Socialism and PR
Dear Editors
I have been reading your monthly magazine for several months now and agree with much of what you have to say. Particularly on comments made in the December issue about religious superstition and how the SPGB propose to change society by standing in democratic elections. However, I wonder how democratic our first-past-the-post system really is.
I would be obliged if you would tell me what the view is of the SPGB on proportional representation. If opposed to PR, why? If you support a PR system, which one and why?
C. Roberts
London SW17
Reply:
Socialists are not interested in the question of whether one method of electing a capitalist government is “fairer” than another; for that reason we do not support any reformist campaign in favour of PR or any other change in the electoral system. We are aiming at a socialist revolution, which will not be a matter of the Socialist Parties changing society but the democratic act of a majority of conscious socialists throughout the world. When socialist ideas have reached such a pitch it will not matter very much, which electoral system is available for their being put into effect. It is reasonable to assume that then, as now, there will be various systems in operation in different parts of the world. Socialists will use them all, as they need to. The “first-past-the-post" system in operation in places like Britain does lead to anomalies such as the election of a government on a minority of votes but the socialist revolution will not be a matter of the working class giving some political party power to run capitalism in the interests of a minority. Any electoral system which allows the assertion of socialist consciousness will do.
Editors
Animal rights
Dear Editors
I am writing in response to your comments pertaining to animal rights in the December issue of the Socialist Standard. Your apparent disregard for the other species that inhabit our planet surprised and disappointed me. The case for animal liberation is not built on sentimentality, as you infer, but on logic and justice.
All animals are living, feeling, intelligent creatures, not just our species. Setting ourselves above all other animals is absurd. What if evolution had taken a different path, making us dumb and giving a higher IQ and powers of communication to some other primate? Would you then be condoning the exploitation of “inferior” species?
The two specific issues that you mentioned, animal farming and vivisection, can easily be shown to be unnecessary, and indeed counterproductive. There are superior alternatives to both. The rhetoric of exploitation is always the same, whether the theme be race, sex, class or species. Socialism must know no boundaries. It cannot stop at the end of one race, sex or species.
It’s possible that you consider animal rights as a minor topic or a side issue. Mass exploitation and suffering can never be that! I sincerely hope that you will review and change your policy in this area.
Steve Addison
Macclesfield
Reply:
We do not regard human behaviour towards animals as a "minority topic”; it reflects the type of society in which we live, its priorities and its morals. That is why capitalism, with its production for sale and profit in the interests of minority, uses animals so pitilessly and why, as the item in the December Socialist Standard pointed out, socialism will end such practices. However we cannot deny that human beings are superior to all other species; while socialism will provide a better environment for all forms of life, only humans can conceive of it and can bring it about. Socialist society will cherish animal and wildlife but. if human interests are at stake and there is no other way then animals will be used, for food and even for medical experiments.
Editors
Greenham women
Dear Editors,
I refer to the Article “Defeat at Greenham” in the December issue of the Socialist Standard. I feel that the way in which the achievements of the women at Greenham were equated to zero and the over-simplified and superficial analysis which led to this conclusion can only be compared with similar distorted articles in the national press. Since I expect more from such an excellent magazine as the Standard. I feel impelled to write this letter.
The SPGB publishes the Standard in order to reach out to the working class and to stimulate them into abandoning the undemocratic system of capitalism. Similarly, the women of Greenham Common, by hanging dolls and baby clothes on the fences etc. were attempting to trigger the public (most of whom are the working class) into thinking about the introduction of cruise missiles and the undemocratic control of such in order to stop it. Much media coverage has been given to the demonstration at Greenham. As a result, the questions of cruise and associated issues such as warfare and undemocratic control have been brought to the attention of the public. How then can the SPGB argue that the women’s experiences are “dismal" and “wasted" when they have pointed out some obvious shortcomings of the capitalist system to the working class? How can the SPGB argue that the women were "wrong" to use propaganda (in the form of publicity stunts) in order to overcome the state machine? Isn’t that exactly what the SPGB does by publishing the Socialist Standard? Why have the women failed to achieve their objective because the missiles have arrived and yet the subject of their arrival is still controversial? Does the SPGB stop publishing the Standard in the belief that they have failed since capitalism is still here after so many years of fighting it? Fortunately not; they continue to put an alternative to the working class in the form of socialism which I wholeheartedly support.
If these women do not advocate socialism now, I would still suggest to you that because of their efforts, the task of attaining socialism can only be eased. I agree with your view that the women “ought” to advocate socialism rather than reformism. However, I also think that the best (if not only) way to win someone over to socialism initially, is to point out to them some of the more obvious insanities of the capitalist system. I think that the Greenham Common women have done this splendidly.
I do not think that the SPGB should support reformist policies but I do think that they should be more careful, when criticising those who do. not to be condescending and unnecessarily aggressive as I feel your article was, since these people are closer to socialist thinking than most.
J. Peet
Urmston
Manchester
Reply:
The SPGB cannot be said to have failed since the idea of socialism has not yet been put into practice; meanwhile all the available evidence supports the case that only socialism can solve the problems caused by the capitalist social system. In contrast, the ideas of the nuclear disarmers have been put into practice. They argue that it is possible to support capitalism through voting Labour, Communist. SDP/Liberal and so on, yet oppose the inevitable effects of capitalism — in their case nuclear weapons. They also argue that the governments of capitalism can be persuaded to change policies which are vital to ruling class interests by means of demonstrations such as Greenham Common. These theories have been disproved; the missiles are at Greenham and are operational (see the Guardian, 18 January).
The nuclear disarmament movement fails, as do all such movements, because they approach the problem from the wrong end. As the item Defeat at Greenham (Socialist Standard, December 1983) pointed out, capitalism, with all its ailments, exists not by an act of will of Michael Heseltine but because the working class, including nuclear disarmers, support it. The only way to abolish all weapons of war is to get rid of the cause of war and that can come about only through a consciously socialist working class establishing socialism. Workers cannot be persuaded to understand socialism by encouraging them to support a reformed, modified capitalism in the hope that this will end their problems; this can be done only through putting a clear, consistent, uncompromising argument for socialism. Far from being condescending or aggressive, the item acknowledged the demonstrators’ . . "sincerity and concern" but pointed out that that is not enough. Socialists take no pleasure in the failure of reformist movements; we bitterly regret the waste of so much sincere endeavour.
Editors
No comments:
Post a Comment