Mr Reeves in his innocence (or is it guile?) asks if it has ever occurred to us that the capitalists might provoke a bloody revolution after a socialist working class has gained control of the political machinery. We can but answer with a similar question. Has it ever occurred to Mr Reeves that, if a minority tried to provoke a bloody revolution against the politically organised majority which has control of the political machinery, including the armed forces, that rebel minority might get very badly hurt?
The rest of Mr Reeve's letter lumps together a number of contradictory ideas, which need sorting out. He presents us with the alternatives either of being in the Labour Party or of trying to lead the workers "into the shambles." We are opposed to both. The task of spreading knowledge of socialism, and of organising for the conquest of power has nothing in common with the stupid policy of leading non-socialist masses into civil war. (On this point may we refer our correspondent to our Declaration of Principles?) On the other hand, our alternative to suicidal armed revolt is not the Labour Party policy of minor reforms of capitalism, but the quite different policy of organising for the conquest of power to achieve socialism In passing it may be pointed out that it is Labour Party gradualism which includes dragooning the workers into the shambles of capitalist war.
[From an answer to a correspondent, Socialist Standard, July 1936]
No comments:
Post a Comment