Beyond Ideology (A Work in Perpetual Progress) - Autumn 2001

After the Seattle riots a new movement came into existence: anti-globalisation protestors. A collection of the good, the bad and the ugly (politically speaking), it has at least forced the term 'capitalism' or more importantly 'anti-capitalism,' into the mainstream once again. Being such a broad coalition of loose forces it is impossible to make theoretical generalisations about its nature. The lowest common denominator is obvious though: an open hostility to capitalist structures tinged with anti-American, libertarian streaks.

It would seem after Genoa and the seismic impact of September 11 that the series of European-wide mobilisations has been derailed. What will be of interest in the coming years is the 'kick-back' effect on groups of local activists. Hopefully some will be enthused enough to take their campaign to their respective areas, creating imaginative approaches to real issues. Groups like Liverpool's People Not Profit have at least attempted this, but ideas have only translated into a patchy action success rate. Much of the time their efforts have been little more than preaching to the converted, which perhaps sums up much of the anti-globalisation movement.

Although groups such as the SWP belatedly attached themselves to the anti-globalisation cause, it has managed to inspire and encourage much post-Soviet Union political debate. In Chiapes, Sub-Commander Marcus has refreshingly pioneered new approaches and ideas not just relating to Mexico, but also to wider issues.

What has been forgotten by much of the Left throughout much of the twentieth century has been that if Left politics is live up to its self-proclaimed progressive label, then it has to be at its heart adaptable and fluid. Anything else is a negation of its spirit; hence the intentionally contradictory term 'conservative Left' to describe the Trotskyites, fossilised at their core in time and circumstances long gone.

Much of the ideology that the Left subscribed to throughout the twentieth-century is questionable not just with hindsight, but in even in the then and there.

A slavish adulation of Marx has arguably forestalled much realistic appraisals of the potential and methods or revolutionary groups. What few acknowledge is that Marx himself wrote very little in his lifetime. He only published one book proper, 'Das Kapital', and that wasn't until he was in his fifties. As a theoretical guide it is practically unreadable, with only brave PhD students progressing beyond its first chapter. His other publications, such as the 'Communist Manifesto', were little more than pamphlets.

His place in history though is assured. It has long been the belief of poor throughout the ages that revenge would be theirs and the world would be their reward and inheritance. Marx was the first person to rationally and scientifically make the claim that the poor - the newly created industrial proletariat - had the power, the understanding and the vision to take it all. Much of Marx's ideas are now ingrained in the mainstream. Today, few commentators would dispute that fact that economics is the driving force of society. For instance, nobody could doubt the cause of post-war immigration being the need for capable workers during a period of full employment, or the creation of youth culture being linked to the consumer boom and steady post-war prosperity. Much through is disputable. Take historical determinism, that is, the change from feudalism to capitalism and then onto the socialist forever future. Yes, with the hindsight of twenty-first century knowledge the inevitability of the workers ultimate victory is bunkum, but even far earlier this could be dismissed. American socialist journalist Carl Malcolm, remembers telling Trotsky in 1920 that historical determinism was 'a grandiose exercise in wishful thinking.' During the 1920s the imprisoned leader of the Italian CP, Gramsci, reflected in depth on the failure of the Italian communist movement during the fallout of the Great War. Yes, economic conditions had all been in place, the scientific ingredients were all there, but the revolution never materialised.

What Marx and Marxism can still provide to the modern world though is a critique of existing conditions, and this can and is applied to a host of subjects from history to literature to psychology.

What the modern radical movement needs to concentrate on is redefining definitions. Just what do the terms such as 'socialism', 'democracy', 'reformism' and 'revolutionary' mean in Britain in the twenty-first century? Does being a revolutionary in Britain today mean you walk around with an AK-47 slung over you shoulder ready for action? Of course not. It strikes me that those groups who explicitly label themselves revolutionary are the most unrevolutionary revolutionaries you are ever likely to meet in your life.

As for democracy, they still only make the polarised distinction between parliamentary structures and workers council industrial democracy as if we existed in some 1917 scenario. They hold up the workers councils system as the only true authentic expression of workers democracy. This they claim is the only correct Marxist position, but Marx himself donated little energy to reflecting on such matters. His writings on the subject are literally a few pages in his pamphlet 'The Civil War in France' which chronicled the rise and fall of the 1871 Paris Commune.

How the workers council method of democracy became such a sacred cow to the Left can be found in Lenin's works. Much play has been made by generations of subsequent Marxist-Leninists on their idol's stress of the importance of the disciplined revolutionary party, but pre-October 1917 writings oscillated wildly between belief in the potential of the working-class as a whole and the necessity of the well-organised party. During times of social stability in Russia, Lenin fell back on the belief in the party - read 'What is to be Done?' published in 1903. But during times of working-class self-determination, such as in 1905 and 1917, he enthusiastically embraced the rising self-initiative of the Russian working-class.

His most interesting and accomplished work is 'The State and Revolution' written between the 1917 February and October revolutions. Nowhere in this book does he even mention the party let alone arguments concerning its role. In fact, it can be described as positively libertarian. Anarchists have since made claim to the deception played by Lenin and the Bolsheviks during this period, but there was nothing incredulous about Lenin's work; it was an honest reflection of his beliefs at that time. The Bolsheviks never created the workers councils, or Soviets, in 1905 and 1917 - they were a genuine and organic working-class creation. Lenin recognised this, and rightly so.

For theoretical back-up Lenin fell back on Marx's meagre supportive work from 'The Civil War in France', and used quotes liberally throughout The State and Revolution. It is here that much of the Left has found its holy grail concerning democracy. Lenin's theoretical works can only be academically described as intellectually flimsy. After his youth his inspirations were narrow, which spurred A.J. Polan to announce in his wonderfully knowledgeable and savagely critical eighties book, 'Lenin and the End of Politics', that he 'simply didn't know what he was talking about,'.

There is no doubt that workers councils whether in Paris in 1871, Moscow in 1917 or Budapest in 1956 were a genuine form of working-class democracy, but what is in question is whether it is the only genuinely organic form of working-class democracy. If not, then other forms can be explored.

There is an opening here for refreshing, original ideas on democracy. The establishment claims that liberal democracy is the highest form of social evolution, while the Left hark back to half-baked ideas and historical events far removed from the present day. There is room for a new perspective.

The essence of a revolutionary movement is to know its limitations and recognise the possibilities of different situations.

Leon Trotsky was probably the most saddest historical figure of the twentieth century. Spurred by his first and only love, the USSR, he then spent his remaining years in exile writing a stack of books defending its existence; even though the Stalinist clique had murdered all his previous political friends and has even assassinated his son in Germany.

Come the Second World War the slogan of the Fourth International was uncompromising: 'Unconditional Defence of the Soviet Union.' The numerical strength of Trotsky's International amounted to just scores in each European country. So enthralled was he by the 'degenerated workers state' theory that he spent copious amounts of time explaining himself. Removed from real conditions he missed the bleeding obvious, that is, that 'unconditional support of the Soviet Union' could never translate into action. Obviously the Red Army would shoot any Fourth International members without hesitation! It was such an all-encompassing passion that the International actually split with the Workers' Party breaking away from the American SWP.

During the nineties, starting off with the Gulf War, the British Left have tried to stop successive wars that Britain has involved itself in. Of course, all 'mass mobilisations' have failed, and British foreign policy remains unchanged.

Limitations of revolutionary organisations have to be realised and the policy assessed in relation to the strength of the group. Wasting time - both in theory and action - on issues far removed from any hope of influence is a recipe for suicide.

The possibilities of events must also be recognised by the revolutionary organisation. When the working-class takes independent action far removed from the establishments plans they must not be held back . A reformist organisation would do just that. Those that remember the Poll Tax will recollect the positions of the Labour Party: pay it and vote for us at the next general election (which they subsequently lost). To hold back a confidant working-class in such a manner is criminal, but the treachery of social democratic parties is well documented and weighty.

Much of what shaped Left groups in times gone has now passed with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The main bone of contention between much of the Left was the nature of the USSR, i.e. state capitalism, degenerated workers state, bureaucratic collectivism, etc. Britain's original Trotskyite organisation the Revolutionary Communist Party split on the matter, with leading lights Tony Cliff, Ted Grant and Gerry Healy each forming their own respective organisations (SWP, Militant, WRP.). These debates are now no more than historical pleasantries.

Much of the Left's analysis revolves around some cyclonic view of history; for instance, there was much loose talk in the SWP during the nineties that that decade was a rerun of the thirties. But this speculation fits their theories because they only see potential for themselves in times of conflict and hardship for the people as a whole. 'Swings and roundabouts' historiography is false: labour history never repeats itself.

One criticism of ideas presented here is opportunism, but to the rest of Left this is their only method of operating. Always ready for the 'big one', that is, the next economic depression or war, they run around tailing big events of the day, and then once their own agenda has been satisfied - or more than likely the cause lost - they abandon their campaign in pursuit of the next 'big one.' Nobody now remembers the SWP's 'Time to Go!' campaign in the eighties, or similar fetishes such as the original Anti-Nazi League, abandoned in an overnight policy shift. What we advocate is continuity. This is the only method of making headway in individual campaigns because social change, even in the best of times, is a protracted affair. There must be an end to tailing events, and a move towards setting the agenda, rather than the agenda shaping the organisation.

As has been demonstrated, no ideologue in history is infallible; to go beyond dogma is not just important, but essential. To quote Marx: 'We must have merciless criticism of all things existing.' Socialism, if it is to have any meaning today, must be in a state of constant flux: for he that leads is he that responds most fully to real conditions on the ground. Only by a constant state of reappraisal can we finally move beyond ideology.