<html﻿>﻿
﻿<head﻿>﻿<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/bundle-playback.js?v=2N_sDSC0" charset="utf-8"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/js/wombat.js?v=txqj7nKC" charset="utf-8"></script>﻿
﻿<script>window.RufflePlayer=window.RufflePlayer||{};window.RufflePlayer.config={"autoplay":"on","unmuteOverlay":"hidden","showSwfDownload":true};</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="﻿https://web-static.archive.org/_static/﻿js/ruffle/ruffle.js"></script>
﻿<script type="text/javascript">
  ﻿  __wm.init(﻿"https://web.archive.org/web"﻿);
  __wm.wombat(﻿"http://www.newsocialist.org/magazine/15/article13.html"﻿,﻿"20071020170918"﻿,﻿"https://web.archive.org/"﻿,﻿"web"﻿,﻿"https://web-static.archive.org/_static/"﻿,
	      "﻿1192900158﻿");
</script>
﻿<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/banner-styles.css?v=1utQkbB3" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="https://web-static.archive.org/_static/css/iconochive.css?v=3PDvdIFv" />﻿
﻿<!-- End Wayback Rewrite JS Include -->
﻿
﻿<title﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, A Strategy for Fighting to Win: Socialism from Below 150 Years After the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO  - Article﻿</title>﻿
﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="description"﻿ ﻿content="New Socialist Group socialism communism  socialists communists "﻿>﻿
﻿<meta﻿ ﻿name="keywords"﻿ ﻿content="socialism, communism, socialists, communists, marx, marxists, marxism, Marx, Marxists, Marxism, Canada, politics, anarchism, Trotsky, trotskyism, NDP, radical, revolution, revolutionary, Lenin, leninism, leninist, Luxemburg, working class, 1917, syndicalism, radicalism, union, labour, anarchy"﻿>﻿
﻿</head>﻿

﻿<body﻿ ﻿topmargin="20"﻿ ﻿leftmargin="20"﻿ ﻿marginheight="20"﻿ ﻿marginwidth="20"﻿ ﻿bgcolor="#FFFFFF"﻿>﻿

﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="5"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿
﻿<center﻿>﻿
﻿<b﻿>﻿A Strategy for Fighting to Win:
﻿<br﻿>﻿Socialism from Below 150 Years After the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO 
﻿<br﻿>﻿</b>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<font﻿ ﻿face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"﻿ ﻿size="2"﻿ ﻿color="#000000"﻿>﻿
by David Camfield﻿<br﻿>﻿
﻿<i﻿>﻿New Socialist Magazine, August - September 1998﻿</i>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
﻿</center>﻿

1998 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of the best-known socialist writing, the MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY (also known as the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO) by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Conferences have been held to mark the event. Magazines and journals have devoted special issues to the MANIFESTO. Publishers have produced new editions, the most widely-reported one being Verso's, touted as a chic fashion accessory when it was launched.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Some of what socialists have written recently about the MANIFESTO has been useful for people who still want to change the world in radical ways; much has not (see the suggestions for further reading at the end of this article).
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Of this outpouring of articles, some of the best have used the MANIFESTO's anniversary to clarify and develop the approach to understanding societies and how they change that Marx and Engels pioneered.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Often known as historical materialism, this approach recognizes that every society is shaped in obvious and more subtle ways by how the labouring majority are forced to work for a minority who control the means of producing goods and services, and how the producing classes are locked in struggle with owners and bosses. It offers a better way to understand the world than the liberal and postmodernist theories commonly taught in schools and universities to explain how society works.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
But amidst the many pages of articles and the short-lived hype of media stories packaged, as always, to boost sales and ratings, what was most important about the MANIFESTO has generally been passed over: its strategy for changing the world.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Marx's ideas have probably never been so ignored, scorned, obscured or misrepresented as they are today, so it isn't surprising that the socialist agenda Marx and Engels sketched to a wide readership for the first time in the MANIFESTO has been so easily passed over in this anniversary year.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
﻿<b﻿>﻿Manifesto of a New Socialism﻿</b>﻿
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Marx and Engels were activist intellectuals in their late twenties when they were commissioned in 1847 to write the MANIFESTO by a group of socialist workers from several Western European countries that had just changed its name from League of the Just to Communist League. The new name reflected the League's evolving ideas about revolutionary strategy. At the time, much of Europe was heading toward uprisings for democracy and social reform that were to shake the rule of monarchs and the rich. The League's new politics were set out by Marx and Engels in a 23-page anonymous pamphlet in German published in London, the MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
What was new about these ideas? Two things stand out. First, the MANIFESTO brought together two things that had been separate for previous radicals - socialism and democracy - and, secondly, it argued that the working class was the force that could tranform society. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
The idea of socialism (or communism, a word which only became associated with the bureaucratic dictatorships in the USSR and other so-called "Communist" states in the 20th century) was not invented by Marx and Engels. What was new was their argument that a seizure of power by an "enlightened" radical minority could no more deliver socialism than could reform-minded rulers.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
In the words of the US socialist Hal Draper, "Marxism came into being, in self-conscious struggle against the advocates of the educational dictatorship, the saviour-dictators, the revolutionary elitists, the communist authoritarians, as well as the philanthropic do-gooders and bourgeois liberals." In other words, Marx's socialism was SOCIALISM FROM BELOW, not SOCIALISM FROM ABOVE.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Socialism could only be won through the mass struggles of workers themselves. The MANIFESTO declared that it was the proletariat, "the modern working class" created by capitalism, that would be able to put an end to a system that in 1848 did not yet dominate the world. "All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority."
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Guided by this outlook, the task of socialists was to help mobilize and organize working people into a force that could break the power of the employing class and take power into its own hands. Only through their own experience of struggle could working people develop the capacity to run society themselves. This perspective was later summed up by Marx as "The emancipation of the workers must be an act of the working class itself."
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
﻿<b﻿>﻿After 150 Years, What's Left?﻿</b>﻿
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
A century and a half now separate us from the publication of the MANIFESTO. These years have seen the rise of movements of workers and oppressed peoples that Marx could never have predicted, although his theory is a good starting-point for beginning to understand them. Capitalism, which Marx brilliantly analyzed in his day, has survived far longer than he imagined possible. This is not because capitalism is "natural" or "the end of history" but because it has been able to defeat workers' struggles and reorganize itself - at the cost of ecological destruction and human misery in forms too many and on a scale too large for anyone to truly appreciate.
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
This century has also seen the fragile socialist democracy established in the Russian Revolution of 1917 destroyed from within by a bureaucracy led by Joseph Stalin that ruled in the name of Marxism while murdering genuine socialists. This defeat was not inevitable. Contrary to many on the left and right who today believe that all efforts to change society from the bottom up lead only to new tyrannies, what happened to the first major attempt to move toward socialism was fundamentally the result of the revolution remaining isolated in an extremely poor land, surrounded by hostile capitalist nations. Revolutions in other countries, most importantly in Germany, were defeated. The counter-revolution of the 1920s symbolized by Stalin took the lives of millions as it industrialized the country on the backs of peasants and workers. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
The Stalinist version of socialism from above was imposed on the Communist movement that had originally been created by socialists around the world who were inspired by the Russian Revolution. What had been a mass movement for socialism from below (however flawed) was subordinated to the interests of the class that now ruled the USSR. The so-called "Communist" model of bureaucratic dictatorship was spread into other countries by Stalin's armies and struggles for national liberation in the "Third World" led by "Communists." 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Stalinism and fascism annihilated some of the strongest radical workers' movements in Europe and drove socialism from below to the margins. Confined to tiny political organizations, socialism from below often hardened into dogmatism and took on aspects of the kinds of politics that Marx and Engels rejected in the MANIFESTO. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Now that t﻿he Stalinist monstrosity has crumbled in all but a few places, the credibility of socialism of any kind is at an all-time low. Fundamental change for the better seems impossible at a time when big business and governments that do its bidding seem to be able to get away with whatever they want. As Paul Mattick, Jr. comments, "The tone of voice that makes the MANIFESTO so exciting to read - the irony, anger and energy that express the authors' conviction of the nearness of revolutionary change - also gives it the air of a document from a scarce- remembered time." 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
But there is more to Marx than a way of understanding the world at the end of the 20th century. There are still good reasons for people who want to resist in these right-wing times to look at socialism from below, the politics first proclaimed in the MANIFESTO, for a strategy to change the world. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
﻿<b﻿>﻿The Great Dead-End ﻿</b>﻿
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
With mass fight-back movements at a low ebb in the Canadian state and many other advanced capitalist nations, cynicism and despair about the ability of people to come together and win demands to improve their lives is common. In such times, many feel that "protesting doesn't work" and thus retreat into trying to make their own lives a little more bearable. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Capitalism denies most people much control over our daily lives, at work, at home and in the community. Powerlessness leads people to hope that someone else can deliver change for us, perhaps "friendly" politicians or the leaders of unions and social movements. This is the basic reason why strategies for making change from above are usually dominant on the left. This kind of politics generally takes the form of what is often called REFORMISM: the belief that capitalism can be changed piecemeal and that the idea of an alternative to capitalism itself is naive or worse. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Such ideas are not new. For instance, the MANIFESTO argued against those who believed in changing "the material conditions of existence" not by "abolition of the bourgeois relations of production" but by "administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations." Today, the most important form of reformism is social democracy, represented in the Canadian state by the New Democratic Party. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Many social democratic parties once claimed to stand for a "parliamentary road to socialism" - an example of socialism from above. In practice, this meant getting elected into office and expanding social programmes like unemployment insurance and public health care - valuable reforms, to be sure, but not socialism. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Today, such social reforms are under attack from governments of all political stripes. NDP governments in BC, Ontario and Saskatchewan - where the Romanow government was rated second best in North America by the right-wing Fraser Institute, just after Klein's Alberta! - have done their bit. All the NDP now offers is softer packaging for the corporate agenda. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
The rightward shift of social democracy in the 1990s has been met with much-deserved condemnation by those who still defend socialism of the likes of British PM Tony Blair and Blair admirers like Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton. Such criticism is valuable for deflating claims that cutbacks implemented by parties of the left are better than those delivered by the likes of Jean Chretien. Arguments for serious left alternatives to social democracy are important in these times. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
However, most of the left critics have more in common with Blair ﻿&amp;﻿ Co. than they realize. It is their strategy, not their sincerity, that is in question. The problem with social democracy was never its moderation but its faith in changing society through the existing state. Parliament, administration, courts, police and armed forces all exist to enshrine the power of the ruling class. None are neutral. They will block or, if need be, violently halt any government that threatens capitalist power. We should remember that 1998 is not only the 150th anniversary of the MANIFESTO but also the 25th anniversary of the bloody CIA-backed coup that toppled Salvador Allende's reformist government in Chile. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
For this reason, it is worrying to see socialists who have long argued against reformism suggest that "a left wing government, supported by mobilisations" could "go forward in its struggle against Capital" ("Towards a Different Europe," INTERNATIONAL VIEWPOINT #290). In the face of capitalist state power, all such strategies are routes to potentially disastrous dead-ends. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
﻿<b﻿>﻿Rebuilding From Below ﻿</b>﻿
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
This should be no cause for pessimism. Past reforms that have helped workers and oppressed groups have typically come as a result of mass movements from below that have forced governments to yield concessions from above. Putting heat on social democratic (and any other) governments, not relying on them or using grassroots movements as their "supporters outside parliament," will help win reforms. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Activists who want to resist the corporate agenda need to make a commitment to helping workers and members of oppressed groups come together in organizations to struggle for justice and equality. Networks and caucuses of militants in unions, coalitions of student activists, action groups of the poor, women, lesbians and gays and other oppressed groups... many forms of democratic self-organization are possible. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
This kind of organizing can begin to unleash the power needed to seriously resist attacks coming from bosses and states. Equally important, the experience of fighting back in ways that promote self-confidence and independence from bureaucratic party, union and community leaderships can change those involved. Rebuilding struggles from below isn't just about winning gains now. It's about ordinary people developing a clearer understanding of what we're up against, how to fight to win and the potential power of the working class to transform the world. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
This is the bridge between today's struggles and socialism from below. One of the main reasons for socialism's crisis of credibility at a time when capitalism's profit-driven cruelty is felt directly by more and more people has to do with the weakness of our side. When saving a social programme from cuts is beyond us, challenging capitalism is bound to seem utopian. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Socialism from below offers a strategy for forging our power today and linking it to the struggles of the future. But for revolutionary ideas to become a real force, organization is necessary. By cooperating in building socialist groups that can put out publications like this one, conduct socialist education, deepen analysis of a changing world, pool experiences of activism from different fields and participate in struggles, socialism from below can gain influence. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
This is what the New Socialist Group is trying to do. Our efforts are modest, but we aim to contribute along with like-minded socialists in other countries to making the 150th anniversary of the MANIFESTO an occasion for renewal and hope, not mourning for a vanished past. 
﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿
Some suggestions for further reading: 
﻿<ul﻿>﻿
﻿<li﻿>﻿REVISITING THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO (eleven short articles from the US socialist magazine AGAINST THE CURRENT) available for $2 from NEW SOCIALIST 
﻿</li>﻿
﻿<li﻿>﻿Paul Mattick, Jr., "After Marxism, Marx: The MANIFESTO After 150 Years" 
﻿</li>﻿
﻿<li﻿>﻿Nancy Holmstrom, "Socialism as Self-Emancipation" and David McNally "Marxism in the Age of Information" in NEW POLITICS #24 (Winter 1998) 
﻿</li>﻿
﻿<li﻿>﻿Ellen Meiksins Wood, "The COMMUNIST MANIFESTO After 150 Years" in MONTHLY REVIEW Vol. 50 No. 1 (May 1998) 
﻿</li>﻿
﻿<li﻿>﻿Kim Moody and Sheila Cohen, "Unions, Strikes and Class Consciousness Today" and John Bellamy Foster "The Communist Manifesto and the Environment" in SOCIALIST REGISTER 1998 
﻿</li>﻿
﻿</ul>﻿

﻿<font﻿ ﻿size="1"﻿>﻿David Camfield is an editor of NEW SOCIALIST and an activist in CUPE 3903 ﻿</font>﻿</font>﻿<br﻿>﻿<br﻿>﻿

﻿<form﻿>﻿<input﻿ ﻿type="button"﻿ ﻿value="Close"﻿ ﻿onclick="top.close()"﻿>﻿</form>﻿

﻿</body>﻿
﻿</html>﻿<!--
     FILE ARCHIVED ON ﻿17:09:18 Oct 20, 2007﻿ AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
     INTERNET ARCHIVE ON ﻿06:37:09 Mar 05, 2026﻿.
     JAVASCRIPT APPENDED BY WAYBACK MACHINE, COPYRIGHT INTERNET ARCHIVE.

     ALL OTHER CONTENT MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT (17 U.S.C.
     SECTION 108(a)(3)).
-->
<!--
﻿playback timings (ms):
﻿  ﻿captures_list﻿: ﻿0.794﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots﻿: ﻿0.053﻿
﻿  ﻿exclusion.robots.policy﻿: ﻿0.042﻿
﻿  ﻿esindex﻿: ﻿0.01﻿
﻿  ﻿cdx.remote﻿: ﻿19.598﻿
﻿  ﻿LoadShardBlock﻿: ﻿1635.301﻿ (﻿3﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.resolve﻿: ﻿1434.977﻿ (﻿4﻿)
﻿  ﻿PetaboxLoader3.datanode﻿: ﻿278.986﻿ (﻿4﻿)
﻿  ﻿load_resource﻿: ﻿133.66﻿
﻿--�