Socialism and Science

The Trade Unions in Britain (September 1933)

2011-03-18T22:41:00.000-07:00

The Trade Unions in Britain (September 1933) by Leon Trotsky

The trade union question remains the most important question of working class policy in Great Britain, as well as in the majority of old capitalist countries. The mistakes of the Comintern in this field are innumerable. No wonder: a party’s inability to establish correct relations with the class reveals itself most glaringly in the area of the trade union movement. That is why I consider it necessary to dwell on this question.

The trade unions were formed during the period of the growth and rise of capitalism. They had as their task the raising of the material and cultural level of the proletariat and the extension of its political rights. This work, which in England lasted over a century, gave the trade unions tremendous authority among the workers. The decay of British capitalism, under the conditions of decline of the world capitalist system, undermined the basis for the reformist work of the trade unions. Capitalism can continue to maintain itself only by lowering the standard of living of the working class. Under these conditions trade unions can either transform themselves into revolutionary organisations or become lieutenants of capital in the intensified exploitation. of the workers. The trade union bureaucracy, which has satisfactorily solved its own social problem, took the second path. It turned all the accumulated authority of the trade unions against the socialist revolution and even against any attempts of the workers to resist the attacks of capital and reaction.

From that point on, the most important task of the revolutionary party became the liberation of the workers from the reactionary influence of the trade union bureaucracy. In this decisive field the Comintern revealed complete inadequacy. In 1926-27, especially in the period of the miners’ strike and the General Strike, that is, at the time of the greatest crimes and betrayals of the General Council of the trade unions, the Comintern obsequiously toadied to the highly placed strikebreakers, cloaked them with its authority in the eyes of the masses, and helped them remain in the saddle. That is how the Minority Movement was struck a mortal blow. Frightened by the results of its own work, the Comintern bureaucracy went to the extreme of ultra-radicalism. The fatal excesses of the “third period” were due to the desire of the small Communist minority to act as though it had a majority behind it. Isolating itself more and more from the working class, the Communist Party counterposed to the trade unions, which embraced millions of workers, its own trade union organisations, highly obedient to the leadership of the Comintern but separated by an abyss from the working class. No better favour could be done for the trade union bureaucracy. Had it been with its power to award the Order of the Garter, it should have so decorated all the leaders of the Comintern and Profintern.

As was said, the trade unions now play not a progressive but a reactionary role. Nevertheless they still embrace millions of workers. One must not think that the workers are blind and do not see the change in the historic role of the trade unions. But what is to be done? The revolutionary road is seriously compromised in the eyes of the left wing of the workers by the zigzags and adventures of official communism. The workers say to themselves: The trade unions are bad, but without them it might be even worse. This is the psychology of being in a blind alley. Meanwhile, the trade union bureaucracy persecutes the revolutionary workers ever more boldly, ever more impudently replacing internal democracy by the arbitrary action of a clique, in essence transforming the trade unions into some sort of concentration camp for the workers during the decline of capitalism.

Under these conditions, the thought easily arises: Is it not possible to bypass the trade unions? Is it not possible to replace them by some sort of fresh, uncorrupted organisation of the type of revolutionary trade unions, shop committees, soviets, and the like? The fundamental mistake of such attempts lies in that they reduce to organisational experiments the great political problem of how to free the masses from the influence of the trade union bureaucracy. It is not enough to offer the masses a new address. It is necessary to seek out the masses where they are and to lead them.

Impatient leftists sometimes say that it is absolutely impossible to win over the trade unions because the bureaucracy uses the organisations’ internal regimes for preserving its own interests, resorting to the basest machinations, repression and plain crookedness, in the spirit of the parliamentary oligarchy of the era of “rotten boroughs!’ Why then waste time and energy? This argument reduces itself in reality to giving up the actual struggle to win the masses, using the corrupt character of the trade union bureaucracy as a pretext. This argument can be developed further: Why not abandon revolutionary work altogether, considering the repression and provocations on the part of the government bureaucracy? There exists no principled difference here, since the trade union bureaucracy has definitely become a part of the capitalist apparatus, economic and governmental. It is absurd to think that it would be possible to work against the trade union bureaucracy with its own help, or only with its consent. Insofar as it defends itself by persecutions, violence, expulsions, frequently resorting to the assistance of government authorities, we must learn to work in the trade unions discreetly, finding a common language with the masses but not revealing ourselves prematurely to the bureaucracy. It is precisely in the present epoch, when the reformist bureaucracy of the proletariat has transformed itself into the economic police of capital, that revolutionary work in the trade unions, performed intelligently and systematically, may yield decisive results in a comparatively short time.

We do not at all mean by this that the revolutionary party has any guarantee that the trade unions. will be completely won over to the socialist revolution. The problem is not so simple. The trade union apparatus has attained for itself great independence from the masses. The bureaucracy is capable of retaining its positions a long time after the masses have turned against it. But it is precisely such a situation, where the masses are already hostile to the trade union bureaucracy but where the bureaucracy is still capable of misrepresenting the opinion of the organisation and of sabotaging new elections, that is most favourable for the creation of shop committees, workers’ councils, and other organisations for the immediate needs of any given moment. Even in Russia, where the trade unions did not have anything like the powerful traditions of the British trade unions, the October Revolution occurred with Mensheviks predominant in the administration of the trade unions. Having lost the masses, these administrations were still capable of sabotaging elections in the apparatus, although already powerless to sabotage the proletarian revolution.

It is absolutely necessary right now to prepare the minds of the advanced workers for the idea of creating shop committees and workers’ councils at the moment of a sharp change. But it would be the greatest mistake to “play around” in practice with the slogan of shop councils, consoling oneself, with this “Idea,” for the lack of real work and real influence in the trade unions. To counterpose to the existing trade unions the abstract idea of workers’ councils would mean setting against oneself not only the bureaucracy but also the masses, thus depriving oneself of the possibility of preparing the ground for the creation of workers’ councils.

In this the Comintern has gained not a little experience: having created obedient that is, purely Communist trade unions, it counterposed its sections to the working masses in a hostile manner and thereby doomed itself to complete impotence. This is one of the most important causes of the collapse of the German Communist Party. It is true that the British Communist Party, insofar as I am informed, opposes the slogan of workers’ councils under the present conditions. Superficially, this may seem like a realistic appraisal of the situation. In reality, the British Communist Party rejects only one form of political adventurism for another, more hysterical form. The theory and practice of social-fascism and the rejection of the policy of the united front creates insurmountable obstacles to working in the trade unions, since each trade union is, by its very nature, the arena of an ongoing united front of revolutionary parties with reformist and non-party masses. To the extent that the British Communist Party proved incapable, even after the German tragedy, of learning anything and arming itself anew, to that extent can an alliance with it pull to the bottom even the ILP, which only recently has entered a period of revolutionary apprenticeship.

Pseudo-Communists will, no doubt, refer to the last congress of trade unions, which declared that there could be no united front with Communists against fascism. It would he the greatest folly to accept this piece of wisdom as the final verdict of history. The trade union bureaucrats can permit themselves such boastful formulas only because they are not immediately threatened by fascism, or by Communism. When the hammer of fascism is raised over the head of the trade unions, then, with a correct policy of the revolutionary party, the trade union masses will show an irresistible urge for an alliance with the revolutionary wing and will carry with them onto this path even a certain portion of the apparatus. Contrariwise, if Communism should become a decisive force, threatening the General Councils with the loss of positions, honours, and income, Messrs. Citrine and Company would undoubtedly enter into a bloc with Mosley and Company against the Communists. Thus, in August 1917, the Russian Mensheviks and Social-Revolutionaries together with the Bolsheviks repulsed General Kornilov. Two months later, in October, they were fighting hand in hand with the Kornilovists against the Bolsheviks. And in the first months of 1917, when the reformists were still strong, they spouted, just like Citrine and Company, about the impossibility of them making an alliance with a dictatorship either of the right or left.

The revolutionary proletarian party must be welded together by a clear understanding of its historic tasks. This presupposes a scientifically based program. At the same time, the revolutionary party must know how to establish correct relations with the class. This presupposes a policy of revolutionary realism, equally removed from opportunistic vagueness and sectarian aloofness. From the point of view of both these closely connected criteria, the ILP should review its relation to the Comintern as well as to all other organisations and tendencies within the working class. This concerns first of all the fate of the ILP itself.

September 4, 1933

Marx and Engels on the Trade Unions

2011-03-18T19:21:00.000-07:00

From The Condition of the Working Class in England (1845)

“The history of these Unions is a long series of defeats of the working-men, interrupted by a few isolated victories. All these efforts naturally cannot alter the economic law according to which wages are determined by the relation between supply and demand in the labour market. Hence the Unions remain powerless against all great forces which influence this relation. In a commercial crisis the Union itself must reduce wages or dissolve wholly; and in a time of considerable increase in the demand for labour, it cannot fix the rate of wages higher than would be reached spontaneously by the competition of the capitalists among themselves. But in dealing with minor, single influences they are powerful. If the employer had no concentrated, collective opposition to expect, he would in his own interest gradually reduce wages to a lower and lower point; indeed, the battle of competition which he has to wage against his fellow-manufacturers would force him to do so, and wages would soon reach the minimum. But this competition of the manufacturers among themselves is, under average conditions, somewhat restricted by the opposition of the working-men.

Every manufacturer knows that the consequence of a reduction not justified by conditions to which his competitors also are subjected, would be a strike, which would most certainly injure him, because his capital would be idle as long as the strike lasted, and his machinery would be rusting, whereas it is very doubtful whether he could, in such a case, enforce his reduction. Then he has the certainty that if he should succeed, his competitors would follow him, reducing the price of the goods so produced, and thus depriving him of the benefit of his policy. Then, too, the Unions often bring about a more rapid increase of wages after a crisis than would otherwise follow. For the manufacturer's interest is to delay raising wages until forced by competition, but now the working-men demand an increased wage as soon as the market improves, and they can carry their point by reason of the smaller supply of workers at his command under such circumstances. But, for resistance to more considerable forces which influence the labour market, the Unions are powerless. In such cases hunger gradually drives the strikers to resume work on any terms, and when once a few have begun, the force of the Union is broken, because these few knobsticks, with the reserve supplies of goods in the market, enable the bourgeoisie to overcome the worst effects of the interruption of business. The funds of the Union are soon exhausted by the great numbers requiring relief, the credit which the shopkeepers give at high interest is withdrawn after a time, and want compels the working-man to place himself once more under the yoke of the bourgeoisie. But strikes end disastrously for the workers mostly, because the manufacturers, in their own interest (which has, be it said, become their interest only through the resistance of the workers), are obliged to avoid all useless reductions, while the workers feel in every reduction imposed by the state of trade a deterioration of their condition, against which they must defend themselves as far as in them lies.

It will be asked, “Why, then, do the workers strike in such cases, when the uselessness of such measures is so evident?” Simply because they must protest against every reduction, even if dictated by necessity; because they feel bound to proclaim that they, as human beings, shall not be made to bow to social circumstances, but social conditions ought to yield to them as human beings; because silence on their part would be a recognition of these social conditions, an admission of the right of the bourgeoisie to exploit the workers in good times and let them starve in bad ones. Against this the working-men must rebel so long as they have not lost all human feeling, and that they protest in this way and no other, comes of their 'being practical English people, who express themselves in action, and do not, like German theorists, go to sleep as soon as their protest is properly registered and placed ad acta, there to sleep as quietly as the protesters themselves. The active resistance of the English working-men has its effect in holding the money-greed of the bourgeoisie within certain limits, and keeping alive the opposition of the workers to the social and political omnipotence of the bourgeoisie, while it compels the admission that something more is needed than Trades Unions and strikes to break the power of the ruling class. But what gives these Unions and the strikes arising from them their real importance is this, that they are the first attempt of the workers to abolish competition. They imply the recognition of the fact that the supremacy of the bourgeoisie is based wholly upon the competition of the workers among themselves; i.e., upon their want of cohesion. And precisely because the Unions direct themselves against the vital nerve of the present social order, however one-sidedly, in however narrow a way, are they so dangerous to this social order. The working- men cannot attack the bourgeoisie, and with it the whole existing order of society, at any sorer point than this. If the competition of the workers among themselves is destroyed, if all determine not to be further exploited by the bourgeoisie, the rule of property is at an end. Wages depend upon the relation of demand to supply, upon the accidental state of the labour market, simply because the workers have hitherto been content to be treated as chattels, to be bought and sold. The moment the workers resolve to be bought and sold no longer, when, in the determination of the value of labour, they take the part of men possessed of a will as well as of working-power, at that moment the whole Political Economy of today is at an end.”

From Value, Price and Profit (1865)

"At the same time, and quite apart form the general servitude involved in the wages system, the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!" they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wages system!""

From Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council (1866)

“Trades' Unions originally sprang up from the spontaneous attempts of workmen at removing or at least checking that competition, in order to conquer such terms of contract as might raise them at least above the condition of mere slaves. The immediate object of Trades' Unions was therefore confined to everyday necessities, to expediences for the obstruction of the incessant encroachments of capital, in one word, to questions of wages and time of labour. This activity of the Trades' Unions is not only legitimate, it is necessary. It cannot be dispensed with so long as the present system of production lasts. On the contrary, it must be generalised by the formation and the combination of Trades' Unions throughout all countries. On the other hand, unconsciously to themselves, the Trades' Unions were forming centres of organisation of the working class, as the mediaeval municipalities and communes did for the middle class. If the Trades' Unions are required for the guerilla fights between capital and labour, they are still more important as organised agencies for superseding the very system of wages labour and capital rule.

…

Apart from their original purposes, they must now learn to act deliberately as organising centres of the working class in the broad interest of its complete emancipation. They must aid every social and political movement tending in that direction. Considering themselves and acting as the champions and representatives of the whole working class, they cannot fail to enlist the non-society men into their ranks. They must look carefully after the interests of the worst paid trades, such as the agricultural labourers, rendered powerless [French text has: "incapable of organised resistance"] by exceptional circumstances. They must convince the world at large [French and German texts read: "convince the broad masses of workers"] that their efforts, far from being narrow -- and selfish, aim at the emancipation of the downtrodden millions.”

Letter: Marx to Friedrich Bolte (1871)

"On the other hand, however, every movement in which the working class comes out as a class against the ruling classes and attempts to force them by pressure from without is a political movement. For instance, the attempt in a particular factory or even a particular industry to force a shorter working day out of the capitalists by strikes, etc., is a purely economic movement. On the other hand the movement to force an eight-hour day, etc., law is a political movement. And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. If these movements presuppose a certain degree of previous organisation, they are themselves equally a means of the development of this organisation.

Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organisation to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against and a hostile attitude towards the policy of the ruling classes. Otherwise it will remain a plaything in their hands, as the September revolution in France showed, and as is also proved up to a certain point by the game Messrs. Gladstone & Co. are bringing off in England even up to the present time."

Letter: Marx To Kugelmann (1874)

“In England at the moment only the rural labour movement shows any advance; the industrial workers have first of all to get rid of their present leaders. When I denounced these fellows at the Hague Congress I knew that I was letting myself in for unpopularity, calumny, etc., but such consequences have always been a matter of indifference to me. Here and there it is beginning to be realised that in making that denunciation I was only doing my duty."

Letter: Engels to August Bebel (1875)

"Fifthly, there is absolutely no mention of the organisation of the working class as a class through the medium of trade unions. And that is a point of the utmost importance, this being the proletariat's true class organisation in which it fights its daily battles with capital, in which it trains itself and which nowadays can no longer simply be smashed, even with reaction at its worst (as presently in Paris). Considering the importance this organisation is likewise assuming in Germany, it would in our view be indispensable to accord it some mention in the programme and, possibly, to leave some room for it in the organisation of the party."

Letter: Engels To Eduard Bernstein (1879)

"For a number of years past (and at the present time) the English working-class movement has been hopelessly describing a narrow circle of strikes for higher wages and shorter hours, not, however, as an expedient or means of propaganda and organisation but as the ultimate aim. The Trade Unions even bar all political action on principle and in their charters, and thereby also ban participation in any general activity of the working-class as a class. The workers are divided politically into Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, into supporters of the Disraeli (Beaconsfield) ministry and supporters of the Gladstone ministry. One can speak here of a labour movement (proper) only in so far as strikes take place here which, whether they are won or not, do not get the movement one step further. To inflate such strikes — which often enough have been brought about purposely during the last few years of bad business by the capitalists to have a pretext for closing down their factories and mills, strikes in which the working-class movement does not make the slightest headway — into struggles of world importance, as is done, for instance, in the London Freiheit, can, in my opinion, only do harm. No attempt should be made to conceal the fact that at present no real labour movement in the continental sense exists here, and I therefore believe you will not lose much if for the time being you do not receive any .reports on the doings of the Trade Unions here."

Articles by Engels in the Labour Standard (1881)

"More than this, there are plenty of symptoms that the working class of this country is awakening to the consciousness that it has for some time been moving in the wrong groove [6]; that the present movements for higher wages and shorter hours exclusively, keep it in a vicious circle out of which there is no issue; that it is not the lowness of wages which forms the fundamental evil, but the wages system itself. This knowledge once generally spread amongst the working class, the position of Trades Unions must change considerably. They will no longer enjoy the privilege of being the only organisations of the working class. At the side of, or above, the Unions of special trades there must spring up a general Union, a political organisation of the working class as a whole."

Letter: Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge (1889)

“Here in England one can see that it is impossible simply to drill a theory in an abstract dogmatic way into a great nation, even if one has the best of theories, developed out of their own conditions of life, and even if the tutors are relatively better than the S.L.P. [Socialist Labour Party of North America.] The movement has now got going at last and I believe for good. But it is not directly Socialist, and those English who have understood our theory best remain outside it: Hyndman because he is incurably jealous and intriguing, Bax because he is only a bookworm. Formally the movement is at the moment a trade union movement, but utterly different from that of the old trade unions, the skilled labourers, the aristocracy of labour.

The people are throwing themselves into the job in quite a different way, are leading far more colossal masses into the fight, are shaking society much more deeply, are putting forward much more far-reaching demands: eight-hour day, general federation of all organisations, complete solidarity. Thanks to Tussy [Eleanor Marx Aveling] women’s branches have been formed for the first time – in the Gas Workers and General Labourers’ Union. Moreover, the people only regard their immediate demands themselves as provisional, although they themselves do not know as yet what final aim they are working for. But this dim idea is strongly enough rooted to make them choose only openly declared Socialists as their leaders. Like everyone else they will have to learn by their own experiences and the consequences of their own mistakes. But as, unlike the old trade unions, they greet every suggestion of an identity of interest between capital and labour with scorn and ridicule this will not take very long.”

The History of the Russian Revolution: Preface (excerpt)

2010-11-08T18:28:00.000-08:00

Excerpt from The History of the Russian Revolution: Preface by Leon Trotsky

In a society that is seized by revolution classes are in conflict. It is perfectly clear, however, that the changes introduced between the beginning and the end of a revolution in the economic bases of the society and its social substratum of classes, are not sufficient to explain the course of the revolution itself, which can overthrow in a short interval age-old institutions, create new ones, and again overthrow them. The dynamic of revolutionary events is directly determined by swift, intense and passionate changes in the psychology of classes which have already formed themselves before the revolution.

The point is that society does not change its institutions as need arises, the way a mechanic changes his instruments. On the contrary, society actually takes the institutions which hang upon it as given once for all. For decades the oppositional criticism is nothing more than a safety valve for mass dissatisfaction, a condition of the stability of the social structure. Such in principle, for example, was the significance acquired by the social-democratic criticism. Entirely exceptional conditions, independent of the will of persons and parties, are necessary in order to tear off from discontent the fetters of conservatism, and bring the masses to insurrection.

The swift changes of mass views and moods in an epoch of revolution thus derive, not from the flexibility and mobility of man’s mind, but just the opposite, from its deep conservatism. The chronic lag of ideas and relations behind new objective conditions, right up to the moment when the latter crash over people in the form of a catastrophe, is what creates in a period of revolution that leaping movement of ideas and passions which seems to the police mind a mere result of the activities of “demagogues.”

The masses go into a revolution not with a prepared plan of social reconstruction, but with a sharp feeling that they cannot endure the old régime. Only the guiding layers of a class have a political program, and even this still requires the test of events, and the approval of the masses. The fundamental political process of the revolution thus consists in the gradual comprehension by a class of the problems arising from the social crisis – the active orientation of the masses by a method of successive approximations. The different stages of a revolutionary process, certified by a change of parties in which the more extreme always supersedes the less, express the growing pressure to the left of the masses – so long as the swing of the movement does not run into objective obstacles. When it does, there begins a reaction: disappointments of the different layers of the revolutionary class, growth of indifferentism, and therewith a strengthening of the position of the counter-revolutionary forces. Such, at least, is the general outline of the old revolutions.

Only on the basis of a study of political processes in the masses themselves, can we understand the rôle of parties and leaders, whom we least of all are inclined to ignore. They constitute not an independent, but nevertheless a very important, element in the process. Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.

The difficulties which stand in the way of studying the changes of mass consciousness in a revolutionary epoch are quite obvious. The oppressed classes make history in the factories, in the barracks, in the villages, on the streets of the cities. Moreover, they are least of all accustomed to write things down. Periods of high tension in social passions leave little room for contemplation and reflection. All the muses – even the plebeian muse of journalism, in spite of her sturdy hips – have hard sledding in times of revolution. Still the historian’s situation is by no means hopeless. The records are incomplete, scattered, accidental. But in the light of the events themselves these fragments often permit a guess as to the direction and rhythm of the hidden process. For better or worse, a revolutionary party bases its tactics upon a calculation of the changes of mass consciousness. The historic course of Bolshevism demonstrates that such a calculation, at least in its rough features, can be made. If it can be made by a revolutionary leader in the whirlpool of the struggle, why not by the historian afterwards?

However, the processes taking place in the consciousness of the masses are not unrelated and independent. No matter how the idealists and the eclectics rage, consciousness is nevertheless determined by conditions. In the historic conditions which formed Russia, her economy, her classes, her State, in the action upon her of other states, we ought to be able to find the premises both of the February revolution and of the October revolution which replaced it. Since the greatest enigma is the fact that a backward country was the first to place the proletariat in power, it behoves us to seek the solution of that enigma in the peculiarities of that backward country – that is, in its differences from other countries.

Revisiting the Steiner and Brenner polemics

2009-06-28T13:47:00.000-07:00

I would like to revisit the Steiner and Brenner polemics once again. The issues they raise are of critical importance to the socialist movement.

While it is known among Marxists that the socialist revolution is necessary, that it represents the solution to the objective contradictions of capitalism, this does not mean that the socialist revolution is inevitable. The 20^th century provides many examples of revolutionary situations that failed to result in the dictatorship of the proletariat. In Russia, it was only through the Bolsheviks that workers were able to secure power after the failed revolution of 1905, and the February revolution of 1917 which resulted in a government of shared power with the liberal bourgeoisie. The case of Russia proves Marx’s theory of socialist revolution, but it also shows that leadership is decisive.

The International Committee is a descendant of Trotsky’s Fourth International with Socialist Equality Party (SEP) sections in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia, and Sri Lanka. Due to its historical legacy it is arguably the most relevant of the Trotskyist and Marxist parties, even given its minimal political influence today. Historically Trotskyism represented the continuity of the socialist movement after the Stalinist domination of the Third International represented by reactionary Communist parties in various countries.

While the members of IC and SEP invoke this heritage occasionally, the SEP has traveled very far from the traditions of Trotskyism and Bolshevism. This can be confusing to members of the SEP, because on superficial appearances they are doing everything right. They continually publish articles of analysis and criticism, issue orthodox sounding statements, give lectures on history and economics; they show up to picket lines and strikes and talk to workers. What is the problem exactly? The problem is that these activities are not revolutionary unless they are imbued with revolutionary content. In all these activities the SEP adopts a contemplative stance, that of contemplating the situation instead of working to change it.

Of course the objective situation needs to be accurately contemplated in order to change it, but to adopt a contemplative stance is to look at the situation one-sidedly, to see it as a finished product, as the inevitable result of blind ‘objective forces’. A revolutionary looks at the objective situation and sees something quite different; he sees social reality as living, as contradictory, as full of different possible outcomes. He understands the difference that a revolutionary party can make in changing that situation, in realizing the different potentialities that objectively exist.

While this should seem like common knowledge to socialists, it is not. The Steiner and Brenner polemics arose from what both see as objectivist and abstensionist tendencies within the SEP. Both worked with the party writing for the WSWS primary on philosophical issues. Both became concerned by the party’s increasingly contemplative mode and its neglect of theoretical issues. The result was two documents; Brenner’s “To Know a Thing Is to Know its End”[1], and Steiner’s “The Dialectical Path of Cognition and Revolutionary Practice.”[2]

Brenner’s document argues for programmatic clarity and a renewal of socialist idealism, the visionary aspect that was common to all great socialist movements. Steiner’s document warns of the consequences of neglecting Marxist dialectics and concludes with an analysis of the political trajectory of the IC/SEP.

After three years of waiting for a response from North and SEP, after empty promises were made by North to include Steiner and Brenner in an internal discussion of the issues, Steiner and Brenner finally decided to make the documents available on their web site, and wrote a summary of the issues raised in a letter of protest entitled “Objectivism or Marxism.”[3]

At that point North felt compelled to respond, but not on the account of theoretical clarity, instead North brushes aside the issues, his aim is to distract members of the SEP from content of their polemics. The result was “Marxism, History, and Socialist Consciousness.”[4]

Throughout the book North adopts the methods of a demagogue, appealing to the prejudice and ignorance of his audience. For example, a passing reference to the Wilhelm Reich in Brenner’s document receives 16 pages from North all devoted to discrediting Reich and by implication anyone who would choose to quote him, even in passing. In actual fact, Reich is contradictory figure who did valuable work while he was associated with the Communist Party in Germany, but underwent a degeneration after a number of unfavorable circumstances[5].

The bulk of Steiner’s material is simply ignored. North complains about the lack of analysis of the IC’s political line when in fact Steiner devoted 13 pages to such an analysis in the section “Where is the International Committee Going?” North pretends as if Steiner’s document didn’t exist. In the cases where North actually addresses the material of Steiner and Brenner, his manner of presentation is highly distorted, in effect he accuses Steiner and Brenner of trying to resurrect the conceptions of utopian socialism, completely missing the substance of Brenner’s arguments.

On the whole I think North has been successful in his attempt to obscure the issues, at least within the narrow confines of his party. However, it is apparent that North still feels threatened by the criticisms of Steiner and Brenner. Almost a year after the publication of “Marxism Without it Head or its Heart,”[6] Steiner and Brenner’s follow up response, North felt compelled to write “The Frankfurt vs. Marxism.”[7] Here North takes his dishonest and false methods a step further, ignoring entirely the contents of “Marxism Without its Head or its Heart.” Instead he attempts to discredit Alex Steiner in a series of personal attacks. Again feeling this is not enough, he enlists the help of Chris and Ann Talbot [8], and a relatively unknown writer on the WSWS, Adam Haig[9], to attack in much the same fashion.

These later documents by North and company deserve a careful reply, at least to correct the record and further expose the political and theoretical degeneration of North and the SEP. I may comment on these documents in the future, but in the mean time I would like to bring to light some of the more important theoretical issues raised in the Steiner and Brenner polemics.

Dialectics as a guide to revolutionary practice

Marx considers the development of economic production to be the motor force in historical change. The mode of production determines the way of life for the members of society, and corresponding to this way of life, various forms of social consciousness emerge.[10] Hence society has both a material component and an ideal component. Within the economic base of society these components are tightly coupled.[11] Here, the ideal component consists of social forms of thought shared collectively and needed by those involved in the material production of society. The forces of production, the real existing factories, raw materials, machines, workers, are immediately cognized as such. However, in the case of the relations of production, the social forms of organization involved in production, their true nature is often concealed in its ideal reflection.[12]

The work of Marx’s three volumes of Capital is primarily to theoretically investigate the social relations corresponding to the capitalist mode of production, to show their origin and development, to uncover their social content, and to discover and explain their laws.

In course of society’s development, as the forces of production advance materially, the relations of production become a fetter on the advancement of society. Where there was once harmony between the productive forces and relations of production, there is now conflict. The relations of production can be said to be contradictory, they are accepted in so far as they necessary for the continuation for society, but they are also rejected in so far as they are recognized as a hindrance to the functioning of society. In the place of the old relations, new relations emerge that correspond with the higher stage of material development. This is the essence of Marx’s conception of societal development. Marx’s employs the dialectical method to show the temporary, self-contradictory nature of capitalist relations, to show the inevitability of economic crises, and hence, to show the objective necessity of socialism.

For Marxist revolutionaries an analysis of the economic base and its reflection in consciousness of masses of people is the starting point for the practical intervention of the party. In practice most of the social forms we encounter today were analyzed in detail by Marx. In this sense Marx has made things easy for us. But even to employ to Marx’s analysis demands a careful study of the objective situation, and in some cases new forms must be analyzed.

In the case of the Russian revolution in 1905, it was only Trotsky among the Social Democrats who foresaw the leading role of the working class.[13] Plekanov formulated a schematic conception of development through stages. This assumed that Russia would develop in isolation, and missed out on the implications of the introduction of foreign capital and the introduction of large scale capitalism which occurred at the turn of the century. Plekanov thought that the working class must support a revolution of the liberal bourgeoisie, and that Russia must endure a period of capitalist development to ensure a sufficient material base for the proletariat revolution. Lenin too, at the time, thought the coming revolution would be bourgeois in character, but at least recognized that one the main tasks of revolution would be land reform and recognized important role of the peasantry.

In the case of the SEP, the lack of training in Marxist dialectics is apparent. For all their talk about the study of objective conditions, when situations arise that demand a revolutionary party to define the independent standpoint of the working class, to put forward a perspective, to put forward a program of action, the SEP is left helpless.[14] Social reality is treated as a finished product, there is no assessment of the revolutionary potentialities existing within the working class, or how a revolutionary party could possibly intervene to change the objective situation.[15] For the SEP, the study of the objective situation as a finished product becomes an end in itself; it is a practice which is in essence contemplative and not revolutionary.

Mass psychology and the development of socialist consciousness

An important consequence of the fact that the social relations are in part embodied in thought is that the maintenance of those relations depends on their collective acceptance by those involved production insofar as other modes of production are possible (e.g. socialist production). The bourgeoisie is very conscious of this fact, perhaps more so than any other ruling class, and its methods are of corresponding sophistication. Of course, the bourgeoisie is not above using force or the threat of violence to maintain its rule but on whole it found methods of persuasion to more be effective. Thus, the bourgeois expends a great deal of resources in media and other forms of ideology to convince society as a whole that the capitalist mode of production is the only form that can satisfy its needs and desires. Marx was conscious of this fact too when he wrote German ideology, Marx writes: “The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideas of its dominance.”[16]

It should be clear therefore that the study of class psychology is very much part of the work of Marxist revolutionaries. What is the appeal of the ruling class ideology for the working class? How does it help cement the capitalist relations of production even in spite of very powerful objective contradictions? On what basis should socialists make an appeal? How does socialist consciousness arise within the working class?

It is true, as Steiner and Brenner point out, that Marx and Engels did not spend very much time on these questions, but they clearly understood the importance of conceptions of a socialist future and programmatic demands, as can be seen in the Communist Manifesto and Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme.

The work of Lenin and Trotsky represented an advance in the understanding of how to develop socialist consciousness within the working class. In “What is to be done?,” Lenin formulated the concept of political exposures to connect with the consciousness of the workers, to help them see life from a Social Democratic view point. Trotsky’s The History of the Russian Revolution is a rich source of material on relationship between the party and the masses, and demonstrates a masterful understanding of class psychology on the part of Lenin and Trotsky. Trotsky explains, that: “What distinguished Bolshevism was that it subordinated the subjective goal, the defense of the interests of the popular masses, to the laws of revolution as an objectively conditioned process.”[17] Trotsky also explains that: “The toilers are guided their struggle not only by their demands, not only by their needs, but by their life experiences. Bolshevism had absolutely no taint of any aristocratic scorn for the independent experience of the masses. On the contrary, the Bolsheviks took this for their point of departure and built upon it. That was one of their great points of superiority.”

A further refinement in Trotsky’s conception of the development of socialist consciousness came with the development the Transitional Program.[18] A transitional program is a system of demands intended to bridge the gap between the present consciousness of workers and that of socialist consciousness. The transitional program replaces the minimum and maximum of program of the Second International; it is a bridge between the demands for minimal reforms under capitalism and the demand for the complete overthrow of capitalism. To employ such a program necessarily requires an understanding of class psychology, an understanding of the experiences, needs and desires of workers, and above all a real engagement with the working class and its struggles. In short, the employment of a transitional program requires both an understanding of what the working class will fight for and socialists who are willing to lead that fight.

To the extent the SEP addresses the problem of socialist consciousness it is in the publication of political exposures on the WSWS. The SEP has cataloged a great deal of the problems and inadequacies of the capitalist system. Indeed, someone reading the WSWS daily could quite well become disgusted with the capitalist system and see the need for change. The problem is that such political exposures are only meaningful in so far as they are followed up by a realistic course of action. Inevitably, the energy generated by such articles, the outrage felt, is dissipated or channeled into reformist avenues. Of course, the party can garner a small number of recruits on the basis of such activity, but unless those recruits are satisfied with a purely contemplative existence they will not last long within the party.

Utopia or the concept of a socialist future

What Steiner and Brenner are referring to by ‘utopia’ is the concept of a socialist future. ‘Utopia’ has the double meaning of both “a good place” and “no place”. While they have emphasized the former meaning of term and have connected it with the visionary aspect of the Utopian socialists, it could be argued that the term is inadequate given its double meaning and the common understanding of the term as some thought or conception that is unrealizable. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels explain that Utopian socialism arose at a time when class antagonisms were just beginning to appear and the material conditions were not yet ripe for the realization of socialism. They acknowledge the Utopians as their predecessors, but are apt to point out the Utopians theoretical limitations. The difference between scientific socialism and Utopian socialism is primarily one of means and not ends. In any case, no one is arguing for a return to the theoretical conceptions of the Utopian socialists so most of North’s material on the subject is beside the point.

Terminological issues aside, the question remains what role does the conception of socialist society play in the political work of socialists?

Firstly, it should be noted that every socialist has a concept of a socialist future whether or not they acknowledge it. In a party that suppresses socialist idealism, that condemns such thinking as “utopianism,” that refuses to adopt a program or specify what socialists would do upon taking power, that concept of a socialist future will necessarily acquire an abstract and formless quality. Without a clear plan for the socialist reconstruction of society, such a party can not be taken seriously and, deep down; members of such a party can not take the work of the party seriously either.

Another consequence, as Brenner notes, without a clear concept of what socialists would do, one acquires a “vision by default,” a view of the problems and solutions of society inherited from the Greens other would be capitalist reformers, instead of a distinctly Marxist view. From the perspective of socialism, the capitalist system is in need of a complete overhaul. Everything from transportation to health care, the work place, environmental problems, education and the raising of children needs to be rethought as an integrated whole. No one is going to think through these problems for us, it is up to socialists to put forward a realistic alternative. Therefore, the concept of a socialist future, the working out of a conscious plan for the socialist reconstruction of society is indispensable to a revolutionary party.

Brenner also raises the importance of a socialist concept in connection with the present state of bourgeois ideology today which conflates socialism and communism with the crimes of Stalinism, and does every thing in its power to suggest that “There Is No Alternative” to the domination of capitalism. Therefore, the emphasis placed on the socialist concept as propaganda is a direct response to the specific problems of this epoch, it is not a once and for all answer to the problem of socialist consciousness nor does it deny the role of economic circumstances in providing an objective impulse to the development of socialist consciousness.

The response by North and the SEP is contradictory. On one level, they recognize the necessity of a program and programmatic demands, but the party itself does not have program as permanent fixture of the party. Demands are made in a makeshift fashion in response to this or that election, this or that news story, and as Steiner pointed out the demands tend to blur the distinction between revolutionary socialism and liberalism.[19] Furthermore, there is a reluctance to spell out what socialism means for everyday life, this is shown in Beams timid response to questions about life under socialism.

Marx and Engels did not have the same reluctance as the SEP in spelling out what a socialist future means. In “The Principles of Communism,”[20] Engels writes clearly on measures that socialists would take upon taking power, the implications of the abolition of private property, and the obsolescence of the bourgeois family form. This document as well as Communist Manifesto refutes the view of North, that Marx and Engels’s rejected the visionary aspect of the utopian socialists.

What accounts for this reluctance to spell out the conception of a socialist future? A clue to this reluctance is contained in the discussion of “socialists and the masses.”[21] Due to their own isolation from the working class over a period of decades, Beams and North conceive of socialists as some alien power standing above workers instead of socialists as the most conscious section of the working class, its political vanguard.

Conclusion

I hope I have brought to light some of the main issues contained in the Steiner and Brenner polemics. Of course, I did not intend for this summary to be replacement for their material. They respond to North comprehensively, which I can’t do here given the nature of writing a summary.

It is amazing to me that North can maintain that Steiner and Brenner are undertaking a “campaign to infiltrate the disoriented anti-Marxist pseudo-utopianism of Wilhelm, Ernst Bloch and Herbert Marcuse into The Fourth International.” It is even more amazing that the bulk of the party can accept such a conception. Opportunism is clearly at work here, both within the leadership and those aspiring to leadership positions. This is not to say that the whole party consists of opportunists, but who in the party has the theoretical knowledge or will to challenge North, who is the defacto theoretical leader of the group?

I have few illusions about the possibility for a reorientation of the IC/SEP, in any case, these polemics have a broader significance. Any revolutionary party that emerges, whether it comes from the IC or elsewhere will have be grounded in the principles of Marxism, and will have learn the main lessons of Bolshevism and Trotskyism.

[1] Frank Brenner, “To Know a Thing is To Know its End: On Why Utopia is Crucial to a Revival of Socialist Consciousness,” May, 2003, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/to_know.pdf

[2] Alex Steiner, “The Dialectical Path of Cognition and Revolutionizing Practice,” March, 2004, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/dialectical_path.pdf

[3] Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner, “Objectivism or Marxism,” May, 2006, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/objectivism_marxism.pdf

[4] David North, “Marxism, History and Socialist Consciousness: A Reply by David North to Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner,” June, 2006, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mhsc.pdf

[5] For a more balanced view of Reich, see “Marxism Without its Head or its Heart,” Chapter 10, “Marxism and Mass Psychology,” http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch10.pdf

[6] Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner, “Marxism Without its Head or its Heart,” September, 2007, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch01.pdf

[7] David North, “The Frankfurt School vs. Marxism: The Political and Intellectual Odyssey of Alex Steiner,” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/fran-o22.shtml

[8] Ann Talbot and Chris Talbot, “Marxism and Science: An addendum to “The Frankfurt School vs. Marxism”,” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/scie-o28.shtml

[9] Adam Haig, “Steiner, Brenner and Neo-Marxism: The Marcusean Component,” http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jan2009/bren-j02.shtml

[10] It should be noted however, contrary to those that hold a mechanical viewpoint, that the relationship between social being and social consciousness is not simply a one way street, with particular conditions always producing the same consciousness in different individuals. Marx himself considered conscious thought a reflex, and in his own case the results were quite individual and unique in comparison with his peers.

[11] Marx wrote: “In the succession of the economic categories, as in any other historical, social science, it must not be forgotten that their subject – here, modern bourgeois society – is always what is given, in the head as well as in reality, and that these categories therefore express the forms of being, the characteristics of existence, and often only individual sides of this specific society, this subject, and that therefore this society by no means begins only at the point where one can speak of it as such; this holds for science as well.”, “(3) The Method of Political Economy,” Grundrisse, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#3

[12] See Marx’s discussion in Chapter 1, Section 4 of Capital, “The Fetishism of Commodities,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S4

[13] For an excellent analysis of the situation in Russia, see Trotsky’s “Results and Prospects,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/rp-index.htm

[14] In the case of the Iraq war, the situation was far worse, here the WSWS championed the bourgeois nationalist movement led by Sadr, see Marxism Without its Head or its Heart, Chapter 2, “The WSWS as a Left Apologist for Bourgeois Nationalism in Iraq,” http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch02.pdf

[15] See Marxism Without its Head or its Heart, Chapter 1, “Latin America: A Case Study in Objectivist Theory and Abstentionist Practice,” http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch01.pdf

[16] Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, Chapter 1B, “The Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm#b3

[17] Leon Trotsky, “The History of the Russian Revolution”, Volume 2, Chapter 36: “The Bolsheviks and the Soviets,” http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/ch36.htm

[18] Leon Trotsky, “The Transitional Program: The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International”, http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm

[19] See “Where is the International Committee going?” from “The Dialectical Path of Cognition and Revolutionary Practice”

[20] Frederic Engels, The Principles of Communism, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[21] See “Chapter 8: Objectivism and Socialist Consciousness – Part 2” from “Marxism Without its Head or its Heart”, http://www.permanent-revolution.org/polemics/mwhh_ch08.pdf

The Dialectical Path of Cognition and Revolutionizing Practice (excerpt)

2009-03-20T09:31:00.000-07:00

Excerpt from "The Dialectical Path of Cognition and Revolutionizing
Practice" (March 2004):

In the last decade the International Committee has been embarked on its own version of a policy of “regroupment”. Lest I be misunderstood, I want to clearly state that there are definite limits to this analogy with the regroupment policy carried out by the SWP in the period 1957-1959. The International Committee has not indulged in the kind of wholesale abandonment of revolutionary perspectives that characterized the SWP in the period leading up to the reunification with the Pabloites. Nevertheless, a tendency has clearly emerged within the International Committee characterized by an abstentionist practice in relation to the working class. This has been accompanied by an orientation in the United States toward disaffected liberals who feel betrayed by the Democratic Party and the mass media. Given the extraordinary turn of political events in the United during the Clinton Administration, this change in orientation was understandable. The combination of the Republican Party having been captured by extreme right wing forces and the extraordinary degree of capitulation to these forces on the part of mainstream liberal leaders left millions of working and middle class people politically disenfranchised. It was correct to attempt a dialogue with these forces, particularly under circumstances where the trade union movement no longer represented any kind of credible political alternative, even from a reformist perspective. It was also correct to expose the anti-democratic right wing conspiracy behind the Clinton impeachment drive, as well as the theft of the 2000 elections in the face of a reactionary “plague on both houses” attitude on the part of practically all the radical groups. However it is essential as part of a dialogue with disenchanted liberals and former liberals, to pose clearly our alternative program for revolutionary socialism. Instead, on crucial occasions, the International Committee has blurred the distinction between liberalism and revolutionary socialism. I believe this political confusion is announced in a statement issued by the Socialist Equality Party launching the Presidential election campaign. There one reads that,

“The necessity for a scientific and socially-motivated utilization of mankind’s productive forces and technology – the absence of which threatens the very physical survival of human civilization – poses the historic task of consciously subordinating the profit motive to the principle of humane, democratic and intelligent social planning – that is, replacing capitalism with socialism.” (htttp://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/stat-j27_prn.shtml)

Rather than characterizing socialism as it has been historically conceived within the Marxist movement as the new society of associated producers standing on the foundations thrown up by the overthrow of the law of value, this formulation portrays socialism as “subordinating the profit motive”. In other words, socialism is seen as a kind of capitalism whose excesses have been reigned in, i.e. “subordinated”, to “the principle of humane, democratic and intelligent social planning.” If any statement ever expressed a theoretical and political muddle, surely this one qualifies.

By way of comparison take the following sharp and clear formulations presented in the Transitional Program, wherein liberal and Social Democratic conceptions of “planning” are characterized.

“Liberal capitalism, based upon competition and free trade, has completely receded into the past. Its successor, monopolistic capitalism, not only does not mitigate the anarchy of the market but on the contrary imparts to it a particularly convulsive character. The necessity of ‘controlling’ economy, of placing state ‘guidance’ over industry of ‘planning’ is today recognized – at least in words – by almost all current bourgeois and petty bourgeois-tendencies...The Social Democrats prepare to drain the ocean of anarchy with spoonfuls of bureaucratic ‘planning.’ Engineers and professors write articles about ‘technocracy’. In their cowardly experiments in ‘regulation’, democratic governments run head-on into the invincible sabotage of big capital.”

In contrast to the bureaucratized versions of planning that were then current in liberal circles during the era of the New Deal, the Transitional Program stressed the necessity for workers control, a phrase that does not even appear in the 2004 election manifesto:

“The working out of even the most elementary economic plan – from the point of view of the exploited, not the exploiters – is impossible without workers’ control, that is without the penetration of the workers’ eye into all open and concealed springs of capitalist economy. Committees representing individual business enterprises should meet at conferences to choose corresponding committees of trusts, whole branches of industry, economic regions and finally, of national industry as a whole. Thus, workers’ control becomes a school for planned economy. On the basis of the experience of control, the proletariat will prepare itself for direct management of nationalized industry when the hour for that eventuality strikes.”

Finally, the Transitional Programme, rather than characterizing socialism as a system “subordinating the profit motive”, spells out that socialism rests on the abolition of the profit motive.

“The socialist programme of expropriation, i.e. of political overthrow of the bourgeoisie and liquidation of its economic domination, should in no case during the present transitional period hinder us from advancing, when the occasion warrants, the demand for the expropriation of several key branches of industry vital for national existence or of the most parasitic group of the bourgeoisie.”

Of course one can argue that during the New Deal liberalism and social democracy were still advancing reformist proposals for social planning whereas today a senile liberalism has abandoned even the mildest reformist proposal and poses no alternative to the right wing policies of retrenchment of even the most elementary forms of public facilities. This observation would be correct, but it fails to alter the fact that the distinction between socialism and liberalism has been blurred. At best such an objection could point to the fact that that in the discussion of socialism found on the WSWS, there is drawn a distinction between socialism and a senile and cowardly liberalism. But it fails to draw much of a distinction between socialism and a renewed or invigorated liberalism, one that came into prominence during the New Deal. What this indicates is that there has been a blind spot in the critique of liberalism.

Until the intervention of the Socialist Equality Party into the California election, any consistent campaign revolving around programmatic demands had been notable by its absence from the pages of the World Socialist Web Site. Instead, article after article on the World Socialist Web Site tacked on a bit of “holiday speechifying” about the need for a “world party of socialist revolution.” A typical example of this methodology is the article on Howard Dean that appeared on Dec 20th. The article provided an analysis of the Dean campaign and how the leadership of the Democratic Party had tried to marginalize Dean. The article concludes with the following remarks,

“In the end, the many millions of people opposed to the Bush administration’s policies of militarism abroad and social reaction at home will find no real alternative in Dean or in any other Democratic candidate. Such an alternative is possible only through a break with the two-party system and the emergence of an independent, mass political party of the working class.”

It is certainly the case the case that millions opposed to the Bush administration will find no real alternative in Dean, but nothing in the previous paragraphs of commentary had prepared the reader for this conclusion. In the terms of the transitional program, there is no bridge between the present consciousness of the working class and the objective requirements of the situation. The last line, that this alternative “is possible only through a break with the two-party system and the emergence of an independent, mass political party of the working class”, not only comes out of nowhere, but is devoid of any real content. Just how is this “mass political party of the working class” to emerge? What kind of organization in the working class will be necessary to bring about this mass political party, and what is the Socialist Equality Party doing to prepare it? What program will this party adopt? What will be its relationship to the traditional organizations of the working class, most importantly the trade unions? Finally, just what concrete action is the SEP proposing that its readership take to encourage the formation of this party? These are just some of the questions that come to mind if one considers the demand for a “mass political party of the working class” as part of a serious strategy aimed at mobilizing the working class.

With the SEP’s participation in the California recall campaign last fall and the entry into the 2004 Presidential race, the importance of programmatic issues has been rediscovered. However, I believe that just as the initial turn away from a struggle on programmatic issues was rooted in a turn away from theoretical issues, the return to programmatic issues is largely a pragmatic reaction to current exigencies. While I think this is still a positive turn, unless it is accompanied by a return to theoretical issues, the danger exists that it will serve only to further disorient the movement.

The statement launching the California election campaign contained the first systematic list of programmatic demands within the movement since 1996. However, as I have already indicated, the nature of the program put forward was excruciatingly timid and failed in some respects to differentiate itself from a program of radical reforms. Let us examine the programmatic demands more closely. The California recall campaign contains the following statement - and there is a similar one advertising the 2004 Presidential campaign:

“A socialist program does not mean the nationalization of everything, or the abolition of small or medium-sized businesses, which are themselves continually victimized by giant corporations and banks. Establishing a planned economy will give such businesses ready access to credit and more stable market conditions, so long as they provide decent wages and working conditions.”

If one considers that a huge percentage of all goods and services produced in the United States still come from small and medium-sized businesses, how can these enterprises co-exist with a socialist planned economy? Of course it is silly to talk of nationalization of the mom and pop corner grocery, but do we really want to take responsibility for providing credit to firms that may employ and exploit dozens and even hundreds of workers i.e. medium-sized businesses? The experience of the Soviet Union during the period of the NEP showed clearly that once pockets of “free enterprise” are allowed to coexist within a workers state, these enterprises inevitably seek to free themselves from the confines of the planned economy and come into headlong opposition with the working class. If such was the case with the modest class of relatively better of peasants and NEP-men in the Soviet Union, one can only imagine how much greater pressure would be exerted for a free hand in the market place by the owners of “medium-sized business” in the United States.

Perhaps this demand was included in the belief that it is necessary for the working class to present itself as the ally and saviour of the petit bourgeoisie. That is certainly a necessary element of a program of transitional demands. However, the petite bourgeoisie that can be enlisted as allies of the working class are most certainly not the owners of medium-sized businesses. It is from these strata that some of the most reactionary elements of American society have emerged. Rather, the real potential allies of the working class are the many millions of self-employed professionals whose jobs and circumstances of life have largely become indistinguishable from the working class in recent years. I am thinking of such professional groups as doctors that have to toil with the vagaries of HMO’s, lawyers who have to work for poverty wages at a non-profit institutions, computer consultants who are forced to search for work in a volatile market that is constantly threatened with outsourcing to cheaper intellectual labor abroad, and the second class citizens that comprise the bulk of university faculty today, adjunct teachers and graduate assistants.

There is yet another plank in the list of demands from the California recall campaign that bears some comment.

“ In the case of the most vital and critical industries—the utilities, the oil companies, the banks, the giant multinational corporations—what is required is their transformation into public utilities, under public ownership and democratic control. If California proves anything, it is the intrinsic anarchy and chaos of capitalism. The claim that the “market makes the right choices” is a self-serving lie, peddled by those whose decisions frequently determine the movement of the market—e.g., the corporate CEOs who award themselves eight- and nine-figure incomes and then proclaim that this plundering of their own companies is the result of impersonal market forces.”

The demand for the transformation of the giant oil companies and banks into “public utilities” is put forward here in the context not of workers control, as is called for in the transitional program, but the vague slogan of “democratic control”. Contrast this feeble statement with the following discussion from the transitional program:

“The struggle against unemployment is not to be considered without the calling for a broad and bold organization of public works. But public works can have a continuous and progressive significance for society, as for the unemployed themselves, only when they are made part of a general plan worked out to cover a considerable number of years. Within the framework of this plan, the workers would demand resumption, as public utilities, of work in private businesses closed as a result of the crisis. Workers’ control in such case: would be replaced by direct workers’ management.”

Although the call for ‘public works’ in the transitional program must be understood in the context of the make-work projects initiated during the Great Depression and is therefore of a different character than the current situation of California public utilities, the issue of workers control retains its significance. In the transitional program, the call for public works was coupled with a call for workers control to be exercised through structures created out of the working class itself and completely independent of any government agency. In the programmatic statement for the California election campaign, there is nothing mentioned about workers control nor any call for autonomous organizations of the working class to begin to exercise the prerogatives of management. Without the latter, the call for public works, or nationalization of industries is indistinguishable from a program advocated by certain left wing reformists who dream of achieving the type of welfare state that Britain had in the immediate postwar period when the coal mines were nationalized.

If as I am maintaining, the Socialist Equality Party has been paring down its revolutionary perspective, how has this manifested itself in the work of the movement against imperialism? It is true that there have been many excellent commentaries as well as important historical investigations as part of the campaign against the US imperialism in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, what has been missing is an active intervention within the anti-war movement to forge an alternative leadership and advance our own program for ending imperialist war. Our opposition to imperialism therefore remains on the level of propaganda. We participated in the mass anti-war marches that took place last in April of 2002, and in February and March of 2003. However, we did not march under our own banners with our own slogans. We did give out flyers at these demonstrations but the material we handed out did not propose any active program for workers and youth other than reading our Web Site. We did not call a single meeting of our own at either of the large anti-war rallies of the past 2 years. Finally, when the U.S. aggression in Afghanistan first broke out, it took the Socialist Equality Party nearly a year to organize a public meeting denouncing this act of American imperialism. The war against Afghanistan broke out in November 2001, yet we did not convene a public meeting on the issue in the U.S. until October 4, 2002 when we sponsored an event in Ann Arbor. The first and only meeting in New York took place on Dec 15, 2002. I cannot think of a similar situation in the past 65 years wherein the Trotskyist movement failed to promptly call a public meeting to rally support against imperialist war.

In themselves, these actions, or lack of action may not be very significant. But taken as a whole, they spell out a very disquieting message. The overall practice of the movement is primarily of a contemplative nature in which we are adapting ourselves to a milieu that is distant from if not alien to the working class, whether it be the radical anti-war movement or to liberals angry that they have been politically disenfranchised by the collapse of the Democratic Party. While there is nothing wrong in itself with engaging these forces in a dialogue, this has been bought at the price of abstention from the struggle to build an alternative leadership in the working class. The danger is, and I have just listed a few of the symptoms, that we will adapt our politics to the illusions congenial to these social forces.

I feel sorry for Adam Haig

2009-01-02T03:30:00.000-08:00

I feel sorry for Adam Haig and all those in the SEP who fail to see through the distortions and false arguments of the SEP leadership. Adam's article published on the WSWS is an act of self delusion, I'm pretty sure that one day Adam will regret being its author.

There is first of all a confusion over the term utopia as used by Steiner and Brenner. Adam cites Trotsky's Results and Prospects to bolster his argument against Steiner and Brenner, however, in Results and Prospects, Trotsky is criticizing the concept that there must be a socialist psychology within the working class before there can be socialism. He criticizes the "socialist ideologues" who "speak of preparing the proletariat for socialism in the sense of its being morally regenerated. The proletariat, and even ‘humanity’ in general, must first of all cast out its old egoistical nature, and altruism must become predominant in social life, etc."[1] Trotsky's critique is the same as Marx's critique of the French socialist theories, who based themselves on "the materialist doctrine men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing."[2]

Trotsky writes that "One must not confuse here the conscious striving towards socialism with socialist psychology." Trotsky writes that the "joint struggle against exploitation engenders splendid shoots of idealism, comradely solidarity and self-sacrifice." The Steiner and Brenner concept of utopia is in full agreement with the "conscious striving towards socialism." Steiner and Brenner want to revive socialism as great ideal, that is what they mean by reviving socialist consciousness within the working class. They do not hold the position that "The proletariat, and even ‘humanity’ in general, must first of all cast out its old egoistical nature, and altruism must become predominant in social life." That position actually corresponds much closer to position of Walsh, talking about the function of art[3].

Is Adam, and more generally the membership of the SEP, aware of the difference between these two conceptions? I think the SEP leadership has rather dishonestly utilized the confusion surrounding the Steiner and Brenner polemical material to avert its political responsibility. What does the SEP have to say about the Steiner and Brenner's critique of the political line of the SEP? So far they have said nothing. Adam's piece is one more attempt to change the subject. Instead of talking about the political line of the party, they want to talk about the failings of Marcuse and Fromm and condemn Steiner and Brenner using guilt by association. Even if Steiner and Brenner were in complete agreement with members of Frankfurt school, and they are absolutely not, that would in no way invalidate their political criticisms. The SEP employs the guilt by association tactic because they cannot honestly address political criticisms of Steiner and Brenner.

Another point of confusion is the term objectivism. Steiner and Brenner are not critiquing the SEP for their study of objective conditions, they are critiquing the SEP for their almost exclusive focus on objective conditions to point where a revolutionary becomes not an active social force, but a passive commentator on events (i.e. a non-revolutionary). They have given a detailed analysis of the political line of the SEP and have demonstrated the failure of the SEP to provide a consistent leadership. Having read numerous works by Trotsky, this is a recurrent theme. Revolutions are not produced simply by objective forces, a successful revolution is produced by the right combination of objective factors and revolutionary leadership.

A revolutionary party, if it is going to taken seriously, needs to present socialism as a real viable alternative. That is the significance of Trotsky's transitional demands as a bridge to socialist consciousness, and that is also the significance of Steiner and Brenner's call for utopia to revive socialism as a great ideal. This is not to say that a revolutionary party must have detailed schemes in the advance of a revolution, but that the "conscious striving towards socialism" should be encouraged and welcomed within a revolutionary party.

I'm not sure if I ever met Adam, but it does seem that his article was written in earnest. I think it is unfortunate that he does not understand what issues are being brought forward in the Steiner and Brenner polemic. That is not entirely his fault, those issues were not presented honestly by North and the leadership of the SEP. One of the primary ways that humans learn is by imitation, and unfortunately Adam has picked up the same false modes of argument that are the bread and butter of North.

[1] Results and Prospects, VII. The Pre-Requisites of Socialism
[2] Theses On Feuerbach
[3] Shallow moralizing instead of Marxism

My expulsion from the Steiner/Brenner group

2008-12-15T23:02:00.000-08:00

Just as I was being expelled from the SEP I contacted Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner of www.permanent-revolution.org. I thought they could help in my situation, but that didn't really interest them, they instead wanted me to read their polemic. While in the SEP I was neutral toward their polemic, but afterwards I came to agree with several of their positions.

Their polemic can be summed up very briefly, the SEP has failed to provide a consistent leadership for the working class. The failure to lead and engage the working class can be shown in many examples from Iraq war, the protests in Mexico, the 2008 elections, etc. The SEP has fallen back into a contemplative mode, most party work is devoted to commenting on events on the World Socialist Web Site.

This retreat can be explained in good part from the personal circumstances of the leading members and also the political conditions during the 80s and 90s. Over the years they have become burnt out on political work for which they have seen few results, at the same time they have grown to be more middle class and comfortable. They still show up a picket lines from time to time but not with serious intent to provide leadership.

It is wrong to suggest that the retreat is result of the adoption of certain philosophical conceptions. I would say instead that the SEP's embrace of objectivism and determinism is a rationalization of their retreat. I think that Steiner and Brenner are both wrong when they accuse the SEP of abandoning dialectics, Steiner and Brenner and the SEP share the same muddle headed conception of dialectics. The problem with the SEP is not their ability to cite the "law" of quantity of quality. Both the SEP and Steiner and Brenner miss the fact that dialectics was a critical method for the last three thousand years, even for Marx.

Supposing one agrees with Steiner and Brenner's political criticisms, the vital question remains, what is to be done? Do we wait year after year until the SEP finally sees that they are mistaken? Even if the SEP took every criticism to heart, would this then necessarily resolve the question of leadership within the working class?

Steiner and Brenner paint a bleak picture of the SEP, for them, the political line of the SEP on Iraq and the lack of involvement in working class struggles suggests an advanced state of degeneration. If the party has abandoned its orientation to working class to the extent that Steiner and Brenner suggest, what remains that is worth saving? At what point should a political alternative be put forward?

I think Steiner and Brenner leave far much to the imagination about what they would do differently. It has become clear in course of many correspondences that real political activity does not interest them. They want to be known and remembered for contributing to the creative development of Marxism, but to me that seems like an egotistical end. Would anyone remember James Cannon if he did no more than write polemics against the Communist Party from which he was expelled?

For a few months Steiner and Brenner have had their own discussion group for their supporters. There have been some interesting and productive discussions, but mostly there has been a repetition of points already made in the Steiner/Brenner polemic. The fatal comment for which I was removed was the suggestion that Trotsky had been fetishized by the SEP. What I meant by this was that Trotsky was praised and idolized within the SEP in a ritualistic and empty way. The way the SEP had treated Trotsky had turned me away from him, and I also made clear that I was won to Trotskyism and began to appreciate Trotsky's work when I started corresponding with Frank and Alex.

For me Trotskyism is a perspective, I made clear that I didn't have feelings of devotion toward Trotsky or any emotional entanglement. I explained that what was important was not our individual feelings toward Trotsky but our understanding of history and our desire to change the world. My further explanation only intensified the conflict. The discussion ended with Frank citing a comment of mine from the SEP's letter of expulsion to supposedly prove that I renounce Trotskyism, and Alex declaring that I was not a Trotskyist. In their methods of removing me Steiner and Brenner are no more principled than the SEP.

To suggest that to be a Trotskyist one must respond to history with a certain set of emotions is to be even more narrowly sectarian than the SEP. I have to think there were other factors behind my removal, which brings in doubt whether Steiner and Brenner are serious about their criticisms of the SEP. I think they are too wrapped up in nostalgia for the old Worker's League of seventies, with its forms of political activism, its studies of Lenin's dialectics, its veneration of Trotsky. It is almost as if they want orthodoxy for the sake of orthodoxy. My novel perspective on philosophical issues and my focus on the here and now and what is to be done does not seem to fit with their conceptions of party life.

A comment on the North vs. Steiner/Brenner polemic

2008-10-25T22:53:00.000-07:00

I was surprised to see that David North of the SEP had finally replied to the document "Marxism Without its Head or its Heart" by Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner.

Steiner and Brenner were members of the party in 1970's and were regular collaborators in the late 90's. Steiner had reapplied for membership in 1998, but his request was ignored by the leadership. Both of them know most of the present leadership personally. While they have adopted some novel positions, their perspective is grounded in Trotskyism. The claim that they are trying to smuggle alien ideas into the movement is both dishonest and false. In evaluating the SEP today they have a very clear reference point. They know the traditions of the party going back to Cannon and are arguing for a return to those traditions.

The SEP today has departed significantly from the theory and practice of Marxism. In its theory it has abandoned dialectical materialism, and in its place it has increasingly adopted methods based on pragmatism and positivism. Corresponding with its decline in theory, the party has undergone a decline in its practice. The party has abandoned the struggle for socialist consciousness in the working class and has abstained from intervening in major political events such as the New York transit strike, mass protests in Mexico, and the Iraq war.

As Marx's Theses on Feuerbach make absolutely clear, Marxism is not a contemplative science. Marxism as a science is transformative, it seeks not only to accurately cognize the objective world, but also to transform or change it. The SEP today is objectivist, because while it can often report accurately the objective world situation, it has no conception of its own place in transforming that situation. The SEP today believes that objective conditions will cut a path to socialist consciousness in the working class, and workers will automatically be drawn into the SEP when the conditions are ripe. This theory entirely neglects the role of the party in transforming the objective situation, and represents a one sided understanding of how socialist consciousness develops.

The objectivist theory of the SEP has led an abandonment of fight to build socialist consciousness in the working class. Journalism and political exposures are only one component of the fight to politically educate the working class. The working out of transitional demands as a bridge to socialist consciousness as embodied in "The Transitional Program" was an cornerstone for Bolshevism and Trotskyism in the fight to politically educate the working class.

Also part of the fight to build socialist consciousness in working class especially among the youth is to explain the possibilities that will arise under socialism. This is all that is behind Steiner and Brenner's call for the revival of utopia. The party has portrayed this call as advocating a return to pre-Marxian conceptions of socialism, but this is entirely false as anyone can tell from a careful reading their material. Utopian conceptions or "useful dreaming" as Lenin called it, have a long history in the Marxist movement, which includes Cannon's "What Socialist America Will Look Like" and Trotsky's "If America Should Go Communist."

The party's objectivist theory manifests itself in practice. The main practice of the SEP is the publication of the World Socialist Web Site. When the party does intervene, it is in a journalistic capacity. The party is completely unserious in its attempts to lead workers in their struggles. In the case the New York transit strike in 2005, the party made no demands until a day before the strike. It called for the formation of strike committees but did absolutely nothing to prepare for them and gave no guidance to the workers on how they would operate. After the strike was over the party abandoned the story of the transit strike even while opposition among transit workers grew, which led to a vote to reject the contract.

As Steiner and Brenner point out, the practices of the party in the days of Cannon were a great deal different. In the Minneapolis Teamster strikes of 1934, Trotskyists played a leading role in the preparation, organization, direction of the strike. Cannon himself flew to Minneapolis so that he could provide daily guidance to the workers in the course of the strike. Steiner and Brenner maintain that the primary way that workers become politically consciousness is in the course of their own struggles, and that showing workers how to win their battles is crucial to building socialist consciousness in the working class.

In 2006, there were massive demonstrations in Mexico to protest election fraud and demand a recount in the Mexican presidential election. At one demonstration, over a million people participated, making it the largest demonstration in Mexican history. Revolutionary sentiments were widespread among the mostly working class participants. Under these conditions, the SEP made no intervention, did not hold any meetings on the perspective for revolution in Mexico, and made no programmatic statements.

During the period of mass protests the party's activity was again limited to journalism, and out of the dozen or so articles posted only one was posted in spanish. The party was well within its means to send a reporting team to Mexico given that many comrades in the US, including Bill Van Auken, speak spanish. The party has charged Steiner and Brenner with advocating "adventurism", but such a charge is nonsense. Nowhere do Steiner and Brenner advocate that the SEP lead an insurrection or anything that would put comrades at risk. At the very least, the party could send a correspondents to the scene, as they have done in similar cases in France and elsewhere.

In the case the Iraq war, the SEP has adapted itself to the bourgeois nationalist movement led by Sadr and abandoned the theory of permanent revolution as a perspective for the Iraqi working class. Under conditions of religious and ethnic divisions and colonial domination, the working class was the only force capable waging a consistent struggle against imperialism. During the course of the war, the SEP has never fought to develop a socialist program and perspective for the Iraqi working class. Such a fight would also mean countering religious backwardness and ethnic prejudice and exposing leaders like Sadr in subordinating the working class to the perspective of bourgeois nationalism.

Steiner and Brenner have documented how the WSWS has uncritically championed the Sadr and Sadrist movement in Iraq. The WSWS line on Iraq is especially significant considering the historical attitude of the Trotskyist movement toward bourgeois nationalism, and the attitude of the party in the past and even today toward bourgeois nationalist leaders such as Chavez. The attitude of the WSWS toward Sadr is not far from the positions of Hansen and Cannon in championing Castro and Guevera as "natural Marxists" during the SWP's period of degeneration in the 1960's.

What does North have to say about all this? Absolutely nothing. After complaining about a lack of documentation in regard to decay of the SEP political line, North now has nothing to say about the political line of the SEP! Instead he has engaged in an extended attempt at character assassination directed personally at Alex Steiner. North's latest reply demonstrates his own theoretical and political bankruptcy (and I might add, his dishonesty), and confirms in large measure the criticisms contained in "Marxism Without its Head or its Heart."

Clarification

2008-10-18T19:26:00.000-07:00

I would like to respond to some false claims that are apparently being made about me within the SEP. There may be others, but I no longer participate in the internal life of that organization so I can't know to what extent my views have been distorted or events are misrepresented. The truth of events is many sided, it is not always expressed by a single view point. This is a concept entirely foreign to the SEP where the opinion of the leadership is for all time the only valid and correct interpretation of events.

The SEP claims that I was not expelled. This is simply not true. According to common dictionary definitions, expel means "to force to leave; to deprive of membership", and this is certainly a valid description of what occurred. I did not resign or quit the SEP, the SEP revoked my membership rights and removed me from the ISSE steering committee. Those actions certainly do constitute expulsion from the group. I can no longer attend branch meetings and I was prevented from attending the congress. During the week of the congress the SEP went so far as to claim that I was a security threat and barred another member from attending because he had met with me. The SEP would even like to prevent me from attending public events.

The SEP offers a bureaucratic argument that a "provisional member" cannot be technically expelled from their group. Even if one accepts this argument, which no one should, what does it say about an organization that denies full membership rights to an active productive member of the group for more than two years? The SEP never explained the difference between a provisional member and a full member or the respective rights of each or how one becomes a full member. I was actually told twice that I was full member, and that seemed reasonable given my contributions to the election campaign in 2006 and my high level of agreement at that time. From there I was appointed to the steering committee of the ISSE, I wrote articles for the WSWS, I started an SEP chapter at my school. To promote a "provisional member" into the leadership of the ISSE, and collaborate as they did with me, would only reveal the SEP to be an opportunist organization. The alternative is no more favorable, if I was a "full member" as I was the told, then the whole "membership review process" was nothing more than a bureaucratic sham to suppress free discussion within the organization.

The other claim is that I called the SEP diseased. That is true, but that comment is stripped from its context and presented in a false way, specifically it is said that because of this I don't think much of the SEP or its members. I originally made this remark in email to my branch. I was commenting on a discussion that had taken place on the ISSE internal forum, I also forwarded those exchanges to my branch members. Obviously I did not intend to say that my branch was diseased or that the party as a whole was diseased, I was commenting only on the discussion within the ISSE. Several ISSE members were attacking me as if I were a political opponent, they had misrepresented my views, and went so far as to equate my views with known opponents of Marxism. Even if I was mistaken in my views, I thought that this was no way for a discussion to proceed within the party. From that discussion I concluded that the party was not in good health. The email to my branch was a complaint, I was hoping that someone would intervene or at least recognize that a problem existed. The response by the party was the very opposite, they enlisted even more people to confront my views using the same tactics.

My remark about the party being diseased was not an attempt to condemn the membership or the party. At that time I still had great respect and admiration for certain party members. There were only a few members that I thought little of, appointed leaders with no real accomplishments. Since being expelled I would say my view of the party has declined substantially. I feel personally betrayed by many party members. Only one member actually defended me that I know of, and he was in the Canadian section. None of the American comrades apparently bothered themselves, I don't whether this was out of fear, apathy, or personal opportunism.

Personal matters aside, it clear to me now that the SEP exists in a state of degeneration and my own expulsion was merely a product of that degeneration. This degeneration is manifested in the practical work of the party, the political line, the theoretical development, and even the kinds of people that are promoted to leadership positions. This subject has been dealt with extensively in the polemic "Marxism Without Its Head or its Heart" by Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner. The politics of the SEP is one of desperation, they clearly do not have a secure footing. The 2008 elections would seem to present immense opportunities for a socialist party, given the crisis confronting the capitalist system, yet the SEP can only muster a write-in campaign about a month and a half before the election. Furthermore, as my report makes clear, this is a campaign which barely touches upon programmatic issues and does not present the SEP as a credible alternative to the problems facing workers.

SEP 2008 election campaign

2008-10-09T17:45:00.000-07:00

I got a chance yesterday to see David North of the Socialist Equality Party speak in Ann Arbor. The SEP has abstained from the 2008 elections, and instead launched a series of lectures a month and half before the election. These events are for most part staged on college campuses, and North was in Ann Arbor speaking to students of the University of Michigan. I wasn't particularly anxious to go to the event, since I am well familiar with SEP's politics, and the leadership of the party had treated me so poorly, but I thought it was important to at least confirm for myself what kind of organization the SEP has become.

First of all it was clear that the SEP did not want me at the event. As I was entering the building, I got a rather cold greeting from one former "comrade." As soon as I took my seat in the room, Larry Porter and Jerry White quickly convened a meeting outside the room to determine what to do with me. Both came back, and Larry stood over me, and in a very threatening tone said that I had no business there, that I had called the party diseased, that I told people I had been expelled when I had not been expelled. I corrected him, I said that I had been expelled. He said I that I was going to cause a scene and that I should leave. I said I just wanted to observe. He said more loudly, "Leave now!" There are some good reasons to fear Larry
physically, but I decided to stand my ground, I asked Larry why. Finally, David North intervened and said that I could stay if I wanted to. I respect North for letting me stay, but I think this incident speaks volumes about the SEP's real stance toward democratic rights and freedom of discussion.

As for the content of North's presentation, it was roughly divided into three parts, a report which consisted mostly of facts and figures on the economic crisis, the size of the bailouts and so forth. Then North moved onto the cause of the crisis with details on sub prime mortgages, high risk loans, and consumer dept. Finally there were some vague predictions about what is to come. Briefly, at the very end, he predicted that the working class would become an active force and class struggles would play a larger role. There was essentially nothing significant in North's remarks, one could obtain much of the same information from following the bourgeois media day to day. Of course, North has a presentation style that could fool someone into thinking that he had said something profound, and indeed most SEP members in attendance probably thought they did hear something profound.

What it is striking about this presentation is that this is supposedly a campaign election event, yet there was virtually no mention of the SEP's own election campaign, or how the SEP would solve the crisis and so forth. Jerry White was in the audience but made no remarks, and was not introduced. In the Q/A session, the campaign was briefly mentioned by North, but he noted that the candidates were not even on the ballot. This evoked a chuckle from Larry, who was standing in the back photographing North and others. It is clear that the SEP does not take its own election campaign seriously. At the very end of the event, Joe Kay introduced himself as Joe Kishore and asked everyone to donate to the SEP's election campaign. At that point, I and probably others were thinking, "what election campaign?" You would think that the national secretary would have more of a public presence than to simply ask for donations for a non-existent election campaign.

Speaking from a theoretical perspective, the content of North's report and his responses during the QA were thoroughly objectivist. For a socialist, this means to adopt a contemplative stance toward events and to downplay or even neglect the role of leadership. He stated several times that objective conditions would cut a path to socialist consciousness in the working class. He said that the working class would advance its own solutions to the crisis. Anyone familiar with Trotskyism should be thinking: "What is the role of the party? What is the purpose of a program?"

Something must be said about the context of this event. The University of Michigan is where the most privileged sections of the population send their children, and I might add, many SEP sons and daughters attend. The school has an endowment of 7.8 billion dollars, which is the third largest of public universities in the US. U of M, along with a handful of other elite universities, are the training grounds for the intelligentsia in the US. The degree of isolation of this layer from the general working population was expressed in one students question, "Does the working class exist?" This is the layer that SEP is very consciously appealing to. Larry had even told me once that strategy of the SEP is to win a layer of the intelligentsia to the SEP through the ISSE. Supposedly the ISSE is to turn the students to the working class, but the SEP conducts no real work within the working class. What are these students to do other than participate in sterile discussion groups, and listen to more objectivist lectures?

Against Sectarianism

2008-09-28T21:35:00.000-07:00

In the second part of their statement of principles the SEP emphasizes the importance of Trotsky's Transitional Program and of transitional demands. I wonder how many in the SEP have really read the Transitional Program closely. If they did they would encounter the section "Against Sectarianism" directed against exactly the kind of practices found within the SEP. I have emphasized parts of this section to make it clear.

"Under the influence of the betrayal by the historical organizations of the proletariat, certain sectarian moods and groupings of various kinds arise or are regenerated at the periphery of the Fourth International. At their base lies a refusal to struggle for partial and transitional demands, i.e., for the elementary interests and needs of the working masses, as they are today. Preparing for the revolution means to the sectarians, convincing themselves of the superiority of socialism. They propose turning their backs on the "old" trade unions, i.e., to tens of millions of organized workers – as if the masses could somehow live outside of the conditions of the actual class struggle!

They remain indifferent to the inner struggle within reformist organizations – as if one could win the masses without intervening in their daily strife! They refuse to draw a distinction between the bourgeois democracy and fascism – as if the masses could help but feel the difference on every hand!

Sectarians are capable of differentiating between but two colors: red and black. So as not to tempt themselves, they simplify reality. They refuse to draw a distinction between the fighting camps in Spain for the reason that both camps have a bourgeois character. For the same reason they consider it necessary to preserve "neutrality" in the war between Japan and China. They deny the principled difference between the USSR and the imperialist countries, and because of the reactionary policies of the Soviet bureaucracy they reject defense of the new forms of property, created by the October Revolution, against the onslaughts of imperialism. Incapable of finding access to the masses, they therefore zealously accuse the masses of inability to raise themselves to revolutionary ideas.

These sterile politicians generally have no need of a bridge in the form of transitional demands because they do not intend to cross over to the other shore. They simply dawdle in one place, satisfying themselves with a repetition of the same meager abstractions. Political events are for them an occasion for comment but not for action. Since sectarians as in genera every kind of blunderer and miracle-man, are toppled by reality at each step, they live in a state of perpetual exasperation, complaining about the "regime" and the "methods" and ceaselessly wallowing in small intrigues. In their own circles they customarily carry on a regime of despotism. The political prostration of sectarianism serves to complement, shadow-like, the prostration of opportunism, revealing no revolutionary vistas. In practical politics, sectarians unite with opportunists, particularly with centrists, every time in the struggle against Marxism.

Most of the sectarian groups and cliques, nourished on accidental crumbs from the table of the Fourth International lead an "independent" organizational existence, with great pretensions but without the least chance for success. Bolshevik-Leninists, without waste of time, calmly leave these groups to their own fate. However, sectarian tendencies are to be found also in our own ranks and display a ruinous influence on the work of the individual sections. It is impossible to make any further compromise with them even for a single day. A correct policy regarding trade unions is a basic condition for adherence to the Fourth International. He who does not seek and does not find the road to the masses is not a fighter but a dead weight to the party. A program is formulated not for the editorial board or for the leaders of discussion clubs, but for the revolutionary action of millions. The cleansing of the ranks of the Fourth International of sectarianism and incurable sectarians is a primary condition for revolutionary success."

Theoretical education

2008-08-15T17:35:00.000-07:00

One overall striking feature of my experience with the SEP, is the party's attitude toward answering theoretical questions. In terms of my own situation, how much conflict could have been avoided if the party took the approach of patiently explaining theory, answering every question as it arises, and carefully and thoughtfully pointing out mistakes? While the process might be time consuming, it is necessary for the education of not only the individual but the party as whole. Just because these questions do not arise in the normal course of party life does not mean that party as a whole has a common or adequate understanding of such questions. In fact, I know that comrades in the ISSE did not have an understanding of the issues that I raised and probably still do not. When the party instead treats every theoretical question or criticism as if it were an act of treachery, how many members are going to come forward with their own questions? I don't believe that either Cannon or Trotsky would take such an approach. I think they would, as I do, look at every question as an opportunity for the education of cadre.

The hostility toward my own questions and positions comes from the fact that the party is utterly incapable of thinking through theoretical issues. On questions of theory, the party is thoroughly scholastic. Individual members can quote from Trotsky or Lenin, but they have failed to assimilate the full meaning of those quotes and the theoretical understanding that formed the basis for those quotes. Therefore any question that falls outside the sphere addressed by quotations can not be answered. To appreciate Trotsky or Lenin, and to really embody the spirit of their practice, you need a deep appreciation of Marx. Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism can only be fully understood and appreciated once one has an adequate understanding of Marxism itself.

The lack of theoretical understanding is not just confined to the younger members, leading members of the party, ones with over thirty years of experience, show an inadequate understanding of basic concepts such as dialectics. Some of the older members simply defer to David North, or worse, Joe Kay, for answers to theoretical questions. While the former is simply inaccessible to most members, the latter actively works to suppress discussion.

Theory should not be the exclusive province of one or two members in the party, a basic theoretical education should be a part of every member's training. Questions should be encouraged, and the party should work to patiently and thoughtfully address the questions of newer members. Theory does affect practice. I plan on publishing a new article soon which should explain the importance of dialectics for revolutionary practice, something the party was simply incapable of explaining to me.

James Cannon on party democracy

2008-07-23T08:32:00.000-07:00

"Probably the hardest lesson I had to learn from Trotsky, after ten years of bad schooling through the Communist Party faction fights, was to let organizational questions wait until the political questions at issue were fully clarified, not only in the National Committee but also in the ranks of the party. It is no exaggeration, but the full and final truth, that our party owes its very existence today to the fact that some of us learned this hard lesson and learned also how to apply it in practice.

From that point of view, in my opinion, the impending plenum should be conceived of as a school for the education and clarification of the party on the political issues involved in the new disputes, most of which grew out of earlier disputes with some new trimmings and absurdities.

This aim will be best served if the attacks and criticisms are answered point by point in an atmosphere free from poisonous personal recriminations and venomous threats of organization discipline. Our young comrades need above all to learn; and this is the best, in fact the only way, for them to learn what they need to know about the new disputes. They don’t know it all yet. The fact that some of them probably think they already know everything, only makes it more advisable to turn the plenum sessions into a school with questions and answers freely and patiently passed back and forth.

The classic example for all time, in this matter of conducting political disputes for the education of the cadres, is set forth in the two books which grew out of the fundamental conflict with the petty-bourgeois opposition in 1939-40.[2] I think these books, twenty-six years after, are still fresh and alive because they attempt to answer and clarify all important questions involved in the dispute, and leave discipline and organizational measures aside for later consideration."

...

"Not the least of our reasons for remaining alive for thirty-eight years, and growing a little, and now being in a position to capitalize on new opportunities, was the flexible democracy of our party. We never tried to settle differences of opinion by suppression. Free discussion - not every day in the week but at stated regular times, with full guarantees for the minority - is a necessary condition for the health and strength of an organization such as ours.

There's no guarantee that factionalism won't get out of hand. I don't want to be an advocate of factionalism - unless anybody picks on me and runs the party the wrong way and doesn't want to give me a chance to protest about it! The general experience of the international movement has shown that excesses of factionalism can be very dangerous and destructive to a party. In my book, The First Ten Years of American Communism,[5] I put all the necessary emphasis on the negative side of the factional struggles which became unprincipled. But on the other hand, if a party can live year after year without any factional disturbances, it may not be a sign of health - it may be a sign that the party's asleep; that it's not a real live party. In a live party, you have differences, differences of appraisal, and so on. But that's a sign of life."

...

"I believe that these considerations have more weight now than ever before in the thirty-eight-year history of our party. In the present political climate and with the present changing composition of the party, democratic centralism must be applied flexibly. At least ninety percent of the emphasis should be placed on the democratic side and not on any crackpot schemes to “streamline” the party to the point where questions are unwelcomed and criticism and discussion stifled. That is a prescription to kill the party before it gets a chance to show how it can handle and assimilate an expanding membership of new young people, who don’t know it all to start with, but have to learn and grow in the course of explication and discussion in a free, democratic atmosphere."

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/fit/dontstrangle.htm

My expulsion from the SEP

2008-07-17T12:35:00.000-07:00

In response to my Open Letter, I have been asked to clarify the events leading up to my expulsion. In the letter I have already explained part of my background. I was a member the ISSE steering committee and attended the initial meetings of the committee over a year ago. Shortly after the creation of the ISSE, we had created an online discussion board for giving reports making proposals or raising concerns. Discussion was mostly confined to reports on the work of various campuses and online work. I was initially a part of the subcommittee for online work.

In October or so of last year, I started a discussion about Marx's method. It was my contention, and still is, that the method of Marxism was misunderstood, and this was partly the result of Engels's Anti-Duhring and the Dialectics of Nature. I saw in Engels work, the imposing of certain Hegelian conceptions onto material reality. I saw this as counter to Marx's approach which was formulate conceptions from the study of material reality much in the same way as a natural scientist. To support my case, I had quoted from the German Ideology. In retrospect, my understanding of Marxist science was somewhat in error. These errors in my understanding have been gradually corrected as I began to understand more deeply the content of Marx's work.

This discussion turned very sharp almost immediately. I was accused of having the same positions as known opponents of Marxism like James Burnham. I was also accused of holding various points of view from pragmatism, postmodernism, positivism, idealism. These labels were applied without any explanation, and did nothing to advance the discussion. The utter hostility that was present in the discussion led me to a conclusion that party was not healthy. In an email I referred to the party as diseased, a statement which I had soon apologized for.

Earlier this year, an educational subcommittee of the ISSE was formed of which I was one of the four members. The committee met every week to discuss the construction of a curriculum for the ISSE. From the start, there was conflict over how to approach the construction of a curriculum. I had argued for an assessment to be made of the body of Marxist works, this was opposed by other members already familiar with my positions. This opposition took an undemocratic form when one member of the committee decided to publish the first report of the committee over my objection. This report was to determine how the committee was to proceed, and absent was any conception of making an assessment.

In my protest against the decision to publish the report, I had made the statement that the various texts were being treated as religious texts, that the committee was against any attempt to rationalize its selections to explain why this or that text should be read as part of a comprehensive whole. In the next meeting of the steering committee my remarks were taken out of context in an attempt to condemn me.

When it came to selecting the texts themselves, decisions were made outside of committee meetings. Selections I had made from the German Ideology and the Holy family were excluded. The exclusion of these texts was itself never formally voted upon by the committee. After it became clear that my input was being consciously excluded, I ended my participation in the committee.

Just about this time, I was informed in my branch, that according to party records I was never made a full member of the party, I was provisional member and that my membership was going to be reviewed. The circumstances for the review of my membership were highly dubious, as I was already told that I was full member, and the timing corresponding with my conflict within the educational subcommittee.

The letter written to me by the political committee was almost exclusively devoted to the most offensive statements that I had made, statements made in the course of heated conflict. There was no objective or balanced assessment of my record as a party member. Some of past differences about the nature of the Soviet state were raised in the letter, but as my Open Letter makes clear, these differences were in no way irreconcilable.

The letter extended my membership by three months. I was given three months to agree with the party on questions dialectics and soviet state. I was also warned about my behavior. On the questions of dialectics and soviet state I fully intended to work through my differences with the party. I have never thought that my differences with the party on these question were fundamental, I thought the way to reconcile my differences was to arrive at a more nuanced position.

I wrote the article on dialectics to explain Marx's dialectic by explaining the forms of dialectic that preceded Marx. This article was met by intense hostility. The article has been denounced as "shoddy," "eclectic," "slapped together without proofreading." Aside from a few questions, the article went weeks without anyone actually dealing seriously with its content. The editorial board of the WSWS refused to publish the article, and did not offer any suggestions as to what would make the article publishable.

In the course of steering committee meetings, certain members of the committee consciously distorted my views saying that my position was an idealist position based on single quotation from me taken out of context. This member in particular, was the same member who had taken my remarks out of context about the way in which the educational committee had proceeded. I had called this act out for what it was, an instance of fraud. Also, in an email written against me, one member tried to make me out to be an opponent of Trotskyism and made several obvious distortions of my positions. I called these distortions lies, because this member in particular continually distorts my positions to the point where a definite a pattern can be seen.

Just about this time, I was informed that the three month extension of my membership had expired, and my branch was to decide on my membership. The decision was made to revoke my membership. This decision was adopted by the political committee, which in turn removed me from the steering committee. The letter written to me by the political committee completely evaded a discussion of the political issues and instead focussed on my conduct. It said that I accused members of being "liars" and "frauds", but that was not the case. I showed that members had committed instances of fraud, and made deliberately false statements. The point of exposing these acts of fraud and lies has always been to put a stop to them by making other members conscious of these methods.

In retrospect, it seems that I may have been deliberately provoked by certain members who are not only members of the steering committee but also members of the political committee. In the course of making various statements, I was never warned about the conduct for which I was expelled. It was never clear to me that in making these statements that I was providing ammunition to political opponents within the political committee to use against me. The provocation against me and my expulsion appears to be simply a tactical consideration of the leadership. At the time that my membership was first being reviewed, I was told by a leading member of the party, that concerns were being expressed within the political committee that I would form a faction. It seem that the leadership considers me to be so great a threat that it decided to expel me from the party.

Open letter to the ISSE

2008-07-15T18:20:00.000-07:00

Dear comrades of the ISSE,

As some of you know I've been expelled from the SEP. The move to expel me without any attempt to resolve or even state the political and theoretical differences that prevent my membership was an unprincipled action by the leadership. The leadership has instead focussed exclusively on my 'conduct', however the 'conduct' that I have been singled out for is nothing more than fighting against deliberate distortions and misrepresentations of my views. The process by which my membership was brought up and reviewed was a sham, considering that I had already been told that I was a full member more than once during the 2006 election campaign.

As a party member, my record was quite good. In 2006, I campaigned to get our candidates on the ballot in Michigan, Illinois, New York, and California. I wrote numerous articles on the World Socialist Web Site. I responded to almost any request for help, whether is was petitioning, campaigning, interventions at the Detroit teachers strike, the GM strike, the American axle strike. On my own initiative I started and established an ISSE presence on the campus of Oakland University. I held and organized successful meetings on the question of a war with Iran, and held multiple successful showings of 'Tsar to Lenin', showing the film three times on my campus. I had never missed a branch meeting. Despite claims to contrary, I have never violated the party discipline. I have always maintained the party line, even while expressing disagreements on certain issues such as educational work or dialectics.

During my experience with the party I have noticed several disturbing signs. Whether or not the party consciously intended to force Joe Hargrave out of the party, the main effect of North's action at the steering committee meeting has been to intimidate and serve as a warning to members of the committee of which I was a part. Every step in Hargrave's subsequent degeneration has been absurdly celebrated by the leadership as if this were somehow a confirmation of the political perspective of the SEP and therefore equally a warning against anyone who would dare express differences over the practice of the ISEE.

In reality, the degeneration of a weak individual like Hargrave only confirms that the party as a collective is stronger politically than a lone individual with limited political experience. Given that Hargrave had a religious background and had reportedly shown rightward tendencies prior to resigning, his political evolution was not all unpredictable. Any socialist who has not yet renounced religion is clearly not standing on his own two feet politically. The way that the party has sought to continually measure itself against a weak individual like Hargrave is a real act of desperation on the part of the leadership. This has even taken the form of making jokes about Hargrave at aggregate meetings, which is not only an appeal to the worst in the membership, but is a real sign of sickness within the party.

The desperation of the party leadership is also shown in the organization of the founding ISSE conference. Prior to the conference, the party denied admittance of several of Hargrave's contacts unless they sided with the party in the correspondence between Hargrave. After the conference, at my branch meeting, one of the leaders boasted that there was no Hargrave faction at the conference, this was after the leadership had already taken conscious steps to prevent such a faction from forming!

When seen in the context of the party's handling of Hargrave and his contacts, the decision by the leadership to expel me from the party is not at all surprising. When intimidation and bullying fail, the SEP has no problem with expelling anyone with a critical and independent view. My expulsion is another attempt to suppress critical discussion within the SEP.

Of course, there have been other issues. I have raised theoretical differences in the past, but these differences in no way make me an opponent of Trotskyism as some have tried to maintain. I have questioned Trotsky's terminology of calling the bureaucracy a caste rather than a class, and his definition of Soviet Union as a worker's state. These issues are ones that are entirely legitimate topics of discussion for someone new to the party. At this point, I am very close to agreement with Trotsky.

I have also asked the party about its position on Tony Cliff's theory of state capitalism. To this date, the party has made no analysis of Cliff's theory. I have recently reread parts of Cliffs work, and while Cliff fills in some important gaps in how workers control was eroded in Soviet Union, his labeling of bureaucracy as a capitalist class was incorrect given the lack of individual property rights and the right to inheritance. State property was an achievement of the revolution, the prerequisite for workers control, and a constraint on the actions of the bureaucracy.

I have disagreed with pseudo-application of dialectics by certain members, and have sought to explain Marxists dialectics in a concrete way. I wrote an article which was intended for publication on the World Socialist Web Site, and was intended to educate the membership. While there may be problems with my article, no one can claim that my article is somehow hostile to Marxism or Trotskyism. My article could easily be used to reinforce Trotsky's position that dialectics is important in understanding the attitude of the revolutionary party toward the Soviet Union. If the SEP were a healthy party, it would welcome an investigation into the foundations of Marxism as part of its theoretical development.

As it should be clear to anyone, my differences with the party were not at all irreconcilable as some have maintained. My expulsion from the party is not just an attack on my own democratic rights within the SEP, it is more fundamentally an attack on the democratic rights of all members. I don't think it is a coincidence, that the party to this date lacks a constitution and its leaders never stand for election. Leaders in the SEP are appointed, and not for any outstanding individual qualities, but for an expectation to echo North's views. At aggregate meetings, documents are sent out less than a day before hand, giving members little time to review the material or raise criticisms. The lack of democracy and the hostility of the party toward theoretical discussions is symptomatic of deeper problems within the party.

I am addressing this letter to members of the ISSE, because it is up to the younger members in the ISSE and SEP especially to think critically about political and theoretical questions, to ask questions and raise criticisms. The leadership at this point consciously works to suppress critical discussion and add confusion to the debate. My own capacity is limited, now that I've been expelled from the party, but I am willing to engage in discussions or meet if you happen to be in the Detroit area. I have also started a blog where you can find at the moment my unpublished article on dialectics:

http://socialism-science.blogspot.com/

I hope that you give the issues raised by my expulsion a serious consideration, and I ask that you forward this letter to comrades in the ISSE that may not have received it. Please contact me if you support any of the criticisms that I have raised, or if you have questions.

Sincerely,
Mark

Marx's dialectical method

2008-06-28T15:29:00.000-07:00

I am posting an article I had originally intended for publication on the World Socialist Web Site. The article is intended to clarify long standing confusions within the Marxist movement with respect to Marx's dialectic. The article was rejected for publication on the World Socialist Web Site. I have included the article also the response from the editorial board.

---

Dear Mark,

The WSWS Editorial Board has reviewed your article and has decided not to publish it. A review of the history of dialectics would require a much more serious study of philosophy and the history of the Marxist movement. If you are interested in these questions, I would encourage you to make a close study of such works as Engels' Anti-Duhring, Trotsky's In Defense of Marxism, Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, and the current polemic with Steiner and Brenner.

Best regards,

Jerry White

---

Marx's dialectical method

By Mark Rainer

Within the Marxist movement few understand Marx's dialectic. Marx's dialectic is commonly understood as the opposite of Hegel's dialectic, yet the term dialectic is not understood, and few can point to concrete examples of Marx's dialectic. Often Marx's dialectics is associated with Hegelian concepts like, quantity into quality, negation of the negation, and the unity of opposites. While Marx makes passing reference to such Hegelian conceptions in Capital, his dialectic has a fundamentally different basis.

To understand Marx's dialectic it is helpful to be aquatinted with the earlier forms of the dialectic.The dialectic has been known at least since the times of ancient Greece, and finds a systematic exposition of its form and workings in Aristotle's Topica. In Book I of Topica Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of reasoning. Aristotle writes:

"Reasoning is a discussion in which, certain things having been laid down, something other than these things necessarily results through them. Reasoning is demonstration when it proceeds from premises which are true and primary or of such a kind that we have derived our original knowledge of the through premises which are primary and true. Reasoning is dialectical which reasons from generally accepted opinions."

Demonstration establishes new scientific knowledge by means of the syllogism. The syllogism is a rule by which a conclusion can be drawn given certain premises. The first premises or first principles, premises that are true and primary, are themselves undemonstrable. They are the base upon which all other knowledge rests and must be established by the means of induction, that is, positing a universal principle by generalizing from several particular examples. The human faculty by which induction proceeds is intuition.

Aristotle's treatise on the syllogism, the Prior Analytics, is the first systematic study available of what we know today as formal logic. Modern logic developed in the 19th century with the works of Pierce, Frege and Boole, and has seen its greatest development and growth in the 20th century. Formal logic is the foundation for mathematics and computer science, and therefore is indispensable for the natural sciences. Everywhere that computers are applied, from the internet and climate models, to all sectors of the economy, one finds the application of formal logic.

Mathematical knowledge is also based on demonstration. The concept of a mathematical proof is the same as the philosophical concept of 'demonstration'. In mathematics, theorems, or true mathematical statements, are shown to follow logically from other theorems or from axioms using rules of deduction. Axioms are the same as the 'first principles' of Aristotle's logic.

The other form of reasoning for Aristotle is dialectical reasoning. The dialectic involves at least two participants, the questioner, or dialectician, and an answerer. The dialectic proceeds from a thesis that merely expressed a commonly held view, or a view of distinguished person. Every thesis has an opposite or anti-thesis, and there is rigid dichotomy between thesis and anti-thesis, either one or the other is true, but both cannot be true.

The object of the dialectician is to obtain a concession from the answerer or opponent that the thesis does not hold and therefore the opposite of the thesis does hold. The dialectician achieves this by securing a number of premises from which a contradiction to the thesis must necessary follow. The dialectic proceeds by dialectical propositions, questions which can only be answered either yes or no.

The art of the dialectic consists of the dialectician concealing the conclusion that will follow in the process of securing necessary premises. Aristotle gives advice about how questions should be arranged and how to approach different opponents. A good questioner will make the answerer give the most paradoxical replies. A good answerer will make it seem that the paradoxical is not his or her fault, but a problem with the initial thesis, from which point the answerer may advance another thesis to correct the flaw. The new thesis, called the synthesis, is regarded as a refinement of the original thesis; it preserves the truth of thesis while canceling the error or problem.

Aristotle's treatise on dialectics, Topica, examines the different kinds of propositions that one encounters in a dialectical argument. The examination of a thesis is part of the preparation for a dialectical argument, the discovery of the necessary premises from which the thesis can be refuted. Of course, the dialectical argument, or dialogue, is not in itself necessary to show that the opposite of a thesis is true. All one needs to do is show that a contradiction to thesis must result from established facts and knowledge.

In mathematics, a proof by contradiction proceeds in exactly this way. One begins by making an assumption and shows that a contradiction must result from the given assumption, and therefore the opposite of the assumption must be true. Euclid's proof that there are an infinite number of primes is one the earliest examples of a proof by contradiction. Euclid begins by assuming the opposite, that there are only a finite number of primes, and shows that a contradiction must result from this assumption, and therefore the opposite must be true, that there are an infinite number of primes.

Both the dialectic and proof by contradiction rest of the principle of excluded middle. This principle states that for any proposition either the proposition is true, or its negation or opposite is true. There is, in fact, a third possibility - that the proposition in question is paradoxical in which case it must examined and shown to be paradoxical.

A paradoxical proposition is one in which assuming the proposition is true leads to the conclusion the opposite proposition is true, and vice versa. The classic example of a paradox is called the liars paradox, which considers the following question: "A man says that he is lying. Is what he says true or false?" Suppose that the man is lying, then his admittance that he is lying is a true statement and therefore he is telling the truth. Conversely, supposing that he is telling truth, his statement that he is lying is a lie, therefore he is lying.

The dialectic was popular in ancient Greek philosophy. Plato's philosophy was presented as series of dialogues between Socrates and various distinguished opponents, with Socrates playing the role of the dialectician. As the dialogue progresses the knowledge of the subject for the participants becomes expanded and refined. Generally the dialectic accurately reflects the way that knowledge develops, through contradiction and refinement.

The dialectic resurfaced in German philosophy in the works Kant, Fitche, Schelling and Hegel. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant had demonstrated that for certain metaphysical propositions, both the proposition and its opposite are equally valid, he called these opposed propositions antimonies. Kant gives the example of four such propositions in the field of cosmology, he gives a proof of each and their opposite using proof by contradiction. However the existence of such proofs implies the original proposition is self-contradictory, or paradoxical. Kant's solution, and his application of the dialectical method, was to show problems with underlying conceptions employed, and to reject both the proposition and its opposite as false.

The antinomies of Kant made a deep impression on Hegel. Hegel felt that "the Antinomies are not confined to the four special objects taken from Cosmology: they appear in all objects of every kind, in all conceptions, notions, and Ideas." In other words, every concept is self-contradictory, every concept considered valid gives rise to its opposite considered equally valid, the contradiction that results requires a new concept or synthesis; this is the generating principle in Hegel's Logic.

Among Hegel’s criticisms of Kant was that his categories of pure thought were not deduced. Hegel felt that philosophy must be a system, Hegel wrote: "Unless it is a system, a philosophy is not a scientific production. Unsystematic philosophizing can only be expected to give expression to personal peculiarities of mind, and has no principle for the regulation of its contents."

Hegel believed that philosophy as a branch of science required its own method different from that of the empirical sciences and mathematics. In philosophy nothing should be presupposed, every concept should be deduced and shown to be necessary, and further, philosophy should show the connections between concepts. For Hegel the dialectical method was the scientific means for elaborating the system of philosophy.

Every logical entity or category in Hegel's Logic has three sides or 'moments': " [a] the Abstract side, or that of understanding; [b] the Dialectical, or that of negative reason; [c] the Speculative, or that of positive reason."

Hegel's Logic proceeds from lower to higher, with the lowest category being the simplest and most the abstract and highest category the most complex and concrete. Hegel begins with the simplest conception of reality Being. From the concept of Being he deduces the concept of Nothing. The incompatibility of Being and Nothing gives rise to Becoming which represents the passage from Being into Nothing, and from Nothing into Being. The final category in the Logic is the Absolute which fully comprehends reality and completes the Logic.

Comparing Hegel’s dialectic with that of ancient Greece the first two moments can be regarded as the thesis and antithesis respectively, and the third moment as the synthesis which reconciles and incorporates the first and second moments. The synthesis preserves the truth of the prior categories, and in this way categories assume a more concrete form or rather they acquire more content than the prior categories. With very few exceptions, Hegel's entire system is developed using this triadic form, with each synthesis giving rise to its own opposite which in turn needs to be reconciled.

Hegel believed that his philosophy incorporated and preserved every other prior philosophy as moments in his Logic. He believed that the "same evolution of thought which is exhibited in the history of philosophy is presented in the System of Philosophy itself". Hegel's philosophy therefore has been aptly called a logic of philosophy, showing the necessary development of philosophic thought.

It has been commonly thought that Hegel denied the principle of non-contradiction. In fact, Hegel's dialectics like every other form dialectics deserving of the name rests on the principle of non-contradiction. If it were not the case, the third moment, or synthesis, which reconciles the first and second logical moments would not be a required step in Hegel's Logic.

It should be mentioned however that, considering only the dialectical principle of construction, Hegel's Logic is not without fault. In his book “What Is Living And What Is Dead Of The Philosophy of Hegel”, Benedetto Croce shows that Hegel made fundamental philosophical errors in his application of the dialectic method. Charles Sanders Peirce, one of the founders of modern logic and an admirer of Hegel wrote: "But never was there seen such an example of a long chain of reasoning, – shall I say with a flaw in every link? – no, with every link a handful of sand, squeezed into shape in a dream."

Under the criticism of Feuerbach, a German materialist philosopher, Hegel’s dialectic had lost its legitimacy among left circles in Europe. Marx wrote his “Economic & Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844” that: “Feuerbach both in his “Thesen” in the Anekdota and, in detail, in the Philosophie der Zukunft has in principle overthrown the old dialectic and philosophy.” Marx wrote in the Holy Family that the speculative construction of Hegel's philosophy was sophistry, but felt that Hegel often managed to give a real presentation of the subject matter despite the false construction.

Marx was socialist revolutionary and a materialist, and was strongly influenced by French materialism. Marx wrote in the Holy Family: “There is no need for any great penetration to see from the teaching of materialism on the original goodness and equal intellectual endowment of men, the omnipotence of experience, habit and education, and the influence of environment on man, the great significance of industry, the justification of enjoyment, etc., how necessarily materialism is connected with communism and socialism. If man draws all his knowledge, sensation, etc., from the world of the senses and the experience gained in it, then what has to be done is to arrange the empirical world in such a way that man experiences and becomes accustomed to what is truly human in it and that he becomes aware of himself as man.”

For Marx, however, all materialism, including Feuerbach’s, was one sided. Marx wrote in his Theses on Feuerebach: “The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of changed circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change circumstances and that the educator must himself be educated. Hence this doctrine is bound to divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society. The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-change can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice.”

The existing materialism neglected the role of human consciousness in actively changing human circumstances. Likewise, Hegel’s idealism neglected the role played by material circumstances in the development of thought. Marx’s great advance was to recognize that both are incomplete parts of whole in determining the course of society. For Marx, as a revolutionary, theory went hand in hand with practice. To change society one must become conscious of society as a law governed process. For Marx, the development of this theoretical work, including his economic works was a necessary consequence of his work as a revolutionary.

In the German Ideology, Marx together with Engels came to develop what they called the materialist conception of history, as opposed to post-Hegelian idealist view of history that came to be prominent in Germany. In contrast to Hegel, who had shown that there was historical and necessary development of ideas, Marx and Engels intended to show that it was the necessary economic development of society which gave rise to the ideas of each epoch. The German Ideology is the first fully developed account of the materialist conception of history and gives crucial insight to Marx's methodology and general approach.

Summarizing the materialist conception of history, Marx wrote: "This conception of history depends on our ability to expound the real process of production, starting out from the material production of life itself, and to comprehend the form of intercourse connected with this and created by this mode of production (i.e. civil society in its various stages), as the basis of all history; and to show it in its action as State, to explain all the different theoretical products and forms of consciousness, religion, philosophy, ethics, etc. etc. and trace their origins and growth from that basis; by which means, of course, the whole thing can be depicted in its totality (and therefore, too, the reciprocal action of these various sides on one another)."

In the German Ideology Marx demonstrates his basic method and approach by explaining the development of the division of labor and forms of property (tribal, ancient, feudal). Marx emphasizes the empirical nature of his method in contrast to the idealist speculative method of the post-Hegelians, he writes: "In direct contrast to German philosophy which descends from heaven to earth, here we ascend from earth to heaven. That is to say, we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process we demonstrate the development of the ideological reflexes and echoes of this life-process. The phantoms formed in the human brain are also, necessarily, sublimates of their material life-process, which is empirically verifiable and bound to material premises."

In explaining the how society develops, Marx offers a dialectical theory of development. For Marx, the problems in society, or the irrational conditions in which people live, represent contradictions in society. The rational side of human beings can not tolerate those contradictions and demands that they be solved. Again, Marx recognizes the active role of human consciousness in the development of society through the recognition and solving of societal contradictions.

Marx explains that social contradictions are the result of the contradictions between the development of the productive forces and the relations of production. Through the development of the productive forces, the relations of production become irrational and hinder the further development of the productive forces. The contradiction that develops demands a solution, or rather a new form of intercourse.

Marx writes: "These various conditions, which appear first as conditions of self-activity, later as fetters upon it, form in the whole evolution of history a coherent series of forms of intercourse, the coherence of which consists in this: in the place of an earlier form of intercourse, which has become a fetter, a new one is put, corresponding to the more developed productive forces and, hence, to the advanced mode of the self-activity of individuals - a form which in its turn becomes a fetter and is then replaced by another. Since these conditions correspond at every stage to the simultaneous development of the productive forces, their history is at the same time the history of the evolving productive forces taken over by each new generation, and is, therefore, the history of the development of the forces of the individuals themselves."

Of course contained in Marx’s conception of development is not just an evolutionary conception of economic development but also a revolutionary one. Marx writes: “In the development of productive forces there comes a stage when productive forces and means of intercourse are brought into being, which, under the existing relationships, only cause mischief, and are no longer productive but destructive forces (machinery and money); and connected with this a class is called forth, which has to bear all the burdens of society without enjoying its advantages, which, ousted from society, is forced into the most decided antagonism to all other classes; a class which forms the majority of all members of society, and from which emanates the consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution, the communist consciousness, which may, of course, arise among the other classes too through the contemplation of the situation of this class.”

While Marx had already outlined his dialectical theory of societal development in the German Ideology, it was only later that Marx adopted an explicitly dialectical method in the presentation of history. Frederick Engels writes in his review of Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), that: "Marx was and is the only one who could undertake the work of extracting from the Hegelian logic the nucleus containing Hegel's real discoveries in this field, and of establishing the dialectical method, divested of its idealist wrappings, in the simple form in which it becomes the only correct mode of conceptual evolution. The working out of the method which underlies Marx's critique of political economy is, we think, a result hardly less significant than the basic materialist conception."

Marx's dialectic corresponds to a real historical process, however, in practice Marx abstracts from the historical process and presents history in a simplified form to show only the most essential moments in the historical process. Engels calls this mode of presentation 'logical' in contrast to 'historical'. As Engels explains in his review: "Even after the determination of the method, the critique of economics could still be arranged in two ways — historically or logically. Since in the course of history, as in its literary reflection, the evolution proceeds by and large from the simplest to the more complex relations, the historical development of political economy constituted a natural clue, which the critique could take as a point of departure, and then the economic categories would appear on the whole in the same order as in the logical exposition. This form seems to have the advantage of greater lucidity, for it traces the actual development, but in fact it would thus become, at most, more popular. History moves often in leaps and bounds and in a zigzag line, and as this would have to be followed throughout, it would mean not only that a considerable amount of material of slight importance would have to be included, but also that the train of thought would frequently have to be interrupted; it would, moreover, be impossible to write the history of economy without that of bourgeois society, and the task would thus become immense, because of the absence of all preliminary studies. The logical method of approach was therefore the only suitable one. This, however, is indeed nothing but the historical method, only stripped of the historical form and diverting chance occurrences."

Marx's dialectic method of presentation can be seen in practice in his exposition on the value-form in the first chapter of Capital. Marx uses the dialectic to show the development of the relations of production in response to the development of the productive forces. Development is shown in it logical moments, each representing a stage in the development of a social relation. Contradictions which result in a particular moment of the relation necessitate the advancement to the next more complex moment of the relation.

Unlike Hegel, Marx abandoned the triadic form. There is no logical moment representing the opposite of a social relation. Each moment, except for the first, can be understood a synthesis which arises from the contradiction of the prior moment, where contradiction is understood in the sense explained by Marx in the German Ideology. In form and not content, Marx’s dialectic bears a closer resemblance to the dialectic of ancient Greece where the thesis develops through contradiction and refinement into the synthesis.

Marx considered commodities as having two essential properties a use value, and an exchange value. Products of labor that have utility are commodities only if they are produced for exchange for others to consume as use values. The value-form, or value relation, is a social relation that arises and develops out of the process of producing and exchanging commodities. Marx shows that the most elementary relation of value gives rise to money, where money is a commodity for which every other commodity can find an expression of its value.

The first moment in Marx's dialectic of the value-form is the Elementary or Accidental form of value. This relation arises out a barter or exchange of quantities of just two different commodities; Marx gives the example of the exchange of 20 yards of linen for one coat. By analysis, Marx's shows that in the equality or identity established in the barter, each commodity plays a different role: "The linen expresses its value in the coat; the coat serves as the material in which that value is expressed. The former plays an active, the latter a passive, part. The value of the linen is represented as relative value, or appears in relative form. The coat officiates as equivalent, or appears in equivalent form."

When a commodity like the linen is increasingly exchanged for different commodities besides coats, the first form of value becomes inadequate expression of value. A contradiction results between the old relation and material practice that necessitates an advance of the value form. This is the first transition in the dialectic; a transition to what Marx calls the Total or Expanded form of value. Instead of single relative expression of value in terms of coats, the linen finds its value expressed in several different commodities.

In Marx's example the 20 yards of linen is now expressed as 1 coat, or 10 lbs. of coffee, or 1 quarter of corn, or 2 ounces of gold or 1/2 a ton of iron etc. Instead of speaking of the value of the linen in terms of coats, we can also speak of the linen's coffee-value, corn-value, gold-value, iron-value, etc. Such a state of affairs is undesirable, since the linen no longer has uniform expression of its value. The problem, or contradiction, can be remedied by changing the roles of commodities, to make the linen play the role of the equivalent for which every other commodity finds and expression of its value.

Logically this leads to the next moment, what Marx calls the General form of value. The value of every other commodity is now expressed in terms of the linen, and the linen becomes the universal equivalent form of value. However, a universal equivalent is really the same as money. Through a process of exclusion a single commodity takes its place as the universal equivalent, and becomes socially recognized for its special role in relation to every other commodity. In Marx's exposition, gold takes the place of linen as the universal equivalent, and realizes its place as money.

Of course, Marx's exposition on commodities and the development of the value form is far richer than I have presented here. Marx shows that the labor theory of value is implied through the act of exchange, how the relative form of value can fluctuate in response to changes in conditions of production, and that labor as a general abstract concept arises only when exchange of commodities has developed to a high degree. I have omitted much of the detail, so as to lay bare the essence of Marx's dialectic, to show its basic form, and to show the logical transition between different moments and how contradictions arise.

In understanding Marx's dialectic It is important to recognize the original contributions of Marx, that he didn't simply invert the dialectics of Hegel to obtain his materialist dialectic. The development of Marx's dialectic is intimately bound with the materialist conception of history. I have given an overview of Marx's approach, I would suggest for a more thorough study to read the Theses on Feuerbach, the first chapter of the German Ideology, the Grundrisee (The method of political economy), and the first chapter of Capital.