Crisis and Resistance

A talk by comrade Joseph Choonara, Historical Materialism conference 2011 Marx and Engels Marx and Engels best known comments on the relationship between crisis and resistance come in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions. In The Class Struggles in France Marx sets out the wider political contradictions in the run up to the explosion, but adds that they were precipitated by two world economic events, the first being the crop failures of 1845 and 1846 which caused famine the following year, the second great economic event that hastened the outbreak of the revolution was a general commercial and industrial crisis in England. In 1895, Engels wrote a preface for the work, writing: The world trade crisis of 1847 had been the true mother of the February and March revolutions, and that the industrial prosperity which had been returning gradually since the middle of 1848 and attained full bloom in 1849 and 1850 was the revitalising force of a restrengthened European reaction. A new revolution would come only as a result of a new crisis, Marx concluded. Leon Trotsky It was left to a later generation of Marxistsespecially those associated with the early years of the Third Internationalto develop a more general account of the interaction between crisis and struggle. In early 1921 the Third Congress of the Comintern had to deal with both the partial restabilisation of Europe under capitalist rule, following the post-war revolutionary wave, and the economic upswing of 1919-20, followed by a crisis in late 1920 that continued during the congress. Trotsky delivered a report in which he sought to assess the relationship between struggle and the

crisis.1 He cites Marx and Engels but warns of the danger of seeing the relationship in a mechanical manner. In general, there is no automatic dependence of the proletarian revolutionary movement upon a crisis. There is only a dialectical interaction. He provided as an example Russia, where, following the 1905 revolution, throughout 1907 and 1908 and 1909 the most terrible crisis reigned in Russia It killed the movement completely, because the workers had suffered so greatly during the struggle that this depression could act only to dishearten them. But in 1910, 1911 and 1912, there was an improvement in our economic situation and a favourable conjuncture which acted to reassemble the demoralised and devitalised workers who had lost their courage.2 Point onecrisis can breed demoralisation, a brief upturn can give a breathing space to workers. In a different way, we can think about the Woolworths workers in 2008 who danced the conga as their shops were being closed. Or the Guardian article of 2009 that argued that the left had missed its historical moment because struggles had not developed in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Economic cycles and the nature of the period Of course, in a period of generalised expansion of capitalism, proletarian revolution is unlikely. But it is necessary to distinguish between such periodsthe Long Boom that followed the Second World War would be anotherand those in which there were limited upturns within periods of crisis.3 Point twothe general character of the period matters in assessing short-term turns in the economic situation produced by the business cycle. In the period Trotsky was discussing, there would be pressure on the working class over wages. Revolutionaries could extend the resulting struggles while basing themselves on a clear understanding of the economic situation. This helped pave the way for the policy of the united front, shortly to be adopted by the Comintern and ideally suited to defensive working class struggles. There would also be sharp turns within the situation. As he put it in another speech at the congress, Neither impoverishment nor prosperity as such can lead to revolution. But the alternation of prosperity and impoverishment, the crises, the uncertainty, the absence of stabilitythese are the motor factors of revolution.4

Report on the World Economic Crisis and the New Tasks of the Third International, in volume one of The First Five Years of the Communist International, volume 1. The crisis lasted until autumn 1921 when there was another upswing in the situation. 2 Trotsky asserts this even more strongly in Once again, Wither France, written in 1935. 3 The period after 1921 was a period of rapid growth in the US (interrupted by brief recessions in 1924 and 1927), relatively sluggish growth in Britain, while Germany experienced a sharp resumption of crisis in 1923. However, generalised crisis developed on a world scale in 1929-30. Is it correct as Trotsky writes that the in the epoch upswings can be only of a superficial and primarily speculator character, while the crises become more and more prolonged and deeper-going? I think there is a valid insight into a new period, but Trotsky underplayed the capacity for real expansion. 4 Summary Speech from the third session of the third congress of the Comintern.

To say there is a complex, dialectical relationship between crisis and struggle isnt to say there is no relationship at all. In exploring what that relationship is, the shape of the crisis becomes very important.

The duration of the crisis Consider first, the duration of the crisis. During the 1930s it took years for struggles to develop in the wake of the Wall Street Crash. The great rise in struggle in the US took place in 1933-4, during which time there was a widespread belief that the Great Depression had bottomed out. Struggles at Toledo (autos), Minneapolis (teamsters) and San Francisco (dockers) shifted the balance of class struggle. In France the great explosion of struggle took place in 1936. The duration of the crisis means that many different phases are possible, each producing shifts in the political and economic situation, along with corresponding shifts in working class consciousness. A long crisis can also put pressure on workers to fight. Initially workers can be stunned by the impact of crisis. They can believe, as the capitalists believe, that a new boom will soon be under way, that all they have to do is keep their head down and hold on to their job. We are now three years into the crisis and none of the major economies has reached its pre-crisis levels. In many ways, the situation in Britain is very favourable for struggle. There is pressure on living standardsnotably through the attacks on pensions in the public sectors, general wage restraint and inflation that is running ahead of pay. At the same time unemployment, though higher, does not yet exceed levels seen in the early 1980s. Conditions are putting pressure even on less militant and politicised workers to fight, as we will hopefully witness on 30 November. Point threea long crisis can throw up conditions for struggle that do not exist at its outset. Depth of the crisis What about the depth of the crisis? Lenin mentions that the conditions for revolution are that the ruled class is no longer willing to be ruled in the old way and the ruling class are no longer capable of ruling in the old way. The second point is important. The Marxist who best explores the conditions under which the ruling class can obtain limited consent from those they rule is Gramsci. The active man-in-the-mass has a practical activity, but no theoretical consciousness of his practical activity, which nonetheless involves understanding the world in so far as it transforms it. His theoretical consciousness can indeed be historically in opposition to his activity. One might almost say that he has two theoretical consciousnesses (or one contradictory consciousness): one which is implicit in his activity and which in reality unites him with all his fellow-workers in the practical transformation of the real world; and one, superficially explicit or verbal, which he has inherited from the past and uncritically absorbed.

Earlier in the same section of the Prison Notebooks, Gramsci makes a distinction between normal times and abnormal ones. Periods of crisis can disrupt the coherence of ruling class ideas, allowing the good sense of workers to crystallise out. Not only that, but because capitalism is organised as a system of competitive accumulation, a crisis typically involves political schisms within the ruling class. Here the depth of the crisis is important. I have characterised the crisis as a deep, systemic one, rooted in a long term decline in profitability of the capitalist system. 5 The intractability of the resulting problems creates particularly profound problems. Consider the Eurozone as a case study in splits at the top reflecting the incapability of governments to produce rapid growth. If these splits lead to struggles, these can further exacerbate the splits. Greece is a classic example. Domestic political considerations blew up the G20 summit, leading to ever-deeper splits! Point foura deep crisis can lead to ideological turmoil and political breaks. But it is important to say, a shift in the conscious of the mass of workers does not simply involve ruling class ideas breaking down; it also involves new forms of consciousness crystallising out of the real struggles of workers. This brings me to the final point.

The working class The final consideration is the confidence, combativity and organisation of the class. This is important in the British context because of quarter of a century of defeats, weakening organisation and undermining confidence. Trotsky points out that the effects of a crisisare determined by the entire existing political situation and by those events which precede and accompany the crisis, especially the battles, successes or failures of the working class itself prior to the crisis.6 Many of the explosions thus far have come from groups other than the organised working class. This includes the student struggles of 2010, the riots over the summer and the occupy the City movement. These are each social explosions by layers of people that can radicalise and move as minorities but dont hold real social power. They can be important in inspiring wider struggles, but unless they connect to the working class their energy will ultimately dissipate. What can overcome the lack of confidence? Partly it is politics and inspiration from movements. Partly it is a question of timethe time required for generations not bowed down by past defeats to come to the fore. But activity also matters. If muscle is atrophied, exercise is necessary to restore strength. The strike of 2-3 million on 30 November is important. This is a bureaucratic mass strike. It is official action signalled by union leaders.
5 6

See the latest ISJ for the argument. Flood Tide, Pravda, December 1921. In The First Five Years of the Communist International, volume 2.

This is not sufficient. We require an active and organised rank and file. But bureaucratic mass strikes can begin to pave the way for strikes driven from belowthe official character and the fact that it is unified action gives workers confidence to act. The role of the left is to keep the pressure on the bureaucracy, to urge them on when they call forwards the struggle, to fight them when they refuse, and to use the activity of the masses as a bridge to greater organisation and self-confidence.