ON MARX'S BIRTHDAY
ENGELS’S
REFLECTIONS ON MARX’S POLITICAL THEORY
The change
in strategy that Eduard Bernstein proposed and that was adopted
enthusiastically by the German bourgeoisie in its backing of the integration
of the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) with the
establishment of the Weimar Republic in 1918 had already been presaged
in Friedrich Engels’s 1895 Introduction to the re-edition of Marx’s The
Class Struggles in France. Written shortly before his death, this
Introduction can be regarded as a last testament on the part of Marx’s lifelong
companion, and for that reason alone it received enormous attention in the
workers’ movement leading up to the First World War. It is an important
document for our purposes because it addresses several analytical themes that
are essential to the schematization and periodization of our own study of the
origin, formation and seizure of power of revolutionary movements in the
totalitarian era between the World Wars. To be sure, Engels had intended his
theses to be a mere change of the tactics to be adopted for the
transition to communism; but they were never meant as a change of strategy
because unlike his assistant Bernstein, whom he appointed as trustee of his
intellectual estate, Engels unflinchingly held fast to the theoretical premises
of the Marxist critique of capitalism.
In this
astoundingly visionary short exposition, Engels owns up to “errors” that he,
together with Marx, had committed in the assessment of the political
preconditions required and the revolutionary tactics to be adopted for the
successful transition to a communist society. Tersely summarized, these errors
referred principally to the ability of a minority vanguard or leadership
of the working population to lead the majority of the proletariat to a
successful revolutionary insurrection, given the spread of capitalist
enterprise and the rise of the bourgeoisie as the hegemonic political force in
control of powerful nation-states with their pervasive bureaucratic apparatus
including sizeable standing armies capable of putting down any uprising with overwhelming
force. In support of his critical revision, Engels could do no more than to
point to the fate of the Paris Commune of 1871 – itself the subject of another
Marxian piece on The Civil War in France where the errors of the earlier
tract written in 1848 were repeated. As a remedy for these “errors”, Engels
proposed a change of tactics toward a more “majoritarian” conquest of
power by socialist workers’ parties given that the spread of parliamentary
representation and of universal suffrage could not but lead to the gradual
political supremacy of the proletariat and its eventual transformation of human
society to socialism by either peaceful or, if compelled, revolutionary means.
The reason
for us recalling this quite remarkable Introduction
by Engels is once again that it presciently identified, with laudable
perspicacity, the essential ingredients of the origin and formation of
proto-totalitarian regimes in accordance with our thesis on “the primacy of
economics” in the first phase – comprising the first two stages – of the
historical evolution of these regimes. To repeat, these ingredients are: - (a)
the spread of capitalist enterprise; (b) the rise of the bourgeoisie as the
hegemonic political force within integrated economic regions; (c) the formation
of powerful nation-states with their pervasive bureaucratic apparatus to govern
and administer these economic regions, including (d) sizeable standing armies
capable of putting down any uprising with overwhelming force.
Yet, what
Engels leaves out is what his summary of the developments he lists actively
implies about the politico-economic evolution of class antagonism within
advanced industrial capitalist industry and society. These are crucial
omissions the analysis of which, had Engels adverted to them, would have
greatly enhanced our understanding of the epochal upheavals that were to
afflict Europe and the entire world shortly after his death in 1895 – the same
year in which this Introduction was written.
The first
major omission relates to Engels’s patent and perhaps ingenuous triumphalism
concerning what he thought was the relentless and unstoppable rise of social
democracy as a party-political force that would lead inexorably not just to the
triumph of socialism in a particular nation, but indeed to its almost imminent
triumph in all of Western Europe. In his fatidic forecast, Engels exhibited
further “errors” to be added to those he had already conceded with regard to
the development of capitalist bourgeois rule and the formation of nation-states
with powerful anti-insurrectionary standing armies.
Essentially,
Engels failed to recognize that, despite their expanding parliamentary
institutions, the very bourgeois nation-states with their standing armies that
Engels had identified as the primary reason for the suppression of the 1848
insurrections and the 1871 Paris Commune – these same nation-states
could and would incite even more powerful nationalist movements able to
defeat the progressive social-democratic proletarian parties and indeed to
divide them along nationalistic lines, overriding thereby any
“internationalist” solidarity then existing between European working-class and
proletarian organizations, both party-political and syndicalist. In his
Introduction Engels grossly overstates the ecumenical internationalist
strength and solidarity of the European workers’ and proletarian movement
whilst wholly neglecting the ability of bourgeois nation-states to instigate,
organize and orchestrate nationalist movements capable of exploiting economic
tensions between national bourgeoisies that could then erupt into open military
conflict. Indeed, the Franco-Prussian War ought to have been foremost in his mind
as a redoubtable omen of this quite open possibility.
Furthermore,
and this is the second omission, Engels – and in this he had at least the
partial excuse that Marx himself had never addressed specifically this
essential aspect of capitalist industrial strategy as an aspect of class
antagonism – entirely failed to grasp the implications of the tremendous
transformation of the industrial capitalist labour process which was to
form the basis of what became known as the Second Industrial Revolution –
namely, the rapid rise of the “mass worker” (Ungelernt, unskilled) to
replace the “artisanal worker” (Gelernt, skilled) exacerbated by the
rapid expansion of Taylorism and then Fordism early in the twentieth century. Again,
not just Engels, but Marx himself had failed to address in any real detail the
importance of the class composition of the working class as the driving
force of capitalist industry reflected in the labour process.
Two levels
of omissions, then, one driving the other, representing the combined ability of
the capitalist bourgeoisie to drive divisions within the global working
class through what Marx himself called “the real subsumption of living
labour” in the process of production, and therefrom of distribution itself
through income policies. And then the ability of the capitalist bourgeoisies
organized around existing nation-states as optimal currency areas with
separate industrial and financial hinterlands, to sow and spread divisions between
separate working classes and their party-political organizations in their
external inter-national relations through the exasperation of nationalisms
around trade and cultural conflicts.
But a
corollary to these failures concerning (a) the potential division and
segmentation of the European working-class and proletarian movement along
labour-process industrial policies affecting its class composition – skilled,
unskilled, unemployed, petty-bourgeois -, and (b) the division within
and between proletarian movements along nationalist lines dictated by
the organic division of the capitalist class itself along economic regions
governed by nation-states – as a corollary and consequence of these realities,
Engels failed to perceive how the social-democratic political parties themselves
would become entangled and enlisted by the national bourgeoisies by means of
the existing nation-state institutions and bureaucracies in the administration
of the tremendous processes of industrial re-organization vital to the
transformation of capitalist industry broadly comprising what has come to be
known as the Second Industrial Revolution!
What we are
arguing here is that Engels in particular, and not necessarily Marx who never
adverted to this insight, totally neglected the reality or even the possibility
that political parties themselves, including working-class parties, to the
degree that they had been allowed to be represented in European parliaments as
a result of universal suffrage, had now become an extension of the bourgeois
State, integrally and organically assimilated in its reproductive and leading
function for capitalist social relations of production overall. The integral
organicity of political parties as an extension of the capitalist absorption,
assimilation and integration of class antagonism within the statal structures
of bourgeois parliamentarianism as a system of political institutional control and
neutralization of class conflict was clearly one of the further “errors” or
omissions committed by Engels in his otherwise encomiable review of Marxian
political theory in the Introduction of 1895.
Broadly
described, then, we can now number various levels of failures and errors to be
added to the ones already identified by Engels in his 1895 Introduction –
failures and errors of analysis that, and this is most important, were equally
committed not just by Marx and Engels themselves but indeed by the entirety of
the European working-class and proletarian movements from the First to the
Second Socialist International to the Third or Communist International under
the aegis of the Bolshevist-Leninist Party of the Soviet Union. Despite the
errors of historical and politico-economic analysis listed above, there remains
a residuum of historico-materialist insight in the Engelsian overview of the
historical tendency of capitalist societies. This residuum concerns first of
all Engels’s correct identification of the early “errors” contained in the
historical studies conducted by Marx and himself, in the sense that had it not
been for Engels’s correct application of the historico-materialist method, he
would not have been able to identify these “errors” so perceptively and
perspicaciously. And second, though this may seem paradoxical, the very “error”
contained in his excessively optimistic “internationalist” and “gradualist”
assessment of the prospects of social democracy in Western Europe, which
involved the failure to foresee the aggressive use on the part of “national”
bourgeoisies and their state apparatus of “nationalist” movements founded on
that “de-composition” of the labour process that would lead to growing and
irreparable divisions within and between proletarian political organizations
and movements throughout Europe – this very “error” implicated an emphasis on a
supranational approach to the analysis of class antagonism in Europe that was fundamentally
correct. In both cases – the correct identification of “errors”, and the
adoption of an “internationalist” and “gradualist” approach to the strategy of
the working class in Europe -, Engels saw right because he attempted to follow
the historico-materialist thread that leads the political concentrate of the
capitalist mode of production through its economic categories, from the
valorization of capital via the production process to its realization in the
circulation process, from the “formal subsumption of labour” to its “real subsumption”
whereby capital seeks to transform the labour process as an antagonistic
strategy to weaken the composition of the working class and subject it to
capitalist command.
Nevertheless,
it is certainly true that Marx and Engels and the workers’ movement were unable
to detect and attempt to forestall the countermeasures that bourgeois
institutions and capitalist industry were already beginning to implement in the
opposite direction, that is, the exasperation of chauvinist and nationalist
conflicts fomented by means of the breakdown of working-class composition
through industrial and income policies; and that this inability meant that this
counter-revolutionary and reactionary strategy of the European bourgeoisie went
entirely unanswered and unopposed by the workers’ movement in all its
manifestations. We shall try to show how the failure on the part of Marx and
Engels and of the entire European workers’ movement leading up to and including
the Third International to develop an effective historico-materialist or
Marxist political theory, and specifically a theory of the bourgeois State as a
collective capitalist able to affect and direct the social stratification of
society through its social policies, resulted in the inability of this movement
to support existing liberal parliamentary institutions and to contrast and
defeat totalitarianism.
These errors
of analysis do not mean that the historico-materialist method which places the
social relations of production well ahead of other broad “cultural” or “political”
considerations was also erroneous or inappropriate or even inadequate, as most
of the “cultural” and historicist interpretations of revolutionary movements
and fascism are keen to suggest! In an effort to prove our thesis, our next
task will be therefore to trace the evolution of capitalist enterprise from the
concentration of workers under one factory roof, to the concentration of
capitals and the formation of social capital by means of credit, finance
and the average rate of profit. We shall demonstrate that it is the
transformation or evolution or development of capitalist social relations of
production that direct or determine corresponding developments in the political
and cultural spheres, and not the other way round, as exponents of the historicist
school so loudly propound.
These
organic institutional features of capitalist command over living labour in the
production and distribution processes need to be linked to the establishment of
capitalist command over a determinate territorial hinterland related
principally to the mobility of the labour force and the availability of other
resources for production as well as “markets” for the sale of commodities.
Control over this economic hinterland enables the formation of a bourgeois
class and the erection of a state-form or nation-state equipped with a strong
centralized bureaucracy and above all an imponent standing army to police the
hinterland. It is the drawing of this nexus between economic hinterland,
bourgeoisie, nation-state, and finally all the other “cultural” and ideological
manifestations of the bourgeois capitalist State, from nationalism to racism
and expansionism, that will help us identify the origins, formation and
development of revolutionary movements that lead to totalitarian dictatorship.
The
obvious aim of this tracing of complex politico-economic links is to establish
a historical relation between the development of capitalist industry and the
nation-state, and then between nation-state and nationalism leading to the extreme
totalitarian deviations of revolutionary movements. Indeed, we may claim that
the greatest failure of Marxism overall was to overlook if not completely
ignore the problem of the “statality” of capital, that is, the precise political
institutional methods through which the capitalist bourgeoisie governs and
dominates the society of capital not as a coalition or “committee” (Marx) of
private producers but as a State able to muster and summon all the resources available
to a society.
No comments:
Post a Comment