented as those of society as a whole. It’s the primary function of mass media to reflect and reinforce the resultant ‘dominant ideology’.

This material reality is illuminated and fleshed out in a recent and recommended book called Beyond the Left: The Communist Critique of the Media by UK lecturer Dr Stephen Harper (3).

His ‘Introduction: to guide and bind the world’ grabs the subject by the kishkas: “Having abolished scarcity and made communism possible by the early twentieth century, capitalism today is an obsolete system whose continuance offers humanity only increasing misery. As the social symptoms of this retrogression – poverty, starvation, holocausts, environmental degradation and economies increasingly based upon drugs, arms and gangsterism – become more difficult to disguise, the media play a vital role, it is argued here, in concealing their systemic origins.”

To this egregious end, the 1928 publication of Propaganda by Edward Bernays, American nephew of Sigmund Freud and known variously as the ‘king of spin’ and ‘the father of public relations’, constituted “a direct response to the socio-economic impasses of US capitalism in the 1920s, as a dearth of new markets, a crisis of over-production and the lingering menace of proletarian revolution forced capitalists to devise ever more ingenious methods of mass persuasion...”

One of the media’s most enduring successes in this regard is revealed in the chapter ‘Normalising the unthinkable: news media as state propaganda’ in which Harper notes how the very notion of wage labour – once widely understood as “an outrage against humanity whose essential continuity with earlier forms of bondage found expression! in the now antiquated phrase ‘wage slavery’” - is today throughout the mainstream media “accepted as a fact of life”. “Thus, in a period of austerity, the BBC’s Sunday morning television discussion programme The Big Question asks ‘Is It Time For A Maximum Wage?’ (13 March 2010); but it cannot question the legitimacy of the wages system itself.”

Within this marxist framework, which draws on the analyses of past and present day revolutionary organisations (including the ICC and ICT) and recognises both the decadence of capitalism and the primacy of the nation state over ‘supra-national corporations’, Harper’s other chapters include ‘Not neoliberalism: why the state is still the enemy’; ‘Blaming the victims, eroding solidarity: two media discourses on immigration’; ‘”The only honourable course’’: the media and ‘humanitarian’ war’ and ‘Beyond the news: popular culture against the working class’.

Under such headings he utilises the insights of social critics, media researchers and academics from Althusser to Žižek whilst acknowledging their limitations: Harper both quotes approvingly from Herman and Chomsky’s seminal Manufacturing Consent (1998) while roundly denouncing Chomsky for “the statism of his concrete political attachments” (today, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez; yesterday, North Vietnam’s Stalinist Vietcong).

Before dissecting specific events and gauging what the ruling class accomplished from them (the chapter ‘Bogeyman at the BBC: Nick Griffin, Question Time and the ‘fascist threat’’ is exemplary in this regard) Harper insists that “The power of media propaganda to shape our perceptions of the most fundamental aspects of our lives is exercised neither haphazardly nor clumsily”, thus underlining that the bourgeoisie acts consciously against the proletariat, its potential gravedigger.

For the working class, the author insists that there’s nothing to choose between different media ‘slants’: “...the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels ... was excited by the BBC’s ability to maintain the trust of the British public and to have secured a worldwide reputation for the British media as ‘honest, free and truthful.’ Goebbels understood that this made the BBC the perfect propaganda vehicle. Today, as then, the left-liberal media act not as a foil to capitalism but as its last ditch defence, preventing those who reject conservative political positions from accessing or developing radical ideas. In fact, right-wing and left-wing media can be argued to work not in opposition to each other, but in tandem.”

The role of the media and the ‘pluralistic’ division of labour within it as cheerleaders of imperialist war and mystifiers of the gravity of today’s ecological crisis are also explored and expanded upon. For communists and activists of all stripes, Harper’s work is both required reading and an encouraging sign that proletarian perspectives are today spreading to and being embellished by wider layers of society.

Critical criticism required

Another book – there’s a veritable overproduction of them! – attempting to critique the media is NEWSPEAK in the 21^st Century (4), a title recalling George Orwell’s 1984, a satire of mind control by an omnipresent state apparatus.  This work also insists that media such as newspapers – including and particularly those which claim to be ‘independent’, ‘left’ or just righteous and liberal – all owe their origins, development and continued survival as vehicles for corporate advertisers on whose revenue they depend and whose patronage they cannot truly offend. Similarly, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has since its foundation in the 1920s been first and foremost an obedient servant of the state’s overall interests as it demonstrated in the 1926 national strike and ever since.

The work is penned by two co-editors of a an organisation called Media Lens which challenges journalists, editors and broadcasters to justify their censorship, sins of omission and downright war-mongering, while providing e-mails to subscribers which highlight examples of the media’s latest outrages.

Indeed, NEWSPEAK reminds us all that facts are not ‘sacred’ but chosen according to taste and ideology while ‘objectivity’ is a nonsense – “nothing is neutral”. In addition it provides a salutary reminder of the depth and extent of the lies, dissembling and patriotic cheerleading around the build-up to the ‘allied’ invasion of Iraq and the subsequent occupation. It recalls how, as “a shoal of fish instantly changes direction ... as though the movement was synchronised by some guiding hand,” British journalists “all trained and selected for obedience by media all seeking to maximise profits within state capitalist society ... appeared [in 1999] to conclude independently that war on Serbia was a rational, justified response to a ‘genocide’ in Kosovo that had not in fact taken place. In 2002-03, many journalists concluded that war was necessary to tackle an Iraqi threat that did not exist. And yet, to our knowledge, in 2009, not a single journalist proposed military action in response to Israel’s staggering, very visible crimes against the besieged civilian population of Gaza.” The authors demonstrate how the media is again banging the drum for what they say is to be ‘the West’s’ next imperialist adventure: the bombing and possible invasion of Iran.

Similarly, this well-researched and documented work points out the staggering hypocrisy of media demanding ‘action’ over climate chaos as they carry adds promoting cheap flights, powerful motor cars and oil company claims to be forging a ‘cleaner, greener, fossil fuel-free future’.

However, such valid observations are undermined by NEWSPEAK’s own contradictions: despite declaring that ‘democracy’ is “a charade serving privilege and power” its description of the Iraqi slaughter as “an illegal war of aggression” (aren’t all wars ‘aggressive’ and exactly what’s with the fetish of bourgeois legality?); the references to ‘consumerism’ rather than capitalism; to ‘the people’ rather than the working class, etc, speak of an incoherence which ultimately favours the status quo.  Equally problematic is the tendency to deal with countries, rather than classes. For example, irrespective of the nuclear issue (the pretext for ‘the West’s’ aggression towards Iran), there’s no mention of the Tehran regime’s own regional imperialist aims and incursions, while the praise lavished by the authors on the state machine of Venezuela’s Chávez is frankly an embarrassment.

These and other elements indicate a set of analyses that fall within the framework of capitalist social relations as do the proposed solutions: the alleged need for ‘awareness, compassion and honest journalism.’  They are not truly radical because they do not go to the roots of the issue. Let’s end with Stephen Harper: “... the radical task is not to ‘work with’ the media industries and their regulatory bodies in order to campaign for ‘better’ media representations of the working class, or to defend so-called ‘public service’ media organisations against the encroachments of the market, but – through what Marx called ‘ruthless criticism’ – to expose the ruses of capitalism’s representational apparatuses until such time as they can be overthrown.”

JJ Gaunt 6/12

Footnotes

1. See Murdoch scandal: The lies of the rich and famous in World Revolution 347, 2011, http://en.internationalism.org/wr/347/ni-murdoch-scandal
2. Whether this well-connected couple will actually experience any substantial jail time is another matter.
3. Beyond the Left: The Communist Critique of the Media, by Dr Stephen Harper, published by Zero Books, 2010, ISBN: 978 1 84694 976 0 Harper’s media criticism blog ‘Relative Autonomy’ can be accessed at http://www.relativeautonomy.com/
4. NEWSPEAK in the 21^st Century by David Edwards and David Cromwell, published by Pluto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978 0 7453 2893 5 Media Lens can be accessed at http://www.medialens.org/

본문

Report on the Manchester Meeting of the CWO

The document that follows (Beyond Protest) is based on the notes of the introductory speaker for the CWO’s Manchester meeting on April 21. The meeting was also attended by members of the ICC and the Anarchist Federation as well as individual council communists and left communists.

The meeting was held in a fraternal manner with all seriously trying to grapple with the problem of the development of a wider class movement. The ICC comrade who replied first quoted extensively from the editorial in the last Revolutionary Perspectives (60) and stated that the ICC fully supported the introduction. He also agreed with the criticism of the democratist illusions of Occupy and emphasised the fact that it is only the international working class which can make the revolution. He also stressed that the working class still had to break out of union dominated ideology to face up to the crisis of today. He took heart from the Unilever strike analysed in RP60 as it was a place he knew well where paternalism had dominated the workforce for generations so it was good to see that even here workers were beginning to see through the system’s ideology.

A Manchester comrade then took up the point about how the working class which has no property to defend can materially alter its consciousness in the current situation and this became the main focus of much of the rest of the discussion. He argued that workers in struggle tended to reinforce their own embedding within the system and thus their struggles did not tend to develop their consciousness in a more general way. He gave the example of Greece where, despite the draconian cuts they had not yet found a way to resist. The only sign he had seen was that some people had started to take over hospitals but even this was fraught with problems. In Britain he pointed to the fact that the TUC is already using the idea of “solidarity” to get workers to accept some cuts.

Against this rather depressing view the meeting agreed that it was a real question sincerely posed but various comrades countered it by putting forward the notion that the acquisition of class consciousness was a process and we were only at the “starting line” as one comrade put it. Others pointed to the past history of the workers’ movement that just when the working class is written off as a historical force it suddenly proves everyone including revolutionaries wrong. The example of 1914 when the working class marched off in universal support for imperialist war only to begin the greatest revolutionary wave in history less than three years later stood out as an example of how class consciousness can be changed by material circumstances. In the current crisis the cuts had still yet to really hit home and all past indicators suggest that there is no immediate reaction to such things but only after a time lag when the actual burden of the new situation builds up.

In the meantime it was the task for revolutionaries to not only generalise any struggle but to point the way forward in the line of march towards greater class actions. Whilst some comrades were more eloquent in expressing a militant hatred of the capitalist system and its consequences which they could hardly wait to be ended the meeting agreed that class consciousness would be developed gradually through the increasing alienation from a system which could do nothing but attack us. It was also agreed that revolutionary consciousness would not arise overnight and that a degree of patience would be required. Class consciousness could not be developed by the revolutionary minority through a mere act of will. If there was a low level of class consciousness generally there was not a lot revolutionaries can do (as the last 40 years prove). As the Committee of Intesa wrote back in 1925 you cannot build a revolutionary movement “through expedients and tactical manoeuvres”. The sorry history of Trotskyism since 1938 is evidence enough for that.

There were also a couple of discussions which could be described as nominalist. The first was over the question of “party” and “revolutionary minority”. Whilst the ICT was quite happy to use the term “party” in terms of a class conscious political organisation it was recognised that for some (following Ruhle et al) the term had negative connotations given the experiences of the last revolutionary wave. Similarly the idea of “intervention” was a word imported from Italian and French comrades where it is common to describe any one individual’s contribution, but in English gives the unfortunate impression of someone speaking from outside the class. In both cases it was concluded that it is not so much the word but the idea behind it that was important and like our idea of “communism” itself such terms would always require explanation in order to clarify their content.

The only minor disagreement was when an ICC comrade said that things were changing and you would not have got the Communist Left addressing some sectors of internationalist anarchism ten years ago as today. The CWO comrades pointed out that they had worked with anarchists for twenty years in anti-parliamentary campaigns and No War But the Class War. The key dividing line in the current period was more about accepting an anti-capitalist revolutionary agenda and rejection of all types of reformism put forward by the left of capitalism. Whilst the Communist Left organisations were all agreed on this the problem was that not all anarchists understood this.

However this was minor issue in what was a positive meeting undertaken in a comradely spirit and we hope that future meetings will not only welcome more participants but also carry this level of discussion further.

Beyond Protest Manchester

For those of us who have dedicated almost all their adult lives to struggling for a movement which to bring about proletarian emancipation these are suddenly interesting times. Obviously they are not yet interesting times for most of the working class or there would be more people here to discuss how we can go “Beyond Protest” but there is no doubt that the speculative bubble which had been swelling for more than two decades until it burst in 2007-8 has been a major shock to the capitalist system, revealing it for what it truly is.

The collapse did not come as a shock to us. A young American sympathiser recently got back in touch with us on our website and reminded us what we wrote to him in December 2006.

“The current speculative bubble which is distorting real capital values cannot last forever, and if the system goes through a new global crash, the working class will need to have organised instruments in place in order to fight the authoritarian barbaric solutions which the capitalists will themselves put forward.”

Well it is still early in this crisis to yet see outright barbarism but what is going on in Syria is not far off it. However we should also point out that this crisis did not start in 2007 or 2008 but when we older comrades were young. It was the end of the post-war boom that brought our generation into the communist movement. More precisely it was the resistance of the working class to that crisis in the lat 60s and early 70s which encouraged us not to join the traditional left but to found in Britain at least a new communist movement.

The key facts of the last 4 decades are that capitalism despite trying Keynesianism, monetarism and neo-liberalism has been unable to get out of its stagnation. This has been because to really start a new round of accumulation it would need destroy an enormous amount of value. But to do this it would have to inflict austerity the like of which we have not seen since the Thirties and which would provoke social confrontations to threaten the system or else a new global war would do the trick excerpt the consequences for the capitalist are so incalculable in the era of nuclear weapons that this too would threaten their long term survival (and that is all they think about bugger the rest of us). The speculative bubble based on massive debt was their last trick and now that has burst the prospects for capitalism are indeed dire. Indeed we can currently see no other future for it but more of the same – stagnation, austerity, bailing out the banks to keep the system ticking over. Even the Governor of the B of E is talking of a lost decade. Lenin said there was no situation which capitalism could not get out of but the current situation is a bigger impasse than any we have seen so far. Managed decline is the course that has been chosen in the Micawberish hope that something will turn up. In the meantime speculation is once again being rehabilitated (but on commodities and currencies and not on housing and real estate).

The only other policy they have got is austerity – cuts upon cuts. We have already seen plenty of these. Everyone has there own favourite stats on the crisis but the ones we have printed in our latest Aurora from various sources give us a flavour.

“According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies:

•This year’s tax changes mean the ‘average family’ will lose £511 per year.

•A nominal increase in the minimum wage will leave it lower in real terms than it was in 2004. The government has taken the Low Pay Commission’s advice to freeze the minimum wage for young people from October. [£4.98 per hour for18-20 year olds, £3.68 for16-17 yr olds above school leaving age but under 18. The ‘apprentice rate’, for under 19s or 19+ and in the first year of apprenticeship will rise by 5p to £2.65 per hour.]

•Inflation has also outstripped average income growth, leaving workers worse off in real terms. The Institute forecasts that real net income of the average household will be lower in 2015-16 than in 2002-3.

Meanwhile the TUC estimates:

•By April 2013 families on working tax credit may lose more than £4,000 from changes to the credit system while 1.6m council workers will have their pay frozen for a third year in a row.

Consumer Focus estimates:

•4 million people have a Pay Day loan. A ‘typical’ monthly repayment on £100 is about £130 but higher interest rates, up to 5,000% p.a. are far from unknown. Tony Hobman, chief executive of the Money Advice Service, a government agency to help people in debt, is paid £250,000 a year before bonuses.

The ‘Institute of Health Equity’ at UCL reports:

•The gap in life expectancy between the richest and poorest has widened in most areas of England. The largest gap is for males in Westminster where average life expectancy of the richest is 84 but for the poorest the average is 16.9 years less.

The ONS latest employment figures show:

•The drop in unemployment is entirely due to the growth in part-time work.”

And on top of this we have to realise that over 90% of the planned cuts have not yet hit us.

Little wonder that we have seen movements like the Occupy and Indignados taking to the streets in scores of countries across the world. And little wonder that the bosses paper the FT keeps writing articles wondering at how they are getting away with it without greate social unrest. The important thing about the Occupy movement more than anything else is that it has raised a political agenda. Everyone now talks about “capitalism”. 5 years ago it was only the “nutters” of the Communist Left who used that kind of archaic language. And this is important since we can have al the economic struggles you like but unless they raise a political dimension they are something the system can accept and cope with. The Occupy movement has also questioned the hierarchical nature of society and its structures. Its open forums have shown how discussions can increase people’s confidence and widen their horizons. Our comrades have been able to participate in them in various countries. In Rome for example our comrades have been asked to organise a school of Marxism so that people read Capital in an attempt to understand the real crisis.

However before it sounds like we are getting over-enthusiastic about the Occupy and Indignados movements we also have to recognise their limitations. On a political level, the ‘anti-capitalism’ of Occupy, like the Occupy movement itself, has no coherency or substance. When questioned about the meaning of anti-capitalism most Occupy protesters would say they are against the banks and multinational corporations. But there is no economic critique of capitalism and no understanding of why capitalism will inevitably create these hated institutions. The Occupy Wall Street website states on its home page:

OWS is fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. The movement is inspired by popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, and aims to fight back against the richest 1% of people that are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.

This sort of reformist perspective to ‘democratise capitalism’ in line with groups like UK Uncut who think that capitalism could be fair if only the government made the bourgeoisie pay their taxes, seems to be as close as the Occupy movement gets to having any political perspective at all. Such demands for a fair and democratic capitalism are rooted in petty bourgeois utopianism and serve only to peddle illusions about what is possible under capitalism, illusions that the working class must dispel if it is ever to wage an effective struggle against capital.

This brings us to the question of class. This is an issue that the Occupy movement chooses to gloss over, or perhaps even to deliberately obscure. Of course the inequality that exists in society is at the heart of what the Occupy movement opposes, but this is conceptualised in terms of the 1% of those that own and control the world’s wealth, compared to the 99% who don’t. This may be graphic representation of that inequality but it is just presented as a given, the consequence perhaps of the power of greedy bankers or megalomaniac multi-nationals. The fundamental point that capitalism is a class society based on the exploitation of the proletarian majority by the bourgeois minority is neatly overlooked, as this would undermine the Occupy movement’s utopian demands for a fair and democratic capitalism. Those who hold a Marxist understanding of the need for a revolutionary transformation of society led by the working class as the prime agent of change recognise that ther is no such thing as a fair and democratic capitalism.

So what is to be done?

The working class owns only the individual capacity to labour. It has no system of property to defend. For previous rising classes the question of revolutionary change was no problem. All they had to do was defend their form of property in every way they could and they coalesced into a movement which challenged the old order. The bourgeoisie in their struggle could even engender slogans which made it appear as though they we re fighting for all humanity (liberty, fraternity and equality). What they didn’t tell the workers was that equality was only for those who could afford it. In bourgeois society Orwell’s nostrum that some are more equal than others is a daily fact.

The only other weapon the working class possesses is its consciousness. This is nurtured and formed by its own struggles from its position in capitalist society but these sparks of consciousness rise now here now there and then die with the struggle. How can the perceptions of workers in struggle be carried from one point to the next? Marx was aware of the problem. He knew that the emancipation of the working class was “the task of the workers themselves” yet he also wrote that under capitalist conditions the ruling ideas are those who own the means of production, including intellectual production.

How to escape the dilemma – the political party.

The solution to the dilemma lies in the formation of a revolutionary minority or party if you like. This turns the consciousness of those individuals within the working class who already see what is at stake into a material force. A material force which fights within the wider working class to increase both the depth and the extent of its class consciousness. This revolutionary minority is entirely consistent with Marx’s own vision of a future international party. Many people quote Marx’s insertion into the rules of the IWMA in 1864 the nostrum that “the emancipation of the working class will be the task of the workers themselves”. What they usually claim is that this shows that Marx was against the idea of a revolutionary minority altogether. But this is an error. After all why would Marx include this in the rules of the International if it was an anti-party statement. What he meant here was that the workers had to forge their own organisations independent of all the bourgeois parties. Without an organisation representing the historic acquisitions of the working class the bourgeoisie will be capable of imposing its own solution on any movement however militant.

However Marx could not have envisaged all the false starts that the workers movement would make on its road to emancipation.

The revolutionary minority we have in mind will have to be unlike any other produced in the past. In the first place it will not fall into the social democratic error of trying to have a mass party which can only be achieved by capitulating to the immediate demands for reform and take on a parliamentary agenda.

Professional revolutionaries are not the answer either. This was advocated by Lenin for the Bolshevik Party when it was clandestine and under the brutal Tsarist dictatorship. He wanted revolutionaries to be “professional” in sense of not being bunglers who betrayed themselves and the workers to the secret police. We are against it for several historical reasons. Having party organisers who are employees mean they can be disciplined by the mere act of cutting their source of salary as Gramsci did to defeat the Italian Left majority in the Communist Party of Italy in the 1920s. However there is also another profound reason for not accepting this model and that is that the class party has to be a party of the class and the members remain with the class either in the workplace or in the community.

There were some good things about Bolshevism: before 1917 it was obviously an organisation which not only had a wide ranging debate but encouraged individual initiative at the local level and within workers’ organisations. It was its roots inside the working class established well before the revolution that were the key to its decision to drop its social democratic programme in April 1917.

Obviously though the next revolution will not be a rerun of the revolutionary wave of 90 years ago. Obviously too we have to learn from the errors of the revolutionaries of the past.

We have catalogued those of the Bolsheviks many times. On Day One Sovnarkom was set up which was really just a bourgeois cabinet with another name. The real revolutionary ruling body should have been the Executive Committee of the Congress of Soviets. Other examples are well-known. In June-July 1918 soviet elections in Petrograd were rigged for the first time and the isolation of the revolution and the continuing social democratic ideas about socialism which still lingered in Bolshevism ensured by 1921 that the class had disappeared and the party was the class. Anarchists have used these errors to argue that all along Bolshevism was a plot to defeat the spontaneous revolution of the working class. But the anarchists themselves lacked cohesion and organisation – personalities rather than polices dominated. When the Bolsheviks rigged the Petrograd soviet elections in 1918 it was to keep out the reaction not to prevent a move to a third revolution. And this is why some anarchist alter recognised that they had failed too and decided that they too needed organisation and a Platform which they produced in 1926. This remains controversial amongst anarchists, even to this day, but it is a recognition that a revolutionary minority is needed. And today the Anarchist Federation carries in its paper an outline of revolutionary action and organisation that is not too distant from our own. Similarly we have read on the ICC website of a group called the Birov Collective which calls itself anarcho-syndicalist but it s ideas of syndicates are very close to ours of workplace groups as both are essentially political in character (this contrast with the Solidarity Federation in the UK) . Today the debate is not between Anarchism and Marxism but between revolutionaries from both camps and the traditional left which are all based on the restoration in one form or another of social democracy.

From the Russian Revolution we take the lessons that to make the revolution the class will have to create a rev minority which is the material expression of it consciousness. That minority will fight in the class wide organs for the communist programme but being a minority it cannot wield power. As Onorato Damen wrote in the platform of the PCInt after the break with Bordiga “the working class does not delegate its power to any one not even its class party”. And the revolutionary minority has other tasks than to rule in any one geographical area – spreading the world revolution takes precedence and if its members are elected to posts of responsibility they are elected on the same basis as other delegates i.e. revocably.

Today we are seeing the beginning of a revival of an anti-capitalist consciousness. It is only a beginning but those of us who have been fighting for a revolutionary class outcome all our lives have an enormous responsibility to the new generation. Up to now communist have separated over issues largely of historical creation. Past errors have become current shibboleths. Rather than a source of understanding history has largely been a nightmare weighing on the living and magnifying differences which are hardly ever properly explored. Today we are on the edge of new situation and we need to re-examine our practices. We have been saying for many months that the issue is not just to fight the cuts but to fight the system that produces them. This is the starting point for all revolutionaries and we have declared ourselves willing to work with anyone who shares that basic premise. Out of common work comes common respect, out of respect comes real dialogue, and out of that a more effective working class resistance.

Jock

Monday, June 11, 2012

<출처> http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2012-06-11/report-on-the-manchester-meeting-of-the-cwo

본문

본문