Michael Heinrich

Theoretical Deficits of the Left and the Struggle for Hegemony

I.

It seems that an anti-capitalist left has only a small chance of gaining influence during the next decade. The reason for this is not only the dominance of capitalist forces or the result of the breakdown of the Soviet type of "state socialism". There is another reason for the weakness of the radical left: the fundamental theoretical deficits in explaining the past and the present.

One necessary precondition for the growth of an anti-capitalist left movement is the development of the concepts of the left, which explain history and which analyze the present and are convincing to the people. Before (and simultaneously with) the struggle for power there has to be a struggle for intellectual and cultural hegemony. Therefore it is an important task to discuss and develop concepts, which can gain hegemony in the struggle of ideas.

However, it does not seem likely that this will happen. After the collapse of the Soviet "state socialism", we can find two typical reactions on the side of the formerly anti-capitalist left (in the West):

- one part is willing to accept capitalism, to confess former errors like the belief in the possibility of a non-capitalist economy and so on,

- another part of the left sees a momentary defeat, but this part is sure that capitalism cannot solve the problems of the people. It is argued that capitalism will bring crises, unemployment, poverty and in consequence people will recognize that their hope that capitalism can improve their lives is wrong.

The second reaction is the more sympathetic one, but both reactions are deeply ignorant:

- the first ignores fundamental insights in the ways in which capitalism works, insights not only articulated by Marx and the Marxists but also by many liberals;

- the second ignores the real development and the unsolved problems of a socialist view. Representatives of this reaction hope that "objective development" itself will be the main teacher of the people, and that in a situation of crises and degradation socialist ideas will be accepted nearly automatically. However, in 1989-90 in Eastern Europe we saw mass movements favouring capitalism. Moreover, in Western Europe capitalism was attractive for the greater part of the people, even in the crisis of the seventies and the eighties.

We should not underestimate the capitalist forces of integration and the discreditating of the idea of socialism. If there is disappointment about capitalism, this will favour nationalistic or racist ideas or perhaps social

-democratic policy. The latter promises social capitalism, but socialist policy, which wants to overcome capitalism, will have a very bad standing. This bad standing is not only the result of the strength of capitalism, it is also the result that the left, which has no credible and plausible conceptions on certain important fields. These theoretical deficits are not only a question of theory, a question for lonesome scholars, they are a question of intellectual hegemony. The left needs plausible concepts and ideas to motivate people, the struggle for intellectual hegemony is a presupposition for the struggle against capitalism, and so "theoretical" questions have an enormous "practical" impact.

II.

One of the main deficits of the left is in the dealing with the Soviet type of "socialism". If one holds the socialist aim, then two typical views can be found:

- Either this type of socialism is viewed as totally bad, as a monster, which has nothing in common with "true" socialism. It seems as an error of history to call this monster "socialism" and so the breakdown of this monster means nothing for the concept of "true" socialism.

- Or one admits the authoritarian and repressive character of the soviet system, criticizes Stalinism, but nevertheless one sees a positive core of this system, such as the socialization of the means of production or social security; one believes in a socialist core, which was unable to develop because of some bad factors (like the attacks of the bourgeoisie, the bureaucracy and so on).

The first view ignores the historical descent of the soviet system out of the Marxist tradition of the working class movement. The second minimizes the repressive character of the Soviet system and ignores the terrible experiences of the people. We have to accept that Stalinism (and neo-Stalinism) was a kind of "monster", but a monster born out of a Marxist tradition. I emphasize this point not because I want to blame Marxism; but the recognition of this point is the presupposition for a Marxist analysis of state socialism. We have to explain how such a repressive system like Stalinism could develop and how it could be accepted by a lot of people on the left (in the West and the East). I also have the feeling that there were not only "exterior" moments, like the bourgeois attacks against the Soviet Union. There are also some reasons interior to the socialist movement (the type of party) and interior to the theoretical tradition of Marxism (ignoring the political dimension in conceptions of socialism rooted in Engels' Anti-Dühring or in Marx' Critique of the Gotha Programme).

III.

Another deficit can be found in the idea of socialism itself: how will socialism work? The answers to this question are in most cases only expressions of "nice" desires: no exploitation, no sexism, no racism, no crises and so on. Yet which mechanisms make all this possible?

Two main concepts can be found:

(1) Some type of planned economy. Here one admits that the planning system of "state socialism" worked badly and undemocratically. The offered solution is a democratically planned economy. However, here there are a lot of problems: e. g. how to deal with conflicts, how are flexibility and efficiency possible (and compatible with democratic structures), what can be substituted for value and money - a labour time account? There has been discussion about the possibility of a planned economy over the last 70 years, but to most of the questions I have see no convincing answers coming from the left.

(2) The other concept is that of market socialism: the companies should be run by workers; inside the companies capitalism would be abolished, but outside the companies, on the market, there should be competition, regulated by the state. So one tries to combine the advantages of different systems. However, it is not explained whether the different functional principles are compatible, and it is there is no explanation about how to deal with the expanding tendencies of the market, which undermine the regulatory capacity of the state.

Neither of these concepts are convincing. Yet how can we gain support for an anti-capitalist alternative, if we can say only so little about the working of this alternative?

IV.

A further point: it is not clear, which social forces will constitute a social movement for socialism. The idea that there is a "revolutionary subject", a class with a "historical mission" seems to be a rather idealistical concept: the notion of "historical mission" presupposes an aim of history and that of "revolutionary subject" transposes the concept of subject to a collective entity which shows an increasing degree of fragmentation (and, in parts, rather conservative tendencies). Probably we have to abandon the concept of a privileged social actor (like the "revolutionary working class"). Instead of such an actor different coalitions have to be formed for different aims. Furthermore, it is very doubtful that we can find something like a centre for left politics, like "the" class conflict. From this point of view it follows that it is also necessary to re-examine the existing political institutions. Which of them can we use for our struggles?

Proposals for founding new political parties or for "unifying" different movements seem not very helpful. Such proposals presuppose a very simple structure of conflict: two sides standing against each other, and each side has to concentrate its forces on one clearly defined aim. Nevertheless, this picture does not fit very well to the real situation for there is a complicated structure of different conflicts. What seems to be necessary is not a unifying centre but an effective network of information and (sometimes) of co-ordination between different groups and coalitions - on a national and an international level.

V.

However, apart from such questions of organization, it is a necessary task to give answers to the open questions mentioned above. It is not enough to analyze big "historical tendencies", to "foresee" crises, or the inability of capitalism to react to this or that, and then to confirm the necessity of socialism for solving the problems of mankind (without saying clearly what socialism means). Such exercises may confirm the faith of the believers, but I doubt if they can convince people who lack faith.

For gaining ideological hegemony plausible and credible concepts are necessary. However, the development of such concepts is not only the job of "lonesome" scholars - it must also happen in the public space and this development must be part of the struggle for hegemony. Also this development cannot be restricted to the discussion and renovation of traditional Marxist categories. Required is an analysis of, and a confrontation with different branches of the so-called "bourgeois" science. This should not an analysis in the usual ways typical for the left: either addition (like Marxist value theory plus Keynesian economic policy) or simple criticism by reduction to class interests (like the reduction of Keynesianism to bourgeois ideology). Required is a kind of deconstruction, which makes it possible to learn from the real insights of bourgeois science, yet simultaneously criticizing the limitations (this was Marx's method of dealing with, and learning from the classical economists). Moreover, this deconstruction is also required for Marxism: it seems neither possible to keep Marxism as a whole, nor to make a simple distinction between good parts and bad parts. Only if one deconstructs both bourgeois science and Marxism, will one has a chance of reconstructing a type of socialist theory, which can be credible and relevant for the present and which can help us to overcome capitalism.