Hands Off Movement

On the weekend of April 5-6, there were over 1200 demonstrations, in all fifty states of the Union. Without doubt, there were hundreds of thousands of people, taking part in those protests. It was the biggest turn out, since the Women’s March of 2017. This is being referred to as the ‘’Hands Off Movement’’. 

It is clear that the mass movement of the working class, against Donald Trump and his completely reactionary policies, is daily growing stronger. There are numerous videos, on the internet, which document this. 

Yet there is one video, which is most distinctive. It is on the Chris Hedges Report, titled ‘’The Economics of a Dying Empire’’.

According to the internet, Chris Hedges is a self described Socialist and Anarchist. He is also a Pulitzer Prize winning author and journalist, and as such, is highly respected. 

He is certainly not a Scientific Socialist, a Communist, as all Communists know that Anarchism and Socialism are mutually exclusive. A person can be one, or the other, but not both.

On this particular Report, Chris Hedges conducted an interview with a distinguished Professor of Economics, Richard Wolff.

Before beginning the interview, Hedges made a short speech, with a view to steering the interview in the proper direction. As he phrased it, ‘’Let’s talk about late stage capitalism, the hollowing out of state institutions, DOGE, and that the capitalists in the short term are going to make lots of money, but what it is going to do to the rest of us.’’

This is to say that he wanted the interview to be focused on something more than an abstract lecture on economic theory. He was determined that it should relate to the current state of the economy, which is in a state of chaos. 

The following is the substance of the speech, as best I could copy it:

‘’The final stages of capitalism, Karl Marx wrote, will be marked by developments, that are intimately familiar. Unable to expand and generate profits of past levels, the capitalist system will begin to consume the structures that sustain it. It will prey upon, in the name of austerity and government efficiency, the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty, and diminishing the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens. It will, as it has, increasingly relocate jobs, including both manufacturing and professional positions, to countries with cheap pools of labour. Industries will mechanize their workplaces. This will trigger an economic assault on not only the working class, but the middle class, the bulwark of the capitalist system. It will at first be disguised by the imposition of massive personal debt, as incomes decline or remain static. Politics in the late stages of capitalism, will become subordinate to economics, leading to political parties hollowed out of any real political content, and abjectly subservient to the dictates of corporations and oligarchs. But as Marx warned, there is a limit to an economy built on the scaffolding of debt expansion. There comes a moment, Marx warned, when there will be no new markets available, and no new pools of people who can take on more debt. Capitalism will then turn upon the so called free market itself, along with the values and traditions it claims to defend. It will in its final stages pillage the structures, that make capitalism possible. It will resort, as it causes widespread suffering, to harsher forms of oppression. It will attempt in a frantic last stand, to maintain its profit by looting and pillaging state institutions, contradicting its stated nature. The final stages of capitalism, as Marx grasped, is not capitalism at all. Corporations gobble down government expenditures, in essence tax payer money, like pigs at a trough. Then the system crashes. ‘’

According to Hedges, it was Marx who accurately predicted the current crisis in capitalism, in great detail. Yet is it true?

As Hedges provides no sources, such as Marx’s book Capital, or letters to people, or even the year that Marx wrote these things, we cannot help but be skeptical. 

It is also significant that Hedges made no mention of revolution, or of the subsequent Dictatorship of the Proletariat, a key revolutionary theory of Marx. This is characteristic of Utopian Socialists, as well as Anarchists. The Utopian Socialists want no part of revolution, while the Anarchists want no part of any state apparatus. As the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a state apparatus, to be set up immediately after the revolution, in order to crush the bourgeoisie, as they make every effort to ‘’restore their paradise lost’’, the Anarchists want no part of it.

This in no way changes the fact, that all Leftist journalists can learn from his presentation. He combined certain Scientific Socialist theories of Marx, with the current political situation, which is nothing other than a crisis in capitalism. Further, he spoke dispassionately, without resorting to vulgarity.

All too many Leftist journalists speak with great passion, and there is no harm in this. The harm comes when those same journalists resort to vulgarity. This merely detracts from the message, as working people, or at least the most advanced among the workers, disapprove of such language. Bear in mind that it is the most advanced workers who lead, as the less advanced pay strict attention to that which they say. 

Now it is up to Leftist journalists, especially Scientific Socialists, Communists, to produce articles and videos, which refer to the scientific theories of both Marx and Lenin, while giving the source, along with references to the current political situation. 

At the same time, it is also necessary to draw a clear distinction between Scientific Socialists, and Utopian Socialists, as well as Anarchists. 

This may seem to be a ‘’tall order’’, well beyond the comprehension of working people. Such is not the case. As long as the distinction is presented in a rational, coherent manner, working people will understand this. 

As for those who may be skeptical, allow me to point out that, during the time Lenin worked, conditions were far more difficult. The vast majority of common people were far less cultured. Yet the Social-Democrats, as the Communists referred to themselves, were able to raise their level of awareness. 

Now the vast majority of working people are well cultured. They have digital devices of various sorts, and are able to access the internet. Even the most essential works of Marx and Lenin are available on the internet, so that there is no need to buy those works. 

The current Hands Off Movement is largely spontaneous, the result of numerous ‘’grass roots’’ groups, each with a different set of demands. Each group represents a different section of the population, from students to seniors. These also include the disabled, veterans, immigrants, women and LGBTQ people, among others. For that reason, the Movement is broad based. 

Yet all are united in their concern for their democratic rights. Not too surprising, the Democratic Party is trying to take credit for this movement. This in no way changes the fact that it is largely a leaderless movement. That is not acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that we live under a state of monopoly capitalism, technically referred to as imperialism. The monopoly capitalists, multi billionaires, are imperialists. Lenin covered imperialism supremely well, in his landmark book, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. As he stated, ‘’Imperialism is reaction, right down the line’’. 

As that is the case, the problem is not one of ‘’patching up’’ imperialism, but one of overthrowing it. That requires a revolution. Such a revolution can be undertaken only by the working class, the proletariat, the only ‘’consistently revolutionary class’’, according to Lenin. Yet how is this to be accomplished?

Lenin covers this supremely well, in another landmark book, What Is To Be Done?

It was not by chance that the book was written in 1902, the time of a rising mass movement, within the vast country of Russia. Just as the movement of today, in America, is spontaneous, so too, the Russian movement was spontaneous, leaderless. Further, there were other similarities. 

Of course, the revolutionary movement, of the intellectuals, toward scientific socialism, developed separately from the spontaneous movement of the workers and farmers. Within this intellectual movement, two separate tendencies developed. 

I should explain that at that time, Marxists were referred to as Social-Democrats, as they fought for democracy as well as socialism. It was only later that they changed their name, first to Bolsheviks, and then to Communists. It is also a fact that the Marxists had established a political party, led by Lenin. Quite reasonably, it was referred to as the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. Now to proceed.

As Lenin stated, one tendency was that, ‘’Social-Democracy must change from a party of the social revolution into a democratic party of social reforms….The possibility of putting socialism on a scientific basis and of proving that it is necessary and inevitable from the point of view of the materialist conception of history was denied, as also were the facts of growing impoverishment and proletarianization and the intensification of capitalist contradictions. The very conception, ‘ultimate aim’, was declared to be unsound, and the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was absolutely rejected. It was denied that there is any difference in principle between liberalism and socialism. The theory of the class struggle was rejected on the grounds that it cannot be applied to a strictly democratic society, governed according to the will of the majority, etc.’’ (italics by Lenin)

It may be objected that those ‘’two separate tendencies’’ are not immediately obvious, in America. True! But only because -as yet!- there is no true Communist Party, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, to provide the leadership. 

Just as in Russia, in 1902, so too in modern day America, the call for ‘’bourgeois social-reformism’’, as well as a ‘’bourgeois criticism of all the fundamental ideas of Marxism’’, is wide spread. As Lenin went on to say, ‘’The content of this new tendency did not have to grow and develop, it was transferred bodily from bourgeois literature to socialist literature.’’

It is only in University, that the scientific socialist theories of Marx and Lenin are taught, and then only with a view to distorting them. Further, it is mainly only the children of the bourgeois who can afford to go to University. Then these distortions are ‘’transferred bodily’’ to the revolutionary movement. 

Lenin proceeds to refer to this as ‘’opportunism’’, which means a complete lack of principle, ‘’The freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic reformist party, the freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into socialism.’’

Aside from the fact that we do not have a true Communist Party in America, the same is true today. Bourgeois ideas, especially in the form of demands for paltry reforms, are wide spread. 

The Democratic Socialists of America have an extensive list of such demands. As they are Utopian Socialists, they are the ‘’natural and desirable allies’’ of Scientific Socialists, Communists. Yet as Lenin added, ‘’An essential condition for such an alliance must be complete liberty for Communists to reveal to the working class that its interests are diametrically opposed to the interests of the bourgeoisie.’’

Bear in mind that Utopian Socialists tend to ‘’corrupt socialist consciousness’’, by ‘’vulgarizing Marxism, by preaching the toning down of social antagonisms, by declaring the idea of the social revolution and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat to be absurd, by restricting the labour movement and the class struggle to narrow trade unionism and to a ‘realistic’ struggle for petty, gradual reforms’’, according to Lenin. He refers to this as ‘’Economism’’. 

Even though we can work with Utopian Socialists, on certain issues, we must still be able to draw a clear distinction between them and ourselves, Scientific Socialists, Communists, as we believe in class struggle and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

It is significant that Senator Bernie Sanders, as well as Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, AOC, are now active in the revolutionary Hands Off Movement. They are touring the country, speaking to ‘’record breaking crowds’’. They are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America. For that reason, it is reasonable to assume that they are trying to divert that revolutionary motion, onto a ‘’realistic struggle for petty, gradual reforms’’.

This is precisely not what is needed! The Hands Off Movement must be converted into a revolutionary movement! For as Lenin pointed out, ‘’Without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement!’’ He then proceeded to point out that, what at first sight may seem to be a minor, unimportant mistake, ‘’may give rise to most deplorable consequences’’. 

It is also a fact that the revolutionary Communist movement is an international movement. We must learn from the experience of previous revolutions, their successes, as well as their failures. Especially their failures! We must not repeat the mistakes of the Russian Soviets, or of the Chinese Communists. The capitalists were able to return to power, in both cases, because of the mistakes of Stalin and Mao. 

Lenin also stressed the fact that, ‘’The role of vanguard can be fulfilled only by a Party that is guided by an advanced theory’’! (italics by Lenin)

As there currently is no true American Communist Party, one which calls for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, that is indeed a serious matter. Yet there is no need to despair. The revolutionary motion is certain to give rise to numerous working class intellectuals, who are about to raise their level of awareness, by studying the essential works of Marx and Lenin, possibly as a group, possibly with the assistance of middle class revolutionaries, possibly on their own. In this way, they will become transformed into Scientific Socialists. The creation of a true, American Communist Party, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, follows naturally after this. 

As a means of emphasizing the importance of the theoretical struggle, Lenin pointed out that Engels placed the theoretical struggle on the same level as that of two other great struggles, the political and economic. 

Now to return to the current Hands Off Movement. Without doubt, it is a spontaneous uprising, much as the Occupy Movement was spontaneous. As Lenin points out, this ‘’represents nothing more nor less than consciousness in embryonic form’’. (italics by Lenin)

The working class is not aware of itself as a class, with its own class interests! The conditions of life, of the working class, do not lead to this awareness! This class consciousness can only be brought to them from without! 

That is the role of Scientific Socialists. Bear in mind that both Marx and Engels were members of the bourgeois intelligentsia. For that matter, so was Lenin! Yet all three turned their backs on a rather comfortable middle class existence, in order to work in the service of the working class. 

This is to stress the fact that the theory of Scientific Socialism ‘’grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories’’ of the bourgeois intellectuals. It has nothing to do with any mass movement! The two develop separately, independently! The problem now is to merge the two! The current mass movement, referred to as the Hands Off Movement, must become the movement for Scientific Socialism!

Allow me to stress the fact, that this is not going to happen by itself. The spontaneous Hand Off Movement is not about to spontaneously become the movement for Scientific Socialism. That requires a little effort on our part, those of us who are Communists. 

As we live in a class society, there are only two ideologies. Bourgeois and proletarian. There is not, nor can there be, any third, above class ideology. It follows that, ‘’to belittle socialist ideology in any way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree, means strengthening bourgeois ideology….the spontaneous development of the labour movement, leads to its becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology…for the spontaneous labour movement is pure and simple trade unionism…and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers to the bourgeoisie. Hence our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the labour movement from its spontaneous, trade unionist striving to go under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social-Democracy….But why does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the path of least resistance, lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than Social-Democratic ideology; because it is more fully developed and because it possesses immeasurably more opportunities for being distributed.’’ (italics by Lenin. Bear in mind that Social-Democracy is now referred to as Communism)

The Occupy Movement of 2011, provides us with a fine example of a mass movement which was diverted, becoming subordinated to bourgeois ideology. The current Hands Off Movement is threatened with the same divergence. Both Sanders and AOC are working very hard, to do just that. Neither one is calling for revolution, or for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and certainly there is no mention of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

In the interest of preventing the Hands Off Movement from following in the footsteps of the Occupy Movement, allow me to suggest that it is up to Communists to explain to working people, the fact that they are members of a class, a working class, the proletariat, with their own class interests. These interests are in direct contradiction to the interests of the class of monopoly capitalists, the multi billionaires, the bourgeoisie. This has to be explained to them, in terms they can understand, preferably in an entertaining manner. 

Our goal is to raise the level of awareness, of the most advanced workers, to the level of Scientific Socialists. At that point, the creation of a proper Communist Party, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, will naturally follow. That will make the preparations for the forth coming Insurrection, far more efficient. 

Bear in mind that the two mainstream political parties, both Republican and Democratic, serve the same class, the bourgeoisie. Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. The proletariat needs a Party which can serve them.

It is also a fact that Trump is merely a figure head, and a supremely stupid figure head, at that. The problem is one of monopoly capitalism, imperialism, which has to be overthrown, and replaced with the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The alternative is the dictatorship of the Oligarchy, led by Donald Trump. Perish forbid!

Gerald McIsaac