Frustrated reader
Dear Letters Editor.
I find what I interpret to be the SPGB line at times stimulating and at times immensely frustrating!
The point made in Questions of the Day, that as the frontiers of the state have become wider many posts have been taken by the working class, is a good one. And I acknowledge that the position as regards democracy and socialism favoured by the SPGB has been "logical and consistent".
However, having said this I would like to draw your attention to the fact that for all your theoretical consistency nothing has been achieved by the SPGB in its 80-odd years' history in terms of changing British, or for that matter world capitalism. Is that not enough to convince you of a change of emphasis? For, as you ceaselessly point out, man's labour and life is alienated under capitalism, and in socialist terms this is a very serious state of affairs. Too serious, I suggest, for theoretical purity to take first place in a list of priorities. Surely the time is now right for a wide alliance of progressive forces led by socialists to oppose the capitalist system and stem the tide of damage and wasted human potential?!
To call Socialist Workers. Communists, social reformists, revolutionary communists, social democrats, anarchists and Liberals as equally all "agents of capitalism” is neither meaningful nor helpful for the working class. You in the SPGB may religiously believe in a sort of early Marxian class consciousness just over the horizon that will sweep the SPGB into power, but when you walk away from your copies of the Paris Manuscripts 1 think you'd find for a considerable time to come that nothing had changed.
The reality of all previous working-class movements is that consciousness has not occurred in the "pure" universal and objective way Marx predicted. Consciousness and hence action invariably results from a number of factors combining together and then workers drifting back into an "unconscious" state once the victory has been won or defeat made obvious.
It is not sufficient for your magazine to assert that the past proves that the time is not ripe for change yet! How far does capitalism have to exploit man and his environment before the SPGB squeezes out of its ivory tower?
The struggle of the working class for its emancipation is far too serious for theoretical abstractions to get in the way of its progress, I trust you'd agree.
Why should the bourgeoisie be so accommodating? I appreciate and accept that Marx believed the fate of capitalism to be lodged in its own system, i.e. it is inevitable that the antagonism inherent in capitalism will lead to its destruction. But isn't it just taking this analysis a little too far to suggest that the capitalist class will actually go out of its way to assist in this area? If you do believe this then I fear that you are labouring under the misapprehension that the bourgeoisie can achieve "objective" class consciousness too.
The battle for socialism and against capitalism must be waged on a number of fronts, parliamentary, industrial, in the media and in the educational system, and because of the nature of this struggle it is inevitable that socialists will form alliances both temporary and permanent with other "progressive'' forces. It is clearly ridiculous to claim that a small insignificant (and some would say anachronistic) party like the SPGB holds the monopoly on truth; it raises politics to the level of religious belief and is an insidious trend in many of the parties of the broad "left".
I also think that the SPGB's insistence on "peaceful means", are either shallowly naive or downright counter revolutionary. Engels warned us that capitalism would not give up an inch without a struggle. Eduard Bernstein (the father of genteel peaceful "socialism"). successfully destroyed Marx's revolutionary party. Let us not fall into the trap of splendid isolationism, for as Marx put it. we have a world to win and I think the SPGB is in danger of missing the contest.
Call me Leninist, elitist, proto-fascist or whatever fine phrase you choose to implement for minority consumption in your next publication, but I at least know that socialism is worth fighting for. I am working-class. I have a sufficient knowledge of Marx to understand my world. I cannot therefore stand the torpor that you in the Sodalist Party have descended into!! Wake up! There's a war going on under your noses!
A Walker
Colchester, Essex
(We have deleted a paragraph of this letter which summarised the criticisms made by our correspondent. Editors)
Reply
The writer makes a number of points about The Socialist Party which we think need a reply. But first we would like to make it clear that we take very seriously the human condition in capitalism — so seriously, in fact, that we are engaging in the political action we think is necessary not just to patch up capitalism but to abolish it and replace it with socialism. That, and not "theoretical purity", is our sole objective.
We also think that those involved in meaningful political activity do need theory — in the sense of an understanding of why society is the way it is, what could be achieved given what we know about the world and an idea of how that objective is going to be attained. Without such a conceptual map to guide political action then many sincere political activists become hopelessly lost or find themselves somewhere very different from where they intended. This is not a question of "religious belief" in theoretical purity, but a matter of practical political necessity.
To turn to the specific points that the correspondent raises. Firstly, the question of class consciousness. We do not understand what is meant when the writer refers to class consciousness not occurring "in the pure' universal and objective way Marx predicted". However, what we understand by the term class consciousness is a recognition among workers that they are indeed members of the working class and. as such, share common interests with other workers world-wide — interests that are in direct opposition to those of the owning class. Class consciousness also means a recognition that those collective class interests cannot be met within the present system of society and therefore political action is necessary to abolish capitalism and bring about socialism. Our conception of socialism is of a society in which all wealth is held in common and is democratically controlled. In other words socialist society will be based on voluntary cooperation. For that to be possible, people would have to want socialism and be prepared to actively participate in making it work. Class consciousness within capitalism is therefore a necessary pre-requisite for socialism.
How does that class consciousness come about? Unlike the correspondent, we do not think that it can suddenly arise and then subside again so that workers "drift back into an unconscious' state". We think that class consciousness arises for all sorts of different reasons. Some workers may well gain a greater insight into their position in society from reading the works of Marx and Engels or other socialist propaganda. Many are likely to be driven into becoming socialists as a result of their daily experience of life in capitalism — its contradictions, deprivations, insecurity and so on.
We agree with the writer completely that "the struggle of the working class for its emancipation is far too serious for theoretical abstractions to get in the way of its progress". But it is certainly not the view of The Socialist Party that the time is not yet ripe for change. On the contrary socialism is an urgent and immediate task and the technology, knowledge and skills exist to make socialism a practical possibility now. However the sad fact remains that what is lacking is the political will to make socialism happen, among a majority of the working class.
This brings us to the criticism of The Socialist Party's argument for the need for the working class to win "the battle of democracy". But first we would like to clear up some important misconceptions. We do not think that capitalism has provided democratic institutions for the benefit of socialists; neither do we think that the capitalist class will "go out of its way" to assist us to get socialism; we insist that socialism must be established democratically and we agree that propaganda for socialism can be made in all areas of life. (Incidentally. Eduard Bernstein and his revisionist followers destroyed the German Social Democratic Party as a revolutionary socialist organisation not because he believed in parliamentary methods, but because he was willing to sacrifice the party's revolutionary socialist principles in order for the party to achieve political power on the basis of a reformist programme.)
Because The Socialist Party thinks that it is essential for there to be a majority of socialists before we can have socialism, then it is necessary to have some kind of measure of support. Elections (for all their limitations) are one way of finding out whether sufficient support for socialism exists. There is the added advantage that contesting elections provides a useful platform from which to make socialist propaganda. But let us make it quite clear. We do not propose to form a socialist "government" (which is a contradiction in terms); neither do we believe that parliamentary elections are the only kind of political activity socialists should engage in. Indeed most of The Socialist Party's energy goes at present into talking to people at meetings, on the street, in trade unions, at work, in schools and in colleges with the intention of trying to persuade them about the need for socialism.
We do not believe that it is either inevitable or desirable to form alliances with other "progressive” forces. We certainly do not think that we hold "the monopoly on truth", but what we do think is that we have a coherent set of ideas which both explains capitalism and makes the case for a socialist society. It makes sense to us. Why then should we compromise those ideas by forming alliances with other groups whose views we don't share? While we are always willing to discuss our ideas and debate with other political organisations, we have not as yet found any which shares our view of what socialism is, let alone how to achieve it. Surely for a political alliance to be forged there must at the very least be broad agreement about ends and means.
Finally, even though there is a majority of socialists, we do not believe that the capitalist class will necessarily give up without a struggle. For that reason we take the view that in order to establish socialism it will first be necessary to take control of the state machine to prevent its forces being used against the socialist majority. And we do not rule out the possibility of force being used to defend socialism from attack by a minority of capitalists and their supporters. What we do not accept is that socialism can be established by means of insurrectionary violence undertaken by a small minority who claim to be acting in the interests of the majority. Action of this kind — no matter what the declared intention of the insurrectionists might be — could not lead to socialism since, if there was not majority support for the new society being established, the minority would be forced to use coercion and repression. Such a society would not be the cooperative, harmonious and democratic society that The Socialist Party is working for.
Editors
Letter from LEW
Dear Comrades.
Since the Editors did not reply to Alan Jones' letter in the February Socialist Standard (p. 271). I would like to reply to the comments he made.
I wrote the review of the SWP's book The Revolutionary Road to Socialism (December Socialist Standard, pp. 321-32). to which Alan Jones refers. He criticises the use I made of a quote from the book on the grounds that it is an acceptable description of socialism. But he omits the sentence which immediately follows the quote: "This is about as sound a definition of socialism as you will get from the SWP . . . " Of course Alan Jones is right to say that the SWP quote does not show that they support state capitalism, but I did not say it did. The sentence above then continues: " . . . but, as with other statements coming from them, extreme caution should be used." Here I was suggesting that the SWP are confused and/or dishonest in their thinking about socialism. By "socialism" they do mean state capitalism but, contrary to Alan Jones' supposition, statements to this effect do not abound in their literature. It is in fact very difficult to get them to say anything specific about socialism. Nevertheless, that they do support state capitalism can be inferred from their Leninist principles, an axiom of which is that wage labour must be subordinated to state capital.
Lew Higgins
Birmingham
No comments:
Post a Comment