PART 2

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth.

-SHERLOCK HOLMES

(Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

5 REVOLUTIONARY DIALECTICS

Modern Industrial Pol/econ history can be divided into 3 recognisable stages

Today - Quantum materialist struggle as the only viable method of resistance in the epoch of global capital market control and decomposition.

Chartism - When industrial capitalism was struggling to break the constraints of national landed capitalist hegemony and no other method of effective working class struggle was possible (no room for labor & capital to bargain).

The intermediate eras - Of post-chartist global expansion (including the WW2/post-war development of a bi-polar global pol/econ under capitalist hegemony) when neither of the above methods of struggle was possible (precisely because there was room for labor & capital to bargain). Except when the `national' (anti-colonial) question arose; and even then, the movement tended to be sidetracked politically or economically - unable to break the sub-hegemonic constraints of the core radical empire USSR). This was the era of classical Marxism/laborism - when capitalism was still able to reform itself and there was room for labor & capital to bargain..

The fatal flaws and limitations of the great exceptions - The Russian Revolution, Huey Pierce Longs' `Share the Wealth' movement in 1930's USA and (to be covered later) the 3rd world national liberation movements (kept in check by the global pol/econ), we shall see prove the rule.

The Russian Revolution

The key to understanding the uniqueness of the Russian revolution, and why it failed to take hold in Europe, is to understand the global pol/econ context in which it took place; and how this affected the all-important question of LEGITIMACY in the Russian state. And how the combined global/national context of the pol/econ situation in Russia differed crucially with that of other regimes (eg. Germany and France) in the same period.

WW1 was caused by general market saturation, triggering the breakdown of the national industrial capitalisms and a desperate battle for markets - between the rival national capitalisms. So the battle for markets became a battle for military plutocracy to cling onto power, as the previous mode of restraint, that development was possible/profitable for a decisive section of society had broken down. WWI was the only mechanism available to the military plutocratic core elites to retain control of the pol/econ agenda, to cling onto and/or attempt to cling onto power (eg Germany had no longer sufficient interest in restraining its ally Austria, its terrorism against its vassal Serbia, France had not sufficient interest in restraining Russia; & Britain, defending the lions share of colonies & therefore clearly NOT in a position to push a framework transcending military plutocracy, was inevitably swept along as war gathered its own momentum).

General market saturation meant that there was no more scope for redevelopment & regeneration based on internal reform of the European national capitalisms such as had previously been implemented by:

The breaking of landed capitalist hegemony (repeal of the corn-laws and the breaking of the remnants of fuedal power) as a reformist response to revolutionary-political Chartism and the revolutions of 1848.

In the mid 1880's, the combined implementation of:

i)Pol/econ reforms in response to the dangers of an emerging/growing revolutionary-political threat (in response to the mid 1880's recession - eg initially simply allowing laborism to force higher pay vis Gladstone, ultimately led to active govt reforms of Asquith).

ii)Critically - Colonial expansion to develop global differentials of labor (so stabilising the system) and as a new source of (surplus) profits.

- The purpose was to create room for labor to bargain & negotiate within the system (so defusing the rev-pol. threat) and also enabling it to absorb the products of capitalism so breathing new life into the capitalist pol/econ. In this respect capitalism was dependant for its progress on an active labor movement (enabling workers to absorb production).

But with general market saturation (with no more colonies/markets left to expand into that were not already controlled by somebody else) meant any new reform (in Europe) would have to be on the basis of global reform of the evolving system of global finance capitalism.

European stagnation & war meant that the backward Russian capitalist & landlordist pol/econ had no scope to implement internal reforms, without there being global reform of global finance (to create room for Russian capitalism to develop within a/the global pol/econ and room for Russian capitalism to bargain & negotiate with its' workers & peasants eg. raising wages and implementing land reforms). This meant there was no scope for holding elections to create parliamentary legitimacy for the regime (fear of rev-politics and above all peasant radicalisation/war).

As there was no room for labor to bargain within the system, the only possible option left (to end the war and secure even as little as the right to bargain) was a rev-pol overthrow of the tsarist regime. But even after the overthrow of Tsarism (in March 1917) the land and war questions were insoluble (with the Kerensky `transitional' govt pending elections, pending the end of the war - a means to put them of) on the basis of continued capitalist hegemony in Russia, due to the constraints of global finance (contraction in the global capitalist - especially European - system).

Therefore after the overthrow of Tsarism in March 1917, the fight was over revolutionary legitimacy. There was no bourgeois parliamentary legitimacy (nor due to the land and war questions could there be) only the legitimacy of the soviet. Therefore specific programmatic differences in themselves, `peace, bread, land' could (systematically) tip the balance and deprive the Kerensky regime of legitimacy by denying it the revolutionary legitimacy of the soviet (in effect an elected revolution) - even though it was not targeted and delegitimised as a criminal/illegal regime.

....finishing of Russian landlordism, but simaltaneously & inevitably paralysing the Revolution in the west by re-inforcing the same ineffectual classical laborist mode as before...

...as radicals blinded by the Russian Revolution to the need to combine a EURO/GLOBAL reconstructionist pol/econ framework with rev pol campaign to delegitimise the Euro finance capitalist regimes (possessing parliamentary legitimacy), unable to win power,

.....though the residual strength of the British/ French nation states/ empires was also an insurmountable problem in the way of forging a Euro Commonwealth of the regions (by locking radicalism within the operational framework of the nation state),

& as German radicals could not consolidate a Marxist/ Stalinist framework (nor the new model rev theory), by default control of the military pol/econ agenda went to the political warlordist Nazis (backed by German military plutocracy as the only way open to them to try & retain control of the military pol/econ agenda).

......until, USA & contempory finance, out of the goodness of their hearts, did us the enormous favor of reducing us to a semi colonial outpost; which ENABLES the British to lead the Euro Revolution (defining Europe against USA core imperialism & FOR the G.C.C.), as nukes notwithstanding, we are too piddling to be a threat to anyone but ourselves.

- they also lacked the threat of nuclear oblivion to drive a reconstructionist Rev pol/econ framework forward,

& every christ needs its' anti-christ).

....instead the attempt by the newly formed European communist parties to copy October 1917 (without the unique land and war questions/conditions of Russia), with the consequent failure and inability to target the regimes' legitimacy, led to catastrophic defeats all over Europe. A prime example was the police-inspired `Spartakus Rising' in Germany 1919.

After the November 1918 revolution in Germany, there were no insoluble land and war questions, so holding elections to parliament was(unlike in Russia) a practical and viable way of conferring legitimacy on the SPD-led war profiteers' (monopolists/financiers) regime.

The strategy required for German communists to have won would have been to:

Cover the extreme-right flank by massacring the fascist Freikorps.

Demand/campaign for the release of anti-Freikorps prisoners.

Link this (operationally) with a campaign to delegitimise the state and corporate crooks/criminals/war profiteers put them on trial (by the soviet) and the release of all info on their skulduggery.

(And) Combine with a campaign for the expropriation of war/monopoly/finance criminals, for permanent soviet control (over the economy through control of finance & temporary political power) pending fresh elections to be held after the state and city crooks tried and executed.

Participate in elections, to consolidate and fortify the movement and squeeze the position of the enemy - denying it room for maneouvre.

But instead the German communists attempted to assert a purely soviet legitimacy (which did/could not exist in Germany) over (a future) parliament. Their call for a boycott of parliament only served to strengthen and fortify the (apparent) legitimacy of the regime (and marginalise themselves); giving the enemy the best possible basis to present the KPD (to those that supported parliament) as `putschists subverting democracy'. The SPD-led reaction was thus able to seize the initiative and goad them (by calling for the crushing of the communists and actual military attacks/provocations) into premature military adventures (eg. occupying SPD offices) which then developed a dynamic of their own (without the movement having first won over the vast bulk of the masses) giving the enemy the perfect pretext to crush them.

Why did the KPD (despite Rosa Luxemburgs' protestations) support a boycott? Largely because it felt that there was no clear way being put forward of finishing the enemy of, and parliamentary elections seemed like a backward step that would lead only to more backward steps - prompting a feeling that soviet-power had to be asserted `now or never'. Without a mass campaign to delegitimise the regime running parallel to military action to force the enemy to fight on political terrain of the masses choosing, a rightward drift would have become inevitable.

Furthermore (as well as the strengthening of laborism by the Russian Revolution) the residual strength of the British/ European empires decisively militated against the formation of a Euro/ global commonwealth confederation

As was the case in France, where the whole French Socialist party (under pressure from the active masses supporting the Russian Revolution) became the Communist Party of France. Here again the decisive point was the lack of any operational program & strategy from any faction, to delegitimise and overthrow (finish of) the ruling regime. Which in turn led to the reconsolidation of the bureaucratic & opportunist apparatus, carried over from the old Socialist Party.

And of course to delegitimise the military plutocratic regime it is neccessary to push a global reconstructionist program (& to re-iterate the re-inforcement of classical laborism by the Russian Revolution & the residual strength of the British/ continental empires decisively militated against) - The lack of a truly apocalyptic nuke/ biological/ chemical warlordist threat such as exists today underpinned by the experiance of a Nazi type regime also counted decisively against such a program...

(* Eg though chemical/ biological weapons were around, they did not have the absolute decisive capability they do today - this accounts for reluctance of Hitler to use them rather than any moral restraint)

The cause of Marxisms' dialectical deficiency is to be found in its' organic origins. Marxism is the highest product of pre-existing labor movement patterns of struggle structures. But these forms themselves are only a reflex action to attacks on the proletariat by the pol/econ regime. Marxism is thus compelled to react to things second-hand from the standpoint of the reactive labor movement. Therefore (organically and organisationally tied to such forms) it is incapable of developing the new offensive modes of struggle that run directly parallel with the degeneration/criminality of the regime itself. Consequently Marxism is unable to target the regimes' legitimacy/criminality; less still push a global reconstructionist program (to secure a deathgrip) and perpetually unable to move in for the kill .

American Dialectics

After WW1 only USA capitalism was strong enough to be able to reform itself (internally) by itself. Eg. with the `New Deal' (in the mid 1930's) given teeth in response to Heuy Pierce Long's (and others) revolutionary (`Share The Wealth') movement.

USA patterns & forms of class struggle differ radically from those in Europe though the substance is the same. Because racialised class pressures & divisions were are so acute, classical bourgeois democracy (in USA) is very weak and unable to rule through parliamentary parties without an independent (presidential) strongman to pose as arbiter between classes.

For example if (before or now) the American trades-unions were to set up an independant labor party, it would be completely flooded by black radical elements who would take it in a revolutionary direction dragging in an ever increasing swathe of poorer whites. This would threaten death to USA finance capitalism and also the union bosses privileged position. They (contrary to marxists' futile prayers) are only likely to set a labor party up if an independent revolutionary-political movement were already to gain sufficient ground so that they calculated it to be neccessary to (cover their big fat gangster arses) try and outflank it with a party of their own.

Though as for the radical Blank Panther movement of the 60's-70's (aside from other problems, weaknesses and deficiencies) it is (unfortunately) only when the broadest sections of white skilled workers and middle class itself is dumped into the crapper, that they are potentially receptive (as is the case now) to a revolutionary program - targeting the criminality of the regime - that revolution is possible.

Clearly in the (terrain of the) American pol/econ reformist & radical grievances do not & cannot (could not) manifest themselves in the traditional European laborist patterns. But because there was and/is scope for a presidential figure to seek & acquire an alternative (anti-regime) power-base (leaning on civil-society in a struggle with the pol/econ regime), such forces could (and did in the 1930's) manifest themselves in a revolutionary-bonapartist form, linking a presidential figure/campaign with an ever-increasingly radicalised civil society.

(In the context of the global econ implosion & European revolution - otherwise without the Euro revolt, a movement based on such a figure, eg a revolutionary Cromwell, would be crushed through a combination of assassinations & consolidation of a Caesar figure)

Huey Pierce Long's `Share the Wealth' campaign (the most impressive of many such in the mid-30's USA that began in the poorer backward states) was (like the Bolshevik revolution) a manifestation of revolutionary anti-landlordist (hegemony) pol/econ forms (against the Louisiana gentry) that as of neccessity (to accomplish & entrench anti-landlordist tasks) increasingly attacked hegemonic finance capital throughout the USA - which though was still strong enough (in USA) to reform itself (by itself) in response to such a revolutionary shock; and was done so by giving the New Deal teeth.

Because USA capitalism had not exhausted all its potential for reform & development, the working class (by definition therefore) was not ready & able to launch a direct rev-pol assault to take power itself. So such revolutionary forces could only manifest themselves in a bonapartist form. H.P. Long stood `between' the classes as a bonapartist (in Louisiana and throughout the USA - in preparation for a presidential campaign) but his role (backed up by civil society) was to continuously entrench & increase the power of the working class at the expense of the established landed/financier classes. Effectively a crypto-communist in the same way similar (classical) bonapartist elements of the enemy are crypto-fascists systematically entrenching the power of the (especially secureaucratic) bourgeois when it is not (yet) able to consolidate control.

This particular pattern of struggle however was/is extremely vulnerable to leader assassination; particularly when the enemy is resolved to combine revolutionary reforms (undermining the base & potential for revolt) with murder of the revolutionaries, as was the case with the assassination of H.P. Long. Such reform is not possible now, with the USA's prostration before the capital markets. Defeat for the American revolutionary movement (and its' combined dialectical currents) can lead only to greater prostration before the capital markets and a completely fascized pol/econ.

We shall examine the USA-led global rev-reformist dialectics of WW2 in chapter 7.

Summary

Dialectically Marxism is the mere antechamber between rev-pol Chartism and rev-pol Quantum Materialism. Chartism (which challenged the legitimacy of the regime to govern without popular sanction - but did not put it on trial & condemn it for its crimes) was possible only when no other mode of (effective) struggle was possible (to secure the econ interests of labor), when national industry was struggling to break the pol/econ hegemony of national landed capitalism (eg. the corn-laws hampering foreign trade and domestic industrial output).

But the abolition of the corn-laws (breaking landed capitalist hegemony) and the boost this gave to foreign trade & industrial development meant that now there was room for labor to bargain/negotiate within the reformed system, heralding the death of rev-pol Chartism and the growth of (reformist) unionism/laborism. But the very strength of unionism/laborism (room for bargaining within the system - further extended by Gladstone/Asquiths' reforms/colonial expansion in response to a new rev-pol threat in the mid 1880's when British capitalism was still strong enough to reform itself by itself) was one of marxisms' twin weaknesses, the other being a chronic inability to target (monopoly/finances') criminality once it had exhausted its' potential for development.

The Russian Revolution was merely the exception that proved the rule. The soviets, which due to the insoluble land and war questions could lay sole claim to popular legitimacy in Russia - represented a manifestation of late-chartism against the pol/econ hegemony of national landlordism (not global finance) at a time when (WW1) the European (national industrial) pol/econs had reached their absolute level of development. So that pol/econ reform & reconstruction could only be conducted (in Europe) and based on global reform of global finance/monopoly capital. And Russian capitalism could only reform if it had room to grow internationally (through market expansion aided by such global reform) which would give it scope to implement internal reforms, of its own landlordist system.

In other states eg. Germany, France, Britain etc which (without such land hungry peasants) had or could implement parliamentary mechanisms to give legitimacy to the regime, a combination of the Russian Revolution re-inforcing nation state based laborism & residual strength of the European/ British empires meant impossible to transcend nation state based classical laborism - meaning military plutocracy retained operational control of the military pol/econ agenda.

In 1930's America where revolutionary anti-landlordism merged into a revolutionary anti-finance campaign, there was still scope for the implementation of rev-reforms, which enabled the enemy to cut across the revolutionary process. A possibility which in the age of (total) capital market control, no longer exists as a long-term proposition anywhere in the world.

The rotting west shall drag down the rising East into the mire of economic collapse instability and war (which increasingly shall collapse into this of its own accord via the struggle for regional hegemony and re-armament); unless through socialist hegemony, finance is compelled to serve industry and labor, instead of the latter serving finance. - And ironically, it is only the complete collapse of (illusions in) laborism which makes the new methods (of targeting the regimes' legitimacy) possible, a critical factor which made the catastrophic defeats of the German workers between 1919 and 1933 inevitable.