Change, political culture and organisation

Although the ideas for this article have been floating around for some time, it was the publication of the article and short discussion on Left Unity representatives, that has spurred me to put some of these to pen and to paper, creating the more lengthy article below, writes Dave Edwards.

It is perhaps a truism, that all things change and nothing remains constant. Such is the case with the earth’s environment over time, and with human societies themselves. How the world was yesterday and how we saw that world, is not the same as today.  Indeed the aspiration for socialism is built on the premise that the world can change and that the exploitation of capitalism is but a historical period that came into existence and will equally pass out of existence. Be it towards socialism or barbarism.

But if we accept this understanding of change for the macro conditions of the universe and for human societies, then we need to also accept this as the dynamic of the really existing socialist and labour movements around the globe. The ideas and political activity of socialists and that of individual labour movements, equally have a history and equally have changed over time. The enunciation of universal truths about the practice of being ‘a socialist’, in consequence, often then become an expression of faith rather than the analysis of concrete situations, and therefore implicitly ignore the recognition of change.

Let us take, by way of illustration, the historical trajectory of the idea of socialism and the development of socialists in political practice.

Socialism, as a concept, is most often cited historically as having its modern beginnings in the aftermath of the French Revolution of 1789. The cry of the French Revolution was liberty, equality and fraternity. Yet the experience of working people, in the towns and in the countryside was continued exploitation, poverty and continued rule of society by elites. This contradiction was expressed, not only in material existence, but in the exercise of political power.  At the height of the revolution, the idea of universal ‘male’ suffrage was raised and this was how the more radical 1791 French parliament, called ‘the Convention’, was elected. However by 1795 a new constitution restricted voting to property owners only was imposed as the elites in society who gained control of the Convention and army. Socialist ideas, in the aftermath of the French Revolution were basically to argue for the actual implementation of the ideas of that revolution – liberty, equality and fraternity. Which socialist saw in practice meant a fair distribution of societies resources and wealth, democratic control of society by the people (expressed as ‘males’, although even at this time there were feminist voices, pointing out this core contradiction of the demand for ‘equality’ that left out women). And finally, the idea of ‘fraternity’. Being the recognition of a common interest amongst all in society and for a society of peace and tranquillity.

In this basic form the ‘ideas’ of what would, by the 1830s, start to be called ‘socialism’; had also existed in previous centuries. It was present in the movement of the Diggers during the 17th century English Revolution and also, arguably, in the Christian movements of the Cathars, the Lollards, the Taborites, and the Anabaptists during the European middle ages and Reformation.

So why my illustrated diversion into the early years of socialism to explain the idea of ‘change’?  It is that this original set of ideas of socialism, while still forming core aspects of it’s idea, have changed in terms of the practice of the movement and how the world even defines ‘socialism’. Look at a whole range of definitions and you will see the word ‘state ownership’. Yet there is nothing in the early socialism about it being defined as ‘ownership by the state’. Indeed ‘the state’ was given little thought, as it was essentially consisted to collect taxes, and was defined by the armed use of force; and little else. Compared with the 20th century, the state in society was rather small. Only following the state intervention by Bismarck in Germany (a strong conservative and sometime reactionary) did the idea of state control of things (as an expression of ‘socialism’), begin to develop. Likewise in Britain the idea of state control within the Labour Party developed during World War One, as the coalition government of Liberals and Conservatives took control of industry to help the war effort. The first nationalisation of industry was in 1926, that of electricity supply, followed a year later by the creation of the BBC, by the then Conservative government.  Similar, but different histories can be seen in other European countries and even in the United States. Yet both dictionaries and many socialists today define the core of socialism as that of ‘state control’ of the economy.  Change indeed.

As with the changing presence of ‘state control’ as a lexicon of ‘socialism’, so too there has been change in the political organisation of socialists. From loose societies to the formation of national political parties. These were most often created, following those of Conservative and Liberal parties, to organise to obtain the support of an increasing electorate (itself stimulated by socialist and working class struggles).  But not only did the outward form of the organisation of the socialists change, but also the internal structure. By the end of the 19th century the internal structures reflected hierarchal organisations, with leaderships and mass memberships. In democratic socialist organisations, power nominally rested in the membership (not so in the Conservative and Liberal parties in Britain and elsewhere, who were run by non-elected elites at this time). However, my emphasis here is on the word ‘nominal’. For the structure and size of these organisations meant in practice, that power came to rest in the leaderships, with occasional flurries of power expressed by the rank and file over key issues.  The problem was in part size and the ability of large numbers of members to communicate with each other effectively. In part, it was what in Britain we would call a ‘Victorian’ culture of ‘respecting your betters’.

This common cultural norm, when in practice translated into the labour and trade union movement, meant a form of deference for the leadership and those in positions of authority. Similar, but slightly culturally different emphasis are found across Europe; in this historical period.  If we wanted to be culturally Marxist when looking at this, we might even say there was some sort of relationship to the way the majority of production was organised in society during this period. But I will leave that discussion to others elsewhere.

From a different perspective, the famous study by Robert Michels of the German Social Democratic Party, drew out that famous, if challenged argument, of the ‘iron law of oligarchy’. Being consistent in my own argument, I would define this less as an ‘iron law’, not subject to change. But rather Michels experience of a historically related type of organisation, experienced at that time, and indeed for the rest of the 20th century. The question for socialists today is; are we merely attempting to emulate this type of organisation because ‘that is the traditional organisation’ (sic), or do we recognise that we are essentially talking about hierarchical organisation and ways that its worked, and that this is really a historically time conditioned form?

But not only historically time conditioned, but a form of organisation that has been less than successful throughout the 20th century.  The role of the leadership of the Parliamentary Labour Party and Trade Unions, through the 20th century will be known to a range of readers – or at least snippets of this. Although I suspect that a critic of my opening statement of this paragraph will cite that the October Revolution in Russia, 1917 was a contrary example. But I would argue it reinforces my case against the 20th century hierarchical form. Recent studies on ‘life in the local Soviets’ during 1917 and 1918 – using material only recently released after 1990, confirm a picture which exposes problems with this organisational form.

And so, back to my opening question of ‘change’ and the recent discussion on the Left Unity site about the role of Left Unity’s elected representatives. John Penney’s article, reproduces the traditional labour movement model of the hierarchical organisation, where de-facto, the leadership controls things. (Note again, this is ‘de-facto’ – the norms of membership control are in place, but the reality of the organisational form, puts increasing power in the hands of the leadership – as touched, historically upon above). Adherence to this ‘dictatorship of the party’ model is most often premised on a false comparison.

Such absolute control is urged because of “dangers!” They use suggestions of you are either ‘for us or against us’. It is ‘fighting for the working class’ or ‘selling out’. But if we step back from this rhetoric we can see that there is no correlation between control from the top (de-facto the party leadership) and the actions of people. What it assumes rather is the powerlessness of the rank and file and the central role of dictates by the ‘party’.

We are given the scenario that “Local councilors and MPs who are Left Unity members will sell you out unless they are controlled”.   But controlled by whom? As my earlier blog briefly commented upon, the ‘right of recall’, retains control in the hands of the membership. If they do not like what the councilors and MPs are doing, they can vote to remove them. The councilors and MPs should equally commit to following such actions and standing down when they are recalled. The latter is, I might add, no stronger nor weaker than ‘control by the leadership’. If a representative wishes to give the proverbial finger, they will do so, whatever laws and dictates are in place.  But there is a difference in the operation and culture of the organisation, there is a choice to operate under a culture of dictates and centralised control; or operate by  living in a party culture of ‘soft controls’ (also see by brief blog under Penney’s ‘elected representatives’ article). That is soft controls based on morality and accepted ways of behaving, including the sovereignty of the rank and file itself.

 Let me once again return to the theme of change. British society in the 2010s is not the same society as the 1910s. A hundred years has past and much change has taken place. Why then would we attempt to make holy, a form of organisation that originated in the 19th century?  Should we not at least ask if over that 100 years we have learnt anything and perhaps knowledge and experience, science, technology and human understanding offers something more?  My answer would be yes.