In the last issue of The Red Mole we printed an article by David Windsor. While this was absolutely accurate in the way it outlined the evolution of I.S., nevertheless it is not sufficient merely to make criticisms of I.S. without explaining what are the theoretical roots of its political mistakes. In the case of I.S. these may appear obscure and indeed most of those in opposition to the leadership within I. S. do not see the questions of theory on which the International Socialists are based, for example, State Capitalism, the Permanent Arms economy etc., as being relevant to the present debate over the leaderships opportunist course. If it were the case that these theoretical positions were not relevant to practice then it would indeed be a red herring to introduce them into the debate. What Workers Fight has unfortunately not done, is to show at all how the positions on the Soviet Union etc. are interrelated with practice, In consequence, W.F.'s criticisms appear merely sectarian and academic. It is however necessary to show how I.S.'s political practice flows from its theoretical positions.
State Capitalism The original defining feature of I.S. was its position that the USSR was State Capitalist. For most of its members this position is still what appears to divide Them most trom orthoook trotskyism. As State Capitalism is the most fundamental feature of ISs politics, it can in fact be shown that all I.S.'s political mistakes flow from its incorrect methodology on this question.
The most fundamental feature of Marx's methodology is that he defines economic categories as social relations. His criticism of bourgeois economics was precisely that it saw things, for example machines, as economic categories, For example he states that "in prer Pron, or oouer su, captal-interest, land rent, labour-wages ... represented as the connection between the component parts of value and wealth in general, we have the complete mystification of the capitalist mode of production, the conversion of social relations into things." (1) He states categorically, for example, that "The existence of things qua commodities, have absolutely no connexion with their phylical properties and with the material relations aris. ing therefrom. There it is a definite social relation be tween, men that assumes in their eyes (the bourgeois economistsl the fantastic form of a relation between things."(2) Even more simply Marx states that "Econome cal gores are ony the tneoretical expressions the abstraction of the social relations of production."(3) it is therefore clear that if we wish to determine the nature of a society we must investigate the "social relations of production" which exist within it therefore are the social production relations of capitalism? It would not take long to prove that all the Marxists definitions of capitalism show that capitalism is a society in vich all products, and in particular labour become commodities. We could for example take Lenin's definition that "By capitalism is meant that stage of the development of commodity production at which not only the products of human labour, but human labour power itself become a commodity."* (4) In an article in 1S. 41 (p. 37) Chris Harman tries to deny this by appear ing to suggest that the commodity production relations can differ between modes of production. This view is however specifically rejected by Marx himself. He writes that "No matter what the basis on which products are produced which are thrown into circulation as commodities - whether the basis of the primitive community of slave production, of small peasant and petty-bourgeois, or the capitalist basis, the character of products as commodities is not altered," (5) Cliff however, in contradiction to Harman, accepts that generalised commodity production including that of labour power is the basis of capitalism. He states correctly that "Under capitalism, and only under capitalism, all, or even a majority of products, take the form of commodities." (6) What then are commodities? They 'embody' exchange value or as Marx refers to it "commodity, as universal labour-time embodied in a particular use-value (7), as "universal labour time, ie. the product of universal exchange" (8) or simply as means of exchange ie. commodities (9) Is theretore ex change value a social relationship? Very definitely. Marx states that "exchange value is a relation between persons", (10) and exchange value of commodities is, in fact, nothing but a mutual relation of the labours of individuals." (11) and It is a social process participated in by individuals independent of each other but the part they take in it is that of owners of commodities only. Their mutual relations are those of commodities."* (12) We can therefore clearly see that exchange value is a social relation. The basis of this social relationshp of exchange value is that labour is carried out independently. As Marx puts it Objects for use only become commodities Decause they are products of private labours, conducted independently from each other."* (13) And only such products can become commodities with regard to each other, as results from different kinds of labour, each kind being carried on independently and for the account of private individuals.* (14)
The Red Mole 29th November 1971 Page 10 We may therefore summarise; if we wish to determine the nature of a society we must examine the social relations of production which exist within it. The ge. neralised social relations of capitalism are those of exchange value (i.e. commodity relatións). The question therefore is whether the Soviet Union is characterised by social relations of exchange value. But these social relations de not in fact exist either within the USSR or between the production relations of the USSR and those of other countries. Even the 1.S. is forced to admit that. For example Cliff admits that within the USSR one is bound to conclude that the source of the law of value (i.e., determination of the economy Dy exchange value) .., is not to be found in it. 15 Harmon also realises this and tries to assert that something else can play the same role. (16) Marks even goes so far as to claim this 'insight" is the fundamental theoratical 'advance" of state capitalism.(171 The reason they have to do this is of course because the social relations of exchange value do not (by I,S.'s own admission) exist in relation to the USSR. The talk of ather mechanisms (social relations) is incorrect precisely because any other social relations mean a different mode of production and in the case of the USSA mean that it is not in any sense a capitalist state. Let un just repeat what Marx says again, "éxchange value is a relation between persons," and "The conditions of labour, which create exchange value are social conditions of labour or conditions of social labour. Social, not in the ordinary, but in a special sense, It is a specific form of the social process" (18) That 'specific form of the social process," that relation bet ween persons" does not exist with regard to the USSR. Its social relations of production are not those of capitalism, In short, despite I.S. it is not a capitalist state. The theory of state capitalism is fundamentally methodologically wrong.
Once this point is seen the rest of the apparently curious parts of 1.5 's theory no longer appear separate and isolated but fall neatly into place. For example, why cannot I.S. have a proper theory of profit? Why in dealing with imperialism and the effect of armaments does it have to talk in terms of "leaks' and "drains" and not in terms of profit as every previous Marxist has done? (19) The answer is simply because "profit" is itself a social relation derived from the social relation of exchange value. (20) If you cannot understand that exchange value is a social relation, then neither can you understand that profit-is a derived social relation in Marxist terms as well. In consequence you can have no proper theory of profit, and you fall vack into the curious jargon of the leak'. You cannot then have any real theory of imperialism.
State Capitalism and Industrial Practice and Building the Party not state capitalist, but that is an academic question. How does it relate to practice. The answer to this lie in the tact that 1.5., in order to appear credible, has to give a proof that the USSR is capitalist. It cannot do that in terms of all the social relations of production in Russia, because, as we have seen it is not possible to claim that the social relations of exchange value exist in relation to that society li.e., either internally or in relation to relations of production in other states). The only way in which the theory can be made plausible is to forget about the social production relations of exchange value, and instead just talk of the authority relations within the factory. Here it is possible to find all sorts of abuses, and of course, in certain societies authority relations have determined the mode of production. For example Rosa Luxemburg notes that In an economic system based on slave labour or corvee, (economic) reproduction is enforced and regulated in all details by personal relations of domination." (21) However, Rosa Luxemburg, like every other Marxist at once notes that these relations of domination (authority) are not the defining ones of capitalism. Paraphrasing Marx she writes that under capitalism, *The only social link between these producers is the act of exchange," (22) and "no social link exists between the producers other than the exchange of commodities." (23) However, I.S. in order to make its position on State Capitalism credible, and because it cannot deal with the social relations of exchange value, ie., Dear Comrades. the real definition of capitalism, has to concentrate only on the relations of factory. (24) Thus, Cliff even describes the "social counter-revolution" counter revolution of the five year plan in terms of the factory. (28) The reason why State capitalism cannot deal with the social relations of production is because any analysis would show that the social relations of exchange value did not exist in relation to the USSR prior to 1929 (the supposed date of social counterrevolution) and neither did they afterwards. All that can be shown, and it is of course true, is that authority relations in the factory deteriorated completely. But they had done that even before 1929.
Once State Capitalism has identified the key relation as that of the factory all the rest flows logically. It becomes clear at once why most State Capitalist groups are anarchist. Any authority easily to them becomes capitalism. State Capitalism's economistic and reformist industrial practice becomes easily understandable. If the key social relation is that in the factory (so key in fact that it defines the nature of the mode of production, and hence of the society) then obviousty revealing the nature of that relation is the key thing in day to day political practice. From this arises I.S.'s discussion of everything in terms of the factory - ie., their economism (26) and their inability to comprehend the importance of propagandising on the subject of Ireland, the colonial revolution, etc. Hence also their would do its utmost to help comrades coming from inability to understand the national question in Ireland. Once this is established I.S.'s practice in relation to the party and in relation to their recruiting drives, etc. falls logically into place. If the relation in the factory is the key social relation then an understanding of it must be the key aspect of political consciousness.
Having political consciousness is a criteria for memberest to recrun anyone who understands the factory struggle. Hence the basis of the recruiting drives and the subsequent political degeneration and bureaucracy. The position on the Labour Party soon appears as well. Obviously in our society a large number of workers do understand the authority relations of factory. Furthermore, in any struggle they lear about these types of relations quite spontaneously.
Thus, the key thing is to start a struggle on any issue and political consciousness will be gained. Hence, the reformist programme for the Labour Party on which the working class may fight (unfortunately it would not gain political consciousness in the course of it). One this is established then the definition that Hallas gives to propaganda and agitation inevitably appears. The whole reforming political position now appears not as an accidental or incidental series of mistakes, but it has a complete inner consistency once the beginning false analyses are arrived at. Each stage of the argument supports every other and once the original pre-suppositions are made it is impossible to break out of the vicious circle. It is obviousiy impossible to deal with everything here, but those I.S.
memoers wno are prepared to think about it will soon see how the incorrect political practice fits exactty with the tneoretical positions, it is these positions which completely underpin its incorrect positions on building the revolutionary party The conclusion is simple. Those in I.S. who see the arguments over the USSR, the coloniel revolution, etc.
as academic or irrelevant are one sense right. The way they have tended to be presented by Workers Fight they are unrelated to practice. But in fact the implications of these political positions for political practice are crucial. Once the wrong positions on the USSR, etc. are adopted then you are politically trapped. It is not possible to accept the theory of State Capitalism and reject the reformist practice. Certainly the question of how to build the party is the key one but it cannot be answered without breaking with I.S./'s theoretical positions. It is only too true in the case of I.S. that *there cannot be revolutionary practice without revolutionary theory."
J. Marshall (1) Capital, Vol. 3, p. 830; (2) Capital, Vol. 1, p. 73; (3)
Poverty of Philosophy, p. 95; (4) Lenin, "On the so-called Market Question.*: (5) Capital, Vol.3, p. 325; (6) Cliff, Russia - A Marxist Analysis, p.149; The quote is from Marx; (7) Critique of Political Economy, p. 50; (8) Ibid..p. 49; (9) Ibid.,p. 53; (10) Ibid., p. 30; (11) Ibid., p. 31: (12) Ibid., p. 41; (13) Capital, Vol. 1, Chap. 1, cited in Mandel - Inconsistencies of State Capitalism; So far the reader may say 'O.K. 1 agree that the USSR is (14) Capital, Vol. 1, p. 49, cited Cliff Op. cit..p. 143; (15) Cliff, op. cit., p. 159; (16) Harmon in "World Crisis" p. 187; 117) International Socialism 49, p. 29: (18) Critique of Political Economy, p.26; (19) See Mandel - The Mystifications of State Capitalism: (20) See Preobrazhensky - The New Economics, pp. 196-202; (21) Rosa Luxemburg - The Accumulation of Capital, p. 33: (22) Ibid., p. 34; (23) Ibid., p.37; (24) This is coupled by I.S. with a complete distortion of Trotsky's position on the USSR. Cliff claims that Trotsky was 'formalist' because he defined the USSR as a workers state because of nationalised property and ignored the social relations. (Cliff op. cit. p. 132). This is completely untrue. Trotsky stated clearJy that it is necessary to distinguish the real from the supposed forms of property, ie., from juridicial fictions." He then goes on to explain clearly that what he means by nationalised property is the series of social relations of a planned (i.e., non-commodity) economy. Trotsky - Writings 1935-36, p. 121; (25) Cliff, op. cit. pp. 17-20; (26) See B. Grogan - Further Developments (?) in State Capittism, in international, Vol. 1, No. 6. The United Secretariat of the Fourth International has been informed that a grouping within the I.S. group in Britain-which holds political positions ir basic agreement with the Fl has been threatened with expulsion from I.S. This tendency, generally known as Workers" Fight, if expelled, would thus be faced with the problem of defining its position towards theF and the building of a revolutionary party in Britain.
We do not wish to return to the past policy of your tendency. In any case we must remind you that the Ninth World Congress took decisions orienting all our sections towards open work. The main point which we wish to stress is that the same World Congress recognised the International Marxist Group (IMG) as the British section and called upon all Fl supporters in Britain to join that section. The IMG and the Spartacus League have grown in the past period. The normal way in Britain to join the Fourth International and fight alongside it, is to join the IMG. We can easily understand that comrades who have, in the past, struggled within another organisation, with another perspective, may have some difficulty in coming to this conclusion, but nothing would be more incorrect for them than to think that the Fl would be ready to change its views on this matter and be ready to work and maintain "special relations" with a new organisation in a country where it has a recognised section. On the contrary the FI another background to integrate themselves via the British section. Except for the question of the old perspective of work inside I.S', we do not exactly know what are your disagreements with our organisation, be it with the Fl as a whole or the IMG as its work in the British context. We invite the Workers Fight tendency ship of a revolutionary organisation. Therefore, it is cor- to approach the IMG, as the British section of the FI, for immediate discussion with a view to joining the FI and helping to build its British section. The USFI would be prepared to participate in any such discussion.
The creation of a separate organisation would be both unnecessary and redundant, There could be no future for an independent organisation which claims to agree with the basic policies of the Fl and yet could not be part of it. Such a group would be condemned to "discover" differences in order to hold together, and then it would rapidly abandon the line of the Fourth International.
If the Workers Fight does decide to set up an independent organisation before a discussion has taken place, then the situation would be completely changed as far as we are concerned. Our experience has taught us the Irrevocable logic of such a step as we have outlined above. It is necessary to speak frankly so that the position is clearly understood.
There may be, ofcourse, differences on purely tactical questions with the line of the Fourth International and its British section; however, it would be unprincpica to justry me creation or a separate organisatiot for tactical reasons. Such differences should not be a obstacle to building the section together. The political discussion we are now suggesting is made precisely with complete openness as regards the tactics of building a section in Britain. Within the general line laid down by the World Congress, any member of the FI is free to argue for different tactics inside any section of the International.
We hope that you comrades of the Workers Fight tendency will understand that this position of ours is only the application of the norms of the functioning of the FI, as specified by the draft statutes, and that the United Secretariat is thereby trying to help you to avoid taking a wrong path and to help you to join the Fl as soon as possible.
-UNITED SECRETARIAT OF THE FI 16.11.1971 POSTCRIPT Since the above declaration was made a meeting has Deen held between members of the Political Committee of the British Section of the Fourth International and a representative of the steering committee of the Workers Fight tendency of I.S. It was suggested by the representatives of the IMG that the steps towards reaching an agreement on the basis of the statement of the United Secretariat could be undertaken at once by immediately having a series 0215IX9 400401011101081X8 12UM 01 885 OLSUDISSAOSIO10 between Workers Fight and the IMG. The representatives of the IMG agreed that any discussion could include the previous history of the IMG, of Workers Fight, of the orientation of the Fourth International in Britain, the character of the revolutionary newspaper and any other subject.
It was also stated that the representatives of the IMG were prepared to discuss, on the basis of the USFI statement, any other subject Workers Fight wished to raise. All these proposals for discussion have since been rejected by the representative of the Workers Fight steering committee and he has announced the intention or oringing out a journar in opposition to the Fourth International. Despite this the IMG will continue to operate the decleration of the Fourth International. The offer of a full political discussion remains open for the Workers Fight tendency as a whole right up to that point where it brings out an opposition journal to those of the Fourth International in Britain. We appeal to the comrades of Workers Fight to understand the inevitable odic or cutina memiseives ou trom une international In order to justify their independent existence they wil nave to invent airerences with me rizitinese differences are political they will rapidly arrive at incorrect positions. It tney are tactical they wil!
teach the basically wrong methodology of putting tactics above politics.
UEDJo ue Teur ABuIDJoRnxa n oulL aM asPo Aue un isation which was prepared to join I.S. on the basis o1 4 retormist points, rerused betore undertaking the task of setting up a new organisation, even to nave a ciscussion with me rourin international.
It is a bad omen for the future of Workers Fight.
Comrades of Workers hight will, we nope, under stand that the logic of sectarian politics, on which tney are doout to emoark, is dictated not by subjective intention, but by the whole position of an organisation trying to define itself by tactical means. We hope Workers Fight will reconsider their position and agree to a frank discussion between the IMG and their tendency. We assure you that any discussion will be completely open on our side as regards all questions of bullding the Fourth International in Britain, provided only that they are within the orientation layed down at the Ninth World Congress of the Fourth International. This we are naturally unable to change, although members of Workers Fight would, like any other members of the Fil.. be entitled to argue for a change in the decisions of any body of the International if they join the F.I.
-The Secretariat of the International Marxist Group (24.11.71)
- Polemic
----- pull-quotes -----
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE COMRADES OF "WORKERS FIGHT" FROM USFI