Opinion: On Marxist Participation in Electoral Politics

One common thread of discussion among Marxists concerns the discussion as to whether or not we should participate in electoral politics in bourgeois democracies. On one side are those who argue that we must participate in electoral politics in an attempt to peacefully transform bourgeois democracy into proletarian democracy and bring about a socialist state. Then there are those who argue that we should engage in elections only to raise awareness of socialist issues in an attempt to raise the awareness of the proletariat to the horrors of the capitalist system. Then finally there are those who argue that we must under no circumstances engage in electoral politics because by fielding candidates, and to some people by simply voting, we legitimize the bourgeois democracy we are fighting against.

Each camp has its own positives and negatives. The middle position, the position of participating only to raise awareness, is a position I dismiss out of hand because it serves no larger purpose. If we are to participate in elections we must be in it to win, not simply make our presence known. Also, the interest of raising awareness is just as easy to do when you are actively working to win an election. The other two choices present a conundrum. To me the decision to participate in elections should hinge on whether there is a viable socialist alternative. In the US we have no such alternative. For this reason I believe that we socialists in the US should avoid voting because we would most likely be casing a ballot for the Democrats (the ideologically closest large party to all Marxists) who are just as staunch defenders of capitalism as the Republicans. For this reason I usually do not participate in elections because for us Marxists in the US almost all elections are a false choice between Keynesian economics (Democrats) and Friedmanian economics (Republicans) which both seek to retain capitalism. However, for those Marxists that live in a country with a truly socialist party then at least there is the option to cast your ballot for you own ideology in which case participation in electoral politics can be a viable, and in my opinion preferable, option.

I also have some issues with the camp that says no to any participation in electoral politics. They dismiss elections as bourgeois choices and that is certainly the case with the large parties in most countries. However, by actively not participating they indirectly legitimize any opposition to Marxism by only having capitalist parties gaining votes. It would take a mass boycott of over 50 percent of a nation’s population to delegitimize the bourgeois electoral process and that is simply not realistic in most capitalist states anymore. And keep in mind that such a boycott would have to be actively pursued, not like in the US where we consistently have low turnout simply because most people are apathetic. Apathy and active opposition can have the same effect on turnout but the conclusions to be drawn from the low turnout are very different. So in this case, in the US it makes sense to not participate in elections but not for the reasons espoused by those actively opposed to participation in elections. However, in those countries with active Marxist parties that field candidates I dismiss the idea of actively opposing participation in elections because it all but ensures that the vast majority of society is left without an active voice for the proletariat in politics.

Why Reformism is Doomed to Fail

There is a very large and very prominent group of Marxists that adhere to a reformist view of Marxism. In their view it is possible to work within the political system of liberal democracies and affect a gradual transition to socialism and eventually communism. This view hinges itself on the belief that as long as they are legitimized by elections then the bourgeois will sit back and let the velvet revolution occur. This view is ultimately untenable and will not result in the end of capitalism.

Reformism’s most prominent early advocate was a German intellectual by the name of Eduard Bernstein. Bernstein was a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany. He advocated what he called “evolutionary socialism.” Under his theory gradual reforms of capitalism could lead to the change of capitalism into socialism and then eventually communism. According to his theories it is possible for a worker’s party to affect reform in democratic societies and thus do away with the necessity of a violent revolution. This school of thought has expanded to be what is known today as social democracy and is claimed by many political scientists to be the most popular political ideology in the world today.

Today this ideology is a centre-left ideology that forms the heart of most centre-left political parties in today’s liberal democracies. However, today’s social democrats are little more than liberals dressed up as Marxists. They are nothing but a tool of the bourgeois to keep the proletariat in check and give them a bourgeois approved “leftist” alternative to the overtly reactionary and conservative parties on the right. Simply listen to the statements made by today’s social democrats and you will not hear even one mention of Marx, socialism, or communism. Sure they maintain such mentions in their party materials but this is only to appease those intellectual elements in their movement that still care about appearances. No socialist policies have come from social democrats in a very long time.

So then, why is reformism doomed to failure? For the simple reason that by working within current liberal bourgeois democracy they force themselves to appease the bourgeois and take the bite out of Marxism. Gradual transitions benefit the bourgeois by allowing them time to look for loopholes and methods by which they can maintain their power and influence. If capitalism is good at one thing it is adaptation. Reformists are kidding themselves if they think they can end capitalism slowly. By moving slowly you are only allowing the bourgeois to find a new place to reside. Only through the rapid and destructive act of revolution can the proletariat tear apart capitalism. Furthermore the reformists are naive to believe that the bourgeois will allow such a transition to occur. At some time they will reach a breaking point and decide that will not tolerate the charade of the social democrats any longer. They will then forcibly undo all the positive changes that the social democrats have made in an attempt to return society to a more pure form of capitalism. We have already witnessed a more moderate such readjustment as recently as the 1980s when conservatives in America and Europe systematically reversed over a century of reformist “progress” in less than a decade. Do not think they would not be willing to use force to do the same in the future should they feel threatened.

Now I know there are many on the moderate left that are fearful of revolution. They are fearful because it will upend their seemingly safe existence. They fear that the revolution will backfire and end “decades of work” by the left. They fear the potential loss of life that revolution entails. I would tell my timid comrades to have faith. Have faith in the proletariat and your fellow comrades. Have faith that when the revolution comes that it will serve the interests of the masses. Have faith that the world will be a better place because of the revolution rather than in spite of it. We Marxists are materialists and do not put much stock in blind faith. However, in the case of the revolution all we have is faith, because the alternative to revolution is slavery.

Marxist FAQ: Dictatorship of the Proletariat

There has been much confusion among non-Marxists when the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” is mentioned. Most people believe that this means dictatorship in the modern sense of an oppressive system led from the top down by one leader or a small group of leaders and they point to the use of the word “dictatorship” as proof. However I am here to clear up that confusion. The phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” was coined at a time before the rise of the modern dictatorship and as such has lost the contextual meaning that the phrase meant when the phrase was coined in the 19th century. When the phrase began to be used “dictatorship” meant absolute leadership. Thus the phrase “dictatorship of the proletariat” meant the absolute leadership of the proletariat. In practice however I think that the modern equivalent phrase should be “proletarian democracy” and I will use that phrase in the future.

Proletarian democracy is what Marxists are truly trying to establish. But what is proletarian democracy? In proletarian democracy the State operates on a democratic basis with the caveat that the proletariat is the only class that is allowed to participate. This is in contrast with modern liberal democracy where all classes are permitted to participate. Now is usually the point where liberals and conservatives alike cry out in terror “but you are quashing freedom!” In reality, no we are not. By only allowing the proletariat to participate who is truly being left out: the small group of wealthy people who don’t have to work at a job to ensure their livelihood. By removing the influence of the wealthy we can finally realize true democracy. Today the rich contribute to political campaigns and corrupt our political system to the core. By removing their influence we remove the corrupting influence of money in politics. This is not the only part of proletarian democracy for if it was then all we must do to institute proletarian democracy would be to do away with private financing of campaigns. Proletarian democracy would also prevent the rich from being able to be elected or seeking election. This ensures that the proletariat is represented in government by itself. Only by totally removing the wealthy from the political process at all levels can we achieve proletarian democracy. But again this is not all because this political system would be further coupled with the socialist ownership of the means of production. These three prongs together not only take away the influence of the wealthy but eventually ensures that they will become members of the proletariat as well. When there are no rich people left then proletarian democracy becomes true democracy in every sense of the word.

There are numerous schools of thought as to what a proletarian democracy would actually look like. Some view it as a single-party state led by a vanguard party. Some view it as a popular front of all leftist groups banding together to ensure leftist consensus and prevent the emergence of a ruling elite. Others of the more anarchist persuasion would do away with the State entirely and have proletarian democracy on a purely informal basis and only at the local level with participation being voluntary. There have been numerous attempted experiments in proletarian democracy but none has proved to be successful due to the corrupting influences of bureaucratism and the outside influence of capitalism upon socialist states. These influences have the effect of degrading proletarian democracy into bureaucratic, elitist systems that reward party loyalty and loyalty to the State over proletarian democratic initiative. Only when the world is transformed into a world of socialism will we truly be able to begin the great experiment in proletarian democracy.

Racism Used to Prevent Proletarian Unity

With all of the events that have been occurring in Ferguson we are again reminded of the spectre of racism in our society. Despite some people’s claims to the contrary, we have not moved past the petty views that someone who is a different race than us is somehow bad or undesirable simply because of the colour of their skin. While racism stems from our past prejudices against “the Other” around us, racism has been one of the chosen weapons of the bourgeois against the proletariat for a long time. By allowing racism to continue to exist in the minds of people, the capitalist classes prevent us in the proletariat from unifying against the bourgeois due to petty divisions based on race. By not actively fighting to prevent racist tendencies from taking hold in the minds of individuals, the capitalist state allows these same prejudices to divide society.

As long as society is divided on the basis of race, or gender, or religion, or sexual orientation, then the common people will be blinded to the fact that society is truly divided based on economic class. As long as the bourgeois can prevent that masses from seeing that overriding truth they will continue to hold sway over the people. For example, the bourgeois will continually redirect attention from their lack of funding to education for inner city schools and lack of funding for assistance programs, and instead blame the problems of the inner city on “criminal youths”, drugs, teen pregnancy, unpresent fathers, and a myriad of other “reasons” that imply that minorities are not worth the money because they will not take advantage of any opportunities except criminal opportunities. Mentalities such as this distract the masses from the simple fact that the bourgeois wants to keep us divided so that we spend our days fighting each other rather than joining forces to fight the bourgeois.

No one will deny that minorities face many issues that whites will never experience. For this reason we must actively work to end all forms of racism. Only by ending racism, both in the law and in the minds of individuals, will we be able to unify the proletariat against the bourgeois. But the masses must be aware that in fighting racism, and indeed all forms of discrimination, they will meet resistance not only from those people who would like nothing better than to impose their racial, religious, or moral views on the rest of us, but also from those elements of the bourgeois that wish to keep us divided. We must strive every day to end injustice against our fellow human beings for only together will we be able to defeat the forces of global capital. Divided, we are doomed to defeat.

Liberal Democracy is Bourgeois Dictatorship

So for a long while I have been contemplating the nature of our democracy.  This question goes back to the very beginnings of my becoming aware of politics. While I have undergone a major shift in my political thinking over the years, my pursuit for understanding of liberal democracy has continued. As of late I have been rereading many of the works by Marx and Lenin (most notably the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx and Engels and The State and Revolution by Lenin) and have been philosophically confronted with the opposing forces constantly at work within democracy and how those forces effect our democracy.

In many different works, and in may different ways, Marxists of all tendencies have stated that liberal, or bourgeois, democracy is in fact a dictatorship of the bourgeois over the rest of society. While there are some reformist socialists who disagree with this sentiment, the majority of Marxists would agree with the aforementioned assessment. I am inclined to agree with my fellow Marxists and here are my reasons:

1. Liberal democracy is a shade pulled over the eyes of the masses in order to hide or obscure the true nature of the “democracy.”
2. The capitalist system, by its very nature, prevents the emergence of true democracy.
3. If true democracy were to exist, the capitalist system would collapse.
4. Because of the previous statement, capitalists will never allow society, no matter how liberal, to become fully democratic because that would entail them losing all of their influence over politics and state power.

I will now address and explain my reasons one by one.

Liberal democracy is a shade pulled over the eyes of the masses in order to hide or obscure the true nature of the “democracy.” This is most likely to be the most difficult to understand and most resisted reason anyone would believe Marxist assertions on the nature of democracy. Why, the doubters and deniers say, if democracy is a hollow shell are we allowed to vote? Isn’t the very fact that there are free and open elections enough evidence that liberal democracy is true democracy? I will answer these questions with another question: what defines “democracy?” Democracy is Greek for “rule of the masses.” This means that if you are going to say you are a democracy then the masses must rule. But in a liberal, bourgeois democracy the masses do not rule. Rule is carried out by economic and political elites who make decisions that effect everyone with little or no input from the average person. Every so many years a few, mostly rich, individuals stand in front of large crowds of people saying “elect me and I will do X, Y, and Z in your name” and for some reason we believe them.

The vast majority of the actions undertaken by our elected officials serve only their own interests or the interests of their wealthy financiers. I would ask any person to come up with a single piece of legislation recently that has helped only regular people. If just one rich person or company or corporation is aided then the legislation is automatically disqualified from consideration. I say this because even in the most seemingly populist legislation there are articles and provisions that directly or indirectly aid those in power at the expense of the average person. Want a tax break for Walmart so they can “create jobs”, you are supporting the bourgeois by allowing them to pay lower taxes. Want to make a sales tax to pay for new road construction, you are indirectly hurting millions of people who live paycheck to paycheck who are hurt by sales taxes on a hugely unproportional level compared to the rich.

Democracy serves only a a means to legitimize the rule of the wealthy. Look at any legislature in a liberal democracy and you will see a mass of individuals who are wealthy. Not a single member of the US Congress lives under the poverty line. Compare this to the fact that 16% of the US population live in families that earn less than $27,000 a year. A US Congressperson earns $174,000 per year. No matter how you try to justify that, you are left with the fact that this automatically places our political leaders into the echelons of the wealthy elite while the vast majority of Americans are left in the dust. I don’t know about you but I don’t trust some rich person, no matter how well intended they are in their actions, to devise welfare policy that in no way effects them or their family. They will go at the task with at best an earnest interest, and more commonly a distanced concern. But that does not negate the fact they since they are not living day to day they have no idea what a person living in poverty is faced with. I was baffled by  a story recently where a Congress person attempted to live on minimum wage (he failed within a couple weeks by the way) and how that level of political theater was applauded by the liberal left. Unless that congressman was literally forced to live on minimum wage with no out then he has no idea what stresses are involved in that kind of life and his actions only further prove that the elite of our society put on these charades to distract us from the fact that it us, not them, who are left to live in poverty.

What does this have to do with legitimizing the bourgeois dictatorship? By putting up with these antics and then later going to the ballot box and voting for those fools, we tell them “you pretending to be one of us is okay. We don’t mind the fact that you are rich and rule over us with little regard for what actually happens to us on a daily basis.” For by voting in elections we legitimize the system as a whole. One popular tactic of resistance movements of all kinds across the globe is to boycott elections. By driving down voter turnout you can point to the system and say “that system is so rotten to the core that the people don’t even believe it is worth voting.” If you continue voting in elections in the bourgeois dictatorship that is our political system, you simply boost the statistics that say that the system is acceptable enough that you bothered to come and vote. Not voting is, in an organized fashion, is an effective way to delegitimize a particular political process and single it out as an unjust system.

The capitalist system, by its very nature, prevents the emergence of true democracy. This in not immediately noticeable but is easily described. By its very nature capitalism forces all entities in existence to seek money in order to operate. To gain this money entities must sell products or services. In a democracy the most precious commodity is information. Information can make or break a politician’s career. So, in order to control the flow of information, the wealthy elite use their wealth, in the form or both direct ownership and advertisements, to control what news makes it on to the front page. Despite what journalists tell you, when the New York Times is presented with a particularly juicy piece of info they don’t necessarily publish it. Should the Times have one of their biggest sponsors come up to them and say “if you publish story X then we will pull our advertisement funding”  you can bet the Times will take note and bury the story. This prevents to adequate dissemination of information. Without full access to information the voting public is unable to see the entire story and this will directly lead to them voting without all necessary information.

If true democracy were to exist, the capitalist system would collapse. I say this because it is obvious. If the masses were allowed unlimited access to all information and were then still permitted to vote, they would immediately sweep all of the elites out of power. While we are not permitted to see everything our government is doing in our name, Edward Snowden gave us a good glimpse into that world and everyone who actually took the time to look and see what was being done by our government was immediately appalled. Being granted similar access to everything would lead to the immediate collapse of our political and economic system into socialism. The masses would immediately remove all elites from their positions of authority and replace them with ordinary people. These people would immediately stop the heinous things that happen every day but go ignored by our rich overlords. Almost overnight we could end poverty, starvation, homelessness, and all other societal ills if we weren’t being oppressed by the very elements in our government and society that receive economic and political gains by keeping people poor and oppressed.

Because of the previous statement, capitalists will never allow society, no matter how liberal, to become fully democratic because that would entail them losing all of their influence over politics and state power. This is because they have every reason to prevent us from exercising our true will through democracy. They limit the choices to a few sides that they can stand. Democrats and Republicans alike only reinforce capitalism just in different ways. While the elites would love to simply establish a dictatorship and rule over us directly they are smart enough to realize that by allowing us to vote for their specially selected minions they give an air of legitimacy to their clandestine reign over us. Should a real threat to liberal democracy emerge from the left they will not hesitate to end our faux democracy so they can ensure that they remain in their position over us and there will be many misguided souls among the masses who will side with the bourgeois both out of self interest and misplaced trust.

I recently read The Iron Heel by Jack London for the first time and was amazed at how similar the world of his book (which was based off of the world pre-World War I) and the world of today are. We see gross inequality on a daily basis, the smashing of unions, and destitution for the poor. The events that London posits in which the ruling classes use their influence to eventually end democracy following the initial success of a leftist movement is exactly what would happen should events like those in the book actually occur. First the bourgeois would refuse to accept the victory of the left. Next they would seek to turn the people against the left by making them seem like an anarchist force that would bring down society. And then when they are at their weakest and about to lose control, the bourgeois would launch their financial assault and bring the world to its knees. In the wake of this crisis they would take every last freedom from us in exchange for loosening their grasp on financing and allowing us to work in their factories and offices for wages that barely prevent workers from starving on a daily basis while working 10 to 14 hour days. We would be kept down with all the force they could muster. People would be executed on the spot simply for disobeying an order or daring to speak out against injustice. We would then be slaves to them in all but name. Only after that darkest hour for the human race would we eventually see the true end of capitalism, because out of that horrible darkness the people would rise with a fury the capitalists didn’t even think possible to break the chains of capitalist oppression. Only then will we see the end of poverty, disease, racism, sexism, and all other injustices that plague humanity. Only then will we truly be free.

In Capitalism, All Wages are Subject to Wage Theft

Wage theft: the illegal withholding of wages or the denial of benefits that are rightfully owed to an employee. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft)

By its very nature the capitalist system of economics performs wage theft against all workers. If you don’t believe me then ask yourself this simple question: How much money did the company you work for just make off your labor compared to how much they paid you for your labor? If that answer is anything more than zero then you are subject to the inherent wage theft present in capitalism.

I work for a testing company. We administer tests to individuals seeking to be doctors, accountants, teachers, and an indescribably large number of others. My wife, being a teacher, had to take the PRAXIS test to get her certification. This test cost her $150 for four hours of her time. When I am administering this test I make $9 and hour adding up to $36 and my coworker (only two of us work at the same time) made the same. That means to administer my wife’s test earned my company $78. My testing center has 12 seats which are full all day. In that four hour period if all the seats are full that means my company gained $1728 in four hours of testing (since they only have to pay us essentially for only one of the tests all the tests after the first one are pure profit). The average cost of electricity required to run the testing stations is around $400 a month. Rent on the facility is roughly $3000 a month meaning that fixed expenses on for the same four hour time period are roughly $20. This puts total profit for my company in a four hour period of simply PRAXIS tests (and trust me most of the tests cost A LOT more than the PRAXIS) at $1708.

This $1708 under socialism would be required to be redistributed to me and my coworkers since we are the only reason the money was earned in the first place. But instead, under capitalism, all that money is put into the hands of the company in order to pay dividends and pay the exorbitant salaries and bonuses for the company’s executives (and I personally know one of the executives and, while a great guy, he definately has no financial need for all of the money he earns). Meanwhile me and my coworkers earn a yearly wage that is below the poverty line and most of us have to get government aid.

So next time you perform a task at work just remember this: As long as you are working under capitalism you are not getting the wage you truly deserve.

On the Centennial of the First World War and Its Implications Today

Being a history buff I cannot forget that this year marks the centennial of the First World War otherwise known as the Great War. This was the first truly imperialist war fought by solely imperialist powers in an effort to expand their domains at the expense of others. While some of the initial origins of the war reside in nationalist tendencies the larger conflict was a war over empire.

I could go on at length about the various repercussions of the Great War but a news story I read recently gave me pause to consider just how much the world today resembles the world right before the First World War. As stated in the article, we are globally more connected than ever, rising economic powers threaten the economic status quo, political movements that reject the establish order are on the rise around the globe, territorial tensions abound. All that it would take to start World War III would be a spark in a minor nation that has ties to global powers.

The article supposes a Russian strike at one of the Baltic States but I say it could be even smaller than that. The economic tensions between NATO nations and Russia are continuing to mount as sanctions are brought against Russia for its continuing aggression in Ukraine. What if those sanctions turned into a total embargo of Russian goods. That would take a few years and would require the US to increase natural gas production in order to sure up European doubts about the effects of removing Russian gas from the market but is a possibility should tensions continue to rise. In response to this embargo, Russia could be forced into economic recession and Putin, seeing his approval rating finally dip, decides that only military action will solve Russia’s woes.

Alternatively, and right now seeming very likely, the current tensions in the Ukraine could spill over and Russia could intervene in Ukraine citing peace keeping operations along its border. The peace keeping operation become a full out invasion that leads to the annexation of all of “New Russia” and the occupation of the rest of Ukraine. In response to this, NATO decides that in order to protect its new ally it should activate NATO Article 5, the collective defence protocols of the NATO treaty, thus forcing all of Europe and the US into open military conflict with Russia.

No matter how it could start, the Third World War would be unprecedented in both scale and ferocity. Whole cities could be evaporated in nuclear strikes. Millions would dies in milliseconds. There would be no end to the madness except the annihilation of the human race.

North Korea, believing that the US is occupied in Europe,  could decide to invade South Korea and start with a nuclear strike on Seoul. Iran could muscle its way into a union of some kind with what is left of Iraq, after the Kurds and Sunnis leave to form their own states, and form a kind of Shia caliphate that uses its influence to cut the West off from all Middle East oil except that coming from Saudi Arabia. China could see that the US is unable to aid all of its allies and forcefully takes possession of contested islands in the East China Sea causing war to erupt with Japan.

In this imperialist war there will be no ideological agenda. Just as in World War I all sides are totally imperialist in nature and are only fighting to protect their own imperial interests. Also as during the First World War, existing treaties will be the only things holding the disparate sides together. It will be a war fought around the globe though maybe not in a single, united conflict. The US will be the major player since it is allied to at least one party in almost all the possible conflicts.

A few things would be certain about the aftermath of the Third World War. The US empire would crumble. The US would simply not be able to aid all of its allies and would be forced to abandon some of them out of military necessity. Other allies would see the folly in US actions and abandon the US. No matter who “won” the war the US would no longer be able to maintain its hegemony due to military, political, and economic strain. Not to say that the US itself would crumble or lose its status as a major power, although that definitely could happen should the war end with the US losing, it just simply would be unable to maintain its global primacy after such a conflict.

Another certainty would be that the world would look very different both physically and politically. Even should the nations of the world maintain rationality and refuse to use their nuclear stockpiles the world would be battered by the horrible nature of a modern war. Whole cities would be flattened by artillery, millions would be dead either from retaliatory action against the civilian population of foes or as a side effect of urban combat. The maps of the world would be redrawn as new nations arise, old nations fall, and multinational coalitions unite to form new political unions for mutual defence.

New political movements would also arise. In the upheaval caused by such a horrible series of conflicts it is inevitable that new political movements would arise that would replace or combat existing political norms. These will most likely take the form of extreme ideologies (at least extreme compared to the relative centrism most prevalent today) both left and right. As after the Great War, there will be competing ideologies vying for control of the nations of the world. I would like to think that the people, seeing the idiocy of the imperialist wars surrounding them, would rise up in socialist revolution and replace the imperialists but I am more pessimistic than that. Yes, a few nations may take up the mantel of a new socialism, but, as after the First World War, fascism will also rise up. I fear that in the aftermath of a Third World War that there will inevitably be a Fourth World War caused by political divisions of the world much as happened in the aftermath World War I.

But I still hold hope than in the coming imperialist war that there will be a great awakening of the people that will lead to the rise of a socialist world. I hope that in that future war the people will see that the war serve no one but the ruling class and refuse to fight but that usually does not happen until the cost of the war is already horrendous.

This post has been very long winded and has so many hypotheticals that even I can’t keep them all straight so I will end by saying just three things I am totally certain about: There will be another Great War. It will entail loss of life on a scale previously thought impossible. And it will happen sooner than anyone expects.

Why does the Left continue to side with Russia?

So with all the news surrounding Ukraine I have been asking myself the same question time and again; why do some on the left continue to support Russia? I have not been able to answer that question because it makes no sense to me.

Back during the Cold War the USSR was the largest bastion of “socialism” on the planet. It gained the support of most leftists simply because it, at least publicly, advanced socialism as its state ideology. In the Cold War, supporting Russia as a leftist was a viable and acceptable position.

Fast forward to today and there are no real socialist countries left. All have either dissolved, like the USSR, or have given up socialism for a form of state capitalism. Currently it makes no sense to support Russia. It is led by oligarchs who got rich dismantling many aspects of the former Soviet economy for personal gain. They do not have any pretenses towards supporting socialism, in fact Putin’s party is a conservative political party.

So why does this portion of the left continue to side with Russia over the West? Neither side deserves the support of the left. Both are blatantly capitalist both publicly and privately. The only thing Putin has done is say that the dismantling of the USSR was the worst thing in the history of the world. But he means this only because it reduced the power of Russia, not because it saw the final collapse of Socialism. The East vs. West dichotomy became obsolete the minute Gorbachev announced free elections in the USSR in early 1991. At that moment the USSR become yet another bourgeoise capitalist democracy. Yeltsin’s dissolution of the USSR merely sealed this fate.

I would urge all my comrades who still put false hope or faith in the “East” and most notably Russia where it belongs, in a cold grave. Russia and the “East” do not represent Socialism, they simply represent a power clique that is opposed to the West. They oppose the West merely for their own self-interest, not to advance any larger political or ideological goals. They only form a separate clique because they don’t accept traditional western liberal democracy and thus have been ostracized by the liberal West. But that does not make the “East” commendable. Those on the Left that still support Russia and the “East” need to take a long hard look at their beliefs and realize that just because Russia and the “East” are anti-West does not any longer mean they are pro-socialist and end their sometimes unconditional support for Russia.

A Brief Marxist FAQ, Part 3

Well here is Part 3 in my FAQ series. Last time I explained the basics of value and accumulation. Today I will focus on wages.

How are workers paid under capitalism?

Under capitalism, workers, or rather the proletariat, do not have the means to produce items and then sell them and so they must sell the only resource they have available in abundance, their time and physical ability to work. They must sell this resource on an open market where employers bid with workers for a price to their labor. This can be any amount, although in many counties there is typically a minimum wage that employers are required to pay. Theorhetically workers and employers are free to negotiate the pay rate.

Pay usually takes the form of any hourly wage or a salary that is the assumed value of the labor the worker provides. The rate of pay is determined by a number of factors including: difficulty of work, skills necessary to complete tasks, availability of replacement workers, education required, etc.

Is the capitalist wage system fair?

If the capitalist wage system functioned as it was intended then it could be argued that the system is “fair” but what wages fails to grasp is that the richest in society do not have to work for wages and thus are exploiting workers in order to enrich themselves. On top of this is the problem that a worker who builds an entire car may not, because of the incentive to pay less for work than what it should actually be worth, be able to buy the car they just built.

Capitalism, and its wage system, is based upon exploitation of the worker. Under capitalism a worker may provide labor that provides $20 per hour in value, but because of the need to generate profits, employers will only pay the worker $10. This is an economic necessity under capitalism because corporations have a legal responsibility to generate profits for the owners of the corporation. Non-corporate entities have the same motivation because the owner(s) of the company naturally want to generate profits for their businesses as well.

Can capitalist wages ever be fair?

In a simple answer, no. Since the need to generate profits is inherent in capitalism there will always be a need to pay workers less then they should be earning.

What is the socialist alternative to the capitalist wage system?

There are many alternatives available but the most convincing, at least to me, is the use of labor credits. Using labor credits a worker would earn credits based on the amount of work done which would then be amplified by the difficulty, danger, or necessity of the work in question. For example say Jimmy was a coal miner and Tom was an accountant. Both of them worked an 8 hour day earning them both 8 labor credits. Jimmy’s job is inherently very dangerous and so he would get a 2 credit bonus. Tom’s job requires special training and so he got a 2 credit bonus. Because Jimmy’s job is naturally undesireable an incentive of 1 bonus credit is added to his work. So under this system Jimmy would receive 11 credits to Tom’s 10.

Some may criticize this because they would say that all the education and responsibility of an accountant should inherently allow them to make more, however if one were to look at the usefulness of each task, and the dangers involved (i would dare any accountant to try being a coal miner for a day and tell me that they desirve more pay then a coal miner) then it makes sense for coal miners to make slightly more.

This system also isn’t rigid. Should there not be enough accountants then the state could introduce a bonus for accountants in order to incentivize people to be accountants. This would work for any job. Socially undesireable but necessary jobs would result in more pay in order to ensure that enough people would work in those necessary jobs.

How would one use their credits?

So as has been explained previously, under socialism every individual would receive everything necessary to survive by default (food, home, transport, healthcare, etc.) at no cost to themselves. However luxury items or things that go beyond basic necessities would be purchased with labor credits. Naturally prices would be dependant on the labor that went into making the item in question, thus removing profit, for example a car would cost more credits than a chair.

Doesn’t that system encourage laziness since people could survive withourt working?

Because prices would be dependant on the labor that went into making the item then people would be incentivized to work (none of the drivel that conservatives promote when they say a socialist society would be a society of freeloaders). I don’t know about you but the idea of getting just enough food to survive and then sitting around doing nothing is not my idea of a good time or a happy life. If you wanted the newest videogame, you’d have to go work. Want that fancy new phone? Go work for it. The entire system is devised to incentivize work while ensuring the most fair distribution of wealth. While there are bound to be a few people who simply refuse to work they will also be the people who will sit in the most spartan apartments with no nice things to call their own.

What is to keep people from subsidizing the laziness of others?

Essentially nothing. However under the labor credits system that I promote the credits are assigned to individuals and only those individuals, or their spouses or dependants, can redeem their credits. So say that Jimmy works hard and earns 100 credits in a week. Jimmy’s neighbor Tom sees Jimmy’s success and thinks, “Hey, I’ll just take some of his credits and use them, he won’t even notice.” Well since the credits are in Jimmy’s name (most likely using something like a debit card) then Tom, who is not authorized to take from Jimmy’s credit account, would not be able to simply take the credits. While there is nothing to prevent Jimmy from helping Tom, Jimmy would have to do so of his own accord. And since prices are dependant on the labor used to produce the item being sold Jimmy would not want to screw himself out of his hard earned credits to help lazy old Tom.

What would wages under communism look like?

Communism would have no wages. Basically we need to also view the labor credit system as a socialization system. It is designed to make people equate work with personal gain and laziness with boredom and spartanism. The goal is to eventually reach a point where all, or almost all, members of society work because they want to work and help their community. The byproduct of work would then be that they have the ability to gain items in accordance with the work they provide. Eventually this would morph and evolve society until everyone only bought the items they want or need rather than simply trying to empty the entire store because they can. Under communism there would be no prices and not credits because they would not be necessary. People would not need to have their consumption regulated by credits because they would have no desire to take more than they need or that they feel they desire.

Doesn’t this enable people to take at will without giving anything back?

Theorhetically yes but communism would only be reach once society would have no desire to endlessly and pointlessly consume. If masses of people are simply taking everything from the stores and not working then it is not a truly communist society. As the mantra goes, in a communist society work is “from each according to their ability.” and products are provided “to each according to their need.” Each individual would determine their own ability and need but socialization and education would guide everyone to provide all they are capable of and take responsibly that which they need.

_________________________________

Well that is all for wages under capitalism, socialism, and communism. It is by no means complete and, especially in regard to socialism, reflects my views very heavily. Next time I will delve into the role of communist movements and the competing theories of socialist development with an emphasis on the Theory of Permanant Revolution as promoted by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as promoted by Joseph Stalin. These form the main basis upon which sectarianism has developed and split the revolutionary communist movement since the 1920s. While there are other theories and movements out there, Trotskyism and Marxism-Leninism are the two largest and so I will go over the basics of their similarities and differences next time.

A Brief Marxist FAQ, Part 2

Here is my second post in my Marxist FAQ series. I had a difficult time in determining which questions to address since my choice of questions would tend in the direction of my own beliefs, rather than Marxism in general, bu here it goes. I decided to focus on very simple, fundamental idea and concepts in order to facilitate more detailed FAQs later on.

What is the Proletariat?

The proletariat is any individual who must sell their labor in order to earn wages. So if you work for someone else then you are a member of the proletariat. This may sound vague or general but that is because belive it or not, most people, especially in industrialized nations, are members of the proletariat. They are also the only class of society that is constantly growing due to the processes associated with capitalism. All Marxists also believe that only the proletariat is capable of leading the socialist revolution that will replace capitalism.

What is the Bourgeoisie?

The bourgeoisie is the class of society that garners its wealth from the labor of others. This is exemplified by those capitalists that own large corporations and gain all their wealth simply by sitting around and waiting for the dividends and trust funds to pay for their lifestyles. But every individual who gains their wealth by exploiting the work of others is a member of the bourgeoisie. This class is the smallest class in industrialized society and is getting smaller as wealth gets accumulated into fewer and fewer hands.

What is the Petty Bourgeoisie?

The petty bourgeoisie is that class that could be seen between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. They are individuals that own small business or are craftsmen. They are not in the proletariat because they exploit the work of others to gain their wealth but neither are they members of the bourgeoisie because they still regularly have to work in order to gain their wealth. This class is in a unique position because they are inclined to help the proletariat in many issues especially because they are not hugely wealthy but they also side with the bourgeoisie on some issues because they must defend their own right to accumulate wealth at the expense of the proletariat. This class will eventually disappear into the proletariat as the bourgeoisie continues to accumulate wealth at the expense of those classes below them.

What are the means of production?

The means of production are any industrial inputs used to produce other things. This extends from a loom all the way up to industrial robots used to make cars. When used in the context of Marxist theory it also refers to anything that is used to produce other things. The iron used to make a car is a means of production just as much as the machine that assembles the car. In the course of a socialist revolution all the means of production will be taken by the proletariat in order to prevent future accumulation of capital. When communists talk about abolishing private property, they are mostly talking about abolishing the ability to own means of productions, along with a few other things.

What is the surplus value of labor?

The surplus value of labor is the value of a produced item that is in excess of what a worker can claim to the value of the item. Let us use the example of a nail factory. Say a worker is paid $10 an hour but produces $20 worth of nails in that hour. Because the worker has no claim to the nail machine or the nails then the factory owner gains the additional $10.

What is the accumulation of capital?

The accumulation of capital is the process by which the bourgeoisie takes the surplus value of labor in order to create more surplus value. This process creates greater and greater amounts of wealth for the bourgeoisie. Using the previous example, suppose the nail manufacturer takes the $10 surplus from the nails and invests that in a new machine that produces $30 worth of nails an hour. Because of the profit motive inherent in capitalism the manufacturer does not have any motivation to raise wages so wages for workers remain the same. Should this process continue into infinity, eventually the surplus value generated by the nail foactory will be enormous and because capitalists are constantly striving for greater profits, they will seek to retain as much of the surplus value as possible thus ensuring that they continue to accumulate larger and larger amounts of capital and wealth.

Isn’t the accumulation of capital a good thing?

Well it is for capitalists because it ensures them a larger and larger share of the profits and thus their own personal wealth. Some argue that the accumulation of capital is good because it allows for more and more efficient production. And while that may certainly be the case, efficiency usually comes at a cost to workers and the environment. For the proletariat the accumulation of capital does not help them one bit because it has an effect of either nudging them out of the production process, relegating them to unemployment, or forces them to sell their labor for lower and lower prices, thus reducing their wages to the point that they cannot afford even basic necessities of life.

Is there accumulation of capital under socialism?

Accumulation of capital also occurs under socialism but then it serves the purpose of moving society towards communism. In this situation accumulation of capital is good because it will be benefiting the whole of society rather than a small group of capitalists. Also, since items are not sold for profit then neither the state nor individuals will be unfairly charged for the surplus value associated with items under capitalism. Accumulation of capital under socialism is then more a gradual expansion of the means of production rather than the production of items in order to generate profit.

____________________

Well that is all for today. Hopefully this will allow everyone to gain a better grasp over the basics of Marxist theory. We will use this knowledge in the future to tackle more complex concepts. Next time I hope to go over the wage system under capitalism and how compensation should be determined under socialism. I may throw a few other things in as well to aid transition to more complex topics but that will be for a later time.