Luxemburg and the Organic Conception of Socialism

In the final two pieces in History and Class Consciousness, Lukacs turns his attention to the problems of socialist organisation. The final piece is a general meditation on the revolutionary party, but this, ‘Critical Observations on Rosa Luxemburg’s ‘Critique of the Russian Revolution’ is, not surprisingly, a polemic against her views on the Bolsheviks. But this is not a point-by-point contestation of ‘the facts’ – it is a deep philosophical critique of her method.

The critique begins from what Lukacs argues is a misreading of the character of proletarian revolution in her remarks on the agrarian question in revolutionary Russia (or, to put it differently, what were socialists going to do about the peasantry?) Luxemburg criticised the Bolshevik solution for not laying down the prerequisites of socialist agricultural reform. Instead they did the reverse and made it more difficult in the long run. A socialist government should have centralized land ownership via nationalization. Instead the Bolsheviks adopted the peasant demand of land redistribution and stood by as it was parceled out chaotically into millions of individual plots. As far as Lukacs was concerned, it wasn’t really a question of right or wrong. What mattered was the extent to which the mass movement of peasants, in the context of dissolving bourgeois society, could be won for the revolution as opposed to the counterrevolution. Before the October revolution the land question was being resolved by the peasants themselves and was more or less an accomplished fact when the soviets became the governing power. Had the Bolsheviks turned their face against the movement, the revolution would not have been won.

Luxemburg does acknowledge it as an astute tactical move on the Bolsheviks’ part – but remained steadfast in her belief that it didn’t advance agriculture toward socialism. For Lukacs, Luxemburg’s “impatience” is an outgrowth of her overestimation of the revolution’s proletarian character. She overestimated the clarity and maturity of the Russian working class at that historical conjuncture, and therefore its ability to stamp its will on other classes. By extension Luxemburg underestimated the strength of those classes and the power their ideologies exert within the working class itself. As a result, “she constantly opposes to the exigencies of the moment the principles of the future stages of the revolution” (1968, pp.276-7).

‘Critique of the Russian Revolution’ criticises the Bolsheviks on the dispersal of the constituent assembly, the foundation of the soviet system, the red terror, and the denial of civil rights to the bourgeoisie. Lukacs response is to dig more thoroughly into Luxemburg’s method, this time by going back to her famous polemic with Eduard Bernstein. She writes, “the relations of production of capitalist society become increasingly socialist but its political and legal arrangements erect an ever loftier wall between capitalist and socialist society” (cit p.277). Luxemburg agrees with the need for revolution, for a violent break with the old order, but the way she sets up revolution – as being against the ‘political and legal arrangements’ that are preventing socialism from emerging within the womb of capitalist society – is very close to resembling a political revolution (see Legality and Class Consciousness). What Lukacs is getting at here is that Luxemburg seemingly believed that if the bourgeois barriers are removed (through revolutionary means), the socialist tendencies in the economy would be free to develop. But more than just a violent break is needed – violent social revolution, the forced expropriation of the expropriators is the necessary precursor to the society of associated producers. This is more thoroughgoing than anything Luxemburg envisaged. She overplays the mechanical or ‘organic’ movement of history relying on it to bring socialism is about.

Luxemburg’s organic conception of socialism is the root of her critique of soviet power. In the Russian revolution, and revolutionary situations before and since, soviets, or workers’ councils, have been a tried and tested method of organising the class. This reached its highest mode of expression in the early phase of the Russian revolution when the soviets seized power under a Bolshevik and Left Socialist Revolutionary coalition government. This state, the workers’ state, then organises its power against the bourgeoisie. Unlike capitalist states, which, on the whole, are reactive and tend to intervene economically and politically after the fact, the workers’ state is an activist state. It consciously fights the class struggle and seeks to steer development in the socialist direction, which in turn will lead to further, conscious socialist construction, and thereby gradually undermining the basis for its existence. This is not socialism by decree, but, initially, the workers’ state is the primary agent for organising and building the democratically planned economy. Thus socialism comes into the world as the fruits of conscious action. It cannot be otherwise. Luxemburg did not see things this way. For her the soviet organisation of the workers’ state was “premature” – rather it is the form of governance proper to the higher phase of developed socialism.

Lenin and Luxemburg’s differences on the party question turn on the conscious and organic perspectives. Lenin and the Communist International insisted upon the organisational independence of revolutionaries to better contest for the leadership of the working class. For Luxemburg the struggle against opportunism and reformism should remain within the mass workers’ parties. These bodies had been thrown up organically by class struggle and were, therefore, the mass repositories of proletarian experience. Social democracy (as was) provided a party home for all kinds discontented anti-capitalist elements of non-proletarian origin as well. In a revolutionary situation, she supposed the spontaneous revolutionary spirit of the class would well up and cause the entire working class to join battle simultaneously, dragging all its social democratic allies in its wake.

Unfortunately, Luxemburg’s commitment to the organic perspective of organising workers meant she overlooked the extent to which the mass workers’ parties had been compromised by the first world war, despite her frequent and trenchant polemics with revisionist elements.

The fact was that almost without exception an influential section of the leadership in the workers’ parties openly went over to the side of the bourgeoisie while another group was tacitly and secretly in league with it. That both these groups have succeeded in retaining their hold on the crucial strata of the proletariat both intellectually and organizationally must be made the point of departure for the analysis of the situation and the tasks of the revolutionary workers’ party (p.288).

The lesson to be drawn from this that ideological struggle in the mass parties would not resolve the situation. They cannot be “reclaimed”. Nor will the working class adopt a revolutionary leadership as a result of the blind play of capitalist laws of motion. It has to be consciously fought for, and this is only possible if the revolutionary party has the freedom and independence to intervene in struggle and win over the working class by virtue of its actions (more about communist organisation in the final post).

The organic conception of socialism is a tendency that needs combating. In Luxemburg’s case, her commitment to revolutionary politics was able to mitigate its effects. But she was very much on the extreme left wing of this tendency. For others of a more centrist or reformist persuasion, the organic conception of socialism was a recipe for fatalism and non-activity. However, it is tempting to suggest that Lukacs makes the opposite error – that his emphasising the conscious basis of socialism is another way of advancing an essentially voluntaristic perspective. I think this would be a mistake. Throughout History and Class Consciousness Lukacs has philosophically sketched out a conception of the working class struggling through history and gradually becoming aware of its position in capitalist society, its interests, and the possible destiny that awaits it. Trade unions, labour parties and communist parties are milestones in the development of this consciousness. The argument could be made that this process of becoming is itself an organic process driven forward by blind social forces. But Lukacs is absolutely clear that the class-conscious proletariat is the fundamental prerequisite of socialism. There comes a historical point where conscious activity has to take over if the socialist potential capitalism has made possible is going to be realised.

A complete list of History and Class Consciousness postings can be found here.

Why Bother With Ideology Critique?

From time to time I'm asked why I bother writing stuff like this, this and this. It's tempting to give the bourgeois reply and say "Because it's my blog and because I can".

But it's not that. Really. I think Terry Eagleton, the well-known Marxist literary theorist, offers a position that explains why criticism of seemingly inane cultural phenomena can be useful:

Marxist criticism is part of a larger body of theoretical analysis which aims to understand ideologies - the ideas, values and feelings by which men [sic] experience their societies at various times. And certain of those ideas, values and feelings are available to us only in literature. To understand ideologies is to understand both the past and the present more deeply; and such understanding contributes to our liberation (Marxism and Literary Criticism 1976, p.viii).

Substitute 'literature' for film, TV, music, etc. and you've got a powerful justification for teasing out the ideologies curled up tightly in the likes of Mamma Mia, The Sopranos and Eric Prydz videos. And what's more, you have a critical practice that is very well suited to the blogging format.

That is why I occasionally write about tat.

Gaza and the Fog of War

The global demonstrations against Israel's assault on Gaza have been a magnificent display of solidarity with the Palestinians. I wasn't there but a comrade on the march estimates some 50,000 demonstrated in London yesterday - and that wasn't even a national demonstration (that, according to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign is pencilled in for next Saturday). Thousands also demonstrated in Manchester and Preston, and many more protests were scheduled throughout the country over the weekend. Many, many more made their opposition felt with demonstrations tens of thousands strong across Europe and the Islamic world. The Israeli government knew it could rely on their allies to equivocate or back it, but the numbers on the streets show it's losing the media front.

Truth, as the old adage goes, is the first casualty of war. It's no less true in this case. Since the ground invasion began yesterday, the pro-Hamas English language news source, the Palestinian Information Centre at the time of writing claims to have killed 13 Israeli soldiers, captured two (including a high-ranking officer) and destroyed seven tanks. For its part, the Israeli army army confirms one dead and 30 injured. On top of all this, a group of Norwegian doctors claim to have recovered traces of depleted uranium from the bodies of several Palestinians. How to separate what is true from what is propaganda?

Media organisations aren't helping matters. In the West, they mostly rely on Israeli state sources, and have their own blind spots and ideological biases. The BBC have been doing a fine job of letting the official Israeli narrative go unchallenged - that the blitz and invasion of Gaza is morally justified after Israel has "lost patience" with completely unprovoked rocket attacks by Hamas militants. The main criticism of Israel that does appear is the disproportionality argument, which, of course, does little to challenge the official grounds of the invasion itself. Surprise, surprise, Fox has been the Israeli state's vocal friend in the US media, saying it has the "moral high ground" and that Hamas could easily end the bloodshed ... by surrendering. Other satellite news sources, namely Al-Jazeera and the Iranian-sponsored Press TV offer takes unencumbered by pro-Israel bias, but that isn't to say they do not have their own agendas. Press TV, reflecting Iran's geopolitical strategy, gives Hamas the kind of free-run Israel gets from Western news outlets.

What the media confusion attempts to do is extend the fog of war back before the conflict began. In an excellent post at Lenin's Tomb explains, Hamas is not an organisation committed to permanent war with Israel. It has hinted at peace deals, offered cease fires, observed unilateral cease fires, and so on. And at every stage, Israel have interfered in internal Palestinian affairs, abducted activists, carried out assassinations, and turned Gaza into an open air internment camp. The rockets Hamas have launched against Israel prior to the present war did not happen without reason. There are material reasons for everything, and in this case, it's in the years of low-level warfare Israel has subjected Gaza to. This is why, much to the exasperation of the Israeli state and its apologists, tens of thousand have marched, and millions across the world are turning against it.Socialist Struggle Movement (Tnu`at Maavak Sotzyalisti/Harakat Nidal Eshteraki – CWI in Israel) statement here.Socialist Party statement here.

Tommy on the Telly

Hands up, how many tuned in to watch Tommy Sheridan enter the Celebrity Big Brother house last night? Yes, probably the worst-kept rumour in Scottish politics has turned out to be true. But has Tommy, as "post-war Scotland's most iconic socialist" got anything to fear? After all his friend, George Galloway acquitted himself with dignity and gravitas when he went on the show three years back. It didn't do his political career much harm, did it?

Well there are those who think Sheridan's move might not prove to be his wisest. The Socialist Party was quick off the mark, making, I think, a pretty measured series of criticisms. Solidarity has put out a statement that neither "endorses or condemns" his appearance. His other allies, the SWP have yet to put anything out on their website. Whatever they end up saying, I doubt they won't feel the need to defend Sheridan in the same way they did Galloway.

The question Sheridan's comrades will ask when he leaves the house will be one word: why? The SP statement offers what some might see as a generous explanation.

The consequences financially [of the court action against News of the World, and subsequent perjury charge] for Tommy and his family have been dire. It has proved impossible to find paid work and undoubtedly these difficulties and other associated financial pressures have played a key role in his decision to take part in CBB.

And offers a non-BB solution to these dire straits;

We understand these pressures but it would have been better, via the large support that exists in the socialist and trade union movement for him, to find an alternative solution. When the Liverpool 47 councillors were surcharged and banned from office for the "crime" of standing up for the people of Liverpool in the1980's an appeal to the Labour movement raised more than £100,000.

Others are not so charitable. Kevin Williamson, formerly of the SSP, writes in his December 14th blog:

Fame is a drug. Its not as good as proper drugs - and the side-effects can be horrendous - but each to their own I suppose. An addiction to facile superficial fleeting celebrity can surely be the only explanation for Tommy Sheridan's decision to take part in Channel 4's Celebrity Big Brother. (Unless there's a fat cheque at the end of it).

There are elements of truth in both. Tommy's family may well be hard up. But then again, Sheridan has never really been averse to the spotlight. Remember this? And this? How about the comedy career? And it would be an injustice if this was forgotten too.

Some will use this as an opportunity to take potshots at Militant, SML, the pre-split SSP, and Solidarity, as each have a responsibility for promoting Tommy as a distinctive political personality. But becoming a celebrity is a process, the length of which depends on the avenue taken to fame. These comrades put Sheridan forward to build their organisations, which enabled him to capture a media profile, but then different processes come into play. He started to play the celebrity game, albeit partly limited by his eight years as a Holyrood MSP. But once he lost his seat at the 2007 election, he turned toward celebrity to make a living. From that point it was probably only a matter of time before appearing on Big Brother.

Unfortunately for Sheridan, even if his conduct in the house is irreproachable, this celebrity will be difficult to overcome if he wants to return to Holyrood. Galloway's speaking tours are successful, but for the majority of working class people he is remembered for his Big Brother antics, and saluting Saddam. There's no reason to believe it will be any different for Sheridan. CBB will offer Sheridan opportunities, but only in the celebrity system where fame equals exposure equals money. A world of OK!, Strictly Come Dancing, Cash in the Celebrity Attic, etc. is there for the taking.

This whole affair should be a warning to the socialist movement. In the future when our movement throws up charismatic figures, we must be on our guard. The celebrity system will be open to these comrades and may go as far as courting them. But be under no illusions. Playing the celebrity game will damage the standing of any prominent activist. In effect, celebrity can nullify the danger they represent to the system.

Now, that's quite enough of that. Time for the really important discussion. What are Sheridan's chances? Will he bond with Coolio? Is class conflict with "Tory bird" Lucy Pinder in the offing?

Legality and Class Consciousness

Lukacs's essay, 'Legality and Illegality' is more than just a meditation on the revolutionary party's adoption of legal and illegal methods of work. He looks at the law as a potent ideological weapon used by the bourgeoisie in the class struggle, the level of drag it has on proletarian class consciousness, and the changing functions of legalism once the working class have assumed power. But Lukacs begins not with the question of black letter law, but how laws, in the social scientific sense, function to reproduce the capitalist state and society. He argues "the organs of authority harmonise to such an extent with the (economic) laws governing men's lives, or seem so overwhelmingly superior that men experience them as natural forces, as the necessary environment for their existence. As a result they submit to them freely. (Which is not to say that they approve of them) (Lukacs 1968, p.257).

For example, we are not forced to go to work and perform a set of tasks in the workplace on pain of legal sanctions, we do so because we need the wage to reproduce ourselves as physically, and as individuals with the necessary set of basic cultural competencies. But that millions upon millions do this every day without a gun held to our heads reproduces the appearance of this as a force of nature, which, of course, grants the exploitative relations that stand behind it a (mostly unacknowledged) legitimacy that is very difficult to dislodge. Contrast this with societies whose rulers depended heavily on the use of force, such as with capitalist dictatorships. Its reliance on force to meet oppositional upswells from below means they are more prone to revolutionary situations than liberal democracies. Repeated state violence does not allow for the appearance of natural harmony between authority and the economy to emerge. Instead power appears as something illegitimate, and that threatens not just the regime, but can lead to a revolutionary movement against capitalism itself.

Therefore Lukacs makes a distinction (familiar to Trotskyists) between political revolutions, whose outbreak effects only the political form of the state and, in capitalist societies, replaces the old regime with a legal superstructure more in tune with the 'natural' motion of the economy. Social revolutions, on the other hand, are more thoroughgoing: they aim to change the system itself. Unsurprisingly, "any such change violates the instincts of the average [bourgeois] man so deeply that he regards it as a catastrophic threat to life as such, it appears to him to be a blind force of nature like a flood or earthquake. Unable to grasp the essence of the process, his blind despair tries to defend itself by attacking the immediate manifestations of change that menace his accustomed existence" (p.258). The revolution does not appear as such to the movement of our class, provided it has become fully conscious of its position in capitalist society and the role it will be playing in the construction of socialism.

The existence of Marxism, as the theoretical distillation of the experience of the proletariat, and awareness of its theoretical and practical consequences does not means its outlook has been incorporated in the consciousness of the class. Some layers are more passive than others. Parts of the working class are concentrated in large workplaces, others may lead a more solitary work life. In short the variations among our class in conditions when consciousness is low can leave it prey to the effects of reification and alien ideologies. This helps explain how the differences in working class politics, between the Marxists, and the reformists, social democrats and labourists, are sustained. The objectives of the two camps are qualitatively different. The Marxists seek to organise against the state. Reformist politics struggle against their bourgeois counterparts for control over the state - not to strike a blow for workers' power but for the privilege of managing the common affairs of the capitalists. In so far as class enters the reformist world view, the state is an organ that rises above and is neutral in the struggle between the classes. It fetishises the trappings of authority, especially those that appear in congruence with the "natural" appearance of capitalism. The law, which is the ideological guarantor of legitimate authority, is likewise defended as something that is above class struggle. They collude in capitalism's naturalist conceit.

Obviously, Marxists differ:

What is essential is to realise that the capitalist state should be seen and evaluated as a historical phenomenon even while it exists. It should be treated therefore purely as a power structure which has to be taken into account only to the extent to which its actual power stretches. On the other hand, it should be subjected to the most painstaking and fearless examination in order to discover the points where this power can be weakened and undermined. This strong point, or rather weak point in the state is the way in which it is reflected in the consciousness of the people. Ideology is in this case not merely a consequence of the economic structure of society but also the precondition of its smooth functioning (p.261)

When capitalism is in a relatively stable period it's unsurprising that the working class can be found occupying ideological positions within the limits of the system. The job of Marxism is to create a frame of mind in which the common sense natural view of capitalism and the state are seen for what they are: the products of history. This knowledge (defined as practical-critical political activity) strips both of their reservoir of latent "spiritual" strength. Spreading these insights are the key task because ideology, accepting capitalism's naturalism, is what stymies opposition. But doing this is premised on Marxists themselves achieving a revolutionary understanding of the law in relation to strategy and tactics. As we saw, reformism fetishises the legal apparatus. The flip-side of this, the ultra-left romanticism of illegality, associates all legal activity with opportunism and sees the state as a straight forward condensation of class power. This, for Lukacs, is counter-productive because the investment of illegal methods with an aura inadvertently confers the state more legal legitimacy. Thus grand gestures that vocally declare the breaking of the law can actually reinforce the preservation of its authority.

The party escapes the closed game of legality and illegality by granting special status to neither: in itself it has decisively broken with legal ideology. This is very different from movements who "specialise" in illegality. Lukacs cites the example of the Socialist Revolutionaries before and after the Russian revolution. Under Tsarism, they and their forerunners participated in several assassinations, bomb plots, peasant uprisings, etc. But this did not prevent the majority of the party from passing into the camp of capitalist counterrevolution during the civil war. For Lukacs, their commitment to illegality signified their adherence to legal ideology. But the party's indifference to legalism, its treatment of legality and illegality as merely a matter of tactics is necessary for proletarian self-education. "For the proletariat can only be liberated from its dependence upon the life-forms created by capitalism when it has learnt to act without these life-forms inwardly influencing its actions" (p.264).

Lukacs argues the successful struggle for power is only the start of the education against legalism. Once the working class has won power most are still affected by the lingering sense that capitalism is really the only properly authentic and legal social order. Thus if the soviet system can quickly seize the weapon of legality to legitimate itself it puts itself in an advantageous position vis a vis the less conscious sections of the working class. It also robs the restorationist bourgeoisie of a key ideological prop of its rule. But, Lukacs gloomily concludes, until our class has a sense of its own legality, it will be partly disarmed in front of its opponent. It would not be constructing the relations and institutions of socialism with assurance, but half-heartedly and with the guilt of the usurper.

This is probably the most problematic of Lukacs's essays. It sits rather uneasily with the thrust of the rest of the book. The emphasis up until now has rightly been on practical working class activity as the means of successfully waging class struggle., but Lukacs here falls into prioritising ideological struggle without reference to his previous insights. The essays on reification demonstrate how the relations of capitalist production give rise to the objectification of phenomena, and how class struggle is simultaneously the fight against reifying processes. But this is separated out. Reification is undoubtedly the wellspring of seeing and experiencing capitalism as a natural force, therefore his claim that ideology is the biggest obstacle to conscious opposition is erroneous to say the least. But understandable. The essay was written in 1920, after the failure of the Hungarian soviet but during the period when the revolutionary window of opportunity was open. It appeared the objective circumstances were favourable, so why wasn't the working class entering the struggle in greater numbers? Lukacs's emphasis on ideology in general and legalist naturalism in particular as his answer reflects an underestimation of the resilience of capitalism, typical of impatience. For all the thousands of words spent on the importance of totality, Lukacs loses sight of it. Even during periods of revolutionary crisis, the ideological resources of capitalism are constantly replenished to the extent waged labour exists and property remains in private hands. It is not enough to struggle against ideology, as important as that is. "Practical-critical activity" needs to patiently proceed on all fronts, and particularly in the workplace, which, after all, is where our class is concentrated.

A complete list of History and Class Consciousness postings can be found here.

Ten More Blogging Resolutions

Tradition dictates, I'm afraid:

1) PhD-related hermitage equals a curtailment of party activities. So there will be less time for blogging this coming year too. But how to make sure the show stays on the road? AVPS will never again have the kind of blogging gap it experienced in 2007. Unless my arms fall off, or something. The solution lies in shorter, pithier posts that can be knocked out in less than an hour.

2) But there is still the need for more "considered" posting! Plot blogging time more effectively if you want to get a bit thoughtful.

3) On the topic of this kind of posting, the series on History and Class Consciousness have been useful, if only for me. It would be a good idea to continue this sort of thing with future books. I've got a load of old notes from Althusser's For Marx that might be worth writing about. But I also quite fancy a bite of bourgie thought too. I've been meaning to read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty for a very long time. Ditto with Weber's From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. I'll head in this direction when H&CC is finally finished.

4) An audience, while not the be-all and end-all of blogging, is a nice thing to have. And a big audience is very nice. Not just for egotistical reasons either. More readers grow the number of commentators, which can lead to better discussions in the comment boxes. But remember, quantity is not the same as quality, as the bile regularly served up at Guido's shows.

5) Never one to labour the point, but large audiences are very, very, very nice. The aim is to massively increase the number of daily visits and repeat readers. Doubling the figures should be the oh-so modest minimum target to aim for (going up a few places in Iain Dale's annual blogging chart won't hurt).

6) Enough public parading of petit bourgeois individualism! AVPS is part of a loose blogging community, and should be more community-spirited. Already you are fairly good at giving shouts out to new left blogs, and long may you continue to do so. But time issues have meant spending those precious spare moments on writing posts and responding to debates on your own turf. You should endeavour to comment more on other folks' blogs. After all, they're kind enough to offer their pearls AVPS's offerings.

7) Yeah, so more community-minded stuff then. It seems the Carnival of Socialism has juddered to a halt - why not help get it going again? More coordinated and simultaneous blog posts, like that on Hicham Yezza are good. And don't forget you are a contributor to another two blogs. How about writing something for them?

8) And the last community thing - try and use the blog to promote decent discussion and aid understanding between the comrades who visit here.

9) Didn't manage to achieve much in the way of guest posts last year! Brother S has been too busy being an activist to write about it, but at least his infrequent musings are guaranteed. But if I want the comrade to write more I must lobby the BBC to get Keeley Hawes on the box more regularly. As I've said before, guest posts are welcome, and especially so if you're a member of the Socialist Party/CWI!

10) I said last year that blogging's only any good if it's fun and satisfying. I hope it doesn't become a chore this year. It's the nearest thing I've got to a hobby (sob!)

Have you made any resolutions, blogging or otherwise?

... And happy new year!

Left Standing Still: 2008

12 months ago when I sat down to do my traditional end of year round-up, I ended with the pious hope that things would be much better for the left by the time 2008 came to a close. Well, now we're here, has socialism advanced any during the course of the last year?

If you can use one word to sum up 2008, that would probably be 'crash'. There's no need to go into the specifics of the crisis - it's been talked about plenty of times. But from the standpoint of leftist politics, we are moving into a period that offers greater opportunities than any time since Labour came to power. The government and the bosses are clear they expect our class to pay the price for their crisis. Business is calling on the government to freeze the minimum wage in 2009 (a call likely to fall on sympathetic ears). Firms are shedding jobs right, left and centre with more high street names facing difficulties, if not collapse. Then there are the drastic cuts in public spending Brown and Darling have promised to help pay for the borrowed cash that bailed out the banking sector. All these plus other manifestations of crisis not mentioned will spark resistance and grow a potentially receptive audience for socialist ideas. But this process is not automatic. There are challenges thrown up by 2008 that need to be overcome.

Chief among these remains the Labour party itself. You could be mistaken for thinking history has a sense of irony. While the crisis was bubbling beneath the surface of mainstream political consciousness, the government was lurching from one crisis to another. The 10p tax fiasco, the dithering over Northern Rock, the very public mislaying of sensitive government data, the open jostling for Labour leadership; more and more it was exposing itself as out of touch and bereft of ideas. The Tories were no better, but at least their liberal-inflected conservatism represented something of a change. And then came September's stock market collapse(s) and the recession. But Labour's dismal fortunes, that saw them lose two by-elections in safe seats, were turned around by Brown's affectation of dour seriousness and crisis management. Incredibly the Tories' lead in the opinion polls were slashed from 20 points to single digits (some firms put the Tory lead as low as a single point). There is some evidence suggesting the gap has opened up slightly, but Labour have managed to go from a catastrophic position to being in with a shout for a fourth term. Not that we will see an election in 2009, mind.

What's this got to do with the left? Electorally speaking Labour was, up until the summer, undergoing a slow process of decomposition. Layers of its support were either clinging on for want of something better, had turned their back on mainstream politics, or were willing to give the likes of the BNP a go. Enthusiastic Labour voters were rarer than principles on the government's front bench. But the crisis and Labour's "decisive" action in saving the banks has, if the polls are to be believed, arrested this process. In short, Labour support has firmed up. This argument can be applied to the Glenrothes by-election, where the government's vote increased, even though the SNP closed the gap. The two socialist candidates came nowhere.

There are more consequences for the left than fractions of percentage points at election time. The government's turn from neoliberalism to (rightwing) Keynesianism has opened a new political space for social democrats, old labourists, and other lefts remaining inside the Labour party. Their influence on the party apparat maybe negligible, and the avenues for "reclaiming" the organisation remain closed (the hope the National Policy Forum could be influenced from the left proved unfounded). Nonetheless it will be viewed by some as an opportunity to put forward Keynesian-inspired social democratic policies, which is what the likes of Jon Cruddas and his friends in Compass are doing. Others will hope Brown's rediscovery of Keynes is advance notice of a turn to the left. Whatever the case, the emerging New Labour consensus around state intervention, the actions the government have taken, and the poll recovery will glue the Labour left more solidly to the party.

If this habit of mind is abroad in Labour circles, you can bet your bottom dollar it's making headway in trade union bureaucracies. Among the unions that are affiliated to Labour, it appears as if the government can do anything with no consequences from the organisations the party still depends on for funding. Threaten to part-privatise the post office? The CWU leadership protests, but will cling like a limpet to Labour when the debate on disaffiliation comes up at their annual conference. Or how about below-inflation pay rises and public sector job cuts? Unison's bureaucrats show their displeasure by shoveling millions into Labour's bottomless pockets, derailing opposition and attacking activists who dare stand up for their members. What the union tops lacked until now was a coherent justification for sticking with Labour. Brown's crisis measures provide that. But that's not all. A general election due in the next 18 months, and the polling numbers commanded by the Tories will have concentrated the minds of union leaders. Utterly convinced some crumbs will fall from the Brownite table eventually, this layer of the labour movement will do everything it can not to "embarrass" the government. Do not expect much in the way of leadership, unless a groundswell among the members force them in that direction.

We must be careful not to over-egg the pudding. Labour has major problems, not least its historically low membership; but the confluence of events in the latter half of 2008 has strengthened it in the short term. This means the project of building a new workers' party has become more difficult. If we look at the fortunes of the CNWP, it cannot be said the campaign has made any big steps forward organisationally. Individual membership is now available, but there hasn't been thousands of new signatories. There is no real independent life. Nor is it particularly well-known. But what the CNWP has achieved is to keep working class political representation a live issue among trade unionists. Its supporters have tabled motions on this issue at numerous union conferences, and it has tacit backing from among the labour movement's most militant trade union leaders: Mark Serwotka, Bob Crow, Matt Wrack and Brian Caton. However, and at the risk of being called a pessimist, the RMT-sponsored conference is unlikely to mark a watershed moment in developing a new workers' party. The strengthening of the affiliates' links with Labour could knock on to Labour-supporting layers in the RMT and FBU, potentially limiting Crow's and Wrack's room for manoeuvre.

Matters are not helped by the state of the far left. The split between the SWP and the majority of the rest of Respect rumbled on and on. It poisoned relations between key layers of leftist activists while, generally speaking, reinforcing negative opinions about the SWP among those not involved in the dispute. Probably the most ludicrous moment of the whole dispute were the London Assembly elections and the mayoral contest, when former comrades faced off against each other. The votes gained, including for the Socialist Party in Lewisham, were pretty poor. Disunity played its part (one of the "iron laws" of political science is that the electorate tends to punish division), but again, Labour overwhelmingly retains the support of the layers we need to win over. Poor election results are unlikely to tempt the ever-cautious trade union bureaucrat into supporting a left alternative.

But, on the plus side, the far left has put on members this year. Looking at the SP experience, most of these are young and new to socialist politics, but there are layers of experienced comrades who were previously active in Militant returning to the fold. Going on snippets from the SWP documents on Socialist Unity, it appears those comrades are having a similar recruitment experience too. (Is it the same in Scotland?) But can these numbers make a difference? If applied intelligently and strategically, they can, and as we began by observing, the recession will open new opportunities for doing so.

The situations with the Labour party, the unions, and the limited impact of new workers' party arguments are because, in capitalist terms, it is politics as normal. In 2008 the working class was overwhelmingly passive and has not made its presence consistently felt in the political arena. As long as this situation continues, the chance of a new workers' party coming to fruition appears remote, which is frustrating because if several unions did take the initiative it could have a catalysing effect. On the other hand, as things stand, it is more likely a new party would come about on the back of mass class action. Putting energy into building up trade union organisation in the workplace and a presence in our communities is probably the most profitable use of our small resources, while continuously making the case for the new party. If our class does show movement, the left can grow significantly. If not, will 2009 be another year of standing still?

Capitalism and Historical Materialism

In his essay, 'The Changing Function of Historical Materialism' (unfortunately, not yet available online), Lukacs considers the application of historical materialism and its relationship to capitalism and the class struggle. To reiterate Lukacs's position on historical materialism, it "is no doubt a scientific method by which to comprehend the events of the past and to grasp their true nature. In contrast to the historical methods of the bourgeoisie, however, it also permits us to view the present historically and hence scientifically so that we can penetrate beneath the surface and perceive the profound historical forces which in reality control events". But historical materialism is more than this, more than a mere research programme. He continues "in the case of the class struggle of the proletariat, the war for the liberation of the last oppressed class, the revelation of the unvarnished truth became both a war-cry and the most potent weapon. By laying bare the springs of the historical process historical materialism became, in consequence of the class situation of the proletariat, an instrument of war" (Lukacs 1968, p.224).

Because historical materialism is intimately linked to the position and trajectory/destiny of the working class, for the bourgeoisie to admit to any of its truths would mean transcending, in thought, the limits of bourgeois consciousness, and therefore abandon its ability to fight for their class interests. But that said, the key position of historical materialism - the decisive role played by class struggle in history (which is ordinarily denied by bourgeois thinking) - can appear at two moments in the history of ruling class thought. First at the moment the bourgeoisie locks horns with the land-owning aristocracy of feudal society and struggles for hegemony over society. And second is during the final revolutionary crisis of capitalism, when the bourgeoisie faces its dissolution. But at times, despite this, they are more than capable of a hard-nosed appreciation of reality, especially among those circles at the sharp edge of managing capitalism, such as employers' associations and state elites. This kind of thinking may be regarded by them as for "internal use only", but from the standpoint of historical materialism, they remain fully within the limits of bourgeois thinking. As we saw in Lukacs's essay on the contradictions of bourgeois philosophy, society confronts the capitalist as an alien power, but one that can be understood as a force of nature, and which can be manipulated and second guessed to accumulate capital. Within this narrow horizon of action, instrumental rationality is possible, up to and including when the capitalists face an uppity workforce. However, Lukacs argues that while this can be the case, capitalism is in the process of objective decline, and as it does so the opinions and ideologies of the ruling class become ever more incoherent.

If we are in a period of decline and it's only a matter of time before the revolutionary crisis hits, wouldn't the expected acknowledgement of class struggle in bourgeois discourse mean it possesses greater coherence? Lukacs says no, and the reason for this can be laid at historical materialism's door: there has been an unconscious and unacknowledged partial capitulation to Marxism. Economics, for example, is no longer "completely bourgeois". The discipline's development in pre-revolutionary Russia, for example, was heavily imprinted by so-called legal Marxism. The same was true in the influence Marxian economics had on mainstream Japanese political economy in the inter and post-war periods. As far as Lukacs was concerned, any branch of economics associated with planning or war owe debts to historical materialism. This situation is an effect of the increasing social weight the proletariat possess in society. More specifically, the ideological crises in the international workers' movement (in chronological order up to the time of History and Class Consciousness; individual socialists entering bourgeois governments; the move of sections of the movement into outright reformism; the formal split between social democrats and communists marked by the foundation of the Communist International), saw defections from the proletarian camp to that of the bourgeoisie. With these new "adherents", capitalism, which no longer possessed sufficient organic ideological resources to meet its systemic needs, now had parliamentary socialism to buttress their legitimacy. This meant the bourgeoisie had more ideological weaponry at their disposal, but the greater range is ultimately a recipe for confusion on their part, not clarity.

Despite this, the consciousness of the working class grows and that of its antagonists decline, thanks to the power of historical materialism. In response, the bourgeoisie have launched numerous critical counterattacks. One they often have recourse to is what they see as turning historical materialism against itself. If it is the case that bourgeois ideologies are functions of capitalist economic realities, doesn't this apply Marxism too? Among the smug, this may be a killer argument, but for Lukacs, it doesn't undermine the scientificity of historical materialism nor threaten a lapse into relativist irrationalism:

The substantive truths of historical materialism are of the same type as were the truths of classical economics in Marx's view: they are truths within a particular social order and system of production. As such, but only as such, their claim to validity is absolute (p.228).

Marx performed a substantive investigation and critique of the political economy of his day in the three volumes of Capital and elsewhere, and the same can be done to historical materialism by applying its categories to its emergence and function. The ability to do so does not weaken its scientific claims because of the intimate, dialectical relationship it has to proletarian interests, but enhances it. Bourgeois thought, on the other hand, is incapable of doing so.

But like all claims to validity, the theoretical object 'capitalism' is not the same thing as really-existing capitalism. It is an approximation whose truth claims can be tested by practice. The "purer" capitalism is, the more fully it has penetrated the fabric of society, the closer the approximation historical materialism achieves. The purity, or rather maturity of capitalism is determined by the extent to which economic forces act like natural forces and extra-economic compulsion has, on the surface, largely been dispensed with. It is the capitalism we in the West are familiar with, where the economy has assumed independent and autonomous powers vis the rest of society. For historical materialism, this means it is confronted with crucial differences when it analyses pre-capitalist societies and the transition period between it and its feudal forebear. The key discrepancy is the absence of reification in these social formations. Capitalism is dominated by the phantom forces called up by the processes it sets into motion - as we saw in Lukacs's essays on reification. Its predecessors are definitively conditioned by nature: its vagaries predominate over what could be spoken of as the "laws" of feudal society. Feudalism's relationship to nature and its organisation of production and extraction of the surplus is qualitatively different to the corresponding relations in societies where capitalism was beginning to emerge, and mature capitalist societies. Therefore using historical materialism in these different contexts requires subtlety and, especially, an appreciation of the specifics of the era's class struggles.

Returning to the Marxist analysis of mature capitalism, economic relations, despite the autonomy of the economy, are never purely economic. They are shot through with relations of force and the threat of force. They are the sites of countless battles between employers and employees. They are the stuff of class struggle. If we return to the transition from feudalism to capitalism, it did not take place because the new production system maturing in the womb of the old was more productive, its victory, instead, was won because the nascent bourgeoisie won the class struggle against the feudal aristocracy. Lukacs notes there are also historical moments where the class forces representing each mode of production are balanced out. The old system is no longer hegemonic, but the new hasn't been able to stamp society definitively with its character. Engels in the Origin of the Family pointed out the state can assume an independent role in these circumstances and become the dominating power in society - the absolute monarchies of the 17th and 18th centuries being cases in point.

What definitely didn't happen in the transitional period was a gradual and peaceful takeover of society by economic relations. And so it is with the transformation of capitalism into socialism. The economic plans hatched by the capitalist class to deal with crisis are simultaneously plans of struggle. If the proletariat is mainly passive, as is the case in the present balance of class forces in Britain as it enters a serious recession, and it continues to remain so, the capitalists will struggle to get the working class to pay for the crisis and prepare the ground for future growth. But if the proletariat is conscious, the crisis can bring the class antagonism between socialist production and privatised appropriation out into the open. "Solutions" become objects of struggle - the capitalists and proletariat put forward their positions and battle it out for hegemony. And as with previous transitions between modes of production, what is decisive are the relations of forces. Violence is the decisive economic factor.

The function of historical materialism changes once again. The tool of historical analysis, the weapon of class struggle, becomes an aid for constructing socialist society if the proletariat wins the class struggle. This is an entirely different situation for it to operate in. But projecting forward, Marx and Engels forecast that a victorious working class would use historical materialism in a context where collective social action is determined by the collective social will, socialisation and democratisation crashes through and transforms institutions, and crucially, labour no longer confronts the working class as an object in thrall to an alien power. And every conscious turn in constructing socialism is a qualitative leap forward in the understanding of historical materialism, which dialectically informs its capacity to assist the conscious regulation of society, and so on. The dialectic of theory and practice finally and permanently become fused.

A complete list of History and Class Consciousness postings can be found here.

Solidarity with Hicham Yezza

Many readers will be familiar with the case of Algerian-born Hicham Yezza. He, along with Rizwaan Sabir, were arrested at their Notts Uni office back in May under the Terrorism Act. Sabir, whose postgraduate research specialism is fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, downloaded an Al-Qaeda training manual (from an official US government website!) and forwarded it to Yezza for printing. This was picked up by university IT staff, which was passed up the management chain, who in turn informed the police. Both men were taken into custody for six days, and then released without arrest.

It seems they were arrested under suspicion of committing thoughtcrime. Research into extremism involves handling all manner of questionable material, and this a basic given as far as academic values are concerned. But this was not a good enough explanation for the counter-terrorist police. They extensively quizzed Yezza about his activities in Nottingham's anti-war movement, his role as the editor of local magazine, Ceasefire, and about his comrades on the staff. The Free Hicham campaign reports what happened next:

Not having been charged under the Terrorism Act, Hich was immediately re-arrested minutes after his release for charges under the Immigration Act, in a move that was considered by many (not least Nottingham South MP, Alan Simpson) to be highly political and suspect. Despite Hich’s publicly-declared intention that he was determined to fight the charges in court, and that he was seeking detailed legal advice, an order for a fast-tracked deportation was suddenly issued on May 23 and a deportation flight was scheduled for June 1. The Home Office planned to remove Hich from the U.K. after thirteen years’ of residence less than three weeks after his arrest under the Terrorism Act. Thanks to a huge campaign of protest at this injustice, including the biggest demonstration in the university’s history, a successful legal challenge was mounted and the fast-track deportation was cancelled.

Nonetheless, the Home Office refused to grant Hich temporary release whilst his case was being reconsidered. He subsequently spent a total of three weeks being moved across the country from one Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) to another, in the process spending over twenty-five hours being transported in secured transit vans. During the course of his detention, he endured significant physical as well as emotional pressures from the detention authorities, including a forcible removal from Colnbrook IRC to Dover IRC. On June 16, an application lodged by his legal team to have him released on bail was successful despite strong opposition from the Home Office.

The Home Office have since charged Yezza with immigration-related offences, but offered to drop them if he left the country "quietly". Then came a deal that would have allowed Hich to stay until he had his day in court, a position the Home Office has reneged on. They aim to deport him after a short hearing due on 8th January.

The persecution of Yezza is political. Rather than admit the misuse of the already draconian Terrorism Act the authorities would prefer to hush it up by disposing of their inconvenient victim as quickly as possible. But this is literally a matter of life and death. There are fears Hich could face torture and possible execution if he returns to Algeria. As far as the government is concerned, what's a life against their precious deportation figures? Donations to the campaign and what you can do to help are detailed here.

Edit 08/03/09: Hicham Yezza update here.

Top Tunes of 2008

We all know the music industry has been holding its collective breath for this moment. The Brits and the Mercury Music Prize are all fine and dandy and nice to have, but the only one that matters is the top ten as determined by your dear host.

Without a shadow of a doubt, 2008 has been a dire year for pop music. Coldplay disappointed us all by coming back after pledging to stay away for a very long time. Katy Perry was number one for ages with a lame tune that sold by the bucketload. Tip for up and coming stars: faux lesbianism still sells. And, inexplicably, the no-marks from X-Factor continue to shift product. In other words, 2008 was as crap as 2007 for pop.

But all is not lost. There may have been a lot of crud bubbling up through the world of dance (the rise of the barely-remixed remix; the coming of the Scouse House-specialising radio spin-off, Clubland TV; bassline; the continued existence of Scooter), but there's been some great stuff as well. Here's the coveted AVPS countdown of 2008:

10) Black and Gold - Sam Sparro
9) Miracle - Oceanlab
8) I Lust U - Neon Neon
7) Body Crash - Buy Now
6) This Is My Life - Euroband
5) Crimewave - Crystal Castles
4) Slave of My Mind - Kiko
3) Sirens of the Sea - Oceanlab
2) Blind - Hercules and Love Affair

And here it is, the best tune of 2008, Armin van Buuren feat. Sharon den Adel with In and Out of Love. Two words: just beautiful. Play it, Sam!



What were your musical highlights of 2008? Anyone you fancy in the new year?