Daily Archives: March 31, 2021

Illustration of Luxurious American Pullman Dining Car, 1877. Getty Images hide caption

Illustration of Luxurious American Pullman Dining Car, 1877.

Tipping is a norm in the United States. But it hasn't always been this way. It's a legacy of slavery and racism and took off in the post-Civil War era. Almost immediately, the idea was challenged by reformers who argued that tipping was exploitative and allowed companies to take advantage of workers by getting away with paying them low or no wages at all.

The case against tipping was captured in William Rufus Scott's 1916 anti-tipping polemic, The Itching Palm, a book that railed against the practice and its negative impacts on society. The movement had momentum: anti-tipping associations were formed and anti-tipping laws passed. Yet, tipping held on to its place in American culture and the anti-tipping movement failed to eradicate it. We still tip today and, for some, this remains a contentious issue.

Tipping began in the Middle Ages in Europe when people lived under the feudal system. There were masters and servants, and there were tips. Servants would perform their duties and be given some pocket change in return. This was still custom in the 18th century and transitioned from masters and servants to customers and service industry workers.

Throughline's Rund Abdelfatah and Ramtin Arablouei spoke to Nina Martyris, a journalist who has written about the history of tipping in the United States, to find out how tippingonce deemed a "cancer in the breast of democracy" went from being considered wholly un-American to becoming a deeply American custom.

Below are highlights from a conversation with Martyris on the latest episode of Throughline. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

NINA MARTYRIS: Until the Civil War in America, there was no tipping. It was a European thing. But then Americans began to travel to Europe and brought this custom back. At the same time, immigrants were coming to America by the boatload from Europe, most of them poor, [and] had been working in Europe and were used to the tipping system. So in every way it was seen as a European import and there was huge opposition to it, because of its feudal nature.

RAMTIN ARABLOUEI: What was the principal argument against it in the 1800s? Why did some people find it distasteful?

MARTYRIS: They found it distasteful and un-American because it was feudal. And when you give a tip, you establish a class system. By tipping somebody, you rendered him your inferior, your moral inferior, your class inferior, your social and economic inferior. So it was a caste bound system and it was an old world custom and it reeked of feudalism. It was called servile and it was called a bribe. It was called a moral malady. It was called blackmail. It was called flunkeyism. People railed against it.

RUND ABDELFATAH: What happens in the Civil War that changes the equation? Can you explain how the fact that freed Blacks were now entering the workforce in waves affects this tipping debate?

MARTYRIS: Suddenly there were millions of young men, old men, young women, older women who now were free, but had no jobs. They didn't have land. They weren't educated because they never got a chance to be educated. And at about this time, restaurant owners began to hire them in their restaurants as restaurant workers. And they didn't pay them, because the tipping system had come in. And they had to make their wage through tips.

On the Pullman Car Company:

MARTYRIS: The Pullman Car Company was started by George Pullman. He was an engineer in Chicago, and he saw that trains were very uncomfortable. So he designed this nice posh carriage, you know, like business class. One of the big perks was to have a porter there to assist you with your baggage, to smile, to make your bed, to amuse your kids, to answer the bell when you rang it. And this growing American middle class who wanted to travel now that the war was over, this was like a big thing for them to go by train and to have all their needs met. Because they couldn't afford to have a servant or staff in their house, but they had it on the train. And who did Pullman hire for his porters? Only Black men. And not just Black men, Southern Black men. Why? He says because the plantation, these are his words, 'has more or less trained them to be pleasing to the customer.' So they were paid a wage. They were paid $27.50 a month. Nobody could live on that wage - the rest of it was made up in tips. And that became the place where tipping really began to spread, because the Pullman cars traveled all across the country.

ARABLOUEI: So people were paying for an upper class experience, and he created this fantasy experience for people and as a result needed to be able to exploit the workers in order to kind of facilitate that demand.

MARTYRIS: Yes. And, so, you have to say, why did these African-American men then work for him? Well, for many reasons. One, they got to travel the country, something that in their wildest dreams they had never done before. Two, there were not many jobs available at the time. And it wasn't that punishing hard work that they had been used to working on plantations. It was a prestigious thing for them to join the Pullman car companies and work as porters. The conductors were always white men. The porters were always Black.

ABDELFATAH: When Pullman happens, it sounds like it launches tipping in more spaces and through more professions. And what is the reaction among those who are against tipping?

MARTYRIS: People complained about it all the time because it was still fairly new then in the 1870s and 1880s. They complained about it all the time, saying that everywhere we go, it's like a shakedown and we have to pay, pay and we pay twice. We pay for our food and then we pay for the service. Why should we have to do all this? When William Taft ran for president, about 1908, one of his biggest boasts was that he didn't tip his barber. And so then he became what they call the patron saint of the anti-tipping crusade.

MARTYRIS: Many of the comments in the media about tipping bring out the racist values of the time. For instance, a journalist named John Speed, writing in 1902, recalled, "Negroes take tips. Of course, one expects that of them. It is a token of their inferiority. But to give money to a white man was embarrassing to me. I felt defined by his debasement and civility." What he's saying is, if you're a Negro, if you're Black, to accept a tip is OK because civility is a token of inferiority, but to be a white man and accept a tip is unpardonable.

On restaurant workers:

[NOTE: In 1938, as part of the New Deal, The first federal minimum wage law was established in American history. Minimum wage was set at 25 cents an hour.]

MARTYRIS: But guess what? Restaurant workers weren't included. And so it became law that the restaurant owners do not have to pay twenty five cents an hour. They excluded them from the minimum wage. And that kind of codified the fact that you're paying your workers only through tips. And then tips became legal. The law had taken them into account in 1938 by excluding restaurant workers. That's sort of the nail in the coffin for ever getting a fair wage.

ABDELFATAH: There's something striking to me about the fact that the minimum wage coming into the picture sort of shifts attention away from tipping. I mean, that's what it sounds like. It sounds like suddenly this debate that had been going on for decades at that point in American life is sidelined by the fact that suddenly you have this new thing, a minimum wage coming onto the scene. I wonder how you see those two histories interacting in that moment?

MARTYRIS: You've created a two-tier system among your workforce. And I think that was the beginning of the rot, which we are paying a price for till today.

If you would like to learn more about tipping:

Read more:

The Anti-Tipping Movement : Throughline - NPR

Father Peter Nguyen Van Hung struggled against poverty, war and life as a refugee before he became the savior of scores of slavery and trafficking victims in Taiwan.

For over three decades, the 63-year-old Vietnamese Catholic priest from the Missionary Society of St. Columbanhas waged a relentless, successful battle against the scourge of slavery and trafficking in this East Asian economic powerhouse.

Peter Nguyen was born to a Catholic family from Binh Tuay province in southern Vietnam in 1958. His father was a taxi driver who died after a long battle with various illnesses when Peter, his parents' second child, was 17.

Subscribe to your daily free newsletter from UCA News

Thank you. You are now signed up to Daily newsletter

The death left his mother, a housewife, with sole responsibility for three sons and five daughters in a country plagued by war and endemic poverty.

Despite their poor circumstances, the children were greatly influenced by their mother's strong faith, which sustained heras she worked to keep the family together.

From an early age, he cherished a great love and esteem for St. Francis of Assisi and for a short period he became a friar. However, he was forced to leave the friary after the communists' victory in the Vietnam War. All religious practices were banned and those who defied orders were persecuted.

As the communist regime consolidated power with repressive policies and actions, Peter like many Vietnamese saw no future in the country. In 1979, he fled byboat with a group of like-minded people;the overcrowdedboat was adrift on stormy seas for days. Eventually, a Norwegian ship rescued them and they found refuge in Japan.

As a refugee in a camp at Fujisawafor three years, Peter was involved in a host of jobs for survival such as highway construction worker, steel factory worker andeven gravedigger.

There, I became deeply aware of how refugees are discriminated against and excluded from society, and how they can be left alone without anywhere to have their voices heard, Father Peter said in an interview posted on the Taiwanese Foreign Ministry website.

An ardent admirer of St. Francis of Assisi,his life took a turn for the better when he came across Columban missionaries and decided to join the order.

He visited Taiwan in 1988 as a missionary on an assignment before becoming a priest and moving to Sydney, Australia, for seminary studies. He was ordained a priest in 1991 and arrived in Taiwan the following year.

His return to Taiwan was an eye-opener as he was exposed to the awful exploitation of migrants from various Southeast Asian countries including Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines.

He was particularly awareof the plight of tens of thousands of Vietnamese migrant women facing exploitation and slave-like conditions in Taiwan.

Due to thriving economic and trade relations between Vietnam and Taiwan, there had been increasing cross-cultural marriages.

By 2017, more than 98,000 Vietnamese migrant brideswere married to Taiwanese men, making them the one of the largest non-Chinese immigrant groups in the country, according to government data.

Putting aside genuine love, the hopes for economic prosperity and a better life have been cited as causes for the increasing number of Vietnamese brides in Taiwan.

However, not all migrant women were lucky enough to secure abetter life through marriage. Many became victims of slavery and trafficking as they were lured to Taiwan by the false promises of labor brokers and ended up working in bars and brothels.

Corruption and poor law enforcement blighted the futures ofmany Vietnamese women and left themphysically and psychologically bruised and devastated.

Enraged by this blatantexploitation, Father Peter decided to wage a war against the appalling situation.

Anti-trafficking hero

In 2004, Father Peter set up the Vietnamese Migrant Workers & Brides Office in Taoyuan County, a satellite town near the capital Taipei. His efforts were integrated with the social services of the Diocese of Hsinchu, one of seven Catholic dioceses in Taiwan.

The organization has supported more than 200,000 migrant workers and sex trafficking victims with access to shelter and support, directly and indirectly.

It also helps Vietnamese womento tackle challenges such as language barriers, cultural differences, lack of understanding of marriage and immigration laws in Taiwan.

One major success was a legal battle for some 100 Vietnamese women whowere victims of rape andabuse due to false promises from two labor agencies.Starting in 2005, the case dragged on for 12 years before they eventually won.

Father Peter recalled that he could not withstand the extreme pain of the victims, though they kept silent fearing deportationover their failure to repay loans they took to pay brokerage fees.

That was as painful to me as if it had been my own sisters being brutally abused, the priest recalled.

He found the unregulated labor brokerage system was the crux of the problem and strongly advocated for a law to prevent slavery and trafficking.

He took part in protest rallies, seminars and visited US officials in Washington to alert them to the slavery and trafficking in Taiwan. He also forged partnerships withNGOs and made relentless efforts to prosecute traffickers and negotiate compensation.

Consequently, Taiwan was categorized as a Tier 2 Watch List country in theTrafficking in Persons Report 2006 along with China and Cambodia.

For his anti-trafficking efforts, the US government recognized Father Peter as a hero acting to end modern-day slavery and was accorded a Trafficking in Persons Report Hero Award in 2006.

Amid such pressure, Taiwan passed the stringent and comprehensive Human Trafficking Prevention Act in 2009.

The missionary went to Australia in 2010 to study psychology in order to better understand the psycho-social aspects of the problems migrant workers and women face in Taiwan.

The priest also advocated for better legal protection of migrant workers as many died or were maimed in industrial accidents, yetvictims were denied compensation and justice.

According to official data, Taiwan has more than 710,000 migrants from Southeast Asian countries including Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines.

In 2016, Taiwan's government amended Article 52 of the Employment Service Act that strengthened labor rights significantly.

Father Peter says his services fulfill the will of God and his efforts are driven by a people-first approach based on mutual understanding, tolerance and equality.

God has a plan for us all. We need to listen and follow it, the priest said.

Read the original post:

Vietnamese priest's crusade against slavery and trafficking in Taiwan - Union of Catholic Asian News

On Saturday, April 3, the WSWS is hosting an international online meeting to mark the 150th anniversary of the Paris Commune. Find out more and register here. In the lead-up to the event, we are publishing a series of classic works by the great Marxists of the 19th and 20th centuries analyzing the significance and lessons of the Commune.

This essay is Chapter 3 of State and Revolution, which Lenin wrote in the summer of 1917. At the time, Lenin was in hiding, first outside Petrograd and then in Finland, in the midst of the violent repression of the Bolshevik Party by the Provisional Government in Russia. The book was a critical component of Lenins preparation of the Bolshevik Party and the most advanced sections of the Russian working class for the October Revolution of 1917.

For a fuller review of State and Revolution, see the Russian Revolution Centenary lecture by Barry Grey.

It is well known that in the autumn of 1870, a few months before the Commune, Marx warned the Paris workers that any attempt to overthrow the government would be the folly of despair. But when, in March 1871, a decisive battle was forced upon the workers and they accepted it, when the uprising had become a fact, Marx greeted the proletarian revolution with the greatest enthusiasm, in spite of unfavorable auguries. Marx did not persist in the pedantic attitude of condemning an untimely movement as did the ill-famed Russian renegade from Marxism, Plekhanov, who in November 1905 wrote encouragingly about the workers and peasants struggle, but after December 1905 cried, liberal fashion: They should not have taken up arms.

Marx, however, was not only enthusiastic about the heroism of the Communards, who, as he expressed it, stormed heaven. Although the mass revolutionary movement did not achieve its aim, he regarded it as a historic experience of enormous importance, as a certain advance of the world proletarian revolution, as a practical step that was more important than hundreds of programmes and arguments. Marx endeavored to analyse this experiment, to draw tactical lessons from it and re-examine his theory in the light of it.

The only correction Marx thought it necessary to make to the Communist Manifesto he made on the basis of the revolutionary experience of the Paris Communards.

The last preface to the new German edition of the Communist Manifesto, signed by both its authors, is dated June 24, 1872. In this preface the authors, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, say that the programme of the Communist Manifesto has in some details become out-of-date, and they go on to say:

One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes

The authors took the words that are in quotation marks in this passage from Marxs book, The Civil War in France.

Thus, Marx and Engels regarded one principal and fundamental lesson of the Paris Commune as being of such enormous importance that they introduced it as an important correction into the Communist Manifesto.

Most characteristically, it is this important correction that has been distorted by the opportunists, and its meaning probably is not known to nine-tenths, if not ninety-nine-hundredths, of the readers of the Communist Manifesto. We shall deal with this distortion more fully farther on, in a chapter devoted specially to distortions. Here it will be sufficient to note that the current, vulgar interpretation of Marxs famous statement just quoted is that Marx here allegedly emphasises the idea of slow development in contradistinction to the seizure of power, and so on.

As a matter of fact, the exact opposite is the case. Marxs idea is that the working class must break up, smash the ready-made state machinery, and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it.

On April 12, 1871, i.e., just at the time of the Commune, Marx wrote to Kugelmann:

If you look up the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it [Marxs italicsthe original is zerbrechen], and this is the precondition for every real peoples revolution on the Continent. And this is what our heroic Party comrades in Paris are attempting. (Neue Zeit, Vol. XX, 1, 1901-02, p. 709.)

(The letters of Marx to Kugelmann have appeared in Russian in no less than two editions, one of which I edited and supplied with a preface.)

Karl Marx

The words, to smash the bureaucratic-military machine, briefly express the principal lesson of Marxism regarding the tasks of the proletariat during a revolution in relation to the state. And this is the lesson that has been not only completely ignored, but positively distorted by the prevailing, Kautskyite, interpretation of Marxism!

As for Marxs reference to The Eighteenth Brumaire, we have quoted the relevant passage in full above.

It is interesting to note, in particular, two points in the above-quoted argument of Marx. First, he restricts his conclusion to the Continent. This was understandable in 1871, when Britain was still the model of a purely capitalist country, but without a militarist clique and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy. Marx therefore excluded Britain, where a revolution, even a peoples revolution, then seemed possible, and indeed was possible, without the precondition of destroying the ready-made state machinery.

Today, in 1917, at the time of the first great imperialist war, this restriction made by Marx is no longer valid. Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representativesin the whole worldof Anglo-Saxon liberty, in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, the precondition for every real peoples revolution is the smashing, the destruction of the ready-made state machinery (made and brought up to the European, general imperialist, perfection in those countries in the years 1914-17).

Secondly, particular attention should be paid to Marxs extremely profound remark that the destruction of the bureaucratic-military state machine is the precondition for every real peoples revolution. This idea of a peoples revolution seems strange coming from Marx, so that the Russian Plekhanovites and Mensheviks, those followers of Struve who wish to be regarded as Marxists, might possibly declare such an expression to be a slip of the pen on Marxs part. They have reduced Marxism to such a state of wretchedly liberal distortion that nothing exists for them beyond the antithesis between bourgeois revolution and proletarian revolution, and even this antithesis they interpret in an utterly lifeless way.

If we take the revolutions of the 20th century as examples we shall, of course, have to admit that the Portuguese and the Turkish revolutions are both bourgeois revolutions. Neither of them, however, is a peoples revolution, since in neither does the mass of the people, their vast majority, come out actively, independently, with their own economic and political demands to any noticeable degree. By contrast, although the Russian bourgeois revolution of 1905-07 displayed no such brilliant successes as at times fell to the Portuguese and Turkish revolutions, it was undoubtedly a real peoples revolution, since the mass of the people, their majority, the very lowest social groups, crushed by oppression and exploitation, rose independently and stamped on the entire course of the revolution the imprint of their own demands, their attempt to build in their own way a new society in place of the old society that was being destroyed.

In Europe, in 1871, the proletariat did not constitute the majority of the people in any country on the Continent. A peoples revolution, one actually sweeping the majority into its stream, could be such only if it embraced both the proletariat and the peasants. These two classes then constituted the people. These two classes are united by the fact that the bureaucratic-military state machine oppresses, crushes, exploits them. To smash this machine, to break it up, is truly in the interest of the people, of their majority, of the workers and most of the peasants, is the precondition for a free alliance of the poor peasant and the proletarians, whereas without such an alliance democracy is unstable and socialist transformation is impossible.

As is well known, the Paris Commune was actually working its way toward such an alliance, although it did not reach its goal owing to a number of circumstances, internal and external.

Consequently, in speaking of a real peoples revolution, Marx, without in the least discounting the special features of the petty bourgeois (he spoke a great deal about them and often), took strict account of the actual balance of class forces in most of the continental countries of Europe in 1871. On the other hand, he stated that the smashing of the state machine was required by the interests of both the workers and the peasants, that it united them, that it placed before them the common task of removing the parasite and of replacing it by something new.

By what exactly?

In 1847, in the Communist Manifesto, Marxs answer to this question was as yet a purely abstract one; to be exact, it was an answer that indicated the tasks, but not the ways of accomplishing them. The answer given in the Communist Manifesto was that this machine was to be replaced by the proletariat organised as the ruling class, by the winning of the battle of democracy.

Marx did not indulge in utopias; he expected the experience of the mass movement to provide the reply to the question as to the specific forms this organisation of the proletariat as the ruling class would assume and as to the exact manner in which this organisation would be combined with the most complete, most consistent winning of the battle of democracy.

Marx subjected the experience of the Commune, meagre as it was, to the most careful analysis in The Civil War in France. Let us quote the most important passages of this work.

Originating from the Middle Ages, there developed in the 19th century the centralised state power, with its ubiquitous organs of standing army, police, bureaucracy, clergy, and judicature. With the development of class antagonisms between capital and labour, state power assumed more and more the character of a public force organised for the suppression of the working class, of a machine of class rule. After every revolution, which marks an advance in the class struggle, the purely coercive character of the state power stands out in bolder and bolder relief. After the revolution of 1848-49, state power became the national war instruments of capital against labour. The Second Empire consolidated this.

The direct antithesis to the empire was the Commune. It was the specific form of a republic that was not only to remove the monarchical form of class rule, but class rule itself.

What was this specific form of the proletarian, socialist republic? What was the state it began to create?

... The first decree of the Commune ... was the suppression of the standing army, and its replacement by the armed people. ...

This demand now figures in the programme of every party calling itself socialist. The real worth of their programme, however, is best shown by the behavior of our Socialist Revolutionists and Mensheviks, who, right after the revolution of February 27, actually refused to carry out this demand!

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of Paris, responsible and revocable at any time. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The police, which until then had been the instrument of the Government, was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, instrument of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, public service had to be done at workmens wages. The privileges and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the dignitaries themselves. ... Having once got rid of the standing army and the police, the instruments of the physical force of the old government, the Commune proceeded at once to break the instrument of spiritual suppression, the power of the priests. ... The judicial functionaries lost that sham independence ... they were thenceforward to be elective, responsible, and revocable.

The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine only by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this only signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of quantity being transformed into quality: democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (=a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper.

It is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush their resistance. This was particularly necessary for the Commune; and one of the reasons for its defeat was that it did not do this with sufficient determination. The organ of suppression, however, is here the majority of the population, and not a minority, as was always the case under slavery, serfdom, and wage slavery. And since the majority of the people itself suppresses its oppressors, a special force for suppression is no longer necessary! In this sense, the state begins to wither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority (privileged officialdom, the chiefs of the standing army), the majority itself can directly fulfil all these functions, and the more the functions of state power are performed by the people as a whole, the less need there is for the existence of this power.

In this connection, the following measures of the Commune, emphasised by Marx, are particularly noteworthy: the abolition of all representation allowances, and of all monetary privileges to officials, the reduction of the remuneration of all servants of the state to the level of workmens wages. This shows more clearly than anything else the turn from bourgeois to proletarian democracy, from the democracy of the oppressors to that of the oppressed classes, from the state as a special force for the suppression of a particular class to the suppression of the oppressors by the general force of the majority of the peoplethe workers and the peasants. And it is on this particularly striking point, perhaps the most important as far as the problem of the state is concerned, that the ideas of Marx have been most completely ignored! In popular commentaries, the number of which is legion, this is not mentioned. The thing done is to keep silent about it as if it were a piece of old-fashioned navet, just as Christians, after their religion had been given the status of a state religion, forgot the navet of primitive Christianity with its democratic revolutionary spirit.

The reduction of the remuneration of high state officials seem simply a demand of naive, primitive democracy. One of the founders of modern opportunism, the ex-Social-Democrat Eduard Bernstein, has more than once repeated the vulgar bourgeois jeers at primitive democracy. Like all opportunists, and like the present Kautskyites, he did not understand at all that, first of all, the transition from capitalism to socialism is impossible without a certain reversion to primitive democracy (for how else can the majority, and then the whole population without exception, proceed to discharge state functions?); and that, secondly, primitive democracy based on capitalism and capitalist culture is not the same as primitive democracy in prehistoric or pre-capitalist times. Capitalist culture has created large-scale production, factories, railways, the postal service, telephones, etc., and on this basis the great majority of the functions of the old state power have become so simplified and can be reduced to such exceedingly simple operations of registration, filing, and checking that they can be easily performed by every literate person, can quite easily be performed for ordinary workmens wages, and that these functions can (and must) be stripped of every shadow of privilege, of every semblance of official grandeur.

All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary workmens wagesthese simple and self-evident democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganisation of the state, the purely political reorganisation of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the expropriation of the expropriators either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.

The Commune, Marx wrote, made that catchword of all bourgeois revolutions, cheap government, a reality, by abolishing the two greatest sources of expenditurethe army and the officialdom.

From the peasants, as from other sections of the petty bourgeoisie, only an insignificant few rise to the top, get on in the world in the bourgeois sense, i.e., become either well-to-do, bourgeois, or officials in secure and privileged positions. In every capitalist country where there are peasants (as there are in most capitalist countries), the vast majority of them are oppressed by the government and long for its overthrow, long for cheap government. This can be achieved only by the proletariat; and by achieving it, the proletariat at the same time takes a step towards the socialist reorganisation of the state.

The Commune, Marx wrote, was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time ...

Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to represent and repress [ver- and zertreten] the people in parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people constituted in communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for workers, foremen and accountants for his business.

Owing to the prevalence of social-chauvinism and opportunism, this remarkable criticism of parliamentarism, made in 1871, also belongs now to the forgotten words of Marxism. The professional Cabinet Ministers and parliamentarians, the traitors to the proletariat and the practical socialists of our day, have left all criticism of parliamentarism to the anarchists, and, on this wonderfully reasonable ground, they denounce all criticism of parliamentarism as anarchism!! It is not surprising that the proletariat of the advanced parliamentary countries, disgusted with such socialists as the Scheidemanns, Davids, Legiens, Sembats, Renaudels, Hendersons, Vanderveldes, Staunings, Brantings, Bissolatis, and Co., has been with increasing frequency giving its sympathies to anarcho-syndicalism, in spite of the fact that the latter is merely the twin brother of opportunism.

For Marx, however, revolutionary dialectics was never the empty fashionable phrase, the toy rattle, which Plekhanov, Kautsky and others have made of it. Marx knew how to break with anarchism ruthlessly for its inability to make use even of the pigsty of bourgeois parliamentarism, especially when the situation was obviously not revolutionary; but at the same time he knew how to subject parliamentarism to genuinely revolutionary proletarian criticism.

To decide once every few years which member of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliamentthis is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary-constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics.

But if we deal with the question of the state, and if we consider parliamentarism as one of the institutions of the state, from the point of view of the tasks of the proletariat in this field, what is the way out of parliamentarism? How can it be dispensed with?

Once again, we must say: the lessons of Marx, based on the study of the Commune, have been so completely forgotten that the present-day Social-Democrat (i.e., present-day traitor to socialism) really cannot understand any criticism of parliamentarism other than anarchist or reactionary criticism.

The way out of parliamentarism is not, of course, the abolition of representative institutions and the elective principle, but the conversion of the representative institutions from talking shops into working bodies. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary, body, executive and legislative at the same time.

A working, not a parliamentary bodythis is a blow straight from the shoulder at the present-day parliamentarians and parliamentary lap-dogs of Social-Democracy! Take any parliamentary country, from America to Switzerland, from France to Britain, Norway and so forthin these countries the real business of state is performed behind the scenes and is carried on by the departments, chancelleries, and General Staffs. Parliament is given up to talk for the special purpose of fooling the common people. This is so true that even in the Russian republic, a bourgeois-democratic republic, all these sins of parliamentarism came out at once, even before it managed to set up a real parliament. The heroes of rotten philistinism, such as the Skobelevs and Tseretelis, the Chernovs and Avksentyevs, have even succeeded in polluting the Soviets after the fashion of the most disgusting bourgeois parliamentarism, in converting them into mere talking shops. In the Soviets, the socialist Ministers are fooling the credulous rustics with phrase-mongering and resolutions. In the government itself a sort of permanent shuffle is going on in order that, on the one hand, as many Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks as possible may in turn get near the pie, the lucrative and honourable posts, and that, on the other hand, the attention of the people may be engaged. Meanwhile the chancelleries and army staffs do the business of state.

Dyelo Naroda, the organ of the ruling Socialist-Revolutionary Party, recently admitted in a leading articlewith the matchless frankness of people of good society, in which all are engaged in political prostitutionthat even in the ministries headed by the socialists (save the mark!), the whole bureaucratic apparatus is in fact unchanged, is working in the old way and quite freely sabotaging revolutionary measures! Even without this admission, does not the actual history of the participation of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks in the government prove this? It is noteworthy, however, that in the ministerial company of the Cadets, the Chernovs, Rusanovs, Zenzinovs and other editors of Dyelo Naroda have so completely lost all sense of shame as to brazenly assert, as if it were a mere bagatelle, that in their ministries everything is unchanged!! Revolutionary-democratic phrases to gull the rural Simple Simons, and bureaucracy and red tape to gladden the hearts of the capitaliststhat is the essence of the honest coalition.

The Commune substitutes for the venal and rotten parliamentarism of bourgeois society institutions in which freedom of opinion and discussion does not degenerate into deception, for the parliamentarians themselves have to work, have to execute their own laws, have themselves to test the results achieved in reality, and to account directly to their constituents. Representative institutions remain, but there is no parliamentarism here as a special system, as the division of labour between the legislative and the executive, as a privileged position for the deputies. We cannot imagine democracy, even proletarian democracy, without representative institutions, but we can and must imagine democracy without parliamentarism, if criticism of bourgeois society is not mere words for us, if the desire to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie is our earnest and sincere desire, and not a mere election cry for catching workers votes, as it is with the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, and also the Scheidemanns and Legiens, the Semblats and Vanderveldes.

It is extremely instructive to note that, in speaking of the function of those officials who are necessary for the Commune and for proletarian democracy, Marx compares them to the workers of every other employer, that is, of the ordinary capitalist enterprise, with its workers, foremen, and accountants.

There is no trace of utopianism in Marx, in the sense that he made up or invented a new society. No, he studied the birth of the new society out of the old, and the forms of transition from the latter to the former, as a natural-historical process. He examined the actual experience of a mass proletarian movement and tried to draw practical lessons from it. He learned from the Commune, just as all the great revolutionary thinkers learned unhesitatingly from the experience of great movements of the oppressed classes, and never addressed them with pedantic homilies (such as Plekhanovs: They should not have taken up arms, or Tseretelis: A class must limit itself).

Abolishing the bureaucracy at once, everywhere and completely, is out of the question. It is a utopia. But to smash the old bureaucratic machine at once and to begin immediately to construct a new one that will make possible the gradual abolition of all bureaucracythis is not a utopia, it is the experience of the Commune, the direct and immediate task of the revolutionary proletariat.

Capitalism simplifies the functions of state administration; it makes it possible to cast bossing aside and to confine the whole matter to the organisation of the proletarians (as the ruling class), which will hire workers, foremen and accountants in the name of the whole of society.

We are not utopians, we do not dream of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination. These anarchist dreams, based upon incomprehension of the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship, are totally alien to Marxism, and, as a matter of fact, serve only to postpone the socialist revolution until people are different. No, we want the socialist revolution with people as they are now, with people who cannot dispense with subordination, control, and foremen and accountants.

The subordination, however, must be to the armed vanguard of all the exploited and working people, i.e., to the proletariat. A beginning can and must be made at once, overnight, to replace the specific bossing of state officials by the simple functions of foremen and accountants, functions which are already fully within the ability of the average town dweller and can well be performed for workmens wages.

We, the workers, shall organise large-scale production on the basis of what capitalism has already created, relying on our own experience as workers, establishing strict, iron discipline backed up by the state power of the armed workers. We shall reduce the role of state officials to that of simply carrying out our instructions as responsible, revocable, modestly paid foremen and accountants(of course, with the aid of technicians of all sorts, types and degrees). This is our proletarian task, this is what we can and must start with in accomplishing the proletarian revolution. Such a beginning, on the basis of large-scale production, will of itself lead to the gradual withering away of all bureaucracy, to the gradual creation of an orderan order without inverted commas, an order bearing no similarity to wage slaveryan order under which the functions of control and accounting, becoming more and more simple, will be performed by each in turn, will then become a habit and will finally die out as the special functions of a special section of the population.

A witty German Social-Democrat of the seventies of the last century called the postal service an example of the socialist economic system. This is very true. At the present the postal service is a business organised on the lines of a state-capitalist monopoly. Imperialism is gradually transforming all trusts into organisations of a similar type, in which, standing over the common people, who are overworked and starved, one has the same bourgeois bureaucracy. But the mechanism of social management is here already to hand. Once we have overthrown the capitalists, crushed the resistance of these exploiters with the iron hand of the armed workers, and smashed the bureaucratic machinery of the modern state, we shall have a splendidly-equipped mechanism, freed from the parasite, a mechanism which can very well be set going by the united workers themselves, who will hire technicians, foremen and accountants, and pay them all, as indeed all state officials in general, workmens wages. Here is a concrete, practical task which can immediately be fulfilled in relation to all trusts, a task whose fulfilment will rid the working people of exploitation, a task which takes account of what the Commune had already begun to practice (particularly in building up the state).

To organise the whole economy on the lines of the postal service so that the technicians, foremen and accountants, as well as all officials, shall receive salaries no higher than a workmans wage, all under the control and leadership of the armed proletariatthat is our immediate aim. This is the state and this is the economic foundation we need. This is what will bring about the abolition of parliamentarism and the preservation of representative institutions. This is what will rid the labouring classes of the bourgeoisies prostitution of these institutions.

In a brief sketch of national organisation which the Commune had no time to develop, it states explicitly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest village. The communes were to elect the National Delegation in Paris.

... The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as had been deliberately misstated, but were to be transferred to communal, i.e., strictly responsible, officials.

... National unity was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, organised by the communal constitution; it was to become a reality by the destruction of state power which posed as the embodiment of that unity yet wanted to be independent of, and superior to, the nation, on whose body it was but a parasitic excrescence. While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority claiming the right to stand above society, and restored to the responsible servants of society.

The extent to which the opportunists of present-day Social-Democracy have failedperhaps it would be more true to say, have refusedto understand these observations of Marx is best shown by that book of Herostratean fame of the renegade Bernstein, The Premises of Socialism and the Tasks of the Social-Democrats. It is in connection with the above passage from Marx that Bernstein wrote that as far as its political content is concerned, this programme displays, in all its essential features, the greatest similarity to the federalism of Proudhon. In spite of all the other points of difference between Marx and the petty-bourgeois Proudhon [Bernstein places the word petty-bourgeois in inverted commas, to make it sound ironical] on these points, their lines of reasoning run as close as could be. Of course, Bernstein continues, the importance of the municipalities is growing, but it seems doubtful to me whether the first job of democracy would be such a dissolution [Auflsung] of the modern states and such a complete transformation [Umwandlung] of their organisation as is visualised by Marx and Proudhon (the formation of a National Assembly from delegates of the provincial of district assemblies, which, in their turn, would consist of delegates from the communes), so that consequently the previous mode of national representation would disappear. (Bernstein, Premises, German edition, 1899, pp. 134 and 136.)

To confuse Marxs view on the destruction of state power, a parasitic excrescence, with Proudhons federalism is positively monstrous! But it is no accident, for it never occurs to the opportunist that Marx does not speak here at all about federalism as opposed to centralism, but about smashing the old, bourgeois state machine which exists in all bourgeois countries.

The only thing that does occur to the opportunist is what he sees around him, in an environment of petty-bourgeois philistinism and reformist stagnation, namely, only municipalities! The opportunist has even grown out of the habit of thinking about proletarian revolution.

It is ridiculous. But the remarkable thing is that nobody argued with Bernstein on this point. Bernstein has been refuted by many, especially by Plekhanov in Russian literature and by Kautsky in European literature, but neither of them has said anything about this distortion of Marx by Bernstein.

The opportunist has so much forgotten how to think in a revolutionary way and to dwell on revolution that he attributes federalismto Marx, whom he confuses with the founder of anarchism, Proudhon. As for Kautsky and Plekhanov, who claim to be orthodox Marxists and defenders of the theory of revolutionary Marxism, they are silent on this point! Here is one of the roots of the extreme vulgarisation of the views on the difference between Marxism and anarchism, which is characteristic of both the Kautskyites and the opportunists, and which we shall discuss again later.

There is not a trace of federalism in Marxs above-quoted observation on the experience of the Commune. Marx agreed with Proudhon on the very point that the opportunist Bernstein did not see. Marx disagreed with Proudhon on the very point on which Bernstein found a similarity between them.

Marx agreed with Proudhon in that they both stood for the smashing of the modern state machine. Neither the opportunists nor the Kautskyites wish to see the similarity of views on this point between Marxism and anarchism (both Proudhon and Bakunin) because this is where they have departed from Marxism.

Marx disagreed both with Proudhon and Bakunin precisely on the question of federalism (not to mention the dictatorship of the proletariat). Federalism as a principle follows logically from the petty-bourgeois views of anarchism. Marx was a centralist. There is no departure whatever from centralism in his observations just quoted. Only those who are imbued with the philistine superstitious belief in the state can mistake the destruction of the bourgeois state machine for the destruction of centralism!

Now if the proletariat and the poor peasants take state power into their own hands, organise themselves quite freely in communes, and unite the action of all the communes in striking at capital, in crushing the resistance of the capitalists, and in transferring the privately-owned railways, factories, land and so on to the entire nation, to the whole of society, wont that be centralism? Wont that be the most consistent democratic centralism and, moreover, proletarian centralism?

Bernstein simply cannot conceive of the possibility of voluntary centralism, of the voluntary amalgamation of the communes into a nation, of the voluntary fusion of the proletarian communes, for the sole purpose of destroying bourgeois rule and the bourgeois state machine. Like all philistines, Bernstein pictures centralism as something which can be imposed and maintained solely from above, and solely by the bureaucracy and military clique.

As though foreseeing that his views might be distorted, Marx expressly emphasised that the charge that the Commune had wanted to destroy national unity, to abolish the central authority, was a deliberate fraud. Marx purposely used the words: National unity was to be organised, so as to oppose conscious, democratic, proletarian centralism to bourgeois, military, bureaucratic centralism.

But there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. And the very thing the opportunists of present-day Social Democracy do not want to hear about is the destruction of state power, the amputation of the parasitic excrescence.

We have already quoted Marxs words on the subject, and we must now supplement them.

It is generally the fate of new historical creations, he wrote, to be mistaken for the counterpart of older and even defunct forms of social life, to which they may bear a certain likeness. Thus, this new Commune, which breaks [bricht, smashes] the modern state power, has been regarded as a revival of the medieval communes ... as a federation of small states (as Montesquieu and the Girondins visualised it) as an exaggerated form of the old struggle against over-centralisation.

The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by that parasitic excrescence, the state, feeding upon and hampering the free movement of society. By this one act it would have initiated the regeneration of France.

The Communal Constitution would have brought the rural producers under the intellectual lead of the central towns of their districts, and there secured to them, in the town working men, the natural trustees of their interests. The very existence of the Commune involved, as a matter of course, local self-government, but no longer as a counterpoise to state power, now become superfluous.

Breaking state power, which as a parasitic excrescence; its amputation, its smashing; state power, now become superfluousthese are the expressions Marx used in regard to the state when appraising and analysing the experience of the Commune.

All this was written a little less than half a century ago; and now one has to engage in excavations, as it were, in order to bring undistorted Marxism to the knowledge of the mass of the people. The conclusions drawn from the observation of the last great revolution which Marx lived through were forgotten just when the time for the next great proletarian revolution has arrived.

The multiplicity of interpretations to which the Commune has been subjected, and the multiplicity of interests which expressed themselves in it show that it was a thoroughly flexible political form, while all previous forms of government had been essentially repressive. Its true secret was this: it was essentially a working-class government, the result of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which the economic emancipation of labour could be accomplished...

Except on this last condition, the Communal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion...

The utopians busied themselves with discovering political forms under which the socialist transformation of society was to take place. The anarchists dismissed the question of political forms altogether. The opportunists of present-day Social-Democracy accepted the bourgeois political forms of the parliamentary democratic state as the limit which should not be overstepped; they battered their foreheads praying before this model, and denounced as anarchism every desire to break these forms.

Marx deduced from the whole history of socialism and the political struggle that the state was bound to disappear, and that the transitional form of its disappearance (the transition from state to non-state) would be the proletariat organised as the ruling class. Marx, however, did not set out to discover the political forms of this future stage. He limited himself to carefully observing French history, to analysing it, and to drawing the conclusion to which the year 1851 had led, namely, that matters were moving towards destruction of the bourgeois state machine.

And when the mass revolutionary movement of the proletariat burst forth, Marx, in spite of its failure, in spite of its short life and patent weakness, began to study the forms it had discovered.

The Commune is the form at last discovered by the proletarian revolution, under which the economic emancipation of labour can take place.

The Commune is the first attempt by a proletarian revolution to smash the bourgeois state machine; and it is the political form at last discovered, by which the smashed state machine can and must be replaced.

We shall see further on that the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, in different circumstances and under different conditions, continue the work of the Commune and confirm Marxs brilliant historical analysis.

Saturday, April 3

150 years since the Paris Commune

Join us for a discussion of the first time in history that the working class took power. Streamed at wsws.org/live.

The rest is here:

The experience of the Paris Commune of 1871: Marx's analysis - WSWS

*Columns are the opinions of their respective authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of The Wichitan as an organization.*

Imagine youre in school again, and your answers to last nights math homework are similar to the kids who always gets his answers wrong. If youre smart, youll probably rethink your answers to those questions. Inversely, if your answers are similar to the Einstein of the class, youll probably get a good grade. But does history work the same way? Are there states whove answered 2+2=5 to important moral questions? Most Southern states opposed slaverys abolition. Most Southern states opposed womens suffrage. Most Southern states opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and most Southern states opposed gay marriage. At every bend towards justice, old Dixie positioned itself on the wrong side. However, as I learn more about which states consistently hindered progress, Ive also learned which states reformed society for the better. Anyone who wishes to be on the side of progress should measure their beliefs against states historically ahead of the curve. This strategy offers a good predictor of how future generations will grade our answers to the moral questions of our time.

Massachusetts was one of the first states to outlaw slavery, one of the first to ratify womens suffrage and the first to legalize gay marriage. In addition, John F. Kennedy, who helped draft the Civil Rights Act of 1964, was a Senator from Massachusetts before being elected president. Other states have great track records, however, its clear that, at every bend towards justice, Massachusetts was one of the first states to lead the way. Inversely, despite other states having abysmal track records, Alabama was one of the states to lead the fights against equality. The Constitutional Convention for the Confederacy was held in Birmingham, Alabama. The state government killed other Americans in a desperate protest against abolition. The state government rejected womens suffrage in 1919. None of Alabamas Senators or Representatives voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former Governor of Alabama, George Wallace, proudly ran for president on a segregation forever platform in 1968. Its also hard to imagine Alabama ever legalizing gay marriage without the Supreme Courts intervention. Needless to say, Alabama is historically terrible at being on the side of justice while Massachusetts is historically successful.

This isnt to dismiss any needed discussions on modern-day issues. We shouldnt just cheat off the Einstein of the class to get a good grade, nor should we agree with everything Massachusetts has decided. You should still think, question and debate. Ask the same questions you would ask if your answers clashed with the student who always gets an A in the class. If state governments, historically notorious for their oppressive stances, just so happen to agree with your conclusions to moral and legal dilemmas, you should question why your conclusions are similar to the state who always gets the answers wrong.

There are times where these two states agree on certain issues, either now or in the past. If Massachusetts had a vote on gay marriage in the 1800s, their electorate would oppose the measure, but Alabama would concur. In the same light, Alabama eventually ratified womens suffrage in 1953, but Massachusetts was already ahead of the curve. The distinctions lie where the two states diverge. Whenever Alabama and Massachusetts disagree on an issue, Massachusetts is always ahead of its time. If someone finds themselves agreeing with Alabamas state government and disagreeing with Massachusetts, why should they be so confident that the dynamic, which has existed for two centuries, is now obsolete? Theres good reason to believe that the two sides of history are still at work. When engaging with our present moral dilemmas, analyzing the bellwethers of historical progress can predict how future generations will grade our answers.

I am definitely not drawing a moral equivalence between every issue. Someone who says 13 x 7 =73 is less obviously wrong than someone who says 2+2=5. Likewise, someone who is homophobic is less obviously wrong than segregationists, but they both agree with Alabama and disagree with Massachusetts. Moral and legal questions still need answering today, and these two states can indicate whos doing their math correctly. If youre comfortable with your grandchildren reading their history books, wondering why you didnt support banning discrimination based on sexuality (MA: prohibits, AL: No laws), why you didnt support banning assault weapons (MA: illegal, AL: legal), why you didnt support raising the minimum wage (MA: $12.00, AL: No minimum), why you didnt support the Green New Deal (MA: both senators support, AL: both senators oppose), or why you didnt support repealing marijuanas prohibition (MA: legal, AL: illegal), then your comfort is your own prerogative. However, if you do care to aid the waves of progress, look to the states whove successfully done so for centuries.

The rest is here:

Opinion: How to predict your side of history - The Wichitan