 |
10-02-08, 8:00 am
|
|
(Illustration by Sam Heimer.)
|
Every child in the US is taught that a system of "checks and balances" between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, keeps the US from being a dictatorship. There is a long history of "checks and balances" in exploiting societies with constitutional governments. However, power really lies in the hands of the strongest exploiters in business and their agents in government – backed by a top-down "body of armed men." A tiny group effectively “selected” the US president in 2000, and unilaterally decided to pursue the aggression in Iraq three years later despite great opposition, even within the government.
Which is true, A) or B)?
A) After a socialist revolution, the trade unions' most important task is: to strengthen workers' power; the government's most important task is: to strengthen workers' power; environmental organizations' most important task is: to strengthen workers' power; the Communist Party's most important task is: to strengthen workers' power…
B) After a socialist revolution, the trade unions' most important task is: to defend workers' interest at the workplace; the government's most important task is: to develop the economy and organize defense against capitalist threats; environmental organizations' most important task is: to protect sustainability; the Communist Party's most important task is: to promote the historic interests of the working class, which is an international class…
So is it A or B? How about A and B? There are vital differences between the two -- and a critical convergence. Organizing to achieve both is one of the more difficult, yet necessary tasks of the new state after a socialist revolution.
|
|
USSR: What happened to the Communist Party?
In 1991, Boris Yeltsin took over the government offices in the Soviet Union, with the backing of imperialism as well as domestic supporters of capitalism. Yeltsin did not take over the Communist Party, which he had left years earlier. He did not take over the trade unions, the army, women's, youth or any other mass organizations.
Soon, wages and pensions fell more than 90 percent (through currency devaluation). Spending on production stopped. Spending also crashed for education, health care, the transport and power infrastructure, housing, etc. The status of women fell sharply. Youth, once guaranteed jobs after finishing school, suddenly could not find employment. Yeltsin even tried to outlaw the Communist Party.
What happened to the Soviet trade unions? Why could they not defend their members against such a sharp loss in pay and pensions? What happened to the Young Communist League? What happened to the army, sworn to defend the socialist system? What happened to the Communist Party itself?
One answer is that none of the mass organizations, not even the Communist Party, was prepared for the destabilizing impact on the USSR from world capitalism's deepening contradictions, and the resulting dangers to the state. Yet as capitalism's contradictions deepened, especially after 1980-82, it visibly escalated its economic, political, military and other pressures on the USSR. But the Party believed in the relative permanence of the two social systems on earth, and that they could peaceful coexist for a long time. (The 1993 book “Victory” by Peter Schweizer describes some of the mounting pressures from Wall Street/Washington.) These pressures in turn motivated exploiting tendencies within the USSR itself.
Furthermore, the Communist Party, the government, the unions, etc. were all deeply intertwined, all effectively under the same organizational discipline. None had genuine (relative) independence and strength among their memberships. As a result, there were also few or no mechanisms to balance out their respective tasks and responsibilities.
So when Yeltsin took over the government offices, the mass organizations, even the unions, effectively fell apart, unprepared and unable to mobilize their members in defense of their state. Seventeen long, disastrous years have passed.
Checks and balances
Let us say that after a socialist revolution, the government proposes building a big new construction-materials complex (whether state-owned, foreign-owned, a joint venture, it does not matter for this example).
The trade unions may point out that building this new complex would result in the closing of smaller factories, plus displacement of existing factories on the site of the proposed plant. The unions may propose that the budget for the proposed new plant include funding to retrain workers in any factories shut down by the new plant, plus preferential hiring of workers in factories on the existing site.
Women's organizations may point out that chemicals handled in the proposed complex are known to affect development of unborn children, so that funding of the new plant must also budget for special measures to protect the status and employment of women affected by the new construction. Environmental organizations may point out that the proposed plant would almost certainly affect water quality in nearby cities, unless specific measures can be taken to avoid such an impact.
The Communist Party, on the other hand, may point out that factories in one or more capitalist countries could supply the products to be made in the proposed complex. Furthermore, because of a crisis in the capitalist housing industry, the owners of these factories were threatening to shut them down or “downsize” them, putting thousands of workers out of work. So the Communist Party may argue that instead of building the new complex, the government arrange for purchasing the products from capitalist countries, on the condition that workers do not lose their jobs, retain their union, health benefits, the right to strike, etc. (The Party may also make the argument that this would be cheaper than building a new complex, and allow resources to be redirected to other tasks.)
Various mechanisms are then necessary to evaluate the respective arguments of all the organizations with interests in the new complex – the government, the unions, the environmental organizations, the Party, and so on. Compromises develop between the proposals of the government, trade union, or environmental organizations and the complex is built. Or the Party's argument may prevail, namely that the historic interests of the working class justify purchasing the products from capitalist countries, in part because that would strengthen the hand of workers internationally.
Many considerations are necessary to achieve effective “checks and balances.” For one, each of the organizations must have real strength among its members; that strength can only be as effective as the corresponding control and interest from below. Control and interest from below is ultimately the best, and perhaps only, defense against potential corruption of officials.
The relative independence of the respective organizations is also essential; a single discipline weakened Soviet mass organizations. A productive practice in Cuba has been to release Communist Party members from party discipline when they participate in women's organizations. This practice has been good for both the women's organizations and the Party.
At the same time, mechanisms must exist, or be developed, to balance out the respective emphases and responsibilities of each mass organization. Periodic meetings between government and unions, or between unions and environmental organizations may be one such mechanism. Special meetings of all the organizations with stakes in a proposal may be still another. Legislative bodies and conferences are another. All this becomes easier as the new state develops its economy and "culture" of workers' democracy.
The flow of prompt and accurate information to all concerned organizations, and within them, is essential for organizational democracy. How effective can unions be if they are not promptly informed of important proposals, or if they in turn fail to inform their members? If they are not effective, they will lose their mass strength, and their defensive capacity in the face of a Yeltsin, or lesser dangers. More generally, all organizations need accurate assessments of major economic and political developments, international and domestic.
Sometimes the government and the new state are confused. But they are not identical. The government has two critical tasks – overseeing the reconstruction and development of the economy after the revolution, and organizing defense of the new state against threats of capitalist restoration.
The government, however, is one of the many institutions forming the new state. Others include the trade unions, the equality organizations, the environmental organizations, the Communist Party and youth leagues, and so on. Lenin also emphasized the importance of assemblies of non-Party workers, non-Party soldiers, etc.
The new state then properly includes all of the organizations of the working class, including the government, unions, etc., AND the periodic mechanisms to balance out their respective emphases and tasks.
These organizations independently and jointly form the new state created by a socialist revolution. Their shared commitment to building workers' power forms the essential reference point for compromises and resolution of problems.
This is very, very different from the tiny group of exploiters at the heart of capitalist states, backed by a repressive force of army, police, judges, prisons, and so on. Furthermore, it is a "top-down-only" system, with neither interest nor real control from below. The capitalist system is therefore narrow and ultimately weak. This was especially evident in how it disintegrated in Cuba in the face of mass organization of workers, in particular through the Committees to Defend the Revolution.
After a socialist revolution, a new system of checks and balances forms a potentially mighty and effective way to strengthen and defend workers' power, and human liberation.
--Wadi'h Halabi is a contributing editor of Political Affairs.
|
|
