Letter: Some Questions about Socialist Policy. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

1. In the event of the Socialist Party attaining a majority in Parliament, would they endeavour to pass legislation in the “House” for the purpose of obtaining the means of production and distribution for the working class?

2. If so, how would the Socialist Party act in the event of the Capitalists impeding the passing of the legislation, by force or otherwise?

3. I take it, that the Socialist Party is against cuts, including the biggest cut of all (the exploitation and robbery of the working class through the appropriation of the surplus value created bv the workers). How would they organise the workers against the attacks which are now taking place—unemployment, Means Test, wage-cuts, extension of hours, etc. Would they combat this by mass action, demonstrations, strikes, or what is the Socialist Party’s method of immediate policy, if any ?

4. Does the Socialist Party believe in running candidates for the immediate local and Parliamentary elections?

Thorne, Nr. Doncaster. “SEEKER”

Reply

(1) The working class need to obtain control of the political machinery before they can institute socialism. Having obtained control of Parliament and the machinery of local government, the workers would enact the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

(2) Given a majority of the population determined to achieve socialism and politically organised for that purpose, they could obtain control of the political machinery by the vote unless the capitalists then in power decided to suspend democratic elections. In either event it would have been shown that the majority wanted socialism. If Socialists had obtained control of the political machinery, including the armed forces, the capitalists would not be able seriously to impede the passing of legislation. They would not have at their disposal the means of resisting by force.

If, on the other hand, the capitalists were in power and had suspended democratic elections in order to prevent the Socialist majority from obtaining control of the political machinery, steps would have to be taken to make the position of the usurping minority impossible. In view of the fact that the organised majority would be hostile to the Government and able to interfere with the smooth running of industry, the Government would find it in the long run impossible to make capitalism function in a way satisfactory even to the capitalists. The political position of the Government would be weakened owing to its undemocratic basis and the state machine would be unable to function on account of the conflicting views among civil and military employees.

When it is recalled that capitalists have in the past had to institute democratic elections in order to make capitalism stable and efficient, even with the population overwhelmingly in favour of capitalism, it will be perceived how hopeless would be their position if they tried to go back on democratic methods in face of a united Socialist majority. Any attempt on their part to carry on without a mandate from the electorate would be bound to break down in time. Even the capitalists themselves would be forced to see the necessity of choosing socialism in preference to chaos.

(3) The S.P.G.B. is against all attempts to reduce the workers’ standard of living, and in favour of actions which will raise, it, above all, the act which alone will end exploitation, i.e., the institution of socialism. It is only possible to organise the workers to resist “cuts” if the workers wish to resist and believe it to be possible to resist. Similarly, it is only possible to organise the workers for the purpose of achieving socialism when the workers want socialism and believe it possible to achieve it. Neither the S.P.G.B. nor any other body can, at present, induce the working class to organise for the resistance to cuts or for the achievement of socialism, because the majority do not believe either to be possible. As our correspondent will have observed at the last election (if, indeed, such evidence were needed), the overwhelming majority voted for capitalism, and the majority were also prepared to accept cuts because they believed them to be necessary for the maintenance of the social system. Having voted power into the hands of the capitalists, the workers must act in accordance with the situation they have produced. They cannot act as if the situation did not exist. If they attempt to take “mass action” they will be bludgeoned into subjection by the weapon which they placed in the hands of the capitalists last October. Within the limits set by the fact that the capitalists have political power, the workers can demonstrate or strike in order to resist as far as possible further attempts to reduce their standard of living, or in order to raise it. Any sound action on these lines would be supported by the S.P.G.B. in the future as in the past. The actual control and organisation of such action must, however, be a matter for the workers themselves, since only a small minority are in the S.P.G.B. It is the policy of the S.P.G.B. to point out what such action can achieve and also to point out its limits, i.e., that it is dealing only with the effects of capitalism, and cannot lead to socialism.

(4) The S.P.G.B. is a political party, and therefore, in line with its principles, recognises the necessity of running candidates for local and Parliamentary elections. The question of doing so immediately is one to be decided in the light of many factors outside our control. There is no constituency in which there is more than a small minority of socialists, and, therefore, participating in elections at the moment would be only a propaganda effort. It has to be considered in relation to its cost in money and effort, and in relation to alternative and less costly forms of propaganda. This applies particularly to Parliamentary elections in which a deposit of £150 is required and is forfeited if the candidate polls less than one-eighth of the votes. With a growth in the number of socialists the arguments in favour of contesting elections will be stronger and the means will become available.—Ed. Comm.

Correspondence: Oath of Allegiance. (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Oath of Allegiance.

R. Von Berg (Queen’s Park).—The oath of allegiance to the King required of M.P.s would not prevent a Socialist M.P. taking his seat

Letter: Marx and the State (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx and the State

Many of your members and readers may feel that the SPGB is a truly Socialist and Marxist Party. But I doubt if Marx would think so if he were alive today.

One of your biggest theoretical blunders is assuming that society can be changed through Parliament. The state machine of every bourgeois society has as its principal aim the preservation of the supremacy of the ruling class, and the consequent enslavement of the proletariat. So how you expect to use this state machinery against the ruling class is beyond my comprehension. As Marx said in The Civil War in France " . . . the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes”. So how are we to achieve Socialism? Engels provided the answer in a letter to G. Trier dated December 18th 1889. “The proletariat cannot conquer its political domination, the only door to the new society, without violent revolution”, (my emphasis) If the SPGB supposes for one minute the bourgeoisie is going to simply hand over one iota of their power power and privilege just because, by some miracle, the SPGB has a majority in parliament then they are living in a dream world.

For the revolution to be successful we need a strong organized proletarian party. Let us hear what Marx has to say on this in a letter to F. Bolte dated November 23rd 1871. “The political movement of the working class has as its object, of course, the conquest of political power for this class, and this naturally requires a previous organization of the working class developed up to a certain point and arising precisely from its economic struggles”. But we see that the SPGB refrains totally from indulging in these “economic struggles” i.e. fighting for higher wages, against unemployment and public spending cuts etc. Certainly not Marxist tactics!

In number eight of your Declaration of Principles we find the wholly dogmatic and élitist statement that the SPGB is “determined to wage war against all other political parties”. Engels had something to say on this in the above mentioned letter to G. Trier, namely "For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day it must form a separate party distinct from all others and opposed to them, a conscious class party. But that does not mean that this party cannot at certain moments use other parties for its purposes. Nor does this mean it cannot support other parties for short periods in securing measures which either are directly advantageous to the proletariat or represent progress by way of economic development or political freedom”. So much for the SPGB’s dogmatism.

In conclusion I have this to say about the SPGB, principally that it is not the Marxist or Socialist party it claims to be and will certainly never lead the proletariat to emancipation. Socialism will only be achieved by a truly Marxist Party (e.g. The Socialist Workers’ Party) that is active within and able to lead the proletariat to victory, not by the passive élitist theorising of the SPGB.

A. Mounsey

Sunderland

Reply:

Selecting quotations out of context has been the stock-in-trade of the so-called Communist party throughout its existence, and now the non-Socialist Workers’ Party, (formerly IS) are trotting out the same time-worn fallacies.

If society cannot be changed through Parliament, why does the SWP go through the ritual of putting up candidates? Presumably they hope to get elected.

It is perfectly logical for us to aim at capturing Parliament, because we hold that capitalism can be ended in no other way. It is contradictory for the SWP to say Parliament is useless, then try not only to capture it but try to use Parliament, not to establish Socialism but to reform capitalism by modifying the useless policies of Labour governments. This is what “fighting the cuts”, etc., means. In so doing they accept that the power for change resides in the political arena.

Yes, the state machine is there to preserve the supremacy of the ruling class. No less so in places like Vietnam, whose ruling class has SWP support. All the nationalist struggles fought ostensibly against imperialism, and supported by IS or the SWP, have as their aim control of the state to preserve class supremacy. The political parties which support capitalism, including the Labour party which is urged workers to vote for, gain power because they are elected by a majority of workers who as yet are reform, not revolution, minded. When the reverse situation is reached, a Socialist majority will elect their own delegates, and the state will then be in the hands of those who have a mandate to end capitalism. It is good of the SWP to expose themselves as advocates of violence; the workers will wisely ignore them.

Marx’s letter to Bolte makes exactly the opposite point from your selective quotation. He shows that the economic organization of the workers precedes the political, which is decisive.

And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. (Marx’s emphasis)

(Selected Correspondence, Lawrence & Wishart edn., p. 318-9)

So with The Civil War in France. Marx, writing about the Paris Commune (see March SS), explains what happened to “the ready made state machine":

While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself and restored to the responsible agents of society.

And:

Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supersede universal suffrage by hier-achaic investiture.

(Selected Works, p. 472)

The repressive relics like the standing army, the bureaucracy and hierarchy which the state-capitalist advocates of the SWP seek to preserve, are what Marx sought to scrap.

Show us what specific advantage can be gained by the Party for Socialism supporting parties for capitalism. If you cannot do this (and you can’t) your final quotation is meaningless.

Finlly, while calling us élitists you say the "SWP" will lead the proletariat to victory. Leadership is élitism. The SPGB has never set out to lead the workers anywhere. We are confident of their capacity to understand and organize on a conscious basis; only sheep need leaders.

If you can get one of your “leaders” to debate us on Socialism, we will be happy to continue the tuition.

Editors.

Letter: Soviets and Socialists (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Soviets and Socialists

I thought that the article in your December issue on the International Socialists made a lot of good points. But one point I am not yet convinced about is your preference for Parliament as a means for the Socialist working class to take power over and transform society.

Parliaments as institutions don’t seem to me to suit the practical work of delegates, under the direct control of their constituents and recallable by them. Parliament is geared to the deliberations of so-called representatives, controlled not by their constituents but by rival Party bureaucracies who make all important decisions behind the scenes.

“Soviet” is only a Russian word for “council”. If by Soviet we genuinely mean a council of direct delegates, then surely this would be a better way of establishing a society in which we all take an active rôle in social affairs. If they were based on workplaces of all kinds, educational institutions, neighbourhoods and so on, they could easily be made as universal and democratic as you think Parliament is. Of course, you could convert Parliament and other State bodies into the form of workers’ councils, or you could develop the councils independently in the course of the struggle, or maybe some of both — I don’t think that is the crucial point.

The Soviets which existed in 1917 were not real Soviets in the direct democratic sense, but often little parliaments in which different supposedly Socialist parties — Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, SRs and so on — competed for power. The Party leaders took the decisions, like in present-day Britain, not the workers. Otherwise how could Lenin and Trotsky have taken part in the Soviets — as delegates of fringe journalism? Lastly the Soviets were not a Bolshevik tactic, but a form of organization that Russian workers set up to cater to their needs. The Bolsheviks manipulated them (because the workers were not conscious enough to prevent them, and not because Soviets are particularly fishy organizations) and then suppressed them into tools of their Party dictatorship.

As far as State power is concerned, both your idea of capturing and using it, and the Bolshevik or anarchist idea of “smashing” it, seem to assume that the armed forces are things which must be seized or destroyed. But isn’t State power not a thing, but a form of social behaviour by which we all allow ourselves to be things, the blind tools of others? Surely conscious organized Socialists won’t allow themselves to be used against the revolution — in the armed forces (if they still exist) or in the industries and services which support the forces? State power would fade away.

By the way, do members of the SPGB have views on this or other subjects (Women’s Lib. etc.) which are different from the Party line — or have members differed on interesting issues in the recent past? If so, do they have the right to express minority views, clearly labelled as such, in the Socialist Standard? It would improve your journal still more if the ideas were sometimes discussed from more than one point of view. Otherwise some readers may gain the false impression that Socialists are all identical in their attitudes, without variety.

Cicely Joyce 

London N.10

Reply:

The capitalist class have economic power because they have political power and not the other way round. They control the state machine and the armed forces through Parliament and are confirmed in their control by the working class at election times.

We are organized as a political party not out of preference (which implies that there are other ways of achieving our object) but because all the evidence of history and an analysis of capitalist society shows that this is the only way to achieve working-class emancipation. Without first gaining control of the state (the public organ of coercion and repression) through which the capitalists maintain their privileged relationship to the means of life by keeping the working class in its propertyless position, any minority movement seeking to challenge them will inevitably be beaten by the armed forces and the police who remain under the control of the capitalist class.

It does not follow that because Parliament is at present an institution of so-called “representatives” it must necessarily remain so. Once a working class who know what they want and how to get it send their delegates to Parliament with a mandate to capture political control of the state machine, it will cease to function as an instrument of class rule and become the indispensable instrument for our emancipation.

Soviets cannot establish Socialism

1. because they are economic organizations and not political; and
2. because they are based on the workplace, not on the centre of political power (See Gilmac’s articles in the Socialist Standard for January and February, and Horatio’s article in the October Socialist Standard.)

Before an electoral demonstration of a Socialist majority, Socialist ideas will have penetrated all strata of society — including central and local government, the police and the armed forces and this would strengthen the growing demand for Socialism.

However, control of the state machine is necessary

1. to lop off its repressive features; and in order:
2. to prevent any possibility of their being used in desperate attempts by counter-revolutionary groups to frustrate the wishes of the majority.

Armed forces will continue as long as capitalism because capitalism needs them. The capitalist class won't simply give up armed forces in the face of opposition. That is, they will still exist until consciously done away with.

On your final point we must point out that membership of the SPGB is dependent on acceptance of our aims and object set out in our Declaration of Principles. No-one is forced to join or prevented from leaving through disagreement. What for example would be the point of an advocate of minority action attempting to join the SPGB, other than possibly to be disruptive? Such a person is at liberty to join organizations which advocate his or her views. Party members finding themselves in disagreement with the Declaration of Principles invariably leave the Party — what would be the point in remaining in an organization dedicated to a method and object with which you disagree?

New situations faced by the SPGB have to be thrashed out, e.g. the Russian revolution of 1917, the rise of CND etc. The Socialist Standard is under the control of the whole of the membership and must reflect the democratically arrived-at Party case. The Socialist Standard does not exist to propagate anti-Socialist views — these are to be found in abundance elsewhere.

Editors.

Letter: Parliament and socialism (1986)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Parliament and socialism

Dear Editors.

I am unhappy about the phrasing of principle 6 which argues that the state machine can be "converted" into an agent of emancipation. 1 feel that this wording introduces ambiguities into your Declaration of Principles which permit a reformist interpretation. For the Marxists the state is regarded as an organ of class power, the capitalist state as an organ of capitalist power and oppression, which cannot be used to build socialism. Even if reformists admit that the state can sometimes be very biased, they say this is something that can be changed in some way or other. Reformism leads to electoralism. and to a legalistic approach — treating illegal activities with abhorrence. This leads to my second point of concern about the SPGB.

In past issues of the Socialist Standard, you have advocated winning a socialist majority in Parliament because "Parliament is the centre of political authority" and "Parliament controls the state machine." This would appear to make the social democratic error of equating governmental office with political power. But more recently (e.g. commenting on the overthrow of Marcos in the Philippines) you adopt a more mature Marxist position by saying "what is decisive is not so much the socialist electoral victory as the understanding and the determination to achieve socialism which this would reflect" Have you changed your position regarding the role of bourgeois parliaments? Could you please clarify your analysis?

With best wishes.

Andrew Northall

Norfolk

Reply

We have not changed our position on the role of parliaments, nor is our Declaration of Principles ambiguous, as Clause 6 deals with the establishment of socialism, not the reform of capitalism. We hold that socialism cannot be established until an overwhelming majority of workers understand and support the socialist case. Without this socialist understanding, a socialist society could simply not function. Given this socialist majority, it will be easy enough to send socialist delegates to Parliament and thereby gain control of the power of the state. Besides demonstrating the existence of the socialist majority, this will prevent any of the machinery of the state from being used to obstruct the establishment of socialism. The coercive power of the state will be immediately abolished, and there is no question of the state being "used to build socialism".

Editors.

Letter: Taking the Oath (1979)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Taking the Oath

From what I understand, after reading the August issue of the Socialist Standard, the SPGB views Capitalism with implacable hostility, and that no compromise with such a dreadful system is possible. It appears that abolition of Capitalism and the implementation of Socialism is the sole object of the SPGB. Further you mean to achieve this desirable state of affairs democratically by means of the Ballot Box.

A condition for an elected MP to take his seat in the House is the swearing of the Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign and his or her heirs. The dilemma of the first elected Socialist MP will be whether to refuse to take the Oath, in which case he will not be allowed to represent his Constituency, or to swallow his principles and swear allegiance to the popular face of Capitalism.

Why do you advocate membership of Trade Unions, albeit on a voluntary basis? I refer to the August issue of the Standard page 143 last paragraph. Surely it must be clear to everyone that Trade Unions are as much a part of Capitalism as the Board of ICI.

Firstly the TUC is not interested in doing away with the present system as the elevation of several Union leaders, over the years, to the Peerage is proof enough. After several years of covering the ruling class with buckets of manure they rush to don the robes and insignia of a clique they profess to despise.

Secondly most strikes and industrial disputes arise over pay claims. Now if, as you say, we are wage slaves then why ask the workers to support an organisation that merely thickens the chains? Your position on this issue seems to be that if the worker cannot have the whole loaf then a thicker slice will do. This is reform pure and simple towards which you are bitterly opposed. Your reasoning escapes me.

Lastly the closed shop gives the Unions the same power as the factory owner, namely depriving the worker of his livelihood. If the worker doesn’t like the deals cooked up between the boss and the Union reps then the threat of dismissal from the Union is more than enough to bring the disgruntled into line. I have seen this threat applied several times and it is most effective. If the bosses and the Trade Unions ever see the logic of their respective positions and combine then it will be a sad day for the working class. Both sides have the same aim—the efficient running of the Capitalist system. To think otherwise is merely to bring 1984 to reality. It is well on the way.

P Steed

(Tyne and Wear)

Reply:

You correctly state that we are uncompromising in our opposition to attempts to reform capitalism, and that we view socialism as an immediate objective. Our case on trade unionism is not inconsistent with this.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the trade unions have a common origin in the class struggle. The former is the organised expression on the political field of the conscious recognition of the that struggle by workers. So long as capitalism remains it is necessary that workers combine democratically to offer the utmost resistance to worsening pay and conditions. Such action can achieve benefits or preserve living standards from being depressed, but it must be pointed out that this pressure on workers is inevitable. Industrial action in support of a wage claim is not an example of reformism but part of the class struggle, which exists independently of the will of particular groups in society.

It is true that the TUC is steeped in capitalist ideology and that the effectiveness of trade union action has been blunted by support for the Labour Party. It does not follow from this, however, that workers should cease to combine in unions against the employing class and accept wage cuts. (This is not a new phenomenon, incidentally — at the time of the General Strike we praised the solidarity of the workers and condemned the conniving treachery of TUC leaders.) The class struggle involves all workers, whether they are conscious of it or not; our task is to point out that they are only half participating and must organise politically for their emancipation.

The Socialist Party attitude to the closed shop was stated in the Socialist Standard you refer to: “whatever may seem to be the advantages of compulsory trade union membership imposed by the union or the employer, the interests of the working class are best served by seeking to expand union membership on a voluntary basis only”. The existence of the closed shop does not weaken our support for the principle of trade unionism.

If we are to refuse to take Oaths, then there is no chance for controlling parliament. Socialists are not simply waging war against detailed grievances in the system. They are fighting against the system as a whole. As political action is necessary to establish socialism we cannot stop at taking Oaths imposed upon us by the ruling class. The taking of Oaths has never prevented them being ignored when interests dictated it; if it did, the ruling class could keep on imposing conditions which they think socialists will refuse.

Editors.

Correspondence: Could the workers capture the House of Commons? (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Could the workers capture the House of Commons?

Dear Comrade,—Are we justified in assuming that the working class, being the majority of the electors, could return a majority of Socialists to the House of Commons ? I am at present rather dubious on this point, having seen some figures in the “Daily Mail Year Book” for 1908, which seem to disprove the contention that the working class have the power to elect a Socialist majority. For instance, Kilkenny has 1,584 electors and returns one M.P. while Wandsworth has 34,461 and only returns one M.P. The Romford Division of Essex returns but one M.P. and has an electorate numbering 47,614, and Newcastle, with 37,417 voters returns two M.P’s.

Let us imagine an election to have taken place. A Conservative is returned for Kilkenny with 1,000 votes, and a Socialist is returned for Romford Division with 30,000 votes. We see here one Conservative and one Socialist returned, but the Conservative vote is only one-thirtieth that of the Socialist.

I should certainly think that the majority of the voters in divisions with a large electorate are proletarian, as it is only the workers who are found crowded together, while those divisions with a small electorate, which I believe are usually country divisions, would be mostly bourgeois.

In 1886 the Unionists were in a minority of 65,000 votes, yet they had a majority of 104 seats. We find a similar thing in Germany. The Social Democrats polled 3,251,000 votes and obtained 43 seats, while the Centre Party obtained 105 seats and polled only 2,247,000 votes.

I have written this letter in the hope that it may produce a discussion that will dispel these doubts from my mind.—Yours fraternally,

H. A. Young.

Dec. 8th, 1907.

Letter: Anarchists’ corner (2001)

Letter to the Editors from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anarchists’ corner

Dear Editors,

Thank you for reviewing Against Parliament, for Anarchism in the April Socialist Standard. I appreciate the thoughtfulness shown in the review: as much as we wish to express the ideas of anarchist communism in our propaganda, I believe it is equally valuable to see what reaction we get from people with other perspectives, to help us hone our ideas further.

As regards the omission of the Socialist Party from the pamphlet, I would say that that was an error on our part, and in particular myself as overall co-ordinator/editor. I did not write the section on the Far Left, but feel now that I should have asked the comrade who did to contribute something on the Socialist Party as well, as I acknowledge that your interpretation of Marxism does separate you from the kind of parties/sects normally grouped under the Far Left umbrella, particularly in the rôle you see for Parliament. Hopefully we will be able to produce a revised version of the pamphlet at some point in the future, and can then include some discussion of the Socialist Party’s views.

Adrian, 

pp Anarchist Federation, London E1

The Powers of Government (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

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.

For or Against Parliament? (2010)

From the September 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

People who come into contact with the Socialist Party and learn that we advocate revolution are often surprised that the revolution we urge is one that can be brought about by parliamentary means. They are used to associating revolution with the violent overthrow of governments, not with peaceful democratic elections. This is understandable given that, historically, revolutions of whatever kind have tended to be accompanied by bloodshed and violence and most organisations or political parties calling for revolution still envisage, whether explicitly or otherwise, violent means.

But the latest Socialist Party pamphlet, What’s Wrong With Using Parliament? The Cases For and Against the Revolutionary Use of Parliament, makes it clear that, for the establishment of the wageless, moneyless free access society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life that defines socialism, it is essential for the revolution to be brought about by a majority using democratic means. And since such means are available in most countries in the form of elections by universal suffrage, there is no reason why these should not be used in order for that majority to take control of governments and establish a worldwide socialist society.

While this is the basic premise of the pamphlet, most of it is actually taken up explaining why the common objections to the use of parliament to carry out revolutionary action do not hold water. These are objections often put by those such as anarchists who may broadly agree with the kind of society we want to establish but believe that any attempt to do so by parliamentary means is doomed to failure. There are two main arguments along these lines.

The first argument is that socialists elected to a capitalist parliament will not be able to withstand the ‘system’ and either will find that it forces them into complying with the status quo or will be seduced by being part of the ‘power structure’ and will voluntarily fall in with it ignoring their roots and the mandate on which they were elected.

The pamphlet answers this argument firstly by showing that the capitalist form of democracy, though seriously flawed, has in fact no formal means of preventing sufficiently determined individuals representing a politically conscious majority from using the political system it has developed in order to overthrow it. It deals with the ‘power corrupts’ idea by arguing that the delegates in question would be operating in a different social framework from the one that currently exists, one that would be shot through with the notion of participation and democratic accountability at all levels. It expresses the idea in the following way:

“With the spread of socialist ideas all organisations will change and take on a participatory democratic and socialist character, so that the majority’s organisation for socialism will not be just political and economic, but will also embrace schools and universities, television, film-making, plays and the like as well as inter-personal relationships. We’re talking about a radical social revolution involving all aspects of social life.”

A far more advanced form of democracy therefore than offered to us by capitalism today, where once every few years we are asked to put an X on a ballot paper to choose the best capitalist-management team from amongst competing groups of politicians, who then go away and take all the decisions that influence our lives without consulting us. Yet weak democracy is better then none and, as the pamphlet makes clear, it still provides a means for the majority to take political power once a socialist majority has emerged.

The second argument against the use of parliament is that the powers-that-be would never tolerate a democratic takeover by a socialist majority because of the loss of authority and privilege this would mean for them. They would therefore, if necessary, prevent it by force. There are many suppositions underlying such an argument but the main one is that there is somehow a power behind or beyond elected governments that in reality controls them (some kind of shadowy group or committee or boardroom that is really in control) and that, therefore, if its position is seriously threatened it has the means at its disposal to clamp down on those threatening it and will not hesitate to use violence to do so, perhaps in the form of a coup or a military takeover.

The pamphlet confronts this position by challenging the ‘conspiracy theorists’ to provide evidence that there is a conspiracy behind government and the way the system is organised and argues that, while capitalism with its inbuilt rivalries and vested interests may provide a fertile breeding ground for many individual conspiracies, no evidence exists or has ever been presented that there is an overall conspiracy running capitalism and its governments. That being the case, any attempt to use violence to prevent socialism being brought about by a majority in parliament with undisputed democratic legitimacy would have to be made not by people in the ‘background’ but by non-socialist politicians, yet how would they go about using violence against a majority that included workers from all walks of life and occupations, including the police and armed forces? Is it conceivable that they would obey orders from politicians to suppress the majority of their fellow-socialists and, even if there were enough elements from those quarters who would be prepared to take such action, would they not be overwhelmed by the majority who would oppose them in self-defence?

The essence of the socialist position on the use of parliament is summed up in the following way towards the end of the pamphlet: 

“Once there is an organised, determined majority, the success of the socialist revolution is assured, one way or the other. It is then a question of the best tactic to pursue to try to ensure that this takes place as rapidly and as smoothly as possible. In our view, the best way to proceed is to start by obtaining a democratic mandate via the ballot box for the changeover to socialism. The tactical advantage is that, when obtained, it deprives the supporters of capitalism of any legitimacy for the continuation of their rule.”

The other, related point made is that the organisation of the socialist majority that develops within capitalist society will reflect – will have to reflect – the essentially democratic nature of the future society it will establish. It will in fact have to prefigure that society and so be entirely democratic, and without a leadership which can impose decisions on the rest. All important decisions, in fact, will come from the majority via referendums or meetings of mandated, wholly accountable and recallable delegates. In this light, it is not surprising, as the pamphlet points out, that those groups who support left-wing, Leninist-style ‘revolution’, with its ideas of leadership and decision-taking by a vanguard, dismiss socialism by the ballot box as ‘utopian’. Not that the ‘socialism’ those groups say they stand for amounts to anything more than some form of tightly organised state control of capitalism. Not either that the ‘socialism’ they endorse is any closer to a society of free access and democratic control than the aims of supporters of established parties such as the Labour Party who wish to press their parties into somehow overcoming the economic realities of the profit system and bringing in reforms that will allow it to be governed more humanely.

So this pamphlet puts the case for a revolutionary use of the ballot box to establish socialism and in so doing provides powerful arguments against those who advocate a more benign form of capitalism via parliamentary reforms, against those who want to bring in forms of rigid state control over the capitalist system, if necessary by minority action, and, more specifically, against those who seem to share the socialist aims of a stateless, free access society but still think that parliament cannot be the route to achieve it because the ruling class will never give up power without the use of armed force.

Howard Moss

For a copy of What’s Wrong With Using Parliament? The Cases For and Against the Revolutionary Use of Parliament, send a cheque / money order for £1.50 payable to 

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain” to 52 Clapham High St, London SW4 7UN.

Government by the few for the few (2024)

From the August 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Manifestos have been published, promises have been made and intentions made opaque by the vagueness that always accompanies the usual mixture of hope, cynicism and downright duplicity displayed by establishment politicians. We can now all sit back and await the inevitable failures, betrayals and hypocrisy of a new government.

This is not a statement of cynical bitterness or even one resulting from the betrayed hopes of the past but merely a recognition of what the state (of which the government is merely the executive) was created for and how it has evolved. We are always told at election time that the people have the power to create political change by voting for one political party or another – this lies at the heart of the claim that ours is a ‘democratic’ country. Many believe the last 14 years of Tory rule has been a failure but the rich have become richer, the state has become ever more powerful and the Washington oligarchs couldn’t be more pleased with the government’s subservience to their imperial needs. From a ruling class perspective the Tories have delivered everything they desired.

Of course, there have been the odd ideologues who actually believe the propaganda and seek some kind of radical right-wing changes (Braverman, Truss, Patel etc.) who have rocked the boat but they have been seen off and it was business as usual. These individuals, together with their left-wing counterparts like Corbyn, Galloway and Abbott, really seem to believe that government action can improve people’s lives. Perhaps a reality check is timely for those idealists and for anyone who still believes that a government can be a vehicle for the profound change that our society so desperately needs.

The origin of parliament

The relationship between the King and his barons had, since medieval times, been a tense struggle for money and power. On many occasions actual wars broke out, and there were subsequent attempts to reach a settlement between the King and his court and the barons and their private armies, of which the most famous were a series called Magna Carta. The King was obliged to call on the advice of the kingdom’s magnates before raising taxes or going to war etc. This is the origin of governance through parliament.

As the nation-state became increasingly centralised during the Tudor period the financial system grew ever more complex requiring a specialism that was quite alien to most aristocrats. The ‘House of Commons’ became ever more important as it consisted of those who knew how to exploit the labour force for profit and so contributed the lion’s share of taxable revenue. This evolution was accelerated by the political revolution of 1642 and subsequently, despite an attempted counter revolution by the King in 1688, the capitalist class through their representatives in parliament became the dominant political and economic power. However, the purpose of the government did not change as its primary purpose remained to serve the economic needs of another tiny parasitic class.

Governments and the states they control have never existed to serve the needs of the people as a whole but only to preserve the wealth and power of parasitic elites. The first rule of any parliament is: thou shall not over-burden the wealthy with taxes, and so the running of the nation’s infrastructure is always accomplished with the least expenditure possible. The second rule is to ensure that no laws should be passed that in any way impede profitability, and so ensure that those who create wealth never have direct access to it, but only through a system of rationing called wages and salaries. Despite this, many political idealists continue to believe that social improvement is possible using the state and its government. But why this political illusion and the normalisation of this political lie?

Republicans ancient and modern

The capitalist class’s need to legitimise their form of government has a long history. Many ‘gentlemen’ historians of the past, and some even today, look back to the likes of Cicero as a hero of republican virtues, struggling against malign populists and demagogues like Catiline and Julius Caesar. He allegedly stood for constitutional values and anti-tyranny, but this overlooks his involvement with the murder squads that were sent out by the Senate to destroy anyone who spoke of reforming the system to benefit the people. His hands were drenched with the blood of those who challenged the oligarchs in control of a Senate (government) that ensured their continual accumulation of wealth and power.

There is no evidence that Catiline or Caesar ever intended to destroy Rome and we have only Cicero’s words to that effect. Of course he never mentioned the class interests that he served and all his rhetoric about the ‘Republic’ merely obscured his real motive to preserve the power and economic interests of the patrician elite. All reformers were demonised as wreckers of society – sound familiar?

Any governments who call themselves republics are essentially the same as their ancient counterparts. They believe in an elite that are entitled to rule through tradition and, usually, inherited wealth. Although the UK calls itself a constitutional monarchy it is, in fact, no different from the capitalist republics described above – the monarch is one of the wealthiest capitalists of them all. So the tradition for all capitalist governments is to talk continuously about democracy whilst ensuring its impossibility. But the gloomy gothic corridors of power within Westminster are not the only, or even the most important, centre of political power.

Since the Second World War the ruling class of this country have aligned themselves with the interests of the Washington oligarchs and so become willing subjects of US imperialism. No UK ‘foreign policy’ is decided without consulting this military empire (aka NATO). Even after Brexit, the EU together with the WTO and the World Bank have a significant impact on what Westminster can do economically, and this leads us to another great power on the global stage, the multi-national corporations. Their lobbying of governments is unceasing and connections with politicians, corrupt or otherwise, is undeniable. Many of the same individuals are involved in these organisations which can deservedly be called ‘the establishment’. They all share a common interest in defending their trade-routes, market share, cheap labour, natural resources etc. from the other capitalist cabals of Russia and China. But all of them are subject to the ultimate power of the anarchic fluctuations of capitalist economics which none of them, it would seem, have much understanding of.

The excuse of the recent Tory government for its manifest failures were the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine – both of which might have been predicted but would anyway have been ignored by the overriding necessity for economic ‘growth’ and bigger profits. Given all this one is tempted to ask, what is the point of national governments? The oligarchs of ancient Rome, like Cicero and Cato, could tell you why – to preserve the illusion of national/tribal communal interest and deny class division so as to exclude the majority from power.

Starmer is no different from his war-mongering predecessor Blair and will do anything to placate the power of the ‘establishment’. Like Cicero he will claim to be a protector of legitimacy and justice but will be infinitely flexible when he is required to excuse genocide in Gaza or persecute the sick and the unemployed. Remember, the parasites and their defenders like the Labour Party depend on the masses of workers to produce the means and wealth for their own continued exploitation. The real historical power belongs to us workers and we must turn away from these hypocrites, liars and fools and take responsibility for this world into our own hands.

Wez.

Asked & Answered: More questions about our position. (1912)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

More questions about our position.

E. J. Higgins (Philadelphia) asks the following questions arising out of our answers to his questions in our May issue.

(1) —“Wherein is the wideness and advantage for revolutionary purposes of the platform of Parliament? Are you assuming that the capitalist Press would publish your speeches?

(Answer.) We know that the Press to-day is carried on for profit and for profit only ; and if anything furthers the sale of their papers they will publish it. We know from past experience how sensational they consider speeches of revolutionists and the prominence they give them, hoping, very often, to frighten the non-Socialist workers by accentuating the “extreme” nature of the speeches published. But if they were to change their tactics and engage in a conspiracy of silence, we should win all the same. The fact that no reference to Socialist members’ speeches appeared would sooner or later raise in the minds of the exploited the question : “Why this silence?” The very silence itself would be eloquent and cause workers to seek for themselves in the proletarian Press the speeches delivered, thus bringing more toilers into our camp. The danger of silence would soon alter our masters’ tactics, though, of course, whichever way they turned they would be but marching toward their graves. In fact, by reporting the speeches delivered in opposition to our members they could not help referring to our point of view.

(2) “Do you hold that the State which so long as the workers are disorganised on the industrial field must fulfil its real function as an engine of repression—do you hold that your ‘advance guard’ will be able to turn an engine of repression into an engine of emancipation? ‘Will the capitalists let you do this?”

(Answer.) The implication that the repressive functions of the State cease with economic organisation is opposed to history and every-day experience. Organise how and to what extent you like and the repression continues. We claim that the political machinery can be used by the toilers to control the armed forces and thereby give the workers power to enter into the ownership of the land, factories, railways, etc. The point as to whether our masters will allow the toilers to do it begs the question of their power to stop it.

The masters depend upon the political power put into their hands by the votes of the workers, and when the flux of time, with its influence upon the toilers’ minds, puts into power the working class through its delegates, then the masters face defeat, for the power over the supplies for and the movements of the armed force passes into the hands of the working class. You may say that the masters ere this will destroy constitutional government, but when they do that they commit suicide. Under the naked despotism and barbaric rule of governments without a Parliament and a Constitution, the smooth working of trade and commerce is impossible. Mexico is a good example of this.

(3) “Is it your opinion that the capitalists are looking for pretexts to make the State fulfil its function as an engine of repression; that they are concerned with our method of expropriating them and will not bother so long as we are doing the expropriating ‘peacefully,’ or as the little pope of the S.L.P. would say, in a ‘civilised manner’ ?”

(Answer.) Socialism can only come by the consent of the working class, that is, at least a majority of them. If we neglect the present institutions and fly off to “violence” we do provide our masters with arguments whereby they can retain the support of our fellows. By showing that we refuse to try the Constitutional means first we are branded as “Terrorists” in the minds of the toilers. Thus the coming of Socialism is retarded. If, on the other hand, we are willing to try political action, then the blame is upon our masters should they attempt to repudiate and destroy their own machinery of government. Not only do they outrage those who sympathise with our aims but all others of our class as well. Hence.—Nemesis !

Adolph Kohn

The Party System. And why the workers received the franchise. (1914)

From the June 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Necessity for the Party System.

“In every historical epoch the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch.”

The frequency with which working-class questions are brought before Parliament to-day goes far to prove this scientific truth, so far as its political application is concerned. Industrial questions and disputes occupy an increasing amount of Parliamentary time. Working-class problems as they affect the capitalist, become more insistent and call for more attention from their representatives on the executive body. How to deal with the growing “unrest” is fast becoming the chief problem before Parliament, and mere party questions sink into insignificance beside it.

The inability of politicians to work up issues that will obscure the line of cleavage between the two classes in society, becomes more apparent daily.

Without friction the party system must necessarily be a failure. For although every party question ends in a compromise, both sides carry on the sham fight as though complete victory were of vital importance to them. The working class have to be deluded into the belief that the fight is real, and that they are concerned in it. A compromise effected, a new Act or Budget passed, without being first staged, without the “exciting scenes, noisy incidents and protracted debates”, would be an opportunity lost of deluding the workers. Without friction and agitation the workers cannot be divided to ensure their united support for capitalism – but one of the many inherent contradictions of capitalist society.

“Politics”, says Edward Jenks, “is the business of government”. In other words, politics is the art of keeping a slave class in subjection.

This business of government is really more of an art than most people imagine. The most arbitrary rulers of the Middle Ages could not rule exactly as they chose. Slaves, no matter how docile, hold fast to ideas and customs which their rulers are, in the main, compelled to recognise

Increasing Difficulties of the Capitalist Class.

When a system advances toward its disintegration, the forces encountered by the ruling class demand greater cunning, resource, and courage to cope with them – just the qualities they have allowed to decay while revelling in fancied security. The revolution of the capitalist class in England and France against the monarchy and nobility found the latter muddled and weak – the result of generations of vice and debauchery.

In like manner, the capitalist class to-day cannot supply the brains to carry on the business of government. They have to breed or encourage professional politicians from the class beneath them. The days of their “directing ability” passed with the manufacturing period. The introduction of power-driven machinery, and the growth of limited companies stripped them of their last economic function, and left them without the necessity to struggle. That they are forced to requisition fresh blood from outside their class to fight against the awakening working class proclaims the rapid progress of their senile decay.

The ruling class of our day is a parasitic organism devouring the substance produced by the working class. It is an organism within an organism, and is compelled to adapt itself to its surroundings. It rules, and yet is governed by its environment, and restricted by the limitations of the system it imposes, and the principles it is compelled to adopt.

Compelled to Confer the Franchise.

How the capitalist class were compelled to confer the franchise, and must continually extend it, is shown by the position in Russia during the past few years, where the constitutional question is not even yet fought out. There is no pretence of giving the workers the vote because it is their right, or because it will benefit them. It is given merely because it means an improved form of government. M. Shingareff in the Budget debate said: “Our Government is strangely opposing itself to the all-powerful spirit of the times. It has no organic union with the country, and with its own hands is digging an abyss between the population and the administration”.

Stability is the object to be attained, and the capitalists of Russia look with envy on the English form of government because it possesses that quality in a greater degree than their own government by oligarchy.

Those Ministers and politicians here who realise the value of the party system, speak their minds when it is in any way threatened. When, in 1910, a Liberal finance bill was in danger of mutilation by the House of Lords, Mr. Lloyd George told the opposition they were not playing the game, and that “If the party system were destroyed, the class line must become the line of demarcation”.

Again, in 1909 he said: “Is it not a real advantage to the country that there should be two great parties, each capable in turn of providing responsible administration for the service of the Crown? How much better our system of government, as worked upon this balance, than in those countries where there is a permanent governing class, with all those interests of wealth and privilege massed around them, keeping the rest of their fellow-countrymen in sullen subjection by force of arms”.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

Lord Haldane, at the Royal Academy Banquet, referred to the growing education of the working class and the danger of allowing affairs to drift: the crisis could be forestalled by broadening the basis of the Constitution so as to give it stability.

How our masters yearn for stability as their “cheap and nasty” system evolves! But the sands are shifting beneath their feet – the Rock of Ages is not only cleft, but barren.

Party politics are like the murky fluid ejected by certain denizens of the deep – they only conceal for a time. When capitalist interests are threatened by the workers both parties reveal themselves as one class.

That one man should have formulated the principles for both sides in the Parliamentary game is significant, and strengthens the conviction that it is but a game – mutually arranged – after all.

Edmund Burke, says Trevelyan, quoting from Moore’s Life of Sheridan, “has left behind him two separate and distinct armouries of opinion, from which both Whig and Tory may furnish themselves with weapons, the most splendid, if not the most highly tempered, that ever genius and eloquence have condescended to bequeath to party”.

His genius was needed. Capitalist domination was scarcely established before it was in difficulties; Burke, according to Lecky, was its saviour. In vol. III, History of the Eighteenth Century, he says: “It was necessary, in the face of the mass of discontent which was smouldering in the nation, and the growing corruption and inefficiency of Parliament, that each party should have a distinct line of policy. As time went on, these lines, as we shall see, became clearer, and the writings of Burke probably contributed more than any other single influence to define them.”

An Old Fraud with a New Face.

It is the continual boast of modern politicians that we live in a democratic State. When they say “we” they mean, of course, the ruling class. They see to it that neither King, lords, nor demagogues filch their “democratic” rights. But the so-called democracy conferred on the working class is not a semblance even of the real thing. Two thousand years ago Athens boasted in similar fashion of the democratic State, and the chief principle of the Athenians was that while there existed one man in the community who suffered in justice through the operation of the State laws, the others should not rest until his wrongs had been righted. An injury to one held possibilities of injury to all. But beneath this free and high-principled class was another class, chattel-slaves to them, who had no rights but what were willed to them by their owners.

This same description applies to the working class of to-day. They are driven into the workshops of the capitalist by hunger. They must sell their labour-power for what it costs them to live. When the capitalist has no market for the products of their labour they are driven out again – to starve. The over-crowded labour market is the spur to increased activity inside the workshops; greater concentration and efficiency are called for by the masters and easily obtained. Competition and unemployment haunt the modern worker like a nightmare, and every year bring him more helplessly under the control of the capitalist, who dictates all the hum-drum details that go to make up the wage slave’s wretched existence.

Liberal or Tory – what a choice for those who are robbed by both alike and left poor under either! This, they say, is democracy! It is the limit in impudence; the last word in bare-faced hypocrisy. “Millions of workers are stripped of everything but the bare necessities of life”, says Winston Churchill; of what use is a vote to these, when they can only give it back to those who gave it them – the capitalists?

The vote they were compelled to give, though they made a virtue out of necessity and said they gave it because they loved the principles of democracy. But no matter how they got them, the workers have far more votes than their masters. With the knowledge of their slave-position and the courage to organise, these votes can be used as the means to their emancipation. The capitalist class cannot abjure what they have established. The vote was given to secure their own domination; if they discard it they lose control and have no sanction to govern.

By constitutional methods the workers can win their freedom; they have no need to go outside the Constitution until they finally destroy it. So the party system together with the franchise – established because they promised stability – pave the way for working-class victory.

Real democracy will come with Socialism; when the game of party bluff has been played for the last time to unresponsive workers – when the latter are busy with their own interests, determined to enjoy the full results of their labour. The party system will be exposed as a fraud, consciously practised by the ruling class in their own interest. Its records will go down to posterity as curiosities, and future generations may read them and marvel that a working class, sunk in poverty and anarchy, could forget, even for a moment, their own wretchedness, while they voted this way or that on questions that concerned their masters alone.

F. Foan

Blogger's Note:

The quote at the top of the article is from Engels' introduction to the 1888 English edition of the Communist Manifesto.

The euro and the sovereignty myth (2002)

From the January 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

The euro debate is a dispute between rival sections of the capitalist class and is of no concern to workers

On 1 January in 12 of the 15 countries of the European Union new notes and coins came into circulation. After a shortish transition period these will replace existing francs, marks, pesetas, liras and the others and the same money—euros and eurocents—will come to be used throughout the whole area.

In terms of capitalism, it will be a historic event. As many people for years (more in fact) have used dollars and cents in a single area will now be using a single currency in another area. And that, of course, is what it is all about from a capitalist point of view. The capitalists of Europe have decided they have a better chance of winning out in the competitive battle on world markets if they get together as a single economic bloc. To do this, they have already created—some time ago now—first, a customs union, then a single market and, now, a single currency. They are still divided on whether to take the next step, a single economic policy which would require a single “economic government”. But some are determined to go down this road and envisage, at the end, a single, federal United States of Europe as a powerful state to rival the USA for world hegemony.

As far as us ordinary workers are concerned, it’s going to have no effect on our wages nor on our standard of living generally. The introduction of the euro will be as neutral—and as irrelevant—in this respect as was the introduction of decimal currency in Britain in 1971. So, there’s no cause to get worked up either way over the issue.

Having said this, it is clear that being able to use the same money throughout the greater part of Europe will remove one of the minor inconveniences that has existed up till now: having to change your coins and notes every time you cross a frontier (and having to pay the money-changers a commission for the privilege). Of course the major inconvenience of having to use money at all to have access to things which should be ours as of right will remain but, as long as the money system continues, it can’t be worse to have fewer currencies than more.

Divided capitalist class

So, joining or not joining the euro is nothing to get upset about. But there are people who do, especially in Britain. You can’t open a local paper there these days without reading a letter from someone complaining about “our loss of sovereignty” or about the disappearance of the queen’s head from “our” money (actually, it could still appear on the coins, but who cares?).

This reflects the fact that the capitalist class in Britain is split on the issue. A section, with capital investments mainly in North America, would prefer Britain to join the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) rather than become irrevocably tied to the European Union. They include the newspaper tycoons, Rupert Murdoch of the Times, Sunday Times and Sun and Conrad Black of the Telegraph, who have not hesitated to use their control of these papers to beat the anti-euro drum to defend their own personal capitalist interests. The Tory Party, too, has also decided to throw in its lot with this section of the capitalist class, perhaps unwisely since this section is only a minority.

The dominant section of the capitalist class in Britain want to join the euro, but they have a political problem. Their representatives, in the Labour and Liberal parties, have for some reason committed themselves to holding a referendum on the question. This was unwise, from their point of view, as this is to subdelegate a decision of vital interest to them to a population of workers that is largely uninformed on the issue and whose heads have been filled over the years with patriotic nonsense for other purposes. It is by no means certain that they would win a referendum, though they might be if they time it right and craft the question carefully and put the media organs they control into top gear. But that’s Blair’s problem.

The main argument put forward by the anti-euro section of the capitalist class is that joining the euro would involve a loss of “our” sovereignty. It may well involve a loss of their sovereignty but the rest of us have no “sovereignty” to lose. Certainly, we have the vote and we can use it to elect politicians to Westminister. But neither Parliament nor the government can control the way the economy works. They can try but if they go against the profit logic of the system they just make things worse. The most they can successfully do is go along with this logic.

What is sovereignty?

Old-fashioned radical liberals like Tony Benn (who, as he said of the Labour Party, is not and never has been socialist) who use the same argument concentrate only on the formal side of things. They emphasise Parliament’s “constitutional right” to control the economy, completely ignoring the fact that experience has shown this to be a purely paper right. The capitalist economy works according to certain economic laws which no government or legislative body can over-ride.

So the argument about sovereignty is not really about what the constitution may or may not say. It’s about the effective power that a capitalist state can exercise within the capitalist economy. Capitalism has always existed within a framework of competing states, none of which is strong enough to impose its will on all the others. States, as weapons in the hands of rival groups of capitalists, intervene to further the interests of the capitalists that control them. They do this by using state power to set up protected markets, raw materials sources, trade routes and investment outlets. In normal times their weapons are tariffs, taxes, quotas, export rebates and other economic measures. When they judge that their vital interest is at stake their weapons are . . . weapons. They go to war.

The extent to which a capitalist state can distort the world market in favour of its capitalists depends both on its industrial strength and on the amount of armed force at its disposal. This is why all states are under pressure to acquire the most up-to-date and destructive armaments that they can afford. In the jungle world of capitalism might is right. “Sovereignty”—the margin of independent decision-making that a state has—also depends on might.

Over the years capitalism has become more and more international, more and more globalised. This has tended to reduce the margin of manoeuvre open to states, i.e. has reduced their “sovereignty”. Fifty years ago, six West European states—France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries—realised this and decided to pool some of their economic decision-making powers in order to increase their total sovereignty. In the capitalist world, just as much as for workers bargaining over wages, “unity is strength”. Certainly, this involved the individual states concerned giving up some of their sovereignty but the objective was to increase the collective sovereignty of the members of the Common Market as a whole. Thirty years ago the majority section of the capitalist class in Britain, too, decided that this made sense and joined along with Ireland and Denmark. Since then Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Sweden and Finland have also signed up.

Not our concern

The sovereignty argument is really an argument within the capitalist class as to whether they should give up some of the might of their state to be able to benefit from the greater might of a larger grouping. Tony Benn, the UK Independence Party and the BNP really seem to believe that a capitalist Britain would be better off going it alone. Murdoch, Black and the less stupid Tories are more circumspect. They realise that Britain can’t really go it alone, but has to be associated with some larger grouping. Their argument is about which this should be: North America rather than Western Europe.

The Trotskyists, who feel that they must have a “line” on everything, too, join in the argument, predictably alongside Benn and the Green Party, but also the UKIP and the BNP. They want a capitalist British state to have the full, paper power to pass the reformist programme they dangle before workers.

As socialists, we don’t take sides in this inter-capitalist argument. We don’t support one section of the capitalist class or the other, and we don’t have any illusions about the “sovereign power” of Parliament to pass reformist legislation that can make capitalism work in the interest of the exploited class of wage and salary earners. Capitalism just cannot be reformed to work in this way; so transferring some of the powers of the House of Commons to a European Parliament in Brussels or Strasbourg makes no difference.

Whether or not the British capitalist class join the euro is not a working-class issue. Let the capitalist class and their parties and supporters settle the matter for themselves. In the meantime we continue to campaign for the establishment of a world society without frontiers where the resources of the Earth are the common heritage of humanity and are used to produce the things we need to live and to enjoy life for us to take directly. Under these circumstances they won’t be any need for money and both the euro and the pound can join the Roman and Anglo-Saxon coins in local museums.

Adam Buick