Lyev
19th September 2010, 14:49
There is an oft quoted paragraph used to accuse the CWI and Peter Taaffe of "labourite reformism". The passage is often wrenched out of context, and I can provide the details and historical context with which the statement was made, but, as regards parliamentary participation, this quote from Marx reminded of the small passage of Taaffe's. It should also be noted, we are of course not talking about parliamentarianism - participating in elections etc. as a vehicle for social change in itself. The context with which the Marx quote must be taken is that he is referring to a winning a parliamentary majority as a means of weakening some of the bourgeoisie's assets (similar to how Taaffe talks about nationalisation and whatnot), and simply clearing obstacles out of the path of the working class movement. Here are the two quotes (emphasis mine):
If the next Labour government introduced an Enabling Bill into Parliament to nationalise the 200 monopolies, banks and insurance companies which control 80 to 85 per cent of the economy, a decisive blow would be struck against the 196 directors of these firms who are the real government of Britain. By the economic power they wield, they dictate the course to be followed by both Tory and Labour governments. They would be compensated for the nationalisation of their assets on the basis of "proven need." Such a step, backed up by the power of the labour movement outside parliament, would allow the introduction of a socialist and democratic plan of production to be worked out and implemented.... A peaceful socialist transformation of society, would be entirely possible if such bold steps were to be taken by a Labour government... (Peter Taaffe, 1981)
An historical development can remain ‘peaceful’ only so long as no forcible hindrances are put in its way by the existing rulers of a society. If, for example, in England or the United States, the working class were to win a majority in Parliament or Congress, it could legally put an end to laws and institutions standing in the way of its development, although even here only so far as societal development permitted. For the ‘peaceful’ movement could still be turned into a ‘violent’ one by the revolt of those whose interests were bound up with the old order. If such people were then put down by force (as in the American Civil War and the French Revolution), it would be rebels against the ‘lawful’ power. (Karl Marx, 1878)
Anyway, I just thought the similarity between the passages was quite interesting and something conducive to interesting discussion. As Marx mentions these reforms can only go as far as "societal development" will allow; a socialist transformation, I think, will endeavour to peaceful in as many areas as possible, and violence is by no means tantamount to abolition of a social relation, of course. But the capitalist class will defend their interests with violence.
Furthermore, I suppose both of these quotes need to taken in context. What does everyone else think as regards participation in elections, parliamentarianism, nationalisation etc. etc.? I only really see participation in elections as a [I]platform for bring to forefront working class interests, and really nothing more. At the moment, "societal development" doesn't at all permit reforms (or the winning of parliamentary majority) to be stretched as far as Taaffe or Marx talk about. And actually, now that I think about it, is there a difference between pressuring for nationalisation (as Taaffe mentions) and winning a parliamentary majority (as Marx mentions), both as a vehicle for putting socialism on the agenda?
If the next Labour government introduced an Enabling Bill into Parliament to nationalise the 200 monopolies, banks and insurance companies which control 80 to 85 per cent of the economy, a decisive blow would be struck against the 196 directors of these firms who are the real government of Britain. By the economic power they wield, they dictate the course to be followed by both Tory and Labour governments. They would be compensated for the nationalisation of their assets on the basis of "proven need." Such a step, backed up by the power of the labour movement outside parliament, would allow the introduction of a socialist and democratic plan of production to be worked out and implemented.... A peaceful socialist transformation of society, would be entirely possible if such bold steps were to be taken by a Labour government... (Peter Taaffe, 1981)
An historical development can remain ‘peaceful’ only so long as no forcible hindrances are put in its way by the existing rulers of a society. If, for example, in England or the United States, the working class were to win a majority in Parliament or Congress, it could legally put an end to laws and institutions standing in the way of its development, although even here only so far as societal development permitted. For the ‘peaceful’ movement could still be turned into a ‘violent’ one by the revolt of those whose interests were bound up with the old order. If such people were then put down by force (as in the American Civil War and the French Revolution), it would be rebels against the ‘lawful’ power. (Karl Marx, 1878)
Anyway, I just thought the similarity between the passages was quite interesting and something conducive to interesting discussion. As Marx mentions these reforms can only go as far as "societal development" will allow; a socialist transformation, I think, will endeavour to peaceful in as many areas as possible, and violence is by no means tantamount to abolition of a social relation, of course. But the capitalist class will defend their interests with violence.
Furthermore, I suppose both of these quotes need to taken in context. What does everyone else think as regards participation in elections, parliamentarianism, nationalisation etc. etc.? I only really see participation in elections as a [I]platform for bring to forefront working class interests, and really nothing more. At the moment, "societal development" doesn't at all permit reforms (or the winning of parliamentary majority) to be stretched as far as Taaffe or Marx talk about. And actually, now that I think about it, is there a difference between pressuring for nationalisation (as Taaffe mentions) and winning a parliamentary majority (as Marx mentions), both as a vehicle for putting socialism on the agenda?