CHAPTER 7

THE REVOLUTIONARY HUMANISM OF KARL MARX

One of the richest sources of revolutionary anti-capitalist criticism and theory is linked closely with the names of Marx and Engels. As 19th Century middle-class intellectuals, they were nonetheless, unambiguously on the side of the working and oppressed classes. However, whilst their names are inextricably linked together, their contributions to revolutionary theory were not identical, nor were they equal. A general reflection of this fact is the term given to the theories they jointly developed. It is universally referred to as - Marxism. In the words of Engels, when Marx died: 'mankind was shorter by a head, and that the greatest head of all time'. This was praise indeed, and from the standpoint of the working and oppressed classes, such praise was certainly justified.

Engels made many outstanding contributions to the issues of the time, but he recognised (and frequently acknowledged) that it was Marx who saw furthest, and did more to develop, anti-capitalist theory and practice. The theory and method they developed, is also frequently described as dialectical materialism. Even without the many contributions of Engels, the extent of Marx's writings is so great, and his analysis at times so detailed, that it is easy to miss the essential purpose of all his work.

It is a contention of this author that, as a result of the diverse insights presented by Marx, insufficient attention has been paid to the humanist principles which not only abound throughout Marx's work, but also underpin his whole life's purpose. It has been a case of failing to comprehend sufficiently the humanist wood because of the vast number of historical, social, economic and political trees. The humanist perspective in Marx will be considered in more detail later, for it is this, combined with his life style, which I suggest, made Marx tick. The end products of the dedicated activity and meaning which occupied Marx throughout his adult life have been handed down to future generations in the form of many volumes of notes, articles and books which convey a mass of anti-capitalist ideas and concepts. It is fitting then that we consider at an early stage Marx's thoughts on the usefulness of ideas in the struggle for a post-capitalist society.

7.1 The function of ideas in the anti-capitalist struggle

During the years 1844-47, Marx and Engels as a result of their activities, wrote a number of documents dealing with the role and importance of ideas. It was popular at the time for intellectuals to espouse all manner of projects for solving the social ills created by the capitalist system of production. Such intellectuals would think about the problems they had identified and then propose solutions to those problems. These intellectual reformers of the world's ills would start from their own concepts of the world and how it should be and then publicise these ideas, inviting everyone else to follow them. This was a frequent mistake made by those thinkers who had not gone beyond Hegelianism. Marx and Engels considered that it was essential to understand that ideas about life arose from contemplating real life, and not the other way around. One somewhat obscure document, written by Marx and Engels, 'The Holy Family', was a scathing and sarcastic polemic, against a group of 'Young Hegelians' (followers of Hegel) who considered themselves the 'true' socialists of Germany. Much of this particular document is only of historical interest, but many important points were made, and clarified in relationship to the function and use of ideas in developing anti-capitalist theory and practice. These same points are also important for modern anti-capitalists to consider. Marx wrote;

"Ideas can never lead beyond an old world order but only beyond the ideas of the old world order. Ideas cannot carry out anything at all. In order to carry out ideas men are needed who can exert practical force." (Marx/Engels Collected Works Volume 4. page 119)

This is not always an obvious point and one often overlooked in the anti-capitalist movement. Ideas are nothing but chemical and electrical impulses in the brain. They cannot jump out and start changing things. True, they can be conveyed by word of mouth or by writing, but words are just socially meaningful, short-lived, low frequency sounds and writing is just ink on paper. Both of which, once understood, merely compete with other ideas to further stimulate the electro-chemical process of the brain. Simply expounding an idea does not automatically lead to action. From very early on, Marx and Engels were vigorously attacking the notion that ideas were directly capable of changing the world, or alternatively of preventing change. They thought this mistake was too easily made. If 'ideal' solutions are proposed by thinkers cut off from the complexities of the real world, then the chances are that people will not be able to fulfil them, even if many would like to. This is particularly true in the case of the anti-capitalist struggle. For Marx it was changes in how society produced the things it needed, which were of crucial importance in creating or leading to fundamental change. The emphasis laid upon this materialist aspect of their theory has led to a contention that the theories of Marx and Engels were overly deterministic, a criticism which Engels later accepted had some validity. However, he also noted that neither he nor Marx had ever asserted more than that the production and reproduction of real life was the 'ultimate' determining factor. If anyone then twisted this into saying that the economic factor was the only determining one then it was not of Marx or Engels' doing.

Their revolutionary anti-capitalist theory recognised the existence and influence of economic, political, religious, legal, philosophical, other practices and their associated ideas. It merely recognised that in the long term it is physical production and reproduction which are the decisive factors in determining those ideas. Therefore, it was actual human practice, particularly in these key areas, which was the area really worthy of study. These gave, not only clues to changes and developments, but also how ideas and other forms of practice, arose and took their particular form. An early elaboration of these essential points was developed in the eleven 'Theses on Fuerbach'. In these theses Marx concluded that the value or applicability of ideas and thinking needed to be proved in practice and not by trying to judge whose written or spoken ideas seems more convincing in some magazine or conference debate. The real test is in the practical outcome of those ideas once they are put into practice. Or as Marx stated;

"Social life is essentially practical. All mysteries which mislead theory into mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice." (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 5. page 8.)

The study and understanding of human practice was the method of preventing anti-capitalist ideas from becoming idealised and mystified. Instead of rhetoric and demands upon the oppressed, by those who considered themselves to be 'true' socialists, he urged analysis, commentary and participation. Yet, as we have seen, the practice of 'left' grouplets placing demands in front of the working class and expecting them to follow them still goes on. Yet as far as the real situation is concerned nothing has changed. In contrast to this, Marx suggested an analysis of what was really taking place and a commentary on the direction and logic which flowed from the particular situation. This, for Marx, was the essential task of revolutionary theory and ideas. He developed this point in 'The German Ideology' indicating that where speculation ends, real positive science begins and;

"When reality is described, a self-sufficient philosophy loses its medium of existence. At best its place can only be taken by a summing-up of the most general results, abstractions which are derived from the observations of the historic development of men." (Marx/Engels Collected Works Volume 5. page 37.)

The implications for anti-capitalist theory are clear, its development requires serious observations and careful summing up. Marx did not desire, practice or envisage a self-sufficient philosophy called Marxism, socialism or communism. Yet this is exactly what many of his so-called followers have attempted to make of his theories. The very term Marxism is used by some to describe such a self-sufficient philosophy and credit it to Marx. Such dogmatic assertion and doctrinaire schemes are dangerous to the anti-capitalist struggle and also counterproductive. They have ended up in mysticism and confusion and, where practised, will continue to do so. In their place should be a careful study of the real capitalist world, a summing up of the actual content of things and the general logic of their contradictory development. This, together with actual material support for workers and the oppressed in the anti-capitalist struggle, is what is primarily needed and what Marx advocated. In letters to a short-lived journal, Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher, Marx outlined this view of both the role of the revolutionary thinker and the function of revolutionary theory. Some of it anticipates the points raised in the next section but it contains much which is applicable to the present topic. Marx stated:

"In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world's own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it doesn't want to. The reform of consciousness consists only in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in awakening it out of its dream about itself, in explaining to it the meaning of its own actions." (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 3. page 144.)

This really couldn't be clearer. No arrogant pretensions of superior knowledge. No elitist assumptions of seeing clearer and knowing better than anyone else, what should, or 'must', be done. No stampede to assert 'true' slogans; no doctrinaire posturing; no sectarian shibboleths. Marx never departed from this fundamental position. He repeated it often and adopted it himself in relationship to the revolutionary struggles of the working and oppressed masses. This introduces the important, but modest, role pioneered by Marx for intellectuals who side with the struggle against capitalist oppression. A role, it seems, too modest for the inflated egos of some would-be sectarian 'leaders' of the anti-capitalist struggle.

7.2 The role of intellectuals in the anti-capitalist struggle

In the chapter on sectarianism, the propensity for many on the anti-capitalist left to turn revolutionary theories into dogma, was noted. It was also seen that sectarians very quickly exhibit a tendency to operate by logical deductions and abstractions. We saw that they have an unshakeable conviction in the correctness of their ideas despite the contradiction between that conviction and their actual historical development. In doing this they are clearly un-Marxist despite any protestations to the contrary. Marx had offered a solution, at least to those who had got as far as recognising there was a problem, to this self-induced intellectual confusion. The solution is to subject their thinking to the test of practice. This, in the spirit of Marx, would require an all-round test, not a one-sided, partial (or eclectic) mish-mash of a test. In modern terms, this would produce a requirement to thoroughly evaluate the ideas and strategies advocated and followed; a system of evaluation which would be clear, open, understandable and consistent. Something that sectarians who present the 'correct' slogans to the anti-capitalist struggle, wouldn't dare do for it would expose their manifest shortcomings.

Self-deluded into thinking that the reason the oppressed didn't rise up against their oppression was because they had illusions, or lacked consciousness of their own real interests, the intellectuals wished to open the workers' eyes. The task such anti-capitalists set themselves, therefore, was, and for some still is, to combat these illusions or ideological 'chains' in order to set people free. Or in other words they wish to 'educate' the workers. Marx argued since it was 'not consciousness which determined life, but life that determined consciousness' - that this amounted to an idealistic demand upon ordinary people to change their consciousness, without first having changed their lives. And, he continued;

"This demand to change consciousness amounts to a demand to interpret the existing world in a different way. i.e. to recognise it by means of a different interpretation." (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 5. page 30.)

It has been noted that Marx and Engels sarcastically referred to a group of such intellectuals in Germany as the 'holy family'. Such intellectuals couldn't grasp the fact that these oppressed individuals - the masses - didn't lack such emancipatory ideas, it was that their circumstances prevented them implementing such ideas. Neither, could such crystal gazers comprehend that the oppressed weren't stupid at all and could see the glaring impracticality of many of these 'ideal' solutions. In most cases workers generally just chose to ignore them. Marx observed that for this type of sectarian intellectual 'the act of transforming society was reduced to the cerebral activity of their own Criticism.' Whilst not against criticism of the real world, indeed he espoused it, Marx declared himself against this form of idealistic posturing.

"They forget, however, that they are opposing nothing but phrases to these phrases, and they are in no way combating the real existing world when they are combating solely the phrases of this world." (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 5. page 30.)

Phrases and slogans, competing against other phrases and directing these formulations at workers changes nothing. The demand from middle-class intellectuals, revolutionary or otherwise, for the working and oppressed classes to change their viewpoint to one which conforms to another class's perspective is clearly a problem. It is tantamount to asking the oppressed classes to make sense of their own experience and the circumstances they find themselves in, using concepts arising from an altogether different (and often middle-class) experience and set of circumstances. One which, moreover, contemplates the reality and experience of workers from outside it, rather than being immersed, or as the oppressed are, trapped in it.

The real living world is made up of contradictory forces, both economic and social. In the economic sphere there exists the dynamic of privately owned capitalist industry which, through competition and the search for profit, restlessly seeks to revolutionise technology, and enlarge the scope of its activities. The modern capitalist industrial system had become the dominant form of economic activity throughout the world. The ruthless and competitive dynamics of this capitalistic economic activity are unstable, and prone to frequent crisis. It gives rise to the clearest possible inequalities and class divisions. Vast concentrations of wealth amongst the classes who own and control the means of production, and huge concentrations of poverty amongst those who lack the means of production. In between these two substantial social classes has developed an unstable and shifting section of middle-classes.

Whilst expanding production and its technological base to a degree which has the potential to ensure that no one goes without basic necessities, the system of ownership and distribution of capital ensures a different outcome. In actual fact the owners of Capital receive far more than they can reasonably consume, whilst the vast majority of working people - on a world scale - get a lot less than they need. The capitalist system produces poverty alongside, and amid, plenty. Over one hundred years separate Marx's original analysis, and present day reality, and yet this state of affairs still applies.

Marx's theories had as its purpose, a merciless criticism of everything that supported such an unjust and oppressive system. This criticism included exposing the dominant and oppressive ideologies, which sought to confuse, cover up or rationalise as inevitable, the existing contradictory conditions of human life under capitalism. Such criticism is crucial because the influence and power of the wealthy enable them to produce a dominant capitalist ideology and terminology which tries to justify, as natural, such a state of affairs. Whilst the ideas making up this dominant ideology did not change the real world directly, they were used by supporters of the capitalist system to attempt to confuse and misdirect energy from the real changes that were taking place, or those which workers were attempting to make.

"The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, consequently also controls the means of mental production, so the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are on the whole subjected to it." (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 5. page 59.)

In other words, the class which owns the means of production and communication, and employs the human agents of that communication network, to a large extent, control which ideas are disseminated and what areas of human experience are described, legitimated and recorded - but of course not entirely. This is because the existence of oppressed classes constantly gives rise to practical struggles against oppression and to challenges against that dominant ideology. At the same time the existence of a class capable of revolution, and needing to rise up to throw off its inhuman oppression, gives rise to revolutionary ideas. What prevents those ideas from being acted upon is a complex matrix of practical or physical constraints. It is self-evident that human beings have basic requirements which, if consistently reduced beyond a certain point, provoke active opposition to the system. It is these actual attempts, when they burst through the numerous constraints, which need to be strengthened and developed in practice.

The concept of class struggle which Marx used frequently, arose from a study of the experience and the conditions of the capitalists as a class and the workers as a class. The struggle between these two opposed classes was a destabilising factor as well as a potential motive force for change in society. The workers want to improve their conditions by increasing the price of their labour and the capitalist class want to increase their profits by decreasing the price of labour and revolutionising production methods. This situation still exists. Workers, as a whole, cannot increase their share of the social wealth, without decreasing the share of wealth going to the capitalist class. The capitalist class cannot increase their share of accumulated wealth without, decreasing the share going to the working classes as a whole. This class war is the social dialectic or movement containing the potential seeds of socio-economic change.

The capitalist class in the advanced countries, through imperial expansion, found a way of allowing their own workers a greater share of the worlds wealth by the extraordinary exploitation of 'third world' countries. During a whole period, the robbery and plunder of the indigenous peoples of the world allowed the capitalists of the advanced countries to get richer and at the same time allow their own workers a small degree of comfort. However, this did not remove the essential opposition of the two classes, even if it led to a temporary truce. For Marx, the working class of the world and their anti-capitalist supporters are the positive element in the movement for social change and the capitalist class and their supporters are the negative elements. Interestingly, Marx saw that both sides of the divide between Labour and Capital were dehumanised and robbed of their human essence under the capitalist system of production.

The workers were dehumanised by daily being compelled (by the lack of means of production and the consequent need for money) into working situations which held no interest and which by the pace and nature of its industrial organisation, injured, exhausted and deformed their bodies. This process still occurs, as any study or inquiry into the occupational illness and diseases of working people will show. In periods of unemployment, when the capitalists are not making sufficient profits to employ them, even this doubtful and debilitating privilege is denied them. When profits are insufficient, workers are quickly made redundant.

But under capitalism, deforming characteristics are not confined to the working and oppressed masses. On the other side of the class struggle the Capitalists are also dehumanised by the imperative to constantly increase their capital and the fear of losing it. To lose capital can mean a loss of status and, in extreme cases, an individual capitalist can be reduced to the rank of a worker. Such anxieties among capitalists create the disfiguring characteristics of insatiable greed and paranoid fear which lie beneath the thin veneer of their upper-class culture. The capitalist is further dehumanised by the fact that his or her worth and value, as an individual, is assessed by other members of the capitalist class, primarily according to the amount and value of the wealth they possess. The distorting effects of wealth are evident in terms of human relationships which can only be 'bought' and hardly ever obtained or experienced freely. These are familiar themes and tragedies where the lives of the rich are examined closely.

Both workers and capitalists, in one sense, are servants and 'slaves' of capital, albeit unequally. Yet undoubtedly the capitalist class has the best of this deforming social existence. Despite the wealthy classes having their human essence distorted by the pursuit of wealth for its own sake, in the main they remain essentially reactionary. Certainly this is the case with regard to measures and movements for the radical redistribution of wealth. With very few exceptions they seek to preserve their privileges at the expense of and against even extremely low level aspirations of the oppressed. They do this despite the obvious obscenity and injustice of such things as 'owning' several houses, using numerous luxury vehicles, adorning themselves with rare minerals and gems, when millions around them, and around the world, are homeless, hungry and in poverty. In short, although the capitalist classes experience some particular deforming effects of the system of capital, they are compensated by the general privileges of wealth and power and so cling to them individually and collectively. In doing so, they represent an extremely reactionary, and potentially fascistic, force in society.

In examining the anti-capitalist social forces which could lead to change Marx concluded that in general the middle classes were no better than the capitalist class from the standpoint of the working and oppressed. The middle-class have generally a more privileged position than the working classes and invariably defend these privileges against the aspirations of the oppressed. Whilst their position is not always certain or stable due to changes and crises in the capitalist production system, they are unreliable in terms of a transformation to a more just and equal society. In struggles which threatened the capitalist system, large numbers of them inevitably side with the rich and powerful in order to cling on to their slight advantages. If their individual position is threatened by the rich and powerful themselves, then they might stir themselves into opposition. But even then this opposition is more likely than not to be limited or reactionary. They are more likely to want to restore their own privileges rather than go forward to a more equal society. Some individuals may break with this reactionary self-interest, and support the working and oppressed, but very few. From these few, for example, came those young middle-class intellectuals, who in Europe and America, before and after the Second World War, gravitated to anti-capitalist reformism or even revolutionary politics for a time. However, with few exceptions, they eventually abandoned the anti-capitalist struggle and moved on to more financially rewarding careers as they progressed toward middle age.

Thus for Marx, it was the working and oppressed classes who were the only possible agents of change in this exploitative and unfair method of organising social production and distribution. Not only were the workers in the majority, but their situation drove them to rebel when conditions became desperate enough or when they felt strong enough. If an actual revolutionary situation developed many would join it on the basis of feeling they had nothing to lose. Again this was no mere theoretical conclusion, for prior to and during Marx's life time, the working and oppressed masses had already taken up the struggle to change working and social conditions for the better, as well as taking part in civil uprisings and attempted revolutions.

So, in the epoch of capitalist exploitation, the role of revolutionary theory and revolutionary intellectuals, according to Marx and Engels, was to assist working and oppressed people to become aware of the real and general nature of their own existing struggles. It was to help pierce and destroy the smoke screen of dominant ideology where it served to divide and confuse them. Further they could point out that the struggle of individual groups of workers against individual capitalists was simply a microcosm of the struggle of all workers against the whole capitalist system. For Marx and Engels the role of revolutionary intellectuals was never to try to take over the workers movement and 'lead' it. Revolutionary-humanism, dialectical materialism, and historical materialism, together with a critical understanding of the actual struggle, were the basic ingredients which would be in all aspects of revolutionary anti-capitalist theory. It was to be theory not as rigid dogma; not as the mystique of a select few; and not as the abstractions or fixed categories of the sectarians. These were among the crucial insights made by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels in developing a revolutionary theory during their life time.

They were gains which needed, and still need, to be defended. Any change or revision of these essential insights requires support from serious evidence. Yet even before the death of Marx these crucial insights were being ignored and eroded by many calling themselves anti-capitalists and even some calling themselves Marxists. The increasing evidence of the latter caused Marx to announce at one point, that he was not a Marxist, and provoked him more than once to pick up his pen to answer some further outburst of phrase-mongering or new distortion of revolutionary experience. After his death this defence fell to Engels who not only rebutted departures from dialectical materialism, but repeatedly, spoke out against 'self-styled socialists', 'philistine slackness', a 'lack of dialectics' and much more. We have seen some examples of this in earlier chapters. Here is another;

"Unfortunately, however, it happens only too often that people think they have fully understood a new theory and can apply it without more ado as soon as they have assimilated its main principles, and even those not always correctly. And I cannot exempt many of the more recent 'Marxists' from this reproach, for the most amazing stuff has been produced in that quarter too." (Marx/Engels. Selected Correspondence. Pub. Progress. page 396)

Of course, sectarian anti-capitalists don't always listen and anti-capitalist Philistines may not bother to heed the warnings. So, as we have already commented, the fact that Marx and Engels cautioned against something, doesn't mean it won't continue to happen. The lack of rigour, the arrogant assumption of knowledge after a brief acquaintance with a subject and the turning of theory into dogmatic assertion led Engels to declare on a number of occasions, that Marx's way of viewing things was 'not a doctrine but a method'. It didn't provide ready-made dogmas 'but criteria for further research and the method for this research'. For the purposes of this chapter it is worth dwelling on this particular point, in order to establish that those references made previously are not isolated examples. Writing in 1843, Marx provided the example of the young Prussian King to illustrate the point. This particular intellectually motivated King desired to enliven the dull servitude of the people he ruled. Marx commented:

"He wanted to set all hearts and minds in motion for the benefit of his own heart's desires and long cherished plans. A movement did result; but the other hearts did not beat like that of the King, and those over whom he ruled could not open their mouths without speaking about the abolition of the old domination." (Marx/Engels Collected Works Volume 3. page 140.)

The result, Marx observed, was a considerable ferment. Opposition awakened within the King's jurisdiction and gave rise to speeches and talk of free human beings. No longer 'forced' to co-operate in the old way, ordinary people began to 'act' differently and this was reflected in their spoken thoughts. The situation quickly became difficult. The King's servants and advisers pointed out the dangers of what was happening and indicated the problems of continuing to 'rule' such a vociferous and increasingly unruly people. As a result a forcible end was put to the 'new' conditions of enlightenment by the King's soldiers and, as Marx put it, 'a return to the ossified state of servants' was commanded in which once again:

"..the slave serves in silence, and the owners of the land and people rule, as silently as possible, simply through a class of well-bred, submissively obedient servants." (ibid. page 140)

The point Marx was concerned here to stress was that this so-called intellect-led enlightened venture failed because it tried to abolish fundamental aspects of itself without abolishing itself. That is to say the action limited itself to trying to get rid of the symptoms of despotism without actually removing the cause - the despotic regime of the King himself. Marx indicated the obvious fact that the relationship of brutality, on which despotism and oppression rests, can only be maintained by brutality. Inequality and oppression can only be removed when the real causes of these symptoms are removed. Roundly condemning the symptoms whilst ignoring and supporting the cause is a well known tactic of those in power at whatever level. In order to achieve less despotism in a despotic and hierarchical society many people would have to give up, or seriously limit, their economic and social positions of power. Of course, very few in power wish to give it up.

In order to remove unequal power relationships a radical overthrow of the existing economic system and its division of labour would also have to take place. In other words to be rid of the modern symptoms of exploitation and oppression (poverty, ill-health, fear, inequality) the causes of exploitation and oppression (capitalist economic relations and the state) would have to be overthrown. Everyone capable of work would relate to the means of production as a producer and part owner, instead of some being owners and others being non-owners and workers. The conventional notion of worker would also need to change under such a society so that the capitalist-created distinction between those selected and trained to be 'elite' skilled workers and those left to be unskilled workers is ended.

We have had reason earlier in this chapter to consider Marx's views on the role of theory, in relationship to his polemic against idealism and the true German socialists. Of one of these 'true' socialists, Bruno Bauer, Marx commented:

"Firstly he proclaims criticism to be the absolute spirit and himself to be criticism. Just as the element of criticism is banished from the mass, so the element of mass is banished from criticism. Therefore, criticism sees itself incarnate not in a mass, but exclusively in a handful of chosen men, in Herr Bauer and his disciples." (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 4. page 86.)

The existence of masses of poor and oppressed was not in itself seen as a criticism of the prevailing economic and social system, nor were their struggles. Criticism, for Bauer, was something which flowed exclusively from the critic's pen. However, Marx saw the positive, rebellious and creative side of working people. For Marx and Engels, as we shall see later in this chapter, the emancipation of the working classes must in any case be by their own efforts. A short time after writing the previous passage, Marx took issue with another representative of this petty bourgeois intellectual frame of mind and its patronising attitude to working people. He took a certain Hermann Kreige to task for declaring anyone who didn't support Kreige's political party was an enemy of mankind. Marx pointed out the inconsistency of this sentiment with Kreige's pompous prattling on the 'religion of love' and also noted in relation to this attitude that:

"It is, however, a perfectly consistent conclusion of this new religion, which like every other, mortally detests and persecutes its enemies. The enemy of the party is quite consistently turned into a heretic, by transforming him from an enemy of the actually existing party who is combated, into a sinner against humanity.....who must be punished." (Marx/Engels Collected Works. Volume 6. page 47.)

Kreige's anti-capitalism was like a new religion, which as with most religions hated, and when possible, persecuted its rivals, treating them as enemies. As we saw there is a remarkable resemblance between these tendencies identified by Marx under the description of sectarianism, and those operating within the Communist Party and State of the Soviet Union under Stalin. That is to say the existence of cults of personality; the notion of the infallibility of leaders; the choice of being either for, or against, the leaders.

After discussing Kreige's self-confessed task to 'make all the poor of the world rebel against Mammon', and then to unite mankind by 'love', Marx moved on to another point. He noted that Kreige (and his party) also intended to pursue an educative role in relation to the poor and downtrodden who would thus become disciples and followers of the party. Kreige proudly declared his intention to 'teach' men to work communally. Marx commented:

"These prophets 'teach' their disciples, who here appear in remarkable ignorance of their own interests, how they are to work and enjoy communally.."(Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 6. page 47.)

Marx firmly rebutted the idea that working people are ignorant of their own interests or unable to understand how to work and enjoy life communally. He also drew attention to the fact that the elitist notions of 'teaching and educating' the working and oppressed masses was not being advocated for its own sake (i.e. because workers may lack certain knowledge or skills) but in order to fulfil the theoretical projections and visions of the intellectuals and prophets or party 'leaders'. In other words such instruction was not to be done for education in general, but in order that the masses could understand the reasoning of the leaders, and could implement their leaders' advice. In other words education was to serve the interests of the political class and not the working class. In this vision, the wise middle-class 'revolutionary' shepherds would lead and the working class sheep would dutifully follow.

The working class, in this stereotype, are bowed down by their poverty, low cultural level, lack of education, and oppression, and are judged to be incapable of doing any serious thinking and creating. This is the same kind of opinion which we have seen expressed by Lenin and Trotsky and one which was shared by the bulk of the Bolshevik Party. This is to see the working classes one-sidedly. It is a view which saw only their oppression, poverty or their anger, stubbornness and desperation. It did not see their creativity, combined strength and humanity. Marx returned to this same issue in 'Poverty of Philosophy'. In describing the role of anti-capitalists and communists, he argued that they should be the theoreticians of the working classes. However, he noted, in the early stages of working class development, they tend to remain utopians, who improvise systems in order to meet the needs and wants of the oppressed classes. He then stated:

"But in the measure that history moves forward, and with it the struggle of the proletariat assumes clearer outlines, they no longer need to seek science in their minds; they have only to take note of what is happening before their eyes and to become its mouthpiece." (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 6. page 177.)

Again, according to Marx, revolutionary anti-capitalist intellectuals need only take note of what is happening before their eyes and become its mouthpiece. This should still be the case today. So why has Marx also been ignored on this question of self-appointed sectarians lecturing the working class? The reason, I suggest, lies in the peculiar division of labour in the modern capitalist society.

There is required within modern industrial societies universal literacy and numeracy. Certain forms of thought; legal, political, scientific and technological, have become essential to modern capital and thus of considerable importance to the management and defence of this system. Because of the increased economic and social importance of thinking and intellectual activity under capitalism, the status of the classes (and individuals) who provide this function has accordingly risen. It is not surprising, therefore, that among these intellectual classes, the importance of ideas and thinking is considered to be paramount. Intellectual activity has not only been broadened and strengthened with regard to practical activity, but among many of the middle classes, its importance is considered to be primary. This is because, for the occupational practices of the overwhelming majority of the middle-classes, it is primary. However, taking society as a whole it is not. Amongst intellectuals 'thinking' and writing appears as the motive force of all practical life. In actual fact it is the practical life of the modern capitalist system which is the motive force of thinking and writing in general and of their individual thinking and writing in particular. Intellectual activity is the product of practical life and the intellectual classes are a product of the division of labour in a class society which is based upon the capitalist production and consumption of commodities.

Also in this epoch, more than any other, the revolutionary crisis of social and economic conditions is articulated and communicated within intellectual discourse. The real life struggle of oppressed human beings takes place in the mundane, often invisible, everyday struggle to survive. This day to day struggle takes place in the ghettos and villages of the third-world and on the streets and working class housing estates of the so-called advanced countries. Where it becomes visible and is forced upon the attentions of politicians, or is unearthed by sociologists, it is the subject of intellectual analysis and discussion. The real contradictory situation and suffering of human beings, therefore, appears in middle-class discourse, in the form of contradictions within dominant social and political theory. Its contemplation becomes a theoretical problem over which competing intellectuals can disagree and take sides without ever seriously attempting to radically change the world. This upside-down appearance is a consequence of the modern epoch.

The view that intellectual activity is of primary importance is not restricted to the capitalist bourgeoisie and petite-bourgeoisie itself. This has important implications for the anti-capitalist struggle. The view is shared by the radical (and dissident) elements of the intellectual classes - including those who join the revolutionary groups. Hence the propensity among such dissident intellectuals for developing and creating theoretical solutions to the practical problems facing the working and oppressed masses. In this way an inverted emphasis is imported into the anti-capitalist struggle for a post-capitalist society. In this inverted intellectual realm the party programme becomes more important than the practical struggle; selling the group paper to workers in struggle becomes more important than supporting their actual struggle; inter-group polemics over which ideas are 'correct' become more important than unity against the real capitalist enemy. The correct 'line' (a combination of analysis and procedure) over how to fight the fascists becomes more important than uniting to fight the fascists. In post-revolutionary Russia, the five year plan became more important than the welfare and activity of workers and peasants. And as we saw in Chapter 3, arguments over the precise nature of the organisation to help the multi-ethnic Bosnians, became more important than uniting to support their life and death struggle. In other words for such people, ideas about the anti-capitalist and class-struggle become more important than the actual struggle itself.

The term 'Marxism' is an intellectual-led construct and Marx's work suffers from it. Marxism, as far as it is proper to use this word, and there are many problems with using such a personalised term, arose from a close study of the real world and its contradictions, particularly those connected with the capitalist system. These contradictions were studied in the fields of economics, politics and social life. The fact that Karl Marx developed and extended this form of critical social science to an unprecedented degree is beyond dispute, even among opponents of his conclusions. However, as far as a close study of his writings discloses, he did not engage in this research in order to have a science or discipline named after him. Quite the opposite. As Engels describes him, Marx was a modest person and thought even his 'best things were still not good enough for the workers'. The term Marxism, therefore, is a form of retrospective bequest. It is intended to do his name honour and may well do so if the method is used as Marx doubtless intended. However, it does his memory and the anti-capitalist interests of the working classes a grave dishonour when the term is used to describe and justify Stalinism, sectarianism and various other forms of disunity and oppression.

There is, however, a more damning indictment of the use of the term Marxism, for its usage is certainly against the spirit of Marx and at odds with the methods he used. The title 'Marxism' is currently used to denote a fixed set of ideas or ideology, the use of which, Marx spent a considerable amount of time and energy criticising. Marx was not saying that bourgeois ideology was problematic because it was bourgeois. He was saying that all ideology is problematic. That is why he spent so much time attacking anti-capitalist forms of ideological dogma as well as bourgeois forms. Another problem with using the term 'Marxism' is that it implies Marx's ideas were more important than his life of anti-capitalist struggle. We should recognise that it was not Marx's consciousness that determined his life, but the way he led his life which determined his consciousness. It was not his intellectual output which determined how he lived, but how he chose to live which determined his intellectual output. Thus it is Marx's life and methods which are worthy of celebration and describing and not the personalising (and subsequent dogmatic categorisation) of the ideas he espoused.

As a revolutionary intellectual Marx's purpose for study was humanitarian. The method he used was dialectical, materialist, practical and revolutionary. A much better term for the anti-capitalist knowledge Marx did so much to develop would be revolutionary-humanism. This would not deny Marx his rightful place as a major contributor to the method, but it would (more accurately) indicate a social rather than personal context to its practice. Such a description would also stand as a much clearer reminder of the purposes to which it was dedicated as well as the methods of struggle forced upon it. It is revolutionary, because in no other way will the reactionary greed of the wealthy and privileged, be overthrown and a new society formed. They will not voluntarily give up their privileged positions nor their power. It is humanist because the essential reason and motive force is the enhancement of the lives of ALL human beings, particularly the workers, the poor and the oppressed. Its purpose is to create a form of society in which economic oppression and exploitation and the socio/political forms which spring from this, do not exist. This would generate a situation which, in turn, would allow for the creation of an upper and lower limit of well-being for all citizens and allow the rounded development of all human beings. Such an anti-capitalist revolution with a humanist soul would allow nations and communities to develop more egalitarian forms of society, whatever the term they ultimately used to describe them. It would not be a post-capitalist society presented as an intellectual ideal, as a set of ideas already worked out in advance, in some grand plan, but as the practical working out by real people of a fairer and more just society.

7.3 The historic function of a Post-Capitalist society

Production and consumption under the domination of Capital is a complex social act. That is to say all members of society are engaged in some way or other in the act of producing and/or consuming the products and services created. Even the capital accumulated by individual capitalists has been socially produced for it arises out of the surpluses created by social forms of labour. Yet a greater share of the products of that society are appropriated (claimed as of right) by a minority class - the owners of Capital. This is not only unfair, but as we shall see it also causes crises and instability within society as the capitalists make individual decisions to start up production or to stop it, directly or indirectly. Socialism was, and often still is, the term used by some people, to describe the form of post-capitalist society in which these contradictions were to be overcome. Of necessity a post-capitalist humanist society would be faced with continuing the social production of goods and services, but would balance this with a more or less equal social distribution based upon collectives of producers. In this way the extremes of wealth and poverty would be removed.

In his analysis of the real world of Capital, and in his research into historical social forms, Marx came to the conclusion that the terms 'socialism' and 'communism' described the social solutions to the contradictions inherent in the present and previous stages of economic and social development. Such a post-capitalist society would free the working classes from the economic oppression of other classes and at the same time abolish the existence of different classes by altering, and equalising, the relationship of all people to the means of production. The means of production, instead of being the property and province of a select group of people, would become socially or rather communally owned.

Under Capitalism, the intensity of labour (often termed the level of productivity) has to be set extremely high for working people. This is because their labour has to support large numbers of non-productive workers. Every member of society who does not produce essential goods or services, must still be provided with these services, by working people. In modern society there exist whole groups of individuals who produce nothing which is of direct use to the majority (i.e. working people), but who consume enormous quantities of products created by the working classes. Many within these groups only provide goods and services to the rich. Large numbers of them produce virtually nothing useful at all, shuffling papers and attending meetings, but still they manage to spend all their lives consuming.

The historic function of the kind of post-capitalist society envisaged by Marx would also enable all the unproductive and parasitic members of society to be transferred to productive work. This would increase the number of productive workers and average out the level of consumption. It would not only ease the burden on the existing workers, but spread the burden among greater numbers. The result could be a vastly shorter working week and, for the majority, a higher and more equitable distribution of goods and services. It is a common distortion of post-capitalist ideas that we should try to make people identical in interests and capability. There is no such notion of cloning or identikit moulding within the revolutionary-humanism of Karl Marx. Quite the opposite. However, this has not prevented certain advocates of post-capitalist society from confusing equality with conformity; reading into notions of equality the need for social conformity in dress and intellect. The form of post-capitalist society which was both explicit and implicit in the aspirations of working people, would mean that all citizens would (depending upon their needs) have fair and equitable access to the products of labour, and fair and equitable responsibility for social production. Beyond that, individuality could flourish as never before.

Marx's view of this economic and social revolution was thoroughgoing and he predicted it could lead to an end of the traditional forms of the division of labour. No one need be trapped in a permanent and constricting role, hence his often pilloried notion of being a critic in the morning and a fisherman in the afternoon, as well as being a fully fledged working person as well. This was not simply a speculative fantasy but based upon an understanding of the exceptional productivity available to a society based upon collective ownership of the means of production allied to modern technique. Without having to provide the vast surpluses required by a large class of parasitic wealth-accumulating individuals and with the immense productivity of modern industry released to produce what was needed, then the quality of life (for the vast majority) would increase while the quantity of necessary work decreased. This decrease in the necessary work-time would create the spare time needed by individuals to develop their many other potentials such as fishing, critical appraisal and a host of other interests or pursuits.

Such a socially aware system of society would also be able to build into its cycle of production and consumption the necessary safeguards of safe disposal or recycling of materials. Construction could be for longevity rather than short-term profit. All of these social and ecological aspirations are prevented or minimised under Capitalism, because production is organised for profit and not for long-term need. As noted elsewhere, when Marx spoke of Communism being the negation of the negation he meant that Communism would undo (negate) the things that had become undone (negated) by previous exploitative societies. But as he stressed, socialism or communism was not the goal of human development it was to be simply considered as merely a necessary stage to solve the problems accumulated under the system of Capital. This clearly means that socialism or communism were not envisaged by Marx as monolithic state edifices with permanent features, predetermined plans and hierarchical power structures. The terms were merely a being used to describe a stage in which the structures of oppression, built up on the basis of class divisions, would be destroyed along with the class divisions themselves.

The formulation of such humanistic goals as 'human emancipation' and 'rehabilitation' may seem idealistic and naive to the incorrigible cynic, the rabid conservative or the determined sectarian. Yet they were not formulated by Marx out of idealism, naiveté, weakness, or sentimentality. They are fundamental to his revolutionary perspective, just as they are fundamental to the needs of the working and oppressed peoples of the world. A consistent revolutionary-humanist concern is the motivating force of Marx's contribution to anti-capitalist theory and practice. It is what gives the revolutionary outlook of Marx its strength and endurance. This humanist concern also springs from the experience of all classes and in particular the working class in their conditions of exploitation and oppression. In pursuit of anti-capitalism, socialism or communism, these humanistic principles, as I repeatedly assert throughout this book, cannot conveniently be left behind, forgotten or abandoned, without revising the very core of Marx's thinking or stripping away the revolutionary content of his form of dialectical materialism. Nor can it be abandoned and still attract support from the working and oppressed classes.

As Marx noted, communal association or communism is not an end but a means, a means, moreover, which has to be appropriate to the ends envisaged. The attempt, by the Bolsheviks, to introduce a new era of humanitarian development by sectarian brutality and elitist oppression was a contradiction in terms and practice. It was bound to fail. Marx was crystal clear on this point and it is what he meant when he noted that a revolution was necessary not only because the ruling class would not voluntarily stand aside, but so that the working class could rid itself of 'the muck of ages' and become fit to 'found society anew'. Brutality, exploitation, discrimination, oppression and sectarianism are precisely the muck of ages and need to be got rid of in any really revolutionary anti-capitalist transformation of society. Having dealt briefly with Marx's view of the relevance of revolutionary theory, the role of revolutionary intellectuals and the historic function of post-capitalist society, it is time to look in a little more detail at his view of the role of the working classes in the anti-capitalist struggle.

7.4 The role of the working class

Since the reactionary elements of capitalist society would ferociously resist any moves to implement the kind of society which would remove exploitation from working people or the environment, the working class would need to play a revolutionary role in such a change. But just who are the working classes? In terms of the capitalist economic system they are all those who do not entirely, or mainly, live off profits or interest. Economically speaking, the working classes are those citizens who have to work to secure the necessaries of life, whether they wish to consider themselves as working class or not. As we have noted the very conditions endured by many working people under the capitalist system forces them to struggle and resist. In periods of extreme crisis working people are presented with a choice between passive acceptance or stubborn resistance. The logic of any developing revolutionary situation following a sufficiently severe crisis for the capitalist system, will inevitably pose the question of overthrowing the existing legal and political system in order to solve the crisis created by it.

However, Marx, unlike many of his contemporaries, considered that the emancipation of the working and oppressed classes would have to be by their own efforts. Marx and Engels would have no truck with middle-class notions, or ruling class prejudices, that the working class were not competent enough to run their own affairs, up to and including the running of complete societies. Their works and letters are littered with references on this point. Here is a typical example:

"The emancipation of the working classes must be achieved by the working classes themselves. We cannot therefore co-operate with people who openly state that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must be freed from above by philanthropic persons from the upper and lower middle classes." (Marx/Engels. Selected Correspondence. Progress. page 307.)

This view was not patronising rhetoric. The same point is reiterated in the opening sentence of the Rules of the First International, written by both Marx and Engels. It was manifest also in the way Marx and Engels related to the working class. As we have seen, Marx considered that the role of revolutionary intellectuals should never be to 'lead' the working class or to present them with 'correct' slogans, or imagine they could 'free' them from above. The founding and development of society anew would be the results of the activity of the working masses themselves. In 'The Civil War in France' Marx dealt with the political aspects of the revolutionary struggles in France which attended the Paris Commune. In this work he took his analysis of French Society, begun in 'Class Struggles in France 1848-50 and in the 'Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte', much further. There are two drafts of the 'Civil War' and the finished article. Although all three are different, they also show the continuity of thought in relationship to the aspect of the revolution now under consideration. In the Introduction to the published article Engels also noted that:

"From the very outset the Commune was compelled to recognise that the working class, once come to power, could not go on managing with the old state machine ; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery used against itself, and on the other safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment." (Marx. Class Struggles in France. Peking edition. page 15.)

The important point here is that the direct experience of the Paris Commune hammered home a two fold lesson. Lessons from the direct experience of working people first seizing power from the capitalists and then exercising it. Firstly, the working classes, in order not to lose control once they had gained it, must do away with all the repressive machinery used against them by the state. Second, they must safeguard themselves against their own deputies and officials - without exception! Let us repeat that; - without exception! The lessons of the Soviet Union under Bolshevism prove how telling a statement this really was. Marx stressed the first point by noting a decree of the Commune which abolished the standing army and replaced it with the 'armed people'. The second, by noting that the commune was formed of municipal councillors elected by universal suffrage responsible and revocable at short notice. The police were stripped of their political attributes and at all times were revocable. Public service was done at working class wages. The mystification of politics and state specialisms, which justified (and still does) high salaries and sprouts a caste of highly paid sycophants, was revealed by the experience of the Paris Commune as unnecessary - a sham! Marx was pleased both to highlight and emphasise these points. He even thought them worth repeating. In observing that the commune itself was the 'political form of the social emancipation' of labour, he noted;

"The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government." (ibid. page 70)

High dignitaries of the State disappeared! Public functions ceased to be the tools of the central government! Did any of these practices cease under Lenin and Stalin? Not a bit of it! Public functions became precisely the tools and private property of the Bolshevik Central Committee. The abolition of 'appointments' in public functions by central government specialists, and their replacement by democratic revocable election, is of crucial importance in protecting the revolution from its own 'officials'. As we saw previously, the very opposite was advocated by the anti-capitalism of Lenin and Trotsky. Marx went on to note that the commune divested the judiciary of its sham independence and like the rest of public servants they had to be elected, responsible and revocable. Logic would extend this practice to the communes throughout the provinces. They too, would follow the example of Paris and would develop into the 'self-government' of the producers. This is an important point to consider for much of France was in the hands of peasant producers, yet Marx was happy to suggest that they were eminently capable of self-government. He went on;

"The few but important functions which still would remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally mis-stated, but were to be discharged by Communal, and therefore strictly responsible agents. The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but on the contrary, to be organised by the Communal Constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the State power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was a parasitic excrescence." (ibid. page 72)

Strictly responsible agents! Destruction of State power! The unity of the nation was to become a reality by the destruction of centralised state power. State power, which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity was, according to Marx, in fact a parasitic excrescence. In Marx's view there was no contradiction between the destruction of a strong centralist state and the establishment of national unity. Because that future unity of the national (and international) community would be voluntary, it would therefore be 'real'. It would be based upon the self-organisation of the working and peasant masses in their various communal organisations. Their representatives would be communal agents, or agents of the community, rather than agents of the state, a bottom up, rather than a top down, model of society.

Many anti-capitalist, left revolutionaries since the time of Lenin, have confused the organisation of the 'state' with the organisation of 'society'. Since an aristocratic state in the past represented the interests of an aristocracy and the bourgeois state represents the interests of the bourgeoisie, a simplistic logical projection has been to assume that a workers' state would represent - the interests of the workers! Nothing could be further from the truth. The state - any state - becomes, in a shorter or longer time, the instrument of a ruling elite. The term a 'workers state' is in many ways a prime example of an oxymoron.

We have seen the so-called 'workers' state' of the Soviet Union under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, rarely representing the interests of the working class. This is because a centralised 'state' is a mechanism which is shaped and moulded to the designs of a ruling elite - even in the case of a seemingly sympathetic ruling elite! The centralised state (and its agencies) is the mechanism by which each local community becomes subjected to the central political power. Developed by aristocracy, but perfected by the bourgeoisie, the modern state is a political instrument by which the working population is controlled and managed, in the interests of the capitalist class. The state is not a form of self-control BY the majority of society, but a form of minority class control OF the majority of society.

Marx also noted that the Commune made a reality out of the catchword 'cheap government' by destroying the two greatest sources of expenditure - 'the standing army and the State functionaries' and noted that its true secret was that it was 'essentially a working class government'. Its true secret was that it was not a government of professionals, politicians, place holders and specialists, but a new form of self-government by working people. The old world (including the place-holders) raged, wrote Marx, when:

"... plain working men for the first time dared to infringe upon the governmental privilege of their 'natural superiors' and, under circumstances of unexampled difficulty, performed their work modestly, conscientiously, and efficiently..." (ibid. page 76.)

According to Marx then, plain, modest working people didn't need their 'natural superiors' to administer things in their interests - even as early as 1870! Marx also commented that the working class could afford to smile at the 'patronage of well-wishing bourgeois doctrinaires, pouring forth their ignorant platitudes and sectarian crotchets in the oracular tone of scientific infallibility'. Strong words. But the meaning is crystal clear! There was no question in Marx's mind of working people being dependent upon the patronising help and support of intellectuals and 'true' socialists even at the time of the Paris Commune. On the vital relations between the anti-capitalist revolution and the peasantry Marx considered that the commune in its early stages would also act in the interests of the peasantry. In addition an anti-capitalist workers' revolution would have already brought the peasant classes cheap government and relieved them from the heavy tithes and taxes of the landed aristocracy and government. In this way they would have:

"..transformed his [the peasants] present blood suckers, the notary, advocate, executor, and other judicial vampires, into salaried Communal agents, elected by, and responsible to himself." (ibid. page 78/79.)

In this address, and with his detailed knowledge of the French political, social and economical affairs, Marx, unlike Lenin, concluded that in a revolution the urban working class would have nothing to fear from the cultural level of the peasants. What separated the peasant from the proletarian was no longer his or her real interests but only a delusive prejudice. With the measures abolishing the usury of the village, high taxes and other expropriations from their own labour, the peasant class would see their real interests as coinciding with the urban working classes. Marx also observed that even at the 19th century levels of education, the peasant classes would have full control of their elected representatives.

We can see, from these examples of Marx discussing the revolution, that he not only arrived at the theoretical conclusion that the emancipation of the working class must be its own act, but that after studying the example of the Paris Commune, he confirmed this view. He had every confidence that they could do so in a competent manner. He felt no need to revise his opinion that the emancipation of the working classes must be achieved by the working classes themselves. He saw nothing at any point in his life, nor in his study of the Paris Commune, that indicated that the working classes would fail if they were not led by a group of dedicated, middle-class revolutionaries. On the contrary, he saw problems with the attachment of such professional devotees of revolution as we shall see below. Marx contributed his own view on this question;

"In every revolution there intrude, at the side of its true agents, men of a different stamp; some of them survivors and devotees to past revolutions, without insight into the present movement, but preserving popular influence by their known honesty and courage, or by the sheer force of tradition; others mere brawlers, who by dint of repeating year after year the same set of stereotyped declamations against the government of the day, have sneaked into the reputation of revolutionists of the first water. After the 18th of March, some such men did also turn up, and in some cases contrived to play pre-eminent parts. As far as their power went they hampered the real action of the working class, exactly as men of that sort have hampered the full development of every previous revolution." (ibid. page 84)

Marx considered that even well meaning intrusions into the revolutionary workers movement could be a problem. Even those intrusions by people having popular influence by dint of their known honesty and courage could cause problems. Why? Because they may be without insight into the current movement and the real needs of working people and because they are quite likely to import ideal solutions conceived in their own heads. On the other hand others, mere brawlers, who have gained the reputation of revolutionaries from their constant reiteration of stereotyped declamations, can be worse still. Both types, Marx observed, can hamper the real action of the working class. Both types would quite naturally want to belong to, or even lead, a successful revolutionary party.

In writing this comment Marx was not passing idle remarks, he was recording this information so it would be of use to future generations of workers and their anti-capitalist supporters. He was pointing out the danger, during revolutions, of allowing certain types of people to put themselves forward as permanent leaders, either by dint of their past devotion, sincerity or repeated use of anti-capitalist slogans. After analysing the developments of the Paris Commune, Marx was clearly and deliberately pointing out to working people the possibilities and dangers of future would be leaders - that is of the future Lenin's, Trotsky's, Stalins, and Healys etc. He was warning against sectarians and brawlers who, given the chance, would hamper the real action of the working class and not always out of malice! Even honest, courageous anti-capitalists could be capable of obstructing the real action of the working class and hampering the full development of the anti-capitalist revolution. The previous quotations are taken from the completed and published article on the `Civil War in France', however, there are some further points of interest in the first two drafts. For example;

"The middling bourgeoisie and the petty middle class were by their economical conditions of life excluded from initiating a new revolution and induced to follow in the track of the ruling classes or [to become] the followers of the working class." (ibid. page 173)

We can now add that since Marx's time, some of these intellectual middle-classes have sought not simply to follow the working classes, but by using their educational advantages have carved out new positions for themselves, as permanent well-paid leaders in the workers' movement. They can be seen occupying the leadership positions in reformist parties as well as in revolutionary sects. These people are very definitely among those who can potentially obstruct the full development of the anti-capitalist movement prior to, during a revolutionary crisis and in any post-capitalist reconstruction.

Marx in this first draft noted that in the solution of the problem of the state, the 'form was simple as in all great things'. Part of that simplicity was the self-arming of the population and disbanding of the standing army. By this one act the communal organisation, as already noted, had got rid of one of the great costs to the people but it had also done more. It had made foreign intervention unlikely to succeed and it prevented internal usurpers from using a separate, disciplined and obedient standing army against the working and peasant masses. Again in this first draft we note that Marx dealt with the ability of the working classes to run society themselves. He noted that in the operation of the commune a delusion was dispelled that administration and political governing were mysteries that only a select few can accomplish. He noted that the commune made in one order;

"..the public functions - military, administrative, political - real workmen's functions, instead of the hidden attributes of a trained caste;" (ibid. page 177)

Marx also observed that the commune did not do away with class struggles but it did offer a rational medium in which those struggles could run through their stages in a controlled and humane way. Yes, in a humane way! Again this is not a youthful idealist declaration written before any real observation of the real business of revolutionary struggle, but a mature consideration after writing Capital Volume 1, and after almost 30 years of involvement in issues of serious anti-capitalist struggle. Later in this draft Marx noted that working people appeared to have 'outgrown' socialist sectarianism. This tentative observation must now be considered almost a certainty. Working people no longer in the main join or take much notice of socialist or revolutionary, anti-capitalist sects because they have outgrown their mystification of them.

It is not (as the sectarians themselves often imagine) that working people need a 'higher level' of consciousness or more revolutionary commitment in order to join or 'follow' this or that anti-capitalist sect. The real situation is that working people - revolutionary or not - realise that the barren soil of sectarianism, with its petty internal wrangles and its arrogant assumption of correctness, is of no use to them in furtherance of their anti-capitalist struggles. On the contrary, it is those anti-capitalists within the sects themselves who need to reach a higher level of unity and consciousness, in order to transcend their narrow sectarian outlook and become of some real use to the anti-capitalist struggle. From the standpoint of the anti-capitalist struggle, it is they who are backward and need to learn from workers and from their own history. From the standpoint of the working and oppressed masses, sectarianism has failed to produce anything except the reproduction of its own narrowness, bitterness, dogma and disunity. Instead of talking at and down to workers, they should listen. Instead of trying to lead the workers, they should work alongside them. Instead of calling for workers' unity, they should try to achieve a reasonable degree of it for themselves. Instead of erecting shibboleths, they should help workers demolish them.

7.5 Politics and state

Studying the Paris Commune was not the first time Marx had observed and noted the problems attached to the limitations of the political mind and its potential reactionary nature. We have read his warnings concerning the 'true' socialists and about intruders who hamper the struggle for a new society. However, it is worth taking further note of his more general observations of the shortcomings of the political mentality. For politics is often seen as 'the' solution to most problems. In the 'Critical marginal notes on the Article by a Prussian' he noted:

"Where political parties exist, each party sees the root of every evil in the fact that instead of itself an opposing party stands at the helm of the state. Even radical and revolutionary politicians seek the root of the evil not in the essential nature of the state, but in a definite state form, which they wish to replace by a different state form." (Marx/Engels. Collected Works. Volume 3. page 197.)

The natural desire and an immediate assumption for all political parties is in capturing positions of political power. The obtaining of power, or the retention of power once gained, is the explicit reason for each political party's existence. Marx noted that even revolutionary politicians can only see the root of the evil they intend to address in the current holders of political power and not in the nature of political power itself. Some politicians may be opposed to one definite state form but only wish to be rid of this form in order to replace it with another, a result, which as we have seen, occurred in Bolshevik Russia. Marx also noted:

"From the political point of view, the state and the system of society are not two different things. The state is the system of society. Insofar as the state admits the existence of social defects, it sees their cause either in the `laws of nature', which no human power can command, or in private life, which does not depend on the state, or in the inexpedient activity of the administration which does not depend on it. " (ibid.)

For the political mind, the state and the system of society are essentially the same thing. The problem is that a political party wielding state power can only understand three possible sources of social defects. First; defects in the laws of nature, which the state can't alter. Second; defects in private life, which, by and large, are not the province of the state. Third; defects in the lower levels of governmental administration of things, which also does not depend upon the group or party in power. Politically minded people cannot see or understand that the problems lie in the essential nature of the state itself and the system of political power, which arises to manipulate it. Politicians of all types, revolutionary or otherwise, cannot conceive that they perpetuate the problem, or more probably, will become the problem. The issue of politics, the state and the relationship to social problems, was posed by Marx as a contradiction. Thus:

"The contradiction between the purpose and goodwill of the administration, on the one hand, and its means and possibilities, on the other hand, cannot be abolished by the state without the latter abolishing itself, for it is based on this contradiction. The state is based on the contradiction between public and private life, on the contradiction between general interests and private interests." (ibid. page 198)

Individuals employed in the state cannot believe in the limited possibilities of their administration. They can see only formal and accidental deficiencies and at best try to cure them. If these minor modifications prove fruitless the fault is imagined to lie elsewhere than in the state. To support this observation, Marx gave the example of England which blamed poverty on the 'bad will' of the poor. Those in politics and the English government could not see that poverty was a product of their form of economic system and government. He went on to explain:

"The political mind is a political mind precisely because it thinks within the framework of politics. The keener and more lively it is, the more incapable is it of understanding social ills." (ibid. page 199)

and further;

"The more one-sided and, therefore, the more perfected the political mind is, the more does it believe in the omnipotence of the will, the more is it blind to the natural and spiritual limits of the will, and the more incapable is it therefore of discovering the source of social ills." (ibid. page 199)

These statements can come as quite a surprise to those who have become accustomed or 'trained' to view politics as the solution to human affairs. The more perfected the political mind - the more one-sided and limited it is. What a body blow Marx delivers to politics. What an indictment of professional politicians of whatever persuasion. The politicised reader may need to ponder the implications of this pivotal insight for a moment. It implies that dedicated anti-capitalist politicians are incapable of discovering the source of social ills. It implies that professional revolutionaries become blind to the natural and spiritual limits of the will. We have seen in earlier chapters the blindness of sectarians to the harsh condemnations of their theoretical predecessors. We have also caught a glimpse of the political and social blindness of the Bolsheviks to the neo-fascist course they began following. We shall have reason to come across more examples later. For the moment, we should note the general points made by Marx.

It is not simply that there are one-sided and blind politicians, it is that politics itself is a one-sided and deceitful human endeavour. It is not just that there are ineffective politicians, it is that politics by its very nature, beyond a certain narrow range of circumstances, is ineffective. This enhances and supplements the frequent working-class observation that all politicians, even their own representatives, soon get out of touch with them. The term 'out of touch' being a catch-all term to cover the one-sided and narrow concerns of politicians. Taking the point further, Marx argued that social distress does not produce political understanding but on the contrary, it is social well-being which produces political understanding. In other words political understanding arises and is developed in those who already are relatively comfortably situated, who therefore have the time and opportunity to develop and perfect their political mentality.

Those who are daily struggling to survive have not the time, energy or desire to develop a political ethos with its associated manoeuvring and posturing. Becoming political or joining a political party are political acts, they are acts of will, exercised politically, which by definition involves individuals manoeuvring and power brokering. Such activities do not, however, effect widespread social problems. Marx pointed to the example of the French workers of Lyons. They felt confident in their success since they were pursuing clear political objectives. Marx commented;

"Thus their political understanding concealed from them the roots of social distress, thus it falsified their insight into their real aim, thus their political understanding deceived their social instinct." (ibid. page 204)

According to Marx, therefore, it is possible that political understanding or political consciousness can conceal and deceive the political mind on the more important social issues. Many of the English Chartists suffered from the same delusion. This same blindness is also manifest in revolutionary anti-capitalists who see the problem of working and oppressed people as residing in their 'political' immaturity and also in their isolation from active politics. From the revolutionary humanist perspective the real isolation and separation of working people, as we noted earlier, is from their own essence as human beings. This cannot be rectified by participation in politics, for politics itself is a one-sided, distorted, corrupting and alienating way of life. The practice often advocated to overcome the isolation of working people, particularly the extremely oppressed sections, is community involvement and by community involvement is often meant becoming politically active within a community. Against such views Marx reasoned that:

"The community from which the worker is isolated by his own labour is life itself, physical and mental life, human morality, human activity, human enjoyment, human nature....The disastrous isolation from this essential nature is incomparably more universal, more intolerable, more dreadful, and more contradictory, than isolation from the political community. Hence to the `abolition' of this isolation..."(ibid page 205)

Thus in Marx's terms, political isolation, the separation of workers from the political running of the country, or their region, is not the same as separation of the working class from their essential nature as human beings. Note also the reference to 'human' qualities and their enjoyment. As workers this latter separation is far more devastating, more contradictory and more universal. It is not their reconnection with politics which is a crucial evolutionary and revolutionary step for working people, but their reconnection with their real humanity and its potential. This view is in direct opposition to Lenin's project to involve everyone in politics and the politics of the state, which was discussed in the previous chapters.

It is the abolition of this previous separation, caused by their forced (alienated) labour, which is far more decisive and important. It is not the freedom to vote which is crucial to working people, but freedom from oppression and exploitation. And the second does not automatically follow from the first. It is not increased involvement in a hierarchical state which is essential to collectives of working people, but decisive involvement in the control of production and surplus production. Isolation from their own humanity can only be ended by the overthrow of Capital and the abolition of the state. For this political means are initially a necessary, but far from sufficient, condition. For;

"The 'political soul' of revolution, on the other hand, consists in the tendency of classes having no political influence to abolish their isolation from statehood and 'rule'." (ibid. page 205.)

From the standpoint of the oppressed classes, the political tasks of a revolution can often mask or distort the real social and economic changes which are required. However, the task of working people and their supporters in achieving an anti-capitalist form of economic and social organisation is primarily to put an end to exploitation and inequality. Their task is not to perpetuate a new politics but to put an end to the ultimate political instrument - the state - by dismantling, or smashing it. The method of organisation, co-ordination and negotiation which is put in its place needs also to exclude the rule of political elites. For they potentially constitute another form of oppression and exploitation. The working class must, therefore, abolish conventional politics and state functionaries. As he warned:

"Hence, too, a revolution with a political soul, in accordance with the limited and dichotomous nature of this soul, organises a ruling stratum in society at the expense of society itself." (ibid.)

Marx makes no exception for any kind of politics, even the previous formal politics of workers, let alone the politics of sectarians. Marx noted in this discussion that a political revolution with a 'social soul' makes rational sense while the opposite, a social revolution with a political soul, does not. This is an important distinction, because an anti-capitalist social revolution needs a narrow political viewpoint like a hole in the head. The anti-capitalist revolution which develops out of the contradictions of capital and moves to overthrow the capitalist system, is clearly an all-round economic and social revolution. From a revolutionary-humanist perspective, the revolution may start with, or be quickly followed by political action, but the overcoming of state power and the act of abolishing it would be the last formal political act before focusing on the real economic and social issues.

"Revolution in general - the overthrow of the existing power and the dissolution of the old relationships - is a political act. But socialism cannot be realised without revolution. It needs this political act insofar as it needs destruction and dissolution. But where its organising activity begins, where its proper object, its soul comes to the fore - there socialism throws off the political cloak." (ibid. page 206).

Thus, according to Marx, once working people have used their political process to revolutionise and dissolve the existing economic and social forms of wage-slavery and oppression, they would begin to abolish political forms of organisation. The reason being that these would cease to be necessary and indeed become a fetter on the future development of an egalitarian society. "Where its organising activity begins.. its proper object...throws off the political cloak", says Marx. As mentioned in a previous chapter, from the political and military control of one class of people, by the representatives of another class of people, the post-capitalist social forms of organisation would change to the administration of things and communal decision-making.

There would, of course, be attempts to overthrow this new form of organisation, but with all (or the majority) of the great towns and cities of a country organised in this way, and the whole working population armed, three great sources of reaction could be successfully resisted. The first source is foreign intervention. With a fully armed population the chances of success of this type of action is unlikely. The second source of reaction is the new group of representatives establishing itself as a ruling elite. Since there would be no extra privileges to holding office as well as fewer 'offices' and no special body of armed men to protect their appropriation of the positions, there would be no point to it, and no organised power base to accomplish it. Marx also reminded us of the third possibility of reaction:

"The Communal organisation once firmly established on a national scale, the catastrophes it might still have to undergo would be sporadic slaveholders' insurrections, which, while for a moment interrupting the work of peaceful progress, would only accelerate the movement, by putting the sword into the hand of the social revolution." (Marx. Civil War in France. Peking edition page 178; or Marx. The First International and After. Pelican page 253))

Faced with a reactionary insurrection of the previous capitalist oppressors, the newly freed workers, would obviously rise up, arm themselves and defend the new post-capitalist social and economic condition.

The works, by Marx, quoted in this chapter span the years 1843 to 1875. This period covers the most important works of Marx's life. They amount to thirty-two years of intensive anti-capitalist study and activity. His writings change and develop, from the often philosophical and theoretical expositions of the early period to the concrete political and economic analysis of his more mature years. However, there is an underlying consistency of purpose and methodology. His methodology was that of detailed study of the subject in hand in order to understand its contradictions and its potential lines of development, his purpose was humanist. It was to assist and arm the working class, anti-capitalists' struggle. His desire was to identify and influence those potential lines of development in directions that could assist working people to choose a better future. One which would return the human species to economic and social conditions in line with its essential and potential humanity. The trigger for such a change would be provided by a profound revolutionary crisis of the capitalist system. As we shall see in a subsequent chapter, a thoroughgoing revolutionary crisis can dissolve the powerful ruling class edifice as a result of the conflicting interests of the ruling class itself. These conflicts are often heightened during any crisis brought about by the direct or indirect results of their own capitalistic actions.

The creative energy and motive force for revolutionary solutions to that crisis would flow from the working class themselves, for only they would have sufficient reason and numbers to carry out such a revolution. In addition, only the working classes could have as its real purpose the founding of a society which would not have a minority oppressing the majority. They know from direct experience the real human costs of that oppression and exploitation. In order to achieve this task Marx formulated out of the combined experience of this international class and its attempts at freeing itself from oppression, five basic points.

1. Revolution is necessary because the ruling capitalist classes can only be overthrown by means of a revolution and only in a revolution can the working class themselves become fitted to found society anew.

2. The working class needs to seize economic and political power and once power has been achieved the existing state needs to be destroyed and alternative communal organisations created in the form of collective associations of all working people.

3. In organising its alternative form of general association to replace the 'state' the working class needs to arm and protect itself against 'reaction' from the former ruling class and in particular prevent usurpation by its own representatives.

4. With the dissolution of power and the establishment of the alternative 'general association', the working class needs to be on its guard against being disarmed. It needs to use its collective force as a means to establish (and defend) anti-capitalist laws and practices which remove permanently the economic and legal base of exploitation and oppression.

5. For revolutionary intellectuals the task is not to create and perpetuate an elite of critics, ideologists, sectarian leaders, or future 'privileged' representatives of the people. Their task is to use their skills to assist the logic of genuine collective human and social development in practice alongside, among, and with, the working class.

In relationship to the latter point, Marx eloquently stressed the connection between the task and motives of revolutionary-humanists as distinct from revolutionary phrase mongers and egotistical self-styled leaders.

"...the sole task of one who thinks and loves the truth consisted not in playing the schoolmaster in relation to this event, but instead in studying its specific character. This, of course, requires some scientific insight and some love of mankind, whereas for the other operation a glib phraseology, impregnated with empty love of oneself, is quite enough." (Marx/Engels Collected Works Volume 3. page 202.)

'Scientific insight and some love of mankind', was a combination which Marx successfully and consistently blended. It is this which gives the revolutionary humanism of Marx its strength and durability. It is this combination which the sectarians of all kinds shun like the plague. That very combination will also ensure that the ideas of Marx survive untarnished even after the many tons of excrement dumped upon them by Stalinism and Sectarianism. It is this combination, or lack of it, which will also provide some indication of the value to the working class and the anti-capitalist struggle of those who have sought to interpret his ideas and methods.

7.6 Final points and summing up

Every modern revolution must have a political aspect to it. It cannot identify its purpose nor focus the general discontent without some recourse to politics and some form of political strategy. Much of this will invariably be in response to the politics of capitalist oppression via the state. Yet the political aspect can soon begin to limit the scope of the revolution and can blind its participants to its real substance. The myopic reliance upon politics can, within a short time, marginalise or channel the humanist potential of revolution into a reactionary direction. This at first seems contradictory. However, beyond a certain point, (and this point itself is not fixed but shifts and changes) it is politics which is the problem and begins to stand in the way of social and economic solutions. Politics, where it is formalised and established, soon begins to block the development of social and economic revolution. This is abundantly clear under the rule of capital, but it was also clearly the case under Bolshevism. It will also be the case under any post-capitalist social system which includes a system of formal politics. This is because politics presupposes power and politics is the exercise of power over others. In theory, democratically elected politicians are supposed to consult with the majority, even take instructions from them, but in reality it is the populace who consult the politicians, and the oppressed who take orders from the politicians, via the hired agents of the state.

Politicians - all politicians - are an actual or potential part of a present or future ruling elite. Revolutionary-humanists participating in any future anti-capitalist revolution will have an important role in reminding the anti-capitalist activists of this threat. Democratic politics is the theory, the ideology of the naturalness, even the desirability, of representative and exploitative rule. Derived from the practices of ancient Greek elites who 'democratically' ruled the 'Polis' on the backs of slavery, politics has dragged with it over the intervening centuries essentially the same elitist agenda. Modern political theory is simply the ideology of modern political elitism and its latest power structures. Politics is a special, distinct and full-time occupation constructed deliberately so not everyone can participate in it. Nor, given its corrupt and self-serving practices, would most people want to. Politics is inconceivable without power over other people. Politics exists, therefore, to respond to and perpetuate the interests of the most powerful groups in those societies in which class divisions are a structural part.

Any large majority, such as the working and oppressed, would need to construct its post-capitalist economic and social activities directly and not through the medium of an elite band of political specialists. Once the question is examined without a blind allegiance to politics, or without making it a fetish, it becomes self-evident that politics is endangered by every popular revolution. It is endangered in two ways. Mass participation in a revolution does not follow the predetermined patterns set by politicians and this participation, once under way, threatens to go beyond even the most extreme programmatic statements of revolutionary politicians and parties. Mass participation at the same time undermines the notion of the need for fixed hierarchies and elite leaderships. In this way every popular revolution threatens politics for it involves an ever greater number of people in the decision-making processes - outside of the formal political arenas. The more popular and general the revolution, the greater the threat to politics. Mass participation and political representation are always in direct conflict. Therefore, in a revolution, mass participation must destroy politics and positions of power, or politics and positions of power will destroy mass participation. The two cannot co-exist.

Thus those who live by politics; those who are consummate politicians - who know no other craft - are sooner or later the most threatened by revolution. Indeed, they are often the most dangerous when clearly on the side of the revolution. This is because even those politicians who are carried to positions of power and/or pre-eminence by revolution - the revolutionary leaders - tend to strive, once in a position of influence, to return the masses to production and leave intact a political system for themselves, their colleagues, their cronies and even their offspring. How quickly this can happen in an anti-capitalist revolution we have seen in the chapters on Lenin and the Bolsheviks. The whole point from the working class and revolutionary-humanist perspective is not to remove any perceived imperfections in politics (e.g. as with Lenin's 'Better fewer; but Better') nor to capture positions of 'power' but as soon as possible to dissolve or extinguish political forms and eliminate positions of power.

A popular revolution destroys the normal political functioning of society. It throws the masses into activity. Much of that activity is initially pursued through existing and new political channels which are prised open or created by many of the oppressed. This includes the activities of the most active anti-capitalists and workers who may form themselves into a distinct movement or groups. Once those channels have been developed and effectively used to destroy the property relations and legal basis of exploitation and oppression (as with the Soviets in Russia; the Commune in Paris) then the process of dissolving formal politics would need to begin. A truly revolutionary group of anti-capitalists, organised in the form of a movement or party prior and during any revolution, would be in the lead to advocate the dissolution of all political structures - including its own - once control was in the hands of workers' and citizens' committees!

Those few non-party organisations considered to be temporarily important would need to remain open to all the workers and oppressed. Those forms of organisation that the workers and oppressed create but stop using should be allowed to atrophy. At the communal and productive levels personal competence will need to replace party affiliation. A person should be elected to those few remaining positions which are deemed to need representation on the basis of their personal ability and suitability and not on their party affiliation. Even then such people would need to be subject to instant recall, and receive no more than the average workers' payment, plus any moderate expenses needed, to fulfil the tasks allotted to them by the community. This much, and more, was revealed by the experience of the Paris Commune. There could of course be a period of transition between - obtaining organised control by working people in an anti-capitalist revolution, via a movement which might include a party or parties - and the final dissolution of politics. But even this short period of transition would need to entail the conscious and systematic delegation of influence and decision-making, sideways and downwards to the local communities, industries and workplaces, not upward to centralised powers. In the heat of a revolutionary process any elected members from an anti-capitalist movement will have received their mandate to 'act' from the popular masses and so in the period of post-revolutionary construction the 'power to act' should return to the popular forums from whence it came.

This description may seem to be close to the theories of Anarchism. It is, but we should all remember that the debate Marx had with the Anarchists was not over the aims of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism but merely the means of achieving it and assuring it. We should also recognise that the original term 'anarchy' merely means the collective association of human beings without the existence of a formal governmental (i.e. political) power over them. It would, therefore, be a retreat into sectarianism to split the anti-capitalist forces in advance, on how such a process would develop in practice, when the matter should be settled by the future revolutionary urban and rural workers themselves.

In justifying a strict centralist state, Lenin argued that Marx was a strict centralist but this is not true. We have seen that Marx considered that the form which post-capitalist society should take would be decided in practice by the working and oppressed classes, not by any theoretical constructions made in advance by an elite. We have seen that the experience of the Paris Commune had provided an example of how workers could organise each local community and that in Marx's opinion, their real unity would be achieved by destroying the centralised state. Engels felt that this point was so important that he added a special footnote to a later edition of the 'Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League'. This footnote explains that the reference to strict centralisation was due to a misunderstanding caused by 'liberal falsifiers of history'. It had later become clear to Marx and Engels that provincial and local self-government had become in Engels words, "the most powerful lever of the revolution."

It should be clear that the logic of leaving in existence any political system is to create the basis for a state, whether new or old, and invite the creation and consolidation of a political elite. Such a group could, despite any protestations to the contrary, easily become the new ruling elite. The dissolution of formal politics, as with the destruction of the state and the disarming of the ruling class, will of necessity be a revolutionary process. Such a process is one which can only be carried out by the working class as a whole and its anti-capitalist allies, because only the working class has no vested interest in, and nothing to gain from, the continuation of forms of oppression and exploitation and is untainted by a fetish for politics.

If the working class were to be once again in the vanguard of an anti-capitalist revolution and then delegate their power to control past production, present production and future production, upward, the whole sorry mess of oppression and exploitation could so easily start over again. Much of this has been proven by past experience, particularly of the Paris Commune, the lessons of which were extensively drawn out by Marx. Yet despite Marx's writings, this mistake was repeated, his warnings ignored and his analysis confirmed (negatively) a second time by the experience of Bolshevism in Russia. But does the Bolshevik failure in Russia and the sectarian degeneration of many of the 20th century anti-capitalist organisations, mean that the struggle for a more egalitarian society is idealist and doomed to failure, as many now suggest? This is a question we shall now examine in more detail.