A Discussion On Two Articles Of James Petras

Petras Enriches & Fortifies Us, But...[But His Own Theoritical Positions Weaken Him]

S. Majhi

In the Sept, '03 issue of Analytical Monthly Review we found a very interesting, illuminating and educative article by JAMES PETRAS (hereafter mentioned as James Petras ) on the recent tumultuous history of Argentina which drew large attention worldwide. James Petras has named the article as “Popular Struggle In Argentina – Full Circle And Beyond” , and in a very short space he presented a first hand picture of the period with all the essentials and also the necessary details. The article is illuminating in the sense that the detailed presentation of the history helps us to reach to a correct understanding about the fundamental characteristic of the present situation of the world wide proletarian struggle, although, we are afraid, this understanding is not revealed in James Petras's analysis. Rather James Petras's position in this context appears to be theoretically weak. James Petras's position in this context comes out clearly in a previous article of his with the title of “ The Struggle For Socialism Today” (please see at http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/struggle020302.htm). We have taken up these two articles by Petras in order to throw light on the fundamental characteristic of the present situation of the proletarian struggle and at the same time look into James Petras's understanding (or misunderstanding) about that.

Let us start our discussion from the second mentioned essay, “The Struggle For Socialism Today”. Here the last but one section is has the subheading of “ The Current Conjuncture: Obstacles and Opportunities ”, and it starts with a hypotheses – “The struggle for socialism in this conjuncture requires that we avoid two mistaken assumptions. The first is to assume that U.S. imperialism is omnipotent and omnipresent - that what Washington says and does will automatically be successful. The second error is to assume that the current upsurge in popular struggles in Latin America , particularly in Argentina , means that we are entering a revolutionary period - a struggle for state power.” We are here concerned with the second of the two ‘mistaken assumptions' about which James Petras warns us, that it would be wrong to assume that we are entering a revolutionary period despite the ‘current upsurge in popular struggles'. Why? He explains the reasons too much briefly in the last section “Conclusion”: - “However the socialist advance does not develop in a linear fashion: there are defeats and retreats; historic leaders and parties of the working class, like Lula and the Workers' Party in Brazil embrace reaction and disorient their working class supporters. One neo-liberal regime is toppled (De la Rua) and is replaced by another Duhalde in Argentina . Massive roadblocks and strikes in Bolivia challenge the state and are abruptly ended without addressing fundamental issues. In Colombia the popular insurgency develops unevenly - powerful in the countryside, weak in the cities. Personal rivalries and divisions between “reformers” and revolutionaries continue.” But the question remains unanswered; and it emerges again — why the said retreats occurred? What we learned just in the preceding section [as – “Yet this popular counter-offence, which continues despite Washington global militarisation policy, has limitations. Many of the mass movements are mostly tied to limited demands (food and jobs for the unemployed in Argentina ); the movements are regional and sectoral and therefore have no national leadership capable of challenging for state power. Many of the militant leaders challenge the client regimes, and then negotiate short term agreements (most of which are never complied with by the state) - thus creating a cyclical process of mobilisation - direct action - confrontation - negotiation - agreements - broken promises - mobilization, etc.”], instead of clearing our question raises that again; and cannot strongly substantiate his optimisms – “However, there are important signs of a political breakthrough. Many of the activists and militants throughout Latin America are thoroughly disillusioned with the Leftist electoral leaders. Lula's pact with the Liberal Party and open embrace of pro-capitalist politics force most of the consequential left to shift to mass direct action and possibly to a new socialist formation. In Argentina the struggles in the barrios, in the impoverished working class suburbs among the unemployed, among the downwardly mobile middle class and among sectors of the public sector employees the significant date is not 9/11 as Bush would have it but 12/19 and 12/20, they day of the barricades and the ouster of the reigning neo-liberal client regime.” Or , again, “The reformist alternatives while still present are no longer viable. Electoral-parliamentary politicians are increasingly at the margins of the great historical confrontations. The big trade union apparatuses no longer control and contain the mass struggles. Within the mass struggles, socialism re-emerges from the ashes of a defeated ad discredited Stalinist experience and equally corrupt and servile Social Democracy immersed in the neo-liberal quagmire.” But he is, it seems, at least partly aware of a big difficulty, and so, just after suggesting (and envisioning) “International coordination between national movements and the organisation of international demonstrations are integral parts of the political calendar. National struggles, local uprising lead to the formation of conscious revolutionary militants within the movements. The empire cannot be everywhere and at all times. As the struggle for socialism spreads from militants to masses the threats of bombs, and mass propaganda no longer intimidate the mass movements. The unemployed, the impoverished, the destitute, with hungry eyes and closed fists are moving forward” he doubts, “who will organize the struggle for socialist state power?”

But interestingly, in his “Popular Struggle in Argentina – Full Circle and Beyond” , he proceeds, after a short introduction, from “ Seven Theses on Argentina ”, and by these theses he, de facto, buries his previously mentioned optimism . The first thesis says, “In the course of the past decade and half, Argentina has passed through a speculative boom in the mid-1990s, an economic depression during 1998-2003, a popular uprising in 2001 followed by the flourishing of mass movements, and the recent return to power of right-wing political parties and personalities.” What are his reasons behind the axiomatic statement ‘socialist advance does not develop in a linear fashion'? Or, if we to see the fourth thesis which states that, “ The unity of the popular assemblies and the unemployed workers movement has given way to fragmentation and, in some barrios, permitted the return of the Peronist bosses with their patronage practices.” What went wrong and why so? In the second thesis he mentions, “ … …the abstentionist campaign of sectors of the left in the presidential elections of 2003 was a total failure as 79 percent of the electorate voted”. Does not this contradict his earlier ‘signs of important breakthrough'? ? Isn't it incompatible to what he said earlier that ‘Electoral-parliamentary politicians are increasingly at the margins of the great historical confrontations'? And finally, the last thesis says, “ While the mass movement have ebbed and the conventional politicians dominated the electoral field, the popular organisations continue to struggle. The popular organizations have suffered no decisive defeats and are capable of regaining the high ground if the economy goes into another tailspin and the movements can build a unified social-political formation oriented toward state power”. Again we find optimism, but now a qualified one , with a subjective if , (e.g. building of ‘a unified social-political formation oriented toward state power',) the grounds/conditions of which are left unclear. But at least he recognizes here that the so-called ‘popular movements' of these days automatically, by themselves, would not develop ( and, later, we'll show why, could not be led, as such, under present conditions,) towards revolution (and socialism) – and that is important.

Before we proceed further, let us take a look at the happenings of the turbulent days, and for the sake of those who could not yet access James Petras's article published in the Monthly Review it would be better to quote at length from James Petras's wonderful yet brief narrative. After the term of the thoroughly discredited Menem of the Peronist Partido Justicialista (Justice Party) Fernando de la Rua of the traditionalist Radical Party (with a centre-left coalition) won the presidential election of 2000. But things went worse for the people, “… The economy plunged to a record –15% growth in 2001-2002, unemployment soared to 25%, and salaries were reduced by 65%.

“Soon massive street protests blocked highways. On December 19, 2001 , hundreds of pot-banging members of the recently impoverished middle-class, pensioners, unemployed workers, and trade union activists converged on the presidential palace in the Plaza de Mayo demanding the ouster of de la Rua. Mounted police wielding clubs attacked the protesters who retreated and regrouped and were met with police bullets. Over thirty protesters died and scores were wounded. De la Rua resigned and fled in a helicopter. Congress was attacked as tens of thousands of protesters met in the Congressional Square.

“In the interlude the economy was totally paralysed for two weeks. Argentina 's Congress met and selected three presidents in less than a week – each forced to resign by the protesters. Finally, the provincial governors, Congress members, and party bosses of the Justice Party selected Eduardo Duhalde for the presidency.” Then, we find,

“ … The uprising in Buenos Aires was followed by similar explosions in the bankrupt and depressed provinces.

“More significantly, neighbourhood popular assemblies spread throughout the city of Buenos Aires . Hundreds of thousands met spontaneously to discuss their losses and their predicament. Those who suffered quietly now spoke at meetings voicing their anger and debating for hours at a time. … … The established small Marxist group-lets and Anarchists intervened…. Each saw the assemblies as prototypes of communes or soviets to come.

“Throughout January and February, the Movimiento Trabajadores Desocupados [MDT] (unemployed workers' movement) and the neighbourhood assemblies converged in massive street demonstrations. The middle-class assemblies' demands for the unfreezing of their savings were supported by the MTDs. The middle-class assemblies, in turn, participated in blocking of downtown streets in support of demands of the piqueteros (unemployed pickets) for jobs and food aid. Conferences were convened to unify both movements along with human rights groups, university movements, progressive intellectuals, and trade unionists. … … Among the mobilised unemployed and barrio assemblies there was a general rejection of the traditional political leaders expressed in the slogan, “que se vayan todos” (they must all go) — … … At the high point of popular mobilisations in early 2002 … … between 2 and 3 million Argentines participated in some kind of public protest. The unemployed organisations included upward of a hundred thousand active supporters who participated in scores of road blockages and peaceful occupation of government offices. By late 2001 and continuing into early 2002 scores of factories were occupied by workers…

“Clearly the capitalist system was in deep crisis, … … …”

But alas , the high level of spontaneity melted down within a short period! And what James Petras has to offer us as ‘causes' for this? From his writing we find the following causes: —

1. The mass rebellion had only ‘a limited agenda';

2. The quarrel between the Marxists and Anarchists in assemblies bored the people, MDTs, factory occupiers etc; ‘leaders' ‘divided over minor differences' which led even to their inability “to act in common on May Day, let alone in daily struggles”; “left sectarians divided the movements but they were not alone, another serious blow … … was dealt by a group of leaders who raised the ambiguous term ‘autonomy' to a universal principle. …”; etcetera, [James Petras should have mentioned what he meant as ‘Marxists' group-lets and ‘Anarchists'; because these days so many things are done in the name of Marxism and Anarchism that both Marx and Bakunin would have been dumbfounded had they lived to see today's world.]

3. “The connections between the Justice Party and the poor and unemployed were reinforced by the popular movement's rejection of electoral politics and their neglect of any political education.”

4. In the MDT “there was little political depth or class consciousness beyond the leaders and their immediate followers.”

5. ‘The assumption of many of the Anarchists and Marxists' “that the crisis itself would radicalise the workers, or that the radical tactics of street blockages would automatically create a radical outlook” were wrong.

6. The President's small reforms could, under such circumstances, win over/neutralise many; …etc.

So, according to James Petras, these are the causes that made the Argentine Bloody Wednesday of Dec 2001 quite different from the Russian Bloody Sunday of Jan 1905 !

It cannot be that James Petras does not know the Russian history of 1904-1905. The Putilov Factory workers of St. Petersburg were on strike on a narrow demand – re-employment of some (perhaps 6 or 9) sacked fellow workers. Soon other factory workers of the neighbourhood joined the strike in support, and speedily the strike did spread; the ‘demands' started snowballing, and soon took the shape of the demands of the democratic revolution, e.g. ‘down with the Tsar', ‘evict landlordism', etc; and after the massacre of the Bloody Sunday the movement did enter a revolutionary phase. How could all that happen? Things cannot be explained without the the-then Bolshevik's conscious role for the past 4 or 5 years; presence of a section of class conscious workers as product of this process; the the-then condition of the mind of the working class of Russia, which was like a ‘clean slate' [as compared to the present — a defeated {yet not been able to sum up the experiences of the defeat} and in a scattered, confused and conviction-less, … condition] ; etc. There were many ‘quarrels' (one may say) among Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Economists, Trudoviks, Anarchists, etc; but that could not and did not stop (or ‘confuse' the workers) from moving towards forming Soviets (and, so also in the case of the Paris workers during the Commune days). Then, the Marxists of 1904-05 did not foolishly dream that ‘militant' forms of movement would automatically create a radical outlook; rather they consciously did their revolutionary work of educating and organising the workers, and really could organise a contingent, however small, of advanced class conscious workers in the Party of the class before the outbreak of revolution. And when the first revolution could not succeed, the workers, (and peasants also,) in spite of their defeat in the battle, could not be, en masse, won over by the Black Hundreds or Octobrists as can be seen from the Duma election results. Two things made the difference then, (mainly two things): - the presence of a true working class party, and the ‘ non-presence ' of a situation of such a defeat that corrodes/corrupts even from within – what we mentioned as a ‘clean slate' condition; ( though there might be/are other factors which are out of our present context ). And when the situation matured again the working class again came forward, and through their role attracted the toiling masses, towards forming Soviets – in Feb'17, and again in Nov'17; and thus the Bolsheviks and the advanced contingent of workers solved the riddle put forward by James Petras as “ if the economy goes into another tailspin and the movements can build a unified social-political formation oriented toward state power ”, (as cited before in Para.3) or, “: the question is who will organize the struggle for socialist state power?” [ at the very end of his second mentioned article The Struggle For Socialism Today] Isn't it James Petras? Or, is the example irrelevant as being a century old experience (or being an oldie commie one)?

But, well, there is the irony of history – Bolshevism/ Marxism/ Communism/ Reds all are questionable/ questioned/ doubted/ crestfallen/ discarded (to some extent) etc, etc nowadays … and we got to bear the blows and burns of the great defeat … James Petras knows very well that things went wrong with us, … some where in the past, the down-slide of our International Socialist Movement started (the exact point of departure is still sub-judice ) and with the dissolution of the Soviet Russia in early 1990s (which symbolised, to the people at large, defeat of communism , it doesn't matter that it was a wrong realisation) and the ascendance of the farcical market- socialism in China the fall became nakedly visible to all. Even, before that point was arrived, the so-called ‘communists' (revisionists) blemished the image of Communism in many places of the world by practising some ugly bourgeois policies, by confronting head on some of the struggles of workers and peasants (as in India), and during the ‘90s they swung openly towards liberalism, towards practising WB/IMF dictates, etc. Things went so far that real communist activists working among the workers had to face the question, in few places of India during ‘90s, that why the newly rising rebel workers should use red banners for their fights instead of green/white/green-red/etc ones! It may not be a trivial exercise to conjecture, James Petras, as to who tarnished the image of Socialism/ Communism more – the activities of the so-called ‘communists' for the past so many years, or, the slanderous and/or perplexing propaganda of the Institutional Elite, sponsored by all the Imperialists, particularly in the last 10-15 years in the past century; and most probably the accusing finger will point to the formers. Anyway in the present situation there are at least some voices, though enfeebled, in favour of the true essence, the revolutionary essence of Marxism, and for the sake of convenience, they might be termed as ‘communist revolutionaries' ; and, it may be presumed that, they bear some marks of the past mistakes to some extent, (despite the efforts of some of them towards re-awakening of the Socialist Movement); and, the saddest part of the story is, even most of these ‘communist revolutionaries' have not yet taken up the task of finding out the positive and negative aspects of the past, even many of them do not yet recognise the defeat (!!!) and cling to wrong theorisations about socialist movement, and even, about socialism per se .

And in this context comes some incorrect formulations of our friend James Petras, in his article The Struggle For Socialism Today . Perhaps it was a slip of pen when he, after mentioning third World Social Democracy as a variety of ‘bogus socialism', forgot Asian/African varieties and their big-brothers Zuganovs of Russia — and cited only Latin American ones as example. But, James Petras, can anyone today mention Tony Blair and company as ‘bogus socialists'? Is not it a little bit of praise or overstatement regarding the Labour Party when its Govt. is acting as a first fiddle to the Great US Imperialist Orchestra conducted by Bush? But these are trivialities with regards to what is coming up next; — consider now what James Petras claims as true Socialism : “Against these examples of “bogus socialism”, real socialism today first and foremost involves the socialization of the means of production, the transformation of ownership and control of banks, factories, land, social services, foreign trade and the transfer of power from the capitalists to the direct producers, consumers and environmentalists. Socialism means opposition to all imperialist wars, military interventions and support for the self-determination of nations and national liberation movements. Under a socialist regime representation and elections would take place in the workplace, the barrios and the cooperatives, leading to a national assembly directly responsible to the worker, peasant and consumer organisations. Socialism will promote comprehensive reforms in family, workplace and social services to facilitate gender equality. Public spending will shift from subsidizing capitalists, and paying the foreign debt to providing free, comprehensive, quality healthcare, education and recreational facilities on a mass scale. The differences between bogus socialism and true socialism are fundamental and unbridgeable. There is no basis for alliances or “co-habitation”. The social antagonism between classes is expressed in the conflict between bogus and true socialism. The distinctions are not only intellectual; they are practical.” This, well, is incredible , because the author of these lines is James Petras and not a newcomer in the socialist circle. And after all these, his next sub heading, La Vía militante al socialismo may actually become La Vía militante al Eldorado des Pauvres des Tiers Monde , (as explained in next Para.) being far away from what was envisaged by Marx. (Hope James Petras will not mind such a harsh words.) And not only James Petras, but also most of the ‘communist revolutionaries' share almost the same, or sadder versions as Socialism. It is the ‘Socialism' of “benevolent dictatorship” type + some confusions engendered by the Defeat. Let us see why.

It is indeed true that “Public spending will shift from subsidizing capitalists, and paying the foreign debt to providing free, comprehensive, quality healthcare, education and recreational facilities on a mass scale”, under the dictatorship of proletariat (which is the ‘transition' to socialism if one recalls Critic of the Gotha Program of Marx or The State and Revolution of Lenin , but commonly confused with socialism ), and even under a dictatorship of proletariat and peasantry established after democratic revolution; and the ‘Third World Socialism' dreams this picture as socialism; to most of them socialism is a just, more or less egalitarian, distributive, welfare-ism ; it is difficult for it to assimilate the Marxist-Leninist socialist truth that socialism means abolition of classes , and hence, a ‘socialism' with ‘workers' and ‘peasants' and etc … is unscientific, un-Marxist and unthinkable. “ Socialisation ” of all the means of production is a necessary condition for attaining socialism, and the term means ‘the transformation of ownership and control' of all the means of production to the society as a whole , and so to say “to the direct producers, consumers and environmentalists” is superfluous, particularly superfluous is the mention of ‘consumers and environmentalists' because they are, by then the direct producers themselves, and to mention them to satisfy the present green and consumer-lobbies, the latter being too much an open expression of bourgeois reformism that try to pacify the ‘producer' by finding for them another identity –‘consumer', is regrettable and bewildering from James Petras. It may be that the ‘consumer' identity is a bit entrenched within the toilers, particularly in the first-world, due to the brainwashing of the bourgeois, and it may need a tough work to get rid of that; but can we discard the job to go for an easy adjustment ? And then, ‘ socialisation ' is not equal to ‘ nationalisation ', and this also needs to be cleared because they are commonly very much confused as being the same; ‘nationalisation' means ‘state ownership' implying ‘state-capitalism' also. Again, “Under a socialist regime representation and elections would take place in the workplace, the barrios and the cooperatives, leading to a national assembly directly responsible to the worker, peasant and consumer organizations.” Well, but here ‘socialist regime' must mean the dictatorship of proletariat/ workers-peasants, and here also the ‘consumers' is superfluous. Socialism — as a politics — means opposition to all imperialist wars, military interventions and support for the self-determination of nations and national liberation movements – and also so many things else , e.g. opposing one's own country's expansionist/ hegemonic policies; opposition to imperialism and not only to imperialist wars, military interventions ; opposition to capitalism and all forms of pre-capitalism; opposition to each and all exploitations by man on man (by man homo sapiens of both sexes are meant here) , and not only “Socialism will promote comprehensive reforms in family, workplace and social services to facilitate gender equality” ; etc, etc . One may argue that all such things cannot be written in a short article; but we cannot expect James Petras to miss such salient points as he did (mentioned above) in a theoretical article depicting, describing true socialism vs. bogus ones! How could it be then that he didn't miss gender equality, consumers and environmentalists, etc? Or, how he could take account of these issues leaving so many important ones if the reason is shortage of space? Are they not then meant to broaden (?!) the boundary artificially so as to co-habit with some other, in general, non- or, even, anti- socialist movements, as they are in this particular present situation, which flourished due to , among other things, the internal weakness of the past International Socialist Movement ?? Going this way, James Petras, can we, as communists, educate and organise the working class, the bearer of the torch of socialism, on its real class basis ? (Whereas this is one of the fundamental, primary tasks facing today's communist activists.) Or, are these also among the damages, effects of the defeat of our International Socialist Movement = distortions brought about by misunderstandings within our camp + inroads of bourgeois ideology from outside, or, confusions arising out of that?

Here it will not be irrelevant if we observe closely some more samples of the present “popular” or “social” movements outside Argentina . For example, let us start with: Vía Campesina — Mouvement paysan international, hope James Petras knows well about it. The so-called left or ‘socialist'/‘communist' and even some of the ‘revolutionary communist' circle may think it as an ally force in their ‘fight' against imperialism, or, even an integral part of that ‘movement', with some, may be, inclined towards thinking it even as a ‘revolutionary' force. The Brazilian MST , i.e. the ‘ sem terra ' movement (the landless workers' movement) is a part of this international “network”(what a modern fashioned name for an ‘organisation'!!). We got from its website that: C'est un mouvement autonome, pluraliste et indépendant de tout mouvement politique, économique ou autre . Look closely, James Petras, autonomous – and remember what you've written about the too-much-autonomists of Argentina ; pluralist – a beloved, pet and necessary adjective of the anti-Marxist/anti-socialist/anti-communist Post Modernism; and, then, independent of all political movements which, to put unkindly - is a bourgeois hoax and to put gently is a muddle caused by external propaganda. What we should tell the newly rising workers about this organisation –an ally force– an integral part of anti-imperialist movement and proper criticism of it? Remember, we are to educate and organise the workers, to imbue them with proper working class consciousness, not to ‘broaden the movement at any cost', because it'll then cost us, the proletariat, very dearly. I still don't know what the MST has got to say about this aspect, only heard them referring about this network and some remarks in an interview (New Left Review May-June 2002), but no criticisms . Then, we see, that organisation is composé d'organisations paysannes de petits et moyens agriculteurs, de travailleurs agricoles, de femmes ainsi que par des communautés indigènes – how easy it is, these days, to use ‘peasants' and ‘farmers' as almost synonymous, almost interchangeable, without any hesitation (!) – and to speak in the same breath about ‘agricultural workers' – and all in the same organisation, and nothing about opposite interests of the later and the ‘farmers'! And in this present period of defeat many of the ‘communist revolutionaries' also forgot to differentiate between ‘peasants' (meaning toilers) and ‘farmers' (if that means agricultural entrepreneurs who hire labours), forgot their different roles, and forget to educate the working class about all these. We'll see MST in the WORLD SOCIAL FORUM and its Indian colleague in the «  Vía Campesina  » , the KRSS , in the parallel event MUMBAI RESISTANCE '04 ( designed by some ‘communist revolutionaries' of India ), the KRSS being a kulak-capitalist landlord organisation of a southern state of India (whose ‘anti –imperialist' action against GM seeds of the US based TNC Cargill Inc. got much media attention). But James Petras, imagine, a black /coloured landless worker in a South African or Latin American big farm, an Indian one-acre owner-peasant or one hector share-cropper who cannot live without selling own or family labour(s) in the ‘labour market', and say the much media hyped French farmer Jose Bovey et al who symbolised a gallant EU David against the US led CAIRN Goliath in their trade ‘war' in the WTO – all clubbed together – when their ‘unity' is not at all tested by their roles during a upswing of a revolutionary movement – will this help to develop anti imperialist revolutionary struggle and consciousness, even slightly? Then, des communautés indigènes – well, it is undeniable that they face oppressions as and being members of “indigenous communities”; but can the proletariat overlook the already arisen and arising class differentiations among them (e.g. in the cases of the manufactured “supra-tribal” identities of India like the JHARKHANDis or CHHATISGARis or the tribes/communities within them). Many such things are going on, all un-criticised, even unnoticed, in the name of ‘ movements ', but do these or can these contribute anything in favour of the real socialist movement, the re-emergence of which is eagerly waited for by James Petras, by us, by all the communists worldwide? James Petras knows the answer, which is a curtly ‘no' . But such muck has invaded and permeated into the existing socialist movement , in the name of ‘broad alliance against imperialism' ; and socialists are duty-bound to deal with these, compelled to clear up these, we cannot simply avoid these in practical field and also in theoretical fights , like what James Petras tried earnestly in these two articles. And there comes the question of the defeat of the International Socialist Movement and its effects, there comes the duty of searching the reasons of the defeat of our past movement, developing the positive side of the past while discarding the negative, … a field where friends like James Petras has ability and inclinations to contribute. We hope the message is clear and there is no need to go to other examples.

go to top

Home Page >> International Question >> A Discussion On ...Petras...