Above: Austro-Marxist leader and Theoretician, Otto Bauer
Does (and should) 'Revolutionary' mean anything anymore to the Democratic Socialist Left?
Should it mean anything anymore within the ALP Socialist Left?
A
comrade in the ALP Socialist Left recently rebuked me for discussing
"revolutionary" politics ; and said that "thankfully" the
vast majority in the ALP SL are NOT revolutionaries and that that's "the
beginning and the end of the discussion thankfully".
This
was my response:
"When
we speak of 'revolutionary' aims not everyone is talking of the same thing. Personally I'm NOT talking about an insurrection ; armed or otherwise. What I
am talking about is qualitative change ; preferably through democratic
channels ; though being prepared for whatever resistance may arise against said
qualitative change through democratic channels when push comes to shove. So I'm
talking about what various Leftists have described as 'slow revolution' or
'revolutionary reforms'.
What would be a 'revolutionary reform'? Well the Meidner Plan held that promise for a start. (ie: an economic plan which would have rewarded workers with collective capital share in return for wage restraint ; with the consequence workers collectively would over time become the dominant force in the Swedish economy) Going back further: free, universal and equal suffrage comprised a kind of 'democratic and political revolution' which only became possible in many countries following the end of World War I - and the fear of Bolshevism.
What would be a 'revolutionary reform'? Well the Meidner Plan held that promise for a start. (ie: an economic plan which would have rewarded workers with collective capital share in return for wage restraint ; with the consequence workers collectively would over time become the dominant force in the Swedish economy) Going back further: free, universal and equal suffrage comprised a kind of 'democratic and political revolution' which only became possible in many countries following the end of World War I - and the fear of Bolshevism.
Were
we around in the 19th Century - or in the 1917-19 period , would we have fought
for the suffrage ; or would we have rejected 'revolutionary' changes of all
sorts as a matter of policy so as not to rock the boat?
When
I talk about a democratic economic revolution I'm talking about democratic
collective capital formation ; restoring a robust mixed economy ; supporting
co-operatives (producers' and consumers') with state aid. I'm also talking
about decisive state support for the voluntary and domestic sectors. I'm
talking about going down that road to the point where 'the democratic sector'
becomes dominant. And hence a pivotal shift in the balance of class forces.
I'm
also talking about a 'democratic cultural and political revolution' : driven by
an exponential increase in political participation and consciousness. Where
there is a qualitative change (a revolution) in our democracy which takes the
form of said consciousness and participation.
For
Marxists the final aim is to replace wage labour with economic democracy ; and
then to transition to stateless communism. I'm not a full blown communist
because I tend to believe human nature is not perfectible ; and therefore I
think some kind of state power (albeit democratised) will be necessary for a
long time to come.
I
think the suppression of wage labour (ie: typified by the exploitation of
labour by capital) can be taken so far ; But at a point you run into very
serious resistance from the transnational corporations and often by their state-facilitators. Look what happened to
Gough ; and look what happened under Rudd re: the Mining Tax. Also there’s the problem of ‘workers
exploiting themselves’. Collective
capital formation (workers - and hopefully citizens - holding what collectively is a significant share in
capital) is a potentially democratising force. (I specify 'citizens' as well so as not to exclude non-capitalist citizens who for whatever reason are outside of the workforce ; eg: pensioners) Hence my support for democratic collective capital formation as policy. At this point it’s a good
outcome. But it also creates
complexities which would be hard to resolve.
So importantly I'm talking about a process - in this country and
globally - which spans decades - and maybe more. The transition from feudalism
to capitalism was a kind of revolution - which took maybe a couple
of centuries. Why not be a revolutionary over the long run?
Indeed
the Guaranteed Minimum Income that some of my critics support (and I support as well) itself has
revolutionary potential - by getting rid of workers' dependence on selling
their labour power to capital in order to survive. Perhaps critics are just
worried some Liberal will take the word "revolutionary" out of
context ; and depict us all as terrorists or the like? But where do you draw
the line then? Do we stop talking about socialism as well? Do we stop talking
about 'capitalism' as anything less than 'an eternal absolute'? A truly 'closed
system' ; which cannot be relativised or criticised ; and with no way out?
I'm
a 'revolutionary' in the sense I support not only political citizenship ; but
also social citizenship and economic citizenship. That's how some Swedish radicals
viewed the question interestingly enough. 'Economic citizenship' would be a
revolution to democratise the economy. 'Social Citizenship' involves the extension of social rights ; including those delivered via the welfare state, regulated labour market and social wage. 'Political citizenship' WAS the political and liberal revolution.
And it's not necessarily finished yet either. So what's really so objectionable
about all this at the end of the day?"
Finally and interestingly: the ‘Austro-Marxists’ (arguably one of the
theoretically-most-significant tendencies in 20th Century European
Marxism) talked about "slow revolution" ; especially during the
interwar period ; Which they meant in a very similar way in which I use the
word. They were also amongst the first to theorise 'multi-culturalism' - in the context of the pre-WWI Austro-Hungarian Empire. (ie: 'what would replace the Empire?')
The
idea of 'revolution via democracy' is not new or unprecedented. And Yes - if Bill
Shorten started talking about it at this point then it would confuse people. I doubt it reflects his world-view in any
case. But here on the relative margins we can discuss it ; and maybe we
should discuss it within the ALP Socialist Left (internally) as well ; as part
of a process of working out what the ALP Socialist Left really stands for these days. It’s a
long struggle to rehabilitate the language and substance of democratic
revolution from shallow understandings. (ie: that 'revolution' means 'violence'.)
But I think it's worth it in the long run. And it is crucial that people see
we're NOT suggesting a 'revolution against democracy' ; but rather "a
gradual, democratic (and hopefully peaceful) revolution FROM WITHIN democracy -
to EXTEND democracy.