A reader's criticism of the socialist attitude to Russia.
A reader asks us to deal with the following letter of criticism of our attitude:
Finsbury Park, N.4.
Dear Comrades,
Do you realise how much harm you are doing to the cause of Socialism in this country by your persistent and consistent condemnation of Russia and Russia’s rulers? Granted, it may not be the particular brand of Socialism which you advocate. But, surely, you don’t forget to take into account Russia’s pre-revolution history? Do you expect a Social Nirvana in 20 years? And please don’t forget you are trying, by British standards, to sit in judgment upon the Russian temperament, one of the most baffling and complex races in the world. And have you no word of encouragement to say of her material and social achievements? I repeat that your attacks upon Russia are doing your movement far more harm than good. The Daily Express surely does the job with a lying completeness. that you could never overtake!
But let me point out to you the core of the danger. For good or ill, the undiscriminating average person always identifies Russia with Socialism. This, of course, is political ignorance. But you will agree with me that the majority of people in this country are politically uneducated. When you teach a small child to read you teach it to utter words. You don’t devote most of your time to teaching it the difference between a consonant and an adjective! That comes later, when the child’s mind has been released from the strain of memorising. And my point is this. Until the masses have become possessed of a general all-round knowledge of the curse of Capitalism in practice, and the solution of Socialism, they will have neither the patience nor the selective knowledge to want to investigate as to whether “ B ” Socialism is more sensible, humane, efficient and just than “ A ” Socialism. To condemn Russian Socialism, to our particular type of worker, is not to give them a true picture of Russia, so much as to damn Russia in their eyes, and in so doing all other Socialism stands equally damned. Concentrate more on the evils of capitalism, which they think are so normal and natural, demonstrate the simple answer of Socialism; and leave the raping of Russia to Beaverbrook’s ignorant paid hacks. Why do the dirty work for the Daily Express ?
M. F. Smyth (Mr.).
Reply.
Before dealing with our correspondent's temperate criticisms of our attitude towards the present rulers of Russia, it is necessary to protest against the unwarranted and unsupported insinuation that we are doing the dirty work of Lord Beaverbrook. We are quite prepared to defend what we do and say. We are not called upon to defend Lord Beaverbrook. If our correspondent, however, thinks we are paid by Lord Beaverbrook to attack the Russian Government it is his duty to provide some sort of evidence. If— as is no doubt the case—he knows perfectly well that his insinuation is absolutely false he should not try to score cheap points by making it. Incidentally, our correspondent appears not to know just what line Beaverbrook does now take towards Stalin. What Beaverbrook’s newspapers have been doing recently is to express admiration for Russia and to argue that the progress made in that country is a tribute to capitalism.
Our correspondent's first point is to say that Russia is a Socialist country, but not “the particular brand of Socialism" advocated by us. This is an old and dangerously muddled form of reasoning and one not confined to Russia. The S.P.G.B. does not advocate a “particular brand" of Socialism: there are no brands of Socialism. There is capitalism, in which goods are produced by wage-earners for sale at a profit, and in which there are privileged sections of the community with large incomes and accumulated wealth, and, on the other hand, there is Socialism, in which things are produced only for use and in which there is no system of wage-labour, no rents, interest or profit, no privileged and unprivileged sections of the population. All the so-called “brands” of Socialism, from Hitler's “pure National Socialism" to the various forms of State capitalism administered by Labour Governments, and including Stalin's State capitalism and Mussolini's system, which he claims is superior to both capitalism and Socialism, are one and all nothing more nor less than varieties of capitalism in various stages of development and under various systems of political control.
The first duty of Socialists in their task of explaining Socialism is to make it crystal clear that none of these varieties of capitalism is Socialism.
This brings us to our correspondent's analogy of teaching a child to speak; He says that we teach the child to utter words and do not devote most of our time to teaching the child the difference between parts of speech. True, but you do take care to teach the child approximately the correct meaning of the words. You do not point to a cat and say, “ That is a dog.” Similarly, as Socialism is a democratic system of society based on the common ownership of the means of production and distribution, nobody who appreciates the vital need for clarity and understanding would dream of pointing to the Russian dictatorship, in which inequality is great and growing as part of the declared policy of the rulers, and say, “ That is Socialism.”
We are asked to take into account Russia's pre-revolution history and the question is put: "Do you expect a Social Nirvana in 20 years?” The first argument is one used by every apologist for things as they are. Ever since there was a Socialist movement anti-Socialists have been trying to fog the issue and impede progress by telling the workers that things were worse still 50 years earlier, and that we must above all avoid going too fast. Naturally, the privileged group in Russia, living on a standard out of all reach of the mass of the population, reply to the latter's complaints by saying that Russia's pre-Bolshevik backwardness prevents things being improved for the masses. When the masses begin to think they will notice, however, that this factor has not prevented the minority from doing very well for themselves.
Our answer to the particular question is that we never accepted the early Bolshevik claims that Socialism was an immediate possibility in Russia. We pointed out from the first that Socialism will not be possible in Russia or anywhere else until industry has developed to a highly productive stage and the majority of the-population want Socialism. These conditions do not exist in Russia, so the Bolsheviks were either themselves mistaken or they were hoodwinking their followers when they promised Socialism.
It is correct, as our correspondent says, that the average worker identifies Socialism with Russia. He also identifies it with Labour Government and, if he is a typical non-Socialist German worker, he no doubt accepts Hitler’s claim that Germany is now a “pure Socialist” country. All of which are very urgent reasons why Socialists should lose no opportunity of proclaiming that the Russian secret police-ridden dictatorship is not Socialism. We do not want workers to be made lastingly hostile to Socialism by the belief that it means the suppression of speech, organisation, and a never-ending, sickening story of plots, murders, and shootings.
When our correspondent asks us to concentrate on the evils of capitalism he forgets that dictatorship and suppression are two of the most important evil results of capitalism. We shall go on denouncing them, whether in Germany, Russia, France, the British Empire or anywhere else.
We may add that, whether our correspondent is right or not about the Russian temperament, there is a growing mass of Russian workers who object to Stalin.
Ed. Comm.
No comments:
Post a Comment