Suspicions arising as to the genuineness of the following letter, a communication was sent to the address given. It was returned through the post marked "Not known." Though it is unusual to take notice of anonymous correspondence, an exception is made in this case since the matter may be of some interest to our readers.
"Municipal Politics."
Jan. 18th, 08.
Socialist Party of Great Britain,
Gentlemen,—In The Socialist Standard for January an article appeared under the heading “Municipal Politics." In regard to a candidate becoming elected to a municipal body you state that he will of course work to wrest from the capitalist class any possible present amelioration although he did not seek suffrages for this, but for Socialism. Since amelioration is of no use whatever to the working class as long as the exploiting class remain in power, why should he waste time on this since he did not seek votes to obtain amelioration, but to bring about Socialism? Also since he was appointed by a class- conscious electorate one would think that they would not expect any reforms to be advocated by him. Hoping to see a reply to this in your next month's issue, I remain.
Yours fraternally,
J. R. Smith.
409, Oldham Rd., Manchester.
Reply:
To say, as does our correspondent, that “amelioration of any kind is of no use to the working class so long as the exploiting class remain in power” is entirely absurd. It is saying that an amelioration is at the same time not an amelioration. It implies that the workers if able to obtain a rise in wages should refuse to take it on the ground that it would be of no use to them!
The only point upon which there can be intelligent discussion is, not whether an amelioration is of use, but whether or how any amelioration is obtainable under capitalism; and if Mr. Smith had used the whole and not a half of a sentence he would have seen that the other half states that neither the Socialist member nor his "electors are under any illusions on this head, for he has made plain how little is to be hoped for from the enemy while entrenched in power."
If Mr. Smith will read the article in question he will see that its whole burden is that any wide spread or important amelioration is impossible under capitalism, and that to obtain even any partial or temporary benefits that may be obtainable as sops from the master class, the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of capitalism is the only effective way. And in this struggle for Socialism the workers will take all they can get, and will use every coign of vantage, not to patch up a rotten system, but to strengthen, educate, and organise the working class army in the task of abolishing capitalist exploitation.
As distinct from the reformers who adapt themselves to bourgeois interests, the Socialists must always—as stated in the article—formulate working-class interests and so make clearer in contrast with capitalist interests the polar antagonism that exists and which can only be dissolved by Socialism. Nothing can be considered by a Socialist as being in working class interests that helps to perpetuate a system of oppression, but everything will be welcomed that can be used effectively as a weapon by the Socialist army in ending the capitalist system.
When the Socialist workers control a municipal council, are they, as according to Mr. Smith, to do nothing because they cannot do all? Limited though the local powers are, yet, obviously, they must be used to the utmost. It would, indeed, be folly to contest a local election if the workers were not prepared when in a majority to use the organisation of the municipality as a base of operations in the revolutionary struggle, by aiding and strengthening the workers in revolt against the system. While to refrain from using the electoral machinery where such can be of use to the Socialist workers would be treachery.
Social reformers seek votes in order to patch up the present system, but the Socialist seeks only the conscious co-operation of the workers for its abolition. Hence with the Socialist all else is subordinate to this end, and is only of use in so far as it is a means thereto. By revolution alone can permanent and substantial benefit accrue to the workers. Consequently, even for substantial and lasting amelioration, the first and essential step is, as stated in the article to which Mr. Smith refers, "the control by the workers nationally and locally, and this must be made plain ; and when the workers are the ruling class, lists of reforms suited to the continuance of capitalism become stupid, and entirely different revolutionary measures of transition become the order of the day. Thus reform programmes not only scatter and render mutually antagonistic the workers' efforts, but they obscure and prevent concentration upon the essential step."
So, Mr. Smith, we do not advocate reforms.
We may, then, conclude by further quoting for our correspondent’s benefit from the article in question, whose contents he seems to have unaccountably overlooked :
"It must, therefore, be clearly understood, (1st) that any reform worthy the name from a working-class standpoint involves the conscious taking from the capitalist class of, at least, part of the power and proceeds of robbery, and thus genuine reform is conditional on working-class supremacy. (2nd) That to wield in the workers' interest even the limited and paltry powers allowed by the central government to the local bodies it is first necessary to control the local bodies by a Socialist majority."
"Consequently to promise ‘immediate reforms' that cannot be granted until the revolutionary step has been taken leads to confusion, disappointment and apathy, while it means a vote worthless for Socialism followed by desertion. But to insist upon the futility of reform, and the primary necessity of capturing political power, means a sound vote, a solid backing, and a sure and steady growth of the class-conscious and revolutionary army."
And that, Mr. Smith, is why we do not advocate reforms.
F. C. Watts
No comments:
Post a Comment