Labour without illusions?
Dear Editors,
Dear Editors,
With reference to your reply given for my letter published in the June Socialist Standard I believe you have misunderstood my reasons for supporting Labour. While I support most of the aims and values voiced in your pamphlet and readily accept the shortcomings of the Labour Party's limited vision I also support progressive change. Your pamphlet goes into great detail about the contradictions of the Free Market and erroneous capitalist system but actually offers very little in terms of practical alternatives. In effect it produces propaganda as opposed to political commentary and discussion. Let us imagine that the SPGB had swept to victory in the election. What would they do? Economic policy is a highly complex science. An immediate change from capitalism to socialism would have devastating effects. The system would be almost impossible to regulate and the beneficial effects would not appear for many years by which time a new government would be elected. Radicalism does not, and never has worked. You openly criticise the former Communist regimes in Europe and Asia (and rightly so) but how would you go about it differently? How would you form a fair government?
I do believe that one day we will have a socialist government but I do not believe we are ready for it yet. Switching from one political system to another causes devastating political instability and often war. Such a change is always temporary whereas a gradual change can create a permanent (stable) system. If we are to embark on socialism seriously it must be done in union with other nations (from both the developed and the developing world), not in isolation. Otherwise all we are left with is National Socialism—another contradiction in terms. We are clearly not yet ready for such a change. However opinions are changing and not only are we not at war with former enemies but we are at the negotiating table with them (albeit for capitalist purposes).
The introduction of a socialist government today would only limit its future successes—just ask an eastern European what he thinks of Communism. Today’s climate (political) is such that a socialist state can only fail. It can, however, win support by arguing its case by means of discussion—not propaganda.
I did not vote for Labour as a "knee-jerk" reaction against the Tories. I am under no illusions that the Labour Party will introduce socialist measures. I do however think you are wrong about the election result making no difference. With new foreign aid, immigration, anti-hunting and anti-smoking legislation being passed New Labour have shown that compassion and humanitarian respect can be used in government—that morality is not decided by market forces. Surely it is a compassionate state, fair and equal that is a founding principle of socialism? OK it is still essentially capitalist government but is it not a move in the right (or left) direction?
Dominic Linley,
Leeds
Reply:
It seems you have one or two misunderstandings about our definition of socialism. First of all, there will be no such thing as a socialist government. A "Socialist State" is a contradiction in terms. Although we are in favour of using the parliamentary system to establish socialism, the new society won't be run by a government. Instead it will be democratically administered. Governments are, and have always been, the agents of administration of the ruling class. They are not in existence to run capitalism in the interest of the majority, whatever the intentions of individuals in those ruling bodies may be.
Socialist society will maintain and modify, as necessary, those inherited institutions (health care, road maintenance, education, transport systems, etc.) which are necessary for the running of its affairs and set up new ones as appropriate. It will have dismantled all the coercive elements of the state, such as the armed forces, police, judiciary, etc. It will also have to address the productive methods prevailing at the time, stopping all harmful production, and dealing with the rest in the same way as with the political institutions outlined above.
Before socialism can be established there has to be the agreement of the overwhelming majority of the population on how it will be run. Because there are so few socialists at the present time, it is difficult to lay down detailed plans on how it will be run. As socialist ideas spread, there will be more and more input of ideas of how this will be done. Socialism will not come out of nowhere, it will be the culmination of the spreading of socialist ideas, of workers reinterpreting their experience of capitalism and coming to the conclusion that the present system does not adequately deal with their needs. We would not be entering it "cold".
Socialist society will not be an economic society, in the sense that the word is used today. Economists talk about managing scarce resources, but what they really mean is artificially scarce resources. We say that socialism could feed, clothe and house the world's population on a sustainable basis. Socialism would not be "almost impossible to regulate". In fact, it will be much easier to run. because the complexities of capitalist market forces and the drive for profit will have gone. There will no delicate balancing acts between producing goods to sell for profit and matching peoples' ability to pay. With commerce and all its trappings gone, we would be able to get on with producing goods and services, solely for use. If there is a need for something, and it is deemed realistic to produce it. then it will be produced. Instead of people sitting down and working out the cost of producing in terms of money, it could be decided by the amount of labour necessary to do the job. and whether or not it might be damaging to the environment.
You accuse us of negative criticisms of capitalism without offering any practical alternatives. Have you read our pamphlet Socialism as a Practical Alternative? This includes chapters on Democratic Decision-Making, Organisation of Production for Use, Choice of Productive Methods, Conserving Resources, etc.
Your reference to gradualism smacks of a patronising attitude to the working class, implying that they cannot grasp the concept of a world community of common ownership but have to be spoon-fed the idea, through incremental steps. We in the Socialist Party have become socialists without a "guiding hand" and we are not special. We have looked at the world and made our own evaluation of it, based on our experience and the experience of others.
You are quite right that to establish socialism workers of the world would have to act in concert. Socialism would be impossible to establish in one country alone because capitalism is an interconnected world system in economic terms (but not politically—various factions of the capitalist class may well be at each other’s throats) and no one country would be able to opt out of it.
Unfortunately voting for Labour "without illusion" is of no use to the socialist movement. The capitalist class and its government will just read it as another endorsement of their system and it will have the effect of boosting their confidence to run it.
Editors.
Reformism rejected
Dear Editors,
I was searching for a party that was a Marxist party but not Leninist, because I oppose Leninism. Trotskyism and Maoism.
When I was introduced to the Socialist Party I became very happy that this party was only Marxist, but when I inquired into the Socialist Party's ideas I realised that the Socialist Party of Great Britain is parliamentarist and does not believe in revolution by workers, therefore I lost my hopes.
You believe that workers must not use force against the government and that they must not seek power through civil war. because this is the road to a "blood bath". The idea that you advocate is to gain political power to establish Socialism through parliament. You argue that if the majority of the workers were Socialists and voted socialist delegates into the parliament they would establish Socialism without the capitalist government and their armed forces doing anything.
The workers do not believe what the Socialist Party advocates because it is not possible. The capitalists are not as kind to the workers as you think.
Marx strongly believed and advocated class struggle, the use of force and violence by workers. I referred to Marx's books again and again but I could not find Marx talking about setting up Socialism by voting delegates into parliament. Besides, everybody knows that the police and armed forces are there to protect capitalism against workers. All the different parts of the police and armed forces are always ready to punish and suppress any protest against capitalism. We can see it every day in
different parts of the world.
How do you expect capitalist governments to tolerate Socialism and the workers' movement and their power? When the 90 percent of workers and other people accept Socialism as the best community, the other 10 percent will fight to keep their private property and never allow workers to get power through parliament.
The workers and poor people are combating and struggling but the police are arresting them and torturing them and killing them. They have made the world "bloody" already. We are living in a "blood bath" right now. can not you feel or seee it?
The Socialist Party has a fear of our violence against capitalism because it does not like a "blood bath”. You do not believe that the capitalists have already made a "blood bath" in the world. You obviously forget that thousands of people are being killed in Iraq. Rwanda. Somalia. Iran. Turkey. Afghanistan. Ireland and so on.
Every second capitalists kill us by worsening the economical and political situation. Not only does capitalism make a "blood bath",but it has made a “sea" of blood.
Marx believed and wrote that workers must arm themselves for a revolution, to gain power by force. He believed that right after establishing Socialism the workers need to exercise a dictatorship to keep their government and fight the capitalists.
To abolish capitalism the workers need force and the majority of workers must be armed in the Workers' Rcvolution. Without violence (blood bath) the workers can not defeat capitalism. The experience of the Paris Commune alone is enough for all the workers. The workers in Britain must arm themselves the same as the workers of the Paris Commune did and as in Albania too.
The workers of the world need to arm and organise an International Communist or Socialist Party for victory and freedom. They can never gain power and Socialism by parliamentarism because parliament belongs to capitalists and workers must be against parliamentarism.
The Socialist Party's ideas about parliamentarism have wasted the energy of thousands of Communists in the last 100 years and the workers have no hope to succeed against capitalism with a parliamentary policy and parliamentarist party in the next 100 years.
Ismael Jahandideh,
London W9
Reply:
We are certainly aware that capitalist ruling classes in some parts of the world routinely torture and murder tens of thousands of people. That is one reason why we are against capitalism and want socialism.
If we don't advocate violence and civil war against capitalism it is not just because we want to minimise the occurrence of any violence in the course of the changeover from capitalism to socialism. It is also because we hold (I) that it wouldn't work and (2) that it isn't necessary.
Violence wouldn't work because what keeps capitalism going is not just the capitalist class's monopoly control of the means of violence: the capitalist class is not holding people down against their will. It is above all the fact that most people see no alternative to a social system based on class ownership, working for wages and producing for profit; they don't think you can abolish classes, privileges, private property, money, banks, armed forces, nation states.
Violence cannot overcome this lack of socialist consciousness and. if tried by a minority, even if successful could not lead to a democratic, classless society. It could only lead— and. historically, has only led—to the replacing of the previously existing ruling class by some new minority which in time evolves into a new ruling class.
On the other hand, once this lack of socialist consciousness has been overcome and a majority has come to want Socialism (as it must before Socialism can be established and then function) then violence is not needed. If, to keep with your example, 90 percent of people wanted Socialism it would be quite impossible for any capitalist government to continue governing.
This is because governments depend on a minimum degree of consent to function. Once this is withdrawn—and especially if it is replaced by a determined desire for Socialism—then their game is up. Even supposing that the pro-capitalist minority was as large as 10 percent, it would be suicidal for them to try to use violence to maintain capitalist rule. Of course, if they did, the socialist majority would have to deal with them—we are not absolute pacifists and we don’t suppose a future socialist majority would let a handful of pro-capitalist nutcases stop them establishing socialism.
The best way to minimise violence is for the socialist movement to proceed in a peaceful and democratic way. Hence our advocacy of using existing semi-democratic institutions including parliament. Incidentally, this is not "parliamentarism", which is the illusion that Parliament can be used to gradually reform capitalism into socialism. We are not saying workers should elect people to Parliament to reform capitalism, but only socialist delegates mandated to formally abolish capitalism.
Finally, you are wrong about Marx's views. In the Communist Manifesto he and Engels did indeed say that the only way the workers could win political control was through a violent insurrection but that was in conditions where political democracy did not exist. When they went into exile in Britain they supported the Chartist's demand for "one man. one vote" on the grounds that, if achieved, this would be equivalent to potentially placing political power in the hands of the working-class majority. Later, at a meeting in connection with the Congress of the International Working Men's Association in The Hague in 1872. Marx went on record as saying “we do not deny that there are countries, such os America and England, and if I was familiar with its institutions. I might include Holland, where the workers may attain their goal by peaceful means". Again, in 1880. he helped to write the preamble to the programme of the French Workers Party which declared that to obtain the collective control of the means of production workers in France should use “all means that are available to the proletariat, including universal suffrage, which will thus be transformed from the instrument of fraud it has been till now into an instrument of emancipation". Both these quotes are to be found in K. Marx. The First International and After. Political Writings Vol. 3 published by Penguin Books.
What socialists should do depends on the assessment by the socialist movement of the contemporary situation and its possibilities. This was Marx's position too and why he didn't stick dogmatically to the view he expressed in 1848 when and where conditions had changed.
Editors.
No comments:
Post a Comment