Chartism

[Zanthorus]

Been researching a good deal of the history of class struggle in Britain recently (Please do excuse my national narrowness ;)), and became particularly obsessed with learning about the Chartists. They are fascinating, it appears that they were one of the first mass movements of the working-class in history. Both Marx and Engels supported the movement, it was primarily the Chartists that were being referred to when they wrote in the Manifesto that "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties." It also appears that Bauer, Schapper and Moll, the exiled leaders of the Communist League in London, participated in various Chartist meetings and events.

On the other hand, the Chartists programme was initially extremely limited. Apart from the demand for annual elections, all of the demands of the People's Charter have been implemented in modern Britain, in fact the current British electoral system is more progressive than the demands of the Charter, since the Charter only included suffrage for all males. Women's suffrage was apparently not considered by them. In 1851 the Chartist movement split between the Left-Chartists and O' Connerites and the former adopted a programme consisting of radical land reform, the formation of a popular militia and so on, but by this time the movement had imploded in terms of numerical support.

What are people's thoughts on Chartism and can anyone point me in the direction of good books or articles on the subject? Thanks.

[Amphictyonis]

I support the Graphists. The Chartists were all counterrevolutionary revisionists. But seriously, thanks for posting this- I hadn't read about them as I'm in America.

[CornetJoyce]

Dorothy Thompson's
The Chartists (Pantheon, 1984)
is good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waRwJZFoJmw

[Lyev]

You might find this Weekly Worker article here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=410), from a few years ago, quite interesting. I think it is helpful to view Chartism as a political response opposed to Labourism, 50 years or so before the Labour Party existed. Labourism uses (or used?) the trade union movement as a medium through which to amplify and communicate its demands to the working class, thus putting too large an emphasis on economic 'bread-and-butter' demands, whilst Chartism put direct pressure on MPs through political demands (thus the whole People's Charter thing), such as suffrage, albeit limited to men over 21. The article goes over this. And as you say, all the Chartists demands have now been realised. They are, by today's standards, not at all radical. It should be noted that the Chartists had reformists are revolutionaries in their ranks; maybe this can account for at least some of the less radical demands. Anyway, the working class movement in the 19th century, centred around the Chartists, were more than willing to fight for the charter. There was some sort of insurrection of workers in the late 1830s, followed by a general strike in the early '40s.

[ComradeOm]

You mind find this Weekly Worker article here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=410), from a few years ago, quite interesting. I think it is helpful to view Chartism as a political response opposed to Labourism, 50 years or so before the Labour Party existedI'd actually take the opposite approach and view Chartism as a form of proto-'Labourism'. That is, a political movement focused on parliamentary objectives of the sort that were only possible within Britain or America in the 1840s. Contrast with the genuinely revolutionary movements and ideologies that were developing in Restoration Europe at the same time - confronted with absolutist tyrannies, the European revolutionaries had no choice but to confront head-on the questions of the state and radical social reforms. (Incidentally this also imparted a highly conspiratorial streak to these movements.) Its from this distinct European tradition that communism was derived and owes the most

Not that I'm eager to cast judgement on the Chartists. This was a real case of mass class struggle and their aims, no matter how tame they might seem today, were certainly perceived as revolutionary at the time. We should not ignore that the prevailing attitude amongst all at the time was, to quote a contemporary French Imperial official, that "universal suffrage... carries within it the seeds of catastrophe, of a social revolution which will break out one day"

[Die Neue Zeit]

You mind find this Weekly Worker article here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=410), from a few years ago, quite interesting. I think it is helpful to view Chartism as a political response opposed to Labourism, 50 years or so before the Labour Party existed.

Indeed, the old Revolutionary Democratic Group provided good foil for the excesses of the Weekly Worker's theorists. The "republican socialist party" model can only be criticized for leaning towards nationalism (as opposed to a Communist Party of the European Union), but not for its PNNC preference over left-Labour crap.

[Lyev]

I'd actually take the opposite approach and view Chartism as a form of proto-'Labourism'. That is, a political movement focused on parliamentary objectives of the sort that were only possible within Britain or America in the 1840s. Contrast with the genuinely revolutionary movements and ideologies that were developing in Restoration Europe at the same time - confronted with absolutist tyrannies, the European revolutionaries had no choice but to confront head-on the questions of the state and radical social reforms. (Incidentally this also imparted a highly conspiratorial streak to these movements.) Its from this distinct European tradition that communism was derived and owes the most

Not that I'm eager to cast judgement on the Chartists. This was a real case of mass class struggle and their aims, no matter how tame they might seem today, were certainly perceived as revolutionary at the time. We should not ignore that the prevailing attitude amongst all at the time was, to quote a contemporary French Imperial official, that "universal suffrage... carries within it the seeds of catastrophe, of a social revolution which will break out one day"There are definitely differing, relative levels of radicalism, that vary geographically, as you say, but also from epoch to epoch. Marx wrote a few things about the Chartists, this is from a text, here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/08/25.htm), that is quite pertinent at this point:
During all the time from 1846 to 1852, they exposed themselves to ridicule by their battle-cry—broad principles and practical (read small) measures. And why all this? Because in every violent movement they are obliged to appeal to the working class. And if the aristocracy is their vanishing opponent, the working class is their arising enemy. They prefer to compromise with their vanishing opponent rather than to strengthen the arising enemy, to whom the future belongs, by concessions of more than apparent importance. Therefore, they strive to avoid every forcible collision with the aristocracy; but historical necessity and the Tories press them onwards. They cannot avoid fulfilling their mission, battering to pieces Old England, the England of the past, and the very moment when they will have conquered exclusive political dominion, when political dominion and economical supremacy will be united in the same hands, when, therefore, the struggle against capital will no longer be distinct from the struggle against the existing government—from that very moment will date the social revolution of England.

We now come to the Chartists, the politically active portion of the British working class. The six points of the Charter which they contend for contain nothing but the demand of universal suffrage and of the conditions without which universal suffrage would be illusory for the working class: such as the ballot, payment of members, annual general elections. But universal suffrage is the equivalent for political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat form the large majority of the population, where, in a long, though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class, and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the Continent.

Its inevitable result here, is the political supremacy of the working class.Obviously the political demand for universal suffrage - and limited to men over 21 at that - is timid in 21 century Britain, if not downright conservative. We have much better than that now, as several people have mentioned earlier in the thread. It does certainly not bring to fore the issue of the "political supremacy of the working class". It seemed to do that in the mid-Victorian England though, or at least Marx seems to think so. I think because when only a certain class had suffrage, it completely excluded the voice of any working class parties in parliament, thereby making safe and securing the hegemony of the ruling classes on British politics. I think this was at a time where the concept of democracy was still held to be, by large swathes of the gentry, industrialists and the like, as synonymous with 'mob rule'. A little later in that same article, Marx briefly goes through some of the criteria for suffrage:
To he a voter for the British Parliament, a man must occupy, in the Boroughs, a house rated at £10 to the poor’s-rate, and, in the counties, he must be a freeholder to the annual amount of 40 shillings, or a leaseholder to the amount of £50. From this statement alone it follows, that the Chartists could take, officially, but little part in the electoral battle just concluded.I think the Chartists are somewhat antithetical to the Labour Party, at least programmatically, because they linked economic struggle (demands for better wages etc.) directly with political demands, such as the one for universal suffrage, as the article by Marx talks about; the struggle against capital will "no longer be distinct" from the struggle against the existing government. Throughout its long and tumultuous history, it seems that the Labour Party has failed to do this, never able to overcome simple bread-and-butter demands. In the '26 general strike, for example, the TUC leadership was quite resolute that striking workers demands should not go beyond wage disputes (economic issues). Further, the Labour Party tried to distance itself from any kind of notion that it was directly challenging the constitution or the state. But, it is difficult to gauge these different, relative levels of radicalism, as I mentioned. We can see this difficulty in the '10 planks' of the Communist Manifesto, where one of the demands is a graduated income tax. This is in place in most, if not all, industrially developed nations in the west. It is not radical, not in a modern context. And I know little about the legislation and political conditions in other areas of Europe at the time, so I don't know, you might be right.

[Red Future]

Eric Hobsbawn talks briefly of them and their aims in The age of revolution 1789-1848

[Q]

You might find this Weekly Worker article here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=410), from a few years ago, quite interesting.

That is a mighty interesting article by the way. This part:


The slogan of a republican socialist party promotes the need for a such a party. It stands on the shoulders of Chartism and against the politics of Labourism. For the basis of this party we can defer to Mike Macnair.18 Mike says we need a party with three very general principles: "First, it stands for the idea that the working class ... should run society."� This is surely a reference to the aim of socialism and common ownership. "Second, it stands for extreme democracy or democratic republicanism, both in the state and the workers' movement."� And "Third, it stands for international working class solidarity."�

Mike's three principles must be the common currency for all those fighting for a mass republican socialist party. But Mike has another principle, which is the elephant in the room. He does not mention it, but we can hardly avoid seeing it. The mass party must also be "Marxist"�. The masses must accept revolutionary Marxism as the basis of the party. This takes us back to the question of the mass working class party.

Reminds me of what DNZ calls a "Proletarian yet Not Necessarily Communist" (PNNC) party I believe, a broad explicit working class formation that seeks for power. In contrast to DNZ though (sorry ;) ) this article by the Revolutionary Communist Group makes a rather good case of the need for such a formation.

I believe the RDG has a better grasp of the dialectics of the movement. You can't just start out with a mass communist party on a marxist programme, like the CPGB suggests. You need to go to through the process of an explicit working class formation that is out to have the working class seize power, in which the communists form the left wing. Such a formation would also underline the need for a public debating culture in which the communists polemically engage with the other currents in the party.

This could perhaps form a basis for fleshing out the CWI slogan for "new workers parties", explicitly breaking with the Labourite tradition and moving into a "neo-Chartist" direction (whatever you like to call it).

But this is off topic I guess.

[Zanthorus]

The 'Revolutionary-Democratic Group' is either misinterpreting Macnair's first point or they're highly confused with regard to socialism. If socialism existed, the working-class would not be running society, since it would not exist. 'Working-class' implies the existence of other classes. Although there is some ambiguity in Macnair's point anyway. If he intends this to be the foundation of a Marxist party then surely it should read: "First it stands for the idea that the working-class... should take political power, and that this political rule of the working-class is but a stepping stone on the road to the abolition of all classes."

With regard to the, ahem, 'PNNC' idea, Jacob seems to miss the fact that although the Manifesto says that Communists do not form a party seperate and opposed to other workers' parties, they were nevertheless at the time organised internationally in the Communist League. Clearly Marx and Engels did not concieve of their participation in the Chartist movement as being in conflict to the seperate organisation of Communists rather, Communists would be members of both the League and of the Chartist movement. So if anything this would seem to be a prefiguration of Trot 'united front' style tactics, although maybe a bit to the left in terms of the kind of parties being supported (Relatively, that is).

One thing I would point out is that Trotsky's analysis of the degeneration of the Second International parties was that it was caused by their existence as 'national parties', parties existing within the boundaries of particular nations, which tied the working-class to their respective state machine's. This was his reasoning for thinking of the Communist International as an International party rather than a mass of national workers' parties (Which it was in a way, with the 21 conditions, the last two of which were formulated by none other than Bordiga himself). If we agree with Trotsky that capitalism's growth beyond it's national form rendered national parties useless, and as the Manifesto affirms that internationalism is what primarily seperates Communists from other 'workers' parties', it would seem a fair justification for the existence of a purely Communist party. Macnair would agree in a way it would seem, since the point I remember him making was that what we need is not just vague international solidarity, but international action by the class in the same fashion as the First International.

[Q]

The 'Revolutionary-Democratic Group' is either misinterpreting Macnair's first point or they're highly confused with regard to socialism. If socialism existed, the working-class would not be running society, since it would not exist. 'Working-class' implies the existence of other classes. Although there is some ambiguity in Macnair's point anyway. If he intends this to be the foundation of a Marxist party then surely it should read: "First it stands for the idea that the working-class... should take political power, and that this political rule of the working-class is but a stepping stone on the road to the abolition of all classes."
I think the Leninist tradition defines socialism as the transitionary phase between capitalism and communism. As such, there still is a (dieing) class society under socialism. But I agree with your addendum.


With regard to the, ahem, 'PNNC' idea, Jacob seems to miss the fact that although the Manifesto says that Communists do not form a party seperate and opposed to other workers' parties, they were nevertheless at the time organised internationally in the Communist League. Clearly Marx and Engels did not concieve of their participation in the Chartist movement as being in conflict to the seperate organisation of Communists rather, Communists would be members of both the League and of the Chartist movement. So if anything this would seem to be a prefiguration of Trot 'united front' style tactics, although maybe a bit to the left in terms of the kind of parties being supported (Relatively, that is).

I don't see how this conflicts with the PNNC concept? I don't think that Jacob ever implied that communists may not be organised. Indeed, it was exactly Lenin's emphasis on organisation that made the leftwing dominate the party and Luxemburg's failure showed the same in a negative fashion. So yes, communists should be organised as communists, but within a wider worker movement.

As for the "united front", the idea is the same, yes, but a "united front" is of course a much looser cooperation than an actual party as the first often only deal with a specific campaign or enemy, while a party is a wider entity in scope (organising the class and preparing it for the seizure of power).

[Zanthorus]

I think the Leninist tradition defines socialism as the transitionary phase between capitalism and communism. As such, there still is a (dieing) class society under socialism. But I agree with your addendum.

Lenin was very vague on this question. In The State and Revolution he defines socialism as equivalent with Marx's 'lower phase of communism', but adds something about the bourgeois state continuing to exist, which is almost certainly a misreading of Marx, although perhaps forgiveable given that TSaR was never actually finished. In other places he vacillates between saying that socialism is state-monopoly capitalism turned to the interests of the working-class and saying that it involves the abolition of commodity production. Anyway, regardless of what Lenin said, I think that viewing socialism as a stage between capitalism and communism opens up the road to the idea that there is some kind of whole new society and mode of production between capitalism and communism, which in turn gives us stuff like the idea of a 'degenerated workers' state'. Although you may not necessarily see that as a defect.


I don't see how this conflicts with the PNNC concept?

Well, in the past I've seen Jacob come out against 'Communist sects' or whatever. He also seems to think that such a formation would be the party that takes power, and that there would be a period where the working-class has political power but continues to maintain capitalism, rather than making 'despotic inroads on the right of private property'. Going by Engels comments on such sects in e.g the preface to the American Edition of The Conditions of the Working-Class in England, it would seem that the point was not that the working-class would be capable of taking power without abolishing private property, but that an initial movement which was solely for the working-class taking political power would be outstripped by the passage of time, and eventually the programme of the Communist 'sect' would be appropriated by the movement. Certainly after the fall of the First International, his position was that the old formation had been outstripped by the passage of time, and that further international regroupment of the movement was only possible on a properly Communist basis.


As for the "united front", the idea is the same, yes, but a "united front" is of course a much looser cooperation than an actual party as the first often only deal with a specific campaign or enemy, while a party is a wider entity in scope (organising the class and preparing it for the seizure of power).

I think you have a rather naive view of the scope of the united front. In practice the adoption of the united front tactic led the Communist International to bring into it's ranks the social base which would later allow the triumph of Stalinism within it, so it was much more than just a loose co-operation between parties.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Reminds me of what DNZ calls a "Proletarian yet Not Necessarily Communist" (PNNC) party I believe, a broad explicit working class formation that seeks for power. In contrast to DNZ though (sorry ;) )


With regard to the, ahem, 'PNNC' idea, Jacob seems to miss the fact that although the Manifesto says that Communists do not form a party separate and opposed to other workers' parties, they were nevertheless at the time organised internationally in the Communist League. Clearly Marx and Engels did not conceive of their participation in the Chartist movement as being in conflict to the separate organisation of Communists rather, Communists would be members of both the League and of the Chartist movement. So if anything this would seem to be a prefiguration of Trot 'united front' style tactics, although maybe a bit to the left in terms of the kind of parties being supported (Relatively, that is).

Perhaps the reason why comrade Q thinks the RDG elaborated on the PNNC idea better than I have is because I myself am quite ambiguous in regards to a PNNC vs. Class-Strugglist Social Labour (the organization in which the Social Proletocracy should win the majority).


The 'Revolutionary-Democratic Group' is either misinterpreting Macnair's first point or they're highly confused with regard to socialism.

See, the major dithering back and forth on my own part lies in the second Basic Principle quoted by comrade Victus in his Theory thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/minimum-program-social-t146543/index2.html

Therefore, the second basic principle around which to unite is the systemic establishment of collective worker management (i.e., planning, organization, direction, and control) and responsibility over an all-encompassing participatory economy – free from surplus labour appropriations by any elite minority, from dispossession of the commons and more in the form of private ownership relations over productive and other non-possessive property, from all forms of debt slavery, and from all divisions of labour beyond technical ones (overspecialization) – as a very realistic but basic means to end the exploitation and alienation of human labour power in productive labour and of humanity as a whole.

[This elaborates upon the RDG's "This is surely a reference to the aim of socialism and common ownership" statement.]

Proper market socialists could haggle over "collective," and inclusion of this principle would alas exclude "proletarian social-democrats" like those of the Paris Commune.


I think that viewing socialism as a stage between capitalism and communism opens up the road to the idea that there is some kind of whole new society and mode of production between capitalism and communism

I think it would be up to a Social-Proletocratic resolution to explicitly state that socialism /= lower phase of the communist mode of production. The principle of Social Labour above fits both shoes ("socialist mode of production" and "lower phase of the communist mode of production"). See my "Social-Abolitionist and Social-Proletocratic Notes on the Draft Program" for a critique around which a resolution can be made.


If we agree with Trotsky that capitalism's growth beyond it's national form rendered national parties useless, and as the Manifesto affirms that internationalism is what primarily separates Communists from other 'workers' parties', it would seem a fair justification for the existence of a purely Communist party. Macnair would agree in a way it would seem, since the point I remember him making was that what we need is not just vague international solidarity, but international action by the class in the same fashion as the First International.

I've corrected your spelling of "separate" a number of times. It's "a" and not "e" after the "p." ;)

I don't see separate organization because of internationalism and especially transnationalism as a problem at all. This should entail communist organizations totally embedded in their PNNCs ("deep entryism"), but all united organizationally beyond national boundaries. Where my economic dithering is still an issue, though, is in the idea of an international and especially transnational PNNC itself.


Going by Engels comments on such sects in e.g the preface to the American Edition of The Conditions of the Working-Class in England, it would seem that the point was not that the working-class would be capable of taking power without abolishing private property, but that an initial movement which was solely for the working-class taking political power would be outstripped by the passage of time, and eventually the programme of the Communist 'sect' would be appropriated by the movement. Certainly after the fall of the First International, his position was that the old formation had been outstripped by the passage of time, and that further international regroupment of the movement was only possible on a properly Communist basis.

You do this by suddenly switching gears to calling for One Big Mass/General Strike once the working class seizes the ruling-class political power. ;)

[BTW, nobody critiqued that part yet. :( ]