discussion of this article

Arthur Bough said…

Northern Rock is a State capitalist institution, why would any Marxist expect it to act differently than any other Capitalist institution whether owned by the Capitalists privately or by their State???? What is the point in demanding that the Capitalist State acts against its own interests under conditions where you have no power to force it to do otherwise? And if we were in a position where the working class WAS strong enough to make it do otherwise what would be the point of such appeals to the Capitalist State, rather the working class would be strong enough to take matters into its own hands and simply take over Northern Rock and run it according to its own needs. The question is how do we bring the working class to that position of strength. I believe that the Marxist position is that you do that by organising the working class to act for its self, to build self-reliance, and not to sow in it illusions that the Bouregois State can be made to act progressively.

In fact, such demands to that State are no different than those you quite correctly criticise the AWL for in respect of Iraq, where they sow the illusion that the bouregois State can act progressively.

We need to encourage the working class to rely not on the bourgeois State, but on itself, to create its own worker owned co-operative property in opposition to bouregois property. WE should see the proposal of the Co-op Bank and Britannia to merge as a great opportunity, and socialists should involve themselvesin trying to ensure that such organisations are placed under a fully functioning worker democracy.

See:http://boffyblog.blogspot.com/2008/11/financial-crisis-and-marxist-response.html

Tue 04, November 2008 @ 16:22

bill j said…

The leaflet wasn't about our expectations of how a state capitalist institution should act. It was about how a state capitalist institution nationalised by a Labour government - i.e. one that claims to represent working people should act.

If Northern Rock was expropriated under workers control as the leaflet demands then Northern Rock would no longer be a "state capitalist" institution.

By building on this contradiction between how it actually acts and how working people believe such an institution should act we can a) expose it for what it really is b) build action around the demands opposing reposessions etc.

The Co-Op and the Britannia as "state capitalist nominally non-profit making" institutions are not substantially different from Northern Rock in any respect and we should make the same demands on them.

So there you go.

Wed 05, November 2008 @ 13:30

Arthur Bough said…

Bill, there is a big, big difference between the Capitalist State and the Co-op. One is the main enemy of the working class. It is as marx and Engels put it the Executive Committee of the Ruling class, and that would not change even if the Labour Government really were one that acts in the interests of working people. The other is an organisation created by the working class, is still owned by the working class, and which still, potentially can be controlled by the working class should it choose to exercise that ability.

The bourgeois state and property nationalised by that State can NEVER be controlled by the working class, except, perhaps for very short periods of time in a dual power situation. The condition for workers controlling nationalised property is that they control the State, and that would require far more than a Labour Government. Now I agree that the majority of workers do not exercise the control they theoretically can exercise over the Co-op Bank or Unity Trust, but that is to say nothing more than that workers in their majority do not exercise control over their Trade Unions. Their is a considerable difference between the fact that workers CANNOT exercise control over the institutions of their class enemy, and that they DO NOT exercise control over their own organisations. Marxists should not mislead workers into believing that the former is possible, and should mobilise the workers to ensure that the latter is achieved.

Wed 05, November 2008 @ 23:58

bill j said…

So basically you have no demands, no slogans, no methods for mobilising the class.

The leaflet campaigned to expose the contradiction between Labour's words - a working class party which claims to represent the working class - and their deeds - a capitalist party which represents the capitalists.

The leaflet didn't express an opinion about the nature of state capitalism, or the possibility of any of this happening. But it was able to raise this contradiction among Northern Rock mortgage holders, and other working class people passing by. It also started to organise the left in Manchester and as such poses the possibility of further action down the road - the physical obstruction of repossesions etc.

You can explain the principled difference between the Co-op - who evict people and repossess their stuff just like all financial institutions - and the Northern Rock - who do the same thing - all you like. But in the end it boils down to a hopeless do nothing strategy, which will achieve its intended result. Nothing.

Thu 06, November 2008 @ 09:25

Arthur Bough said…

Who says no demands??? The task of a marxist is to explain to workers precisely why the Capitalist State will not do the things you ask it to do and why raising such demands can only delue the class. That is why Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme said tht the socialism of those that raise the kind of demands you do here was only "skin-deep", it is why he opposed such cringeing at the feet of the bouregois State, and instead put forward the same demands and programme that I do here that the workers resolve their problems not by appeals to the bouregoisie, but by their own self-activity through the establishment of Co-operatives.

And that is the advice and the demands that I would raise for workers to demand control of their pension funds, to use their resources to create their own Co-operative property that they CAN control, to demand the Labour Movement begin to exercise real democratic control over the Co-op Bank, over Unity Trust and other such organisations, demands which the working class CAN realistically mobilise around, and can achieve without the need for immediately overthrowing Capitalism, which is the only way in which it could exercise control over the State, or over statised property.

Marxists base theiranalysis on class yet you eschew such an approach simply taking the superfical view that the Co-op Bank and Northern Rock both evict people without looking at the class content of both organisations. You might as well say that bureaucratised unions participate in the exploitation of workers as well as employers organisations so their is no difference between them, or that Marists should demand that employers organisations defend workers rights as much as Trade Unions. Of course, some sectarians do arrive at that conclusoin which arises naturally from your argument. As far as I am aware you do not. You recognise the difference between the two. So your position is contradictory.

It is necessary for workers to transform their organisations such as the Co-op and Unity Trust as much as it is necessary to transform their Trade Unions. But, that is the task they have, not to simply equate those organisations with the organisations of the bosses and thereby dismiss them.

Thu 06, November 2008 @ 16:39

bill j said…

Actually I didn't dismiss them, I simply said they were not qualitatively different from other state capitalist organisations. They too need to be expropriated and run under the control of the working class.

Following your logic we shouldn't demand the capitalist state does anything we consider unlikely as this is "building illusions" in it.

But in fact nearly all progressive demands are "unlikely", the capitalists don't want to do them by definition, but if we adopted this criteria for what we fight around we wouldn't fight around anything.

Take the stop the war coalition.

Was it "unlikely" in fact "highly unlikely" in fact "so unlikely that it was virtually inconceivable" that the bosses would drop their plans to attack Iraq.

It was.

Should we have refused to campaign against the war? Or stated on every leaflet, "although we oppose the war, there's really very little chance of success, we don't think there's anyway the capitalist state will alter its essence and halt the attack, sorry to shatter you illusions. By the way we want street blockades and strikes which could get you arrested and sacked."

I would suggest that we shouldn't have. As the question of likelihood is also a question of struggle. In reality our leaflet by exposing the contrast between what the pro-capitalist government does and what it claims to be doing, exposes the true nature of the capitalist state better than your abstract do nothing propaganda.

See you down John Lewis (a not-for-profit-wholly-workers-owned-state-capitalist-enterprise)

Thu 06, November 2008 @ 17:07

Arthur Bough said…

Should we address demands to the bourgeois State? No, of course we shouldn't, because to do so is to mislead workers into beleiving that that State might act progressively. That was the whole point of Marx's attack on the Lassalleans in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Rather we address demands to the working class to act, because only it is the revolutionary agent. As Engels put it, "We don't ask them for anything. If they give us something we'll accept it, but we will show them no thanks for it."

The whole task of Marxists is to provide solutions for workers that the workers can achieve for themselves. Demanding that the bouregois State does not do something when you know that State will not do it does not constitute providing workers with a solution. The only point of such an approach is not to provide workers with a solution, but to demonstrate yet again what a bunch of shits the Capitalist State and its agents are. But, that lesson has been given to the workers more than enough times, many workers know its true. So its a pretty minimalist approach with very limited objectives - none of which amount to giving workers a workable solution. What workers want is not for revolutionaries to play games with them giving them such education, but real solutions that they can achieve. In order for it to be an actual solution it would mean workers overthrowing the bouregois State, and so you leap from a minimalist solution to a maximalist solution - Socialism Now!

That is true of Iraq too. The demand for Troops Out is not a demand to the Bourgeois State is it? Its a demand addressed to workers to bring that about for workers to kick those troops out. Read what Trotsky says about those who believe that they can exercise control over the armed forces of the bouregois State without actually overthrowing that bourgeois State! But, that is precisely what you propose if you think that workers in Britain can simply demand that the bourgeois State accede to such demands. Workers can organise strikes against military supplies and so on, and thereby frustrate the war fighting capability, but if the bouregois state is firmly intent on military action, then as Trotsky rightly says workers cannot prevent that other than by overthrowing that State.

Finally, the Co-op, Unity Trust etc. are not State Capitalist anymore than UNISON, UNITY or other Trade Unions are State capitalist.

I'll find Trotsk's quote and post it later.

Sat 08, November 2008 @ 19:22

Arthur Bough said…

Trotsky's quote on trying to control the army of the bouregois State as promised above:

"Where and when has an oppressed proletariat “controlled” the foreign policy of the bourgeoisie and the activities of its arm? How can it achieve this when the entire power is in the hands of the bourgeoisie? In order to lead the army, it is necessary to overthrow the bourgeoisie and seize power. There is no other road. But the new policy of the Communist International implies the renunciation of this only road.

When a working class party proclaims that in the event of war it is prepared to “control” (i.e., to support) its national militarism and not to overthrow it, it transforms itself by this very thing into the domestic beast of capital. There is not the slightest ground for fearing such a party: it is not a revolutionary tiger but a trained donkey. It may be kept in starvation, flogged, spat upon it – it will nevertheless carry the cargo of patriotism. Perhaps only from time to time it will piteously bray: “For God’s sake, disarm the Fascist leagues.” In reply to its braying it will receive an additional blow of the whip. And deservingly so!" See:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1935/06/french.htm

Sat 08, November 2008 @ 20:16

Arthur Bough said…

By the way Bill my solution is not about propaganda or no demands, and certainly not about doing nothing, or worse doing soemthing you know in advance will fail. The difference between the Co-op and Northern Rock or John Lewis is that every single worker in Britain including you can join, and have an equal vote in what it does, and how it acts. No need for overthrowing the State or even a general Strike to achieve hat basic democratic right.

Indeed, Marxists believe that if socialism is to work and not turn into Stalinism such activity will have to be an everyday occurrence for workers taking part in such democratic decisions. So I suppose my obvious question to you would be if you object to the actions of the Co-op, have you taken up your right to exercise your vote in how it acts. If not, then aren't you responsible by ommission? And if a revolutionary can't be bothered to take an active part in determining the actions of an important enterprise like that when they have the opportunity how the hell do you expect tens of millions of ordinary workers to do that come the revolution?

Sat 08, November 2008 @ 20:34

PR webby said…

Please don't post more than one post in succession. Its spamming.

Sat 08, November 2008 @ 20:54