The left applauds as the state tries to shore up capitalism
Despite the nationalisation of Northern Rock in Britain, the US government rescue of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG and encouragement of Bank of America to take over Merrill Lynch, the British government's intervention to ensure Lloyds TSB took over HBOS, and the intervention of the US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the central Banks of Japan and other countries with hundreds of billions of dollars to shore up the money markets, there are still people who say that state intervention is not integral to the way capitalism functions, indeed, that the increasing role of the state is part of the move towards socialism.
From the Right, a Republican senator from Kentucky was able to say of Bush's proposed $700bn rescue package "It's a financial socialism and it's un-American" and, from the Left, Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Guardian 17/9/8): "To think that the biggest neo-liberal nation in the world would start nationalising banks ... we're rubbing our eyes in disbelief."
There's no disbelief for marxists. Since the First World War revolutionaries have seen that the state has an essential role to play not just in times of war and open economic crisis, but as a permanent feature of decadent capitalism. And that socialism can only come through the revolutionary struggle of the working class, which has to destroy the capitalist state.
Yet left-wingers feed the myth that the state can be an organ of protection and planning. George Monbiot (Guardian ibid) cast his mind back to the 1930s: "A Keynesian solution along the lines of Roosevelt's New Deal could deliver many of the things that the left is calling for - more public spending, more training and education." In reality, the New Deal in the US was, like fascism in Germany and Italy, and Stalinism in the USSR, just a particular expression of a universal tendency for state intervention in the economy and of the preparations for war.
Trotskyists give their ‘critical' support to this process. The SWP (to take a typical example) said that although "The solutions Keynesian economists propose now are only partial. Many are ideas socialists would support, such as nationalising industries" (Socialist Worker 13/8/8). At the time of the Bear Stearns bailout the SWP thought that "To reshape society in a socialist direction it is necessary to take control of ... corporations and coordinate their investment decisions (5/4/8)" Certainly they say that "Recession is built into capitalism and state intervention cannot eliminate it" (13/9/8) and that "All too often the supporters of socialism, as well as its enemies, identify socialism with state ownership" (20/9/8). But they still go on to say "Socialists support nationalisation if it's used to protect jobs. We oppose privatisation of public services because it means less public accountability" (ibid). Here you see the idea of ‘protection', as if the capitalist state was neutral and could be used for the benefit of workers as much as the bourgeoisie. The ‘accountability' comes through something they call ‘workers' control'.
In Socialist Worker (ibid) they say that "workers' control has reappeared again and again", giving examples of Spain 1936, France 1968, Poland 1980, Hungary 1956, Portugal 1974, and recently in Argentina. There is the qualification that "under capitalism workers' control can only go so far. There cannot be socialism in a single country and certainly no socialism in a single workplace. Even if workers take over their factory, they will eventually end up competing on the market and thus organising their own exploitation." In fact, as the examples cited all show, ‘workers' control' can't even go "so far". As soon as workers in struggle occupy their place of work they have the choice of whether to ‘organise their own exploitation' or use it as a moment in the development of the struggle, as a place for discussion, as a base toward the extension of the fight to other workers.
Nationalisation, whether ‘under workers' control' or not, is not a goal or a means of workers' struggles - it is one expression of state capitalism. Self-managed exploitation is a trap, no alternative to spreading the fight. Car 24/9/8
Comments
Gee, you think everything
Gee, you think everything can be socialized all at once? Crackpots!
Who said everything could be
Who said everything could be socialised all at once? The point is that asking the capitalist state to manage the economy doesn't change the exploited status of the working class, or the basic capitalist nature of the economy. The critiques of the "leftist" view hinges on the fact that they present nationalisation and state capitalism as "workers control". In fact, control remains with the bourgeois state and ultimately with the "law of value".
Indeed, the point the writer
Indeed, the point the writer is making is not the everything should or could be socialized all at once, but that the actions of the bourgeois state are never a means to socialization.
World Revolution: In
World Revolution: In Socialist Worker (ibid) they say that "workers' control has reappeared again and again", giving examples of Spain 1936, France 1968, Poland 1980, Hungary 1956, Portugal 1974, and recently in Argentina.
Hidden Author: In those cases, control was assumed directly by the workers in the factory. But this is demeaned as "organizing their own exploitation". I'm not really a socialist but I can see the benefits of being one's own boss. If ever, the working population becomes its own boss, it will be factory by factory. Perhaps the government should give capitalists tax breaks in return for distributing equity to workers. Such gradualism is far more realistic than expecting everyone to be happy with subordination to a gigantic collective, whether it's the state or a syndicalist trade-union!
Being your own boss doesn't
Being your own boss doesn't free you from the tyranny of the market, which is the inevitable consequence of commodity production, nor does it necessarily challenge the overall political control of the bourgeoisie.
.
Workers collectives that are orientated around defending the democratic state against the fascist state - as in Spain 36 - or advocating worker's control as an end in itself in order to stop the spread of the revolution (as in many of the other struggles mentioned), doesn't change the fundamental relations of exploitation.