Marx called the State “the concentrated and organized power of society”, and the society he was speaking of was of course capitalism.
Among the factors which gave rise to the organized Socialist movement in the 19th century, a considerable one was the growth of State power and the consequent conviction — which also animated reformers of every kind — that through Parliament anything might be achieved. A marked difference is seen between the attitudes of those who formed the SDF and the Fabian Society, looking keenly to the use of political power, and the attitudes of men who are thought of as pioneers of Socialism before Marx — for example
Thomas Hodgskin and Robert Owen — who paid no attention to the idea of using Parliament.
In further contrast, the “new left” of recent years has largely rejected parliamentary methods. But what this conveys is not the shortcomings of those methods but the inanition of the Left past and present. Socialists continue to advocate parliamentary action as the only means to change society.
At the beginning of the Socialist Party’s existence the trade unions were seeking political expression, and this was a question on which the founders were anxious to formulate and declare their attitude as quickly as possible. What must be understood is that this attitude was not simply to the trade unions as such, but to the whole question of capitalism and the State and the attainment of Socialism. The importance of taking such a position can be seen if it is compared with that of the then-strong ILP. One of the objects of the ILP from its foundation in 1893 was to secure trade-union representation in Parliament; but see the attitude to the class struggle put forward by the ILP’s leading spokesman Keir Hardie. In a main article in the Labour Leader in September 1904 — shortly after the SPGB was founded — he said:
I claim for the ILP that its Socialism is above suspicion, and its independence unchallenged and unchallengeable; and yet in the platform speeches and in the writings of its leading advocates the terms “class war” or “class conscious” are rarely if ever used.
The early members of the SPGB saw clearly that the unions’ “politicization” in the Labour Party would compel them to support other parties and compromise wherever possible to obtain concessions; and this has been the history not only of the Labour Party but of other attempts at political action by the unions.
At the same time the founders of the SPGB used in their principles the comprehensive-sounding phrase “machinery of government”, but they very quickly made it clear that this meant Parliament and local councils and nothing else. Up to about 1910 questions were sometimes sent to the Socialist Standard putting hypotheses such as what would be the Party’s strategy if Socialists found themselves in a country with no parliament, or if representation and suffrage were abolished in Britain. These questions disappeared simply because the many new nations which have come into existence have all established for themselves parliaments, making plain that this legislative machinery is essential to capitalism. Indeed, this is so firmly planted in people’s minds now that the question is replaced by another one which says Socialist society would not work without a government.
To illustrate the point about the need for parliamentary machinery, the late
John Strachey gave an account of being in Poland in 1956 at the time of rioting and a change in the government. He was taken aside by a politician and asked:
“You,
Mr. Strachey, are a well-known democratic theorist. We require your advice. We are extremely anxious to conduct absolutely free and democratic elections in our country. But if we do so, how can be ensure that the Government’s candidates will be at the top of the poll?”
It may be of interest to mention another matter concerning Parliament which arose in the SP’s early years. The members of that period were full of optimism and expected quite rapid progress towards Socialism, and one question they considered was what would happen when the first Socialists were elected to Parliament and were faced with the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown before they could take their seats. The Party Conference was hard-headed about this and said we were not going to let meaningless constitutional forms stop us carrying out our intentions, but some members immediately left — convinced that the Party was on the slippery slopes of compromise and confusion. Events in the 65 years since then have shown the good sense of the attitude taken, and the meaninglessness of that particular constitutional form. In 1937 a Parliament which had sworn allegiance to the King unanimously sacked him for disobliging them.
Fundamentally, the State is an executive for the ruling class, and this is what it was literally in its early days (comprising only well-established members of the ruling class). The different sectional interests of the ruling class produced (as they continue to produce) a division of parties within the executive. And, still at a relatively early stage, governments found they must have the consent of the ruled to some degree. The alternative would have been the permanent risk of civil disorder and the need to maintain too big a burden of suppressive legislation and force. Therefore democracy was pressed on the working class — to become eventually its invaluable weapon because it offers the means to control of the governing machinery.
Differences between parties remain, to a large extent as differences over how the money collected by taxation to finance the State is to be obtained and used. The Socialist Party’s unique long-standing attitude to taxation is that, despite all the appearances, it is not a matter of any consequence to the working class. Where the main form, direct taxation, is concerned workers are in one sense aware of this, in that they correctly see their wages not as the theoretical gross payment but as what they actually get after deductions. In practice taxes are collected not from the workers but from the capitalists and, as has been said, the pro-capitalist parties are in dispute largely over the most fruitful methods.
In speaking earlier of the growth of State power, what was meant was not that the State has been more and less strong at different times but the widening of what it has to deal with. Since the 1890s all governments have had to legislate and provide for an expanding education system, housing, road traffic, town planning, and innumerable other fresh things; and this is all effected and controlled through local government. As the needs have changed and grown, local government has had to be reorganized repeatedly, including the very recent alterations. It is natural to pooh-pooh local councils as puny beside the might of central government, but in fact they are its branches; their function is simply to execute the policies of central government. Their position is formulated by the Acts establishing them — they have no other powers and are further connected to central government by the system of financial support.
Those engaged in this machinery have then no choice but to comply with what is in the interests of capitalism. The two standard excuses of government reflect this — first that they were “having to clean up the mess”, i.e. put right the errors of their predecessors, and second that "public money” (or “the taxpayers’ money”) has been used for the wrong purposes. One other point often raised reflects a built- in safeguard to the British parliamentary system. It is often asked why experts, i.e. people with a specialist knowledge and lifelong interest, are not put in charge of the appropriate departments. The answer is that they have to function as members of the government as a whole and a special concern or passion would mean an imbalance.
During the Socialist Party’s lifetime our case about government has been confirmed again and again. Parties and individuals who were going to engage in running capitalism but try to do so in the working class’s interests instead of capital’s have failed without exception, and there have been continual let-downs for the workers who believed them. In times of crisis — wars and major depressions — the parties have flown to their common ground and united to defend capitalist interests. There has also been agreement on types of legislation — e.g. welfare-ism — and economic theories — e.g. Keynesianism — which appeared to support capitalism’s interests best.
Our case has been confirmed also by the history of those who set themselves against the State, refusing to accept that its coercive force backed by the electorate was firm. Examples are the direct-actionists at various times, the Angry Brigade, and “rebel” councils who have refused to apply legislation as directed.
Reform movements have by their nature continually to apply to governments for concessions and improvements, and we are often urged to support them. Part of our case about reforms is that what has to be judged is not the broad appeal at the outset but the legislation eventually formulated. The fact is that governments legislate not for theoretical — i.e. moral or humanitarian — reasons but for practical ones, and this is why reformers are so often disappointed and the realization of their hope turns sour.
Finally, it must always be realized that the powers of government are coercive. Behind the clerks and administrators and the most inane politicians stand prisons and armed force as the ultimate sanction for the capitalist system and what it thinks it needs. Majorities of the electorate give their consent and support because they support capitalism. (Even dictatorships require majority support.) A movement to change society through the use of Parliament is realistic only when it begins by realizing that support, and seeking therefore to muster an electorate which no longer supports capitalism but wants it abolished. Such an electorate can send its representatives to parliament with a new kind of mandate, not to run capitalism but to abolish it. We are often told that the capitalist class would not let that happen. This is the whole point — for the Socialist working class to go to where the coercive machine exists and is controlled, so that no other will than that of this conscious majority can prevail.
The above article is from the Party Conference Lecture given at Conway Hall at Easter, 1974.
Blogger's Note:
Though this article/transcript was unsigned, according to the March 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard, Robert Barltrop and Edgar Hardcastle were listed as the speakers at the 1974 Annual Conference Friday Night Meeting . . . and the title of their meeting? The Powers of Government.
