THE RETURN OF MARX- 2

Anti-Capitalist and post-capitalist self-activity.

In the ‘Return of Marx - 1’, it was argued that without a grasp of the detailed economic analysis of Marx in Das Capital and the Grundrisse, it is impossible to understand the real causes and depth of the current economic crisis. Using extracts from Marx’s major works, it was demonstrated that it is not just the financial superstructure of capital (with its speculative and fictitious capital) which is flawed, but the very basis (production for profit) upon which our essential production and consumption of commodities and services are based. Therefore trying to patch up problems within the banking and financial sectors, as was done by politicians in the crisis of 2008, was akin to stitching up a still infected wound; the infection just surfaced again (in 2011) having further poisoned the circulation systems arteries and organs. In this case the organs and arteries are those effecting the circulation of commodity production and exchange upon which the mass of ordinary people rely. Yet even after this experience, politicians of all shades, have still failed to recognise the underlying economic infection, and merely discuss a further financial suture or surface ’stitch-up’. It was argued in this earlier article that the gangrene festering in the fundamental production and exchange system was the control of private and corporate production and profit extraction with its attendant motive of greed. It was suggested that this poisonous penetration of frenetic wealth accumulation needed to be removed from the process of commodity and service production and exchange. Only in this way would the economic and social affairs of global societies be able to gain stability, rationality and sustainability. Three questions therefore now arise.

a) What form of post-capitalist socio-economic organisation is to replace the present capital inspired crisis-riddled production processes?

b) What form of socio-political movement will be required to enforce and ensure such necessary changes?

c) What conditions will motivate and create the collective energy and determination required for such revolutionary change?

Therefore, contained in the following sections, will be what Marx considered the actual and necessary basis for the transformative developments, leading towards a post-capitalist form of society.


A) What form should a post-capitalist society take?

In many senses the next future form of society is already here! As is the case in many areas of life, the seeds of the future, are frequently evident in the development of the past and emerge in the present. For example, large-scale production and exchange have already taken place, and continue to take place without the presence of capitalists in the process. Such non-capitalist production and exchange already exist in two basic forms. The first is in the public sector and the second is in the form of co-operative societies. It is important to recognise and constantly remember that; ’capitalism’ and its investors only insert themselves in places where it is advantageous to them. If they cannot make a profit out of a necessary or desired element of economic or social life, they will shun it like the plague. Indeed, they will go further and argue that this or that essential service which cannot be (or can no longer be) exploited for profit, should be provided by the state or by a voluntary sector operator. Hence, the obvious and historic proliferation of public services (courts, education, libraries, hospitals, welfare benefits, fire-service, police, social work, armed forces, etc.) and thousands of voluntary organisations. With a few exceptions, the vast majority of these non-profit public services are not only advantageous, but necessary for any form of organised social life. Further still, in moments of collapse, as with the private banks in 2008, capitalism, relies upon non-capitalist (ie social) public forms of organisation and support to buoy them up or bail them out, until they are ready, and able, to begin exploiting again. Even hugely successful capitalists in boom times, rest upon the solid foundation of public services, such as police, fire, public health etc. Without these foundations they, their profit extraction and their frenetic speculation could not exist. A world without capital is eminently possible. Turning now to the co-operative form of organisation Marx made the following comment.

“The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them…by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour.” (Marx. Capital Volume 3 page 431.)

So in fact the economic processes of the future are already in existence - at least in embryonic form - in the present. Any future society, cannot escape the need to produce commodities and services, along with the education and training necessary to fulfil the various tasks which are required to staff that post-capitalist economic system. Fortunately, as we have seen, alternative forms of commodity and service production and exchange, without the poison of production for profit instead of production for use, have been around for a considerable length of time. The early co-operative movements in various countries attempted to do precisely that - and in many places did it to an impressive degree. Banks, farms, cotton mills, shops, supermarkets, funeral services and many other co-operative societies were formed, providing quality goods and excellent services. Their problem and relative demise was not due to the fact that they were inefficient or deficient in themselves. Indeed, the conditions of employment and general welfare provisions for their employees was above - in some cases well above - those in the private, profit-motivated sector. It was this disparity, along with some moderate mal-adjustments (the shortcomings noted by Marx), which caused their demise. In a ‘mixed’ economy, the fact that profit-motivated enterprise, generally exploits labour, materials and machinery more intensely and ruthlessly, means the products and services are often cheaper and thus undercut those produced by co-operatives and in this way undermines their existence. It is clear from this past experience that egalitarian co-operation cannot compete on prices with cut-throat capitalism, but the answer is not to dismantle co-operation, with its better conditions and pension outcomes, but to outlaw capitalist exploitation and prevent this sectors progressive reduction of all working peoples entitlements. As a general rule, co-operatives aim to level up, whereas private enterprises invariably aim to level down.

The same general principle applies to the existence and functioning of public sector employment. This sector, because it is not organised for the production of private wealth accumulation, also generally has better conditions, salaries and pensions than the private sector. For a whole generation, electricity, gas, railways, sewage, water, telephones were operated as public service corporations. There were of course problems with their set-up, but here too they generally did an excellent job, with reasonable prices and established above the private sector working conditions, salaries and pensions. Compared with the present problems associated with the now privatised, gas, electricity and water supplies, the previous difficulties were slight and remediable. Without cut-throat competition from capitalist enterprises - in their carefully chosen ’advantageous’ situations - the public sector and co-operatives, could, and did, function extremely well. With some minor adjustments at the top, they would generally still be fairer, greener, and more sustainable. The frequent myth that a vibrant private sector is necessary for innovation, evaporates, when it is recognised that the leading innovators in all forms of 20th and 21st century research, have been initiated by publicly funded university departments. It is only after consistent successful results are achieved that the potentially lucrative innovations have been handed over to the private sector to exploit and make a few individuals rich. This innovative myth also further evaporates, when it is recognised that many private sector innovations are unnecessary and often severely detrimental to the health and safety of their employees, customers and the environment.

Therefore the future economic and social system, which is devoid of crises and dislocations caused by excessive wealth accumulation, is not overly complex nor is it outrageously frightening. It comprises of more the sustainable best we have now. The future lies in the adjustment, improvement and expansion (overcoming the shortcomings) of the public sector and co-operation. The problems with the public sector which need to be addressed in the future, are obvious. Public services, need to be far more democratic involving the workforce and users, and far more egalitarian. Any needed key positions, within them should be no longer excessively paid and should be made directly accountable and revocable. In short, accountability, equity and collective management are among the changes necessary for future public services. Co-operatives, need extending to all forms of production and services presently undertaken by the private sector and democratically run - actively involving the workforce and users. As with the public sector, any necessary key positions in these organisations should not be excessively paid and should be directly accountable and revocable. There is at least one more significant socio-economic adjustment which will be necessary to avoid future problems with a possible re-emergence of capitalist exploitation and crisis. It will be recalled, (as in section a) of Capital and Crisis.) that it is the accumulation of money in the form of capital, constantly inserted into the basic production and circulation, which is the problem and in turn gives rise to overproduction, speculation and eventual repeated economic and financial collapse. The source of this greed and interruption needs to be prevented in any post-capitalist society. Having analysed the contradictory and malign nature of money as a means of exchange, Marx observed the future necessity of removing this now terminally flawed mechanism;

“In the case of socialised production the money capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production, to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.” (Marx. Capital Volume 2. Page 358.)

If this seems startling at first it should be recognised that for most people our existing money - in the form of notes, coins and particularly ‘hole in the wall’ cards - mainly operate precisely as such exchange vouchers. We use them merely to obtain consumer goods and services. The vast majority of us do not accumulate them in order to insert them into the circulation of commodities and services for our own exclusive pecuniary advantage. In other words, the 99% of us (as per Occupy Wall Street) do not use money in this capitalist way, but as immediate or saved vouchers in exchange for what we need. However, in order to prevent their future misuse, by those so minded, any accumulative potential of these vouchers will have to be ended. The future exchange vouchers, under post-capitalism, like the present debit cards we use to shop with, will therefore not be treated as money in the traditional sense. They will not circulate and therefore, will probably be modern electronic versions of the type of ‘exchange vouchers‘, mentioned by Marx.

The economic form of a post-capitalist society has been described, albeit for the purposes of this article, in very broad strokes. The detailed filling out of such models has been done elsewhere, for example by the Co-operative Movement itself and in particular by Michael Albert in his book, ‘PARECON; Life after Capitalism’. Further possibilities, building on these and other suggestions is a work in progress and cannot be dealt with here, for it is now necessary to confront a very real problem of past anti-capitalist practice and terminology. The words most commonly used to describe what would replace capitalism have been the political terms - socialism and communism. However, there is now a problem with the use of both these terms. In the first place they no longer describe any specific, agreed socio-economic system, they merely label previous failed political parties, systems and dogmas. Indeed, such is the opportunist nature of politics in general, that the terms, socialism and communism have been appropriated by ruthless scoundrels, from as wide a range as, Stalin, Mussolini, Blair, Gaddafi, Mubarrak, Ben Ali and a wide range of lesser known, but equally socially inept individuals. Secondly, the past examples of post-capitalist experiments have largely been top-down totalitarian monstrosities, such as those organised in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea and Cambodia etc. It is necessary therefore, to probe beyond such adulterated and out-dated terms and consider what Marx considered would be the socio-political ‘essence’ of a post-capitalist form of society. In his study of the revolutionary Paris Commune, Marx observed 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. Emphasis added. RR.)

For anyone still deeply entrenched in any of the Leninist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, Maoist, vanguardist anti-Capitalist traditions, the above quotation, along with the return of Marx to contemporary relevance, presents very real problems. They will continue to ignore him in preference to Lenin, Trotsky et al, at their peril. Marx’s repeated advice amounted to saying citizens and working people, need not only to remove the ‘old repressive machinery’ used against them, but also safeguard themselves ‘against its own deputies and officials’. There are numerous other such words of advice, by Marx after he had studied various 19th century revolutionary upheavals against the system of capitalism. It should be noted, that Marx, above, and elsewhere in his writings, never suggested anything like the absolute, totalitarian, centralised authoritarian control of working peoples economic, social or political life which was imposed by and through ’the Party’ in the Soviet, Union, Communist China, North Korea and elsewhere. The return of Marx to relevance in the 21st century, will reveal that community self-activity, self-organisation and self-evaluation, along with the all-round, dignified development of humanity, were the fundamentals advocated by the revolutionary-humanist Karl Marx. Indeed, he and Engels, were scathing with regard, political organisations in general and ‘left’ political organisations and people in particular, including those who claimed to be followers of Marx. For example;

“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.” (Engels to Bloch Sept 1890)

The number of so-called ’Marxists’ who have thought they understood Marx and produced ‘amazing stuff’, not to mention, seriously dangerous stuff, has undoubtedly increased, since these remarks were made in the late 19th century. The difference between Marx’s position and that of his numerous self-appointed, misguided, sectarian, alleged followers, on a post-capitalist future, has been extensively dealt with in the book - Revolutionary-Humanism and the Anti-Capitalist Struggle. Meanwhile it is time to press on and consider what form of socio-political movement will be required to enforce and ensure the necessary changes to a future post-capitalist system of production and exchange.

b) What form of socio-political movement is required?

At this point a word or two needs to be written on the present make up of the working class. Due to the increasing complexity of modern production methods and the increasing sophistication of modernity, working people are now spread across, blue collar and white-collar occupations and across public-sector and private sector employment. There is undoubtedly many differing pay levels within these occupations, but anyone who works for a salary or wage belongs economically to the working class, and it is this class - at all levels - which is now about to face the full effects of the unfolding crisis. The modern working classes have also been educated to a degree unprecedented in the history of the human species, they are therefore, eminently capable of staffing even multifaceted production facilities and undertaking complex areas of research and organisation. They lack only the determination, the means and an understanding of the necessity of going beyond capital in order to press on. In this regard, large-scale collective self-organisation of working people, is the only means for oppressed and exploited majorities to prevail over the well-armed, greedy and reactionary minorities with the power and ‘arms’ to prevent the changes necessary to introduce a more just, equal, stable and sustainable future society.

For this reason, in the final section of the previous article in this series, (The Return of Marx - 1’) it was suggested that millions of committed and organised citizens will be required to organise and press for the changes necessary to permanently solve the persistent crises caused by the domination of capital. However, there are some modern anti-capitalists, who persevere with a conception that they, organised as a ’vanguard’, are necessary to lead these masses into the future. During the time of Marx, there were also those who could see that the system of capitalism was essentially unjust and fundamentally flawed. It was this kind of understanding which also motivated them to join the anti-Capitalist struggle in order to lead it. Marx had this to say about such patronising leadership approaches;

“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. Circular letter. September 1879. Selected correspondence. Progress page 307.Emphasis added. RR.)

Anyone reading Marx on ‘The Civil War in France’, will encounter further warnings over trusting self-appointed ’revolutionaries’ who in wishing to play a pre-eminent part, have “hampered the full development” of every previous revolution. With such warnings in mind we need to consider the barriers to the unity needed in order to effect the changes required. The barriers to sufficient unity for ‘large-scale collective organisation’ among working people are numerous. Racism, sexism, ageism, religion, nationalism are the obvious ideologically erected problems to unity which need to be challenged and overcome, but among anti-Capitalists there is also another. It is a matter of common knowledge that the modern anti-capitalist movement is also split into numerous competing and frequently acrimonious tiny sects. They have been in this condition for well over half a century to my direct knowledge. Despite Marx’s well known activist advice encapsulated in the sentence; ’workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains’ anti-capitalist sects have repeatedly failed to unite even though their differences are often miniscule. Hence they remain chained to the confines of their tiny grouplets and their internally unchallenged dogmas. Not surprisingly Marx also had quite a lot to say on this particular aspect. For he was not only an anti-capitalist theoretician but also an anti-capitalist activist, accordingly during one period he helped form an international organisation. He later commented on its purpose;

“The International was founded in order to replace the socialist or semi-socialist sects by a really militant organisation of the working class….The development of socialist sectarianism and that of the real working-class movement always stand in inverse proportion to each other.” (Marx to Bolte. November 1871. Emphasis added. RR).

The sectarian, anti-capitalist left has always been a barrier to the collective unity of those opposed to the rule of capital. This is no less true today than it was in the time of Marx. By their competitive and divisive manipulations they cause splits in any unity previously achieved and/or by their machinations, actively prevent future unity being realised. By their arrogant assertions of absolute understanding and superior knowledge to everyone else, they introduce an intellectual hierarchy and cause confusion in their followers and others in the wider struggle. By their internal partisanship they suppress or prevent a thorough evaluation of their own strategies and tactics, and by the dubious formula of democratic-centralist structure, they outlaw the testing of alternative possibilities. [For a full list of sectarian characteristics and their effects, see the article Sectarianism and calls for a general strike at; ] So good are sectarians at causing splits and divisions among themselves and people in struggle, that if such sectarians did not already exist, an astute ruling class would probably want to create them.


c) What conditions will sufficiently motivate change.

Revolutionary changes, requiring the mobilisation of masses of people, do not occur without sufficient cause. Despite what some people may think, ideas alone are not sufficient cause. No amount of theoretical exposition or consistent agitation will stir millions into action, without there being actual events which cause serious and debilitating consequences to their actual lives. It has already been argued, that commencing with the banking crisis of 2008, the underlying crisis of capitalist relative overproduction has burst through the unstable volatile financial layer which has arisen upon the circuit of production, exchange and consumption. It was suggested, using the economic insights of Marx, that the present crisis is of considerable magnitude, and that;

“Beyond a certain point, the development of the powers of production, becomes a barrier for capital …The growing incompatibility between the productive development of society and its hitherto existing relations of production expresses itself in bitter contradictions, crises, spasms. The violent destruction of capital not by relations external to it, but rather as a condition of its self-preservation, is the most striking form in which advice is given it to be gone and to give room to a higher state of social production.” (Marx Grundrise. Penguin. Page 750.)


If the analysis, in the Return of Marx - 1 and 2, is correct, and this present crisis is unstoppable and unsolvable, then we can expect, as occurred in the 1930’s after the 1929 Wall Street Crash, serious and debilitating consequences to the lives of millions of people. If in their protests and organisation, a sufficiently large number of them succeed in obtaining a high degree of unity of purpose, and gain the necessary insights into the fundamental causes of the breakdown of the system, then progress can and will be made, both before and during the full depth of the crisis. They will start to advocate and work towards, people’s assemblies, in place of the present political institutions; they will call and work for a wiping out and total cancellation of these ’odious’ state debts; they will call for and work toward the complete abolition of financial speculation - in all its forms; and they will call for an expansion of egalitarian focussed, controlled and staffed public services and co-operative projects. In the process of such mobilisation, already beginning to take place, they will be tempted, by the pro-capitalists, (for obvious reasons), to direct their attention to dealing with the symptoms and leave the underlying corrupt and crisis-ridden system intact. They will also be invited by a variety of ‘time-warp’ revolutionaries to follow a particular nuanced interpretation of Leninist or Trotskyist, vanguardism, without having to bother with a detailed study of the shortcomings of this model for themselves. Yet if enough people are able to resist and/or overcome these twin diversions, build up tolerance, solidarity, humanity, critical diligence, perseverance and perhaps re-discover pre ‘Marxist‘ Marx, then a new movement can be born. A movement which will have the ability to transform the future of humanity and the planet in a direction worthy of the best instincts and practices of the human species and not continue with one which is only worthy of the worst.

R. Ratcliffe (October 2011.)