Dear Editors,
Whilst agreeing with some of your reply to Tom Paine (October Socialist Standard), I also have some rather serious reservations/questions.
I accept that a socialist majority is vital for the establishment of socialism but do you feel that a socialist majority of seats in Parliament will invoke a reaction from the ruling classes along the lines of: “Oh dear, the majority wants socialism and despite the fact that this involves the loss of our power and property we’d better go quietly"? I think not, for to assume the ruling classes will not use any means available (in the case probably violence and oppression on a colossal scale) to protect their class interests is not only extremely naive, but lethal. Whilst despising violence myself, I refuse to delude myself into thinking it will not be part and parcel of a truly revolutionary change: of course it will; in self-defence if nothing else.
Secondly, by playing bourgeois politicians at their own game and standing for election. are you not merely doing what supposedly revolutionary groups have tried in the past and failed? If we accept, as Marx stated, that bourgeois democracy is the means by which the ruling class maintains its position of dominance, then by subscribing to it we merely legitimise it and fatally compromise ourselves to a game which they are far better at playing.
Thirdly, what of the repercussions of a socialist majority in Parliament? Will we not see the seizure and control of the State machinery and, as has happened for time immemorial, the replacement of one set of leaders by another with all the coercive power of the state at their disposal? (this happens whether you claim to be a vanguard or not: I’ve spoken to SWP members who claim their party doesn’t intend to "lead” the revolution!)
Fourthly, if we also accept that the political superstructure is not really where power lies anyway, why would a socialist majority in Parliament actually facilitate in any way the coming of socialism (apart from “representing" people who should really be acting for themselves)? Do you really feel an Act of Parliament could inaugurate our socialist society?
Your reply to Tom Paine also demonstrates considerable ignorance of what is deemed the “Green Movement". To characterise green activists en masse as people who want to reopen footpaths is one of many ridiculous distortions which demonstrate this clearly. Admittedly some Green activists are naive and unclear about why environmental destruction takes place but these people should not be dismissed out of hand for this; surely they can be “educated"? Many others do perceive underlying factors and see their struggle against one manifestation of these factors as demonstrating opposition to the system in its entirety. The Direct Action movement in Britain now is not a "palliative” but a movement which scares the Establishment to its very core— and rightly so. This is your "DIY revolution": people organising themselves at grass roots level to take back control of their lives and this is the means by which socialism (and I fully agree with your definition of it) will come about: not by elite majorities in bourgeois Parliaments.
What the vast majority of those involved in Direct Action (be it anti-Roads campaigns or whatever) and progressive forms of non-exploitative production do is give an example of how people can organise together to achieve their aims in contrast to the divisive and destructive nature of capitalism. This is surely a phenomenally more potent force for convincing people of the validity and practicality, as well as vital necessity of socialism than theorising and the odd leafleting session. (The SPGB has been around since 1904; I only heard about its existence last week!)
Actions really do speak louder than words and I am disappointed that the SPGB seems to adopt a highly blinkered and reactionary (not to mention sickeningly arrogant) view of what many deem highly important developments. Interaction and exchange of ideas between socialist and Environmental groups can only serve the positive end of educating and informing both sides. Sectarianism, as has been aptly demonstrated by you, is ignorance. It is also weakness.
R. Sydney,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Reply:
Your two criticisms of us contradict each other. First, you say that the capitalist class are so powerful that they would be able to unleash violence on a colossal scale against a clear majority decision to establish socialism. On the other hand, you say that they will give in to pressure from weak grassroots groups who are not united in organisation and have not shown that they represent the majority view. Which is it, then, are they all-powerful or are they amenable to pressure from below?
Under modern industrial conditions, where the actual work involved in running both production and administration (and, for that matter, the armed forces) is entirely performed by people paid a wage or salary to do so, the ruling class is dependent for the continuation of its rule on the acceptance of this rule by the useful majority in society.
They don't rule by brute force but with the consent (unfortunately) of the majority. What maintains capitalism in existence is not the power of the armed forces at the disposal of the capitalist state, but the ideas—the pro-capitalist ideas about needing rulers, governments. countries, armies, money, wages, profits, and so on—held by the majority of the population.
This is why we say that those who want socialism should concentrate on the battle of ideas, on combating capitalist ideologies and spreading socialist ideas. In our view, this is a much more effective way of undermining capitalism than your suggestion of supporting single-issue piecemeal struggles. It hurts capitalism where it matters—in the ideas that sustain it—while what you propose isn't even effective on its own terms. When have any direct action protests ever stopped a road under construction from being built?
Once we, the useful majority, withdraw our consent to capitalist rule it cannot continue, and the question then arises: what is the best way for the socialist majority to proceed so as to ensure that the by then inevitable change-over from capitalism to socialism takes place as peaceably as possible? It is in this context that our advocacy of contesting elections and sending mandated socialist delegates into Parliament and other bodies should be seen. Incidentally, we are not absolute pacifists. If a pro-capitalist minority were to take up arms to try to resist the majority's wish to establish socialism, the majority would be fully entitled to use force against them, if necessary as a last resort
Marx (since you mention him) also supported sending socialist delegates to Parliament urging workers to convert universal suffrage "from the instrument of fraud that it has been up till now into an instrument of emancipation". So, he for one saw no contradiction between analysing the democratic state as the ideal political form for capitalist class rule and urging the working class to organise to win control of it. Nor did he share your view that this would merely lead to a change of rulers rather than to a classless society.
In our view, he was right and you are wrong. It is true that all examples up to now of supposedly revolutionary groups winning control of power (whether by armed insurrection or through the ballot box) have resulted in the imposition of new sets of leaders. This is for the obvious reason that there was no majority desire to establish socialism on the part of the workers. There was no conscious effort on their part to change society—only to ameliorate the immediate problems of the day. and trusting in leaders to do it for them.
We agree with you: socialism won’t come through the action of "elite majorities in bourgeois parliaments”; it will only come through the mass democratic action of a socialist-minded majority amongst the population generally, of which the socialist majority in Parliament will be a mere reflection. But you haven't answered the question of what you think this majority, once it has come into existence, should then do.
We say it should do the obvious: use the electoral system which is the historically-evolved (partly due to pressure on the ruling class from below, incidentally) and socially-accepted means for registering what actually is the majority view and for giving that majority the political authority to put their view into practice.
Ignoring parliament would be an option, but not one that would minimise the risks of violence. But why take this risky and more roundabout about way when a more direct and less risky one exists? You tell us.
Editors.
No comments:
Post a Comment