Letters: Force or violence? (1993)

Letters to the Editors from the June 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Force or violence?

Dear Editors,

In reply to Denham Ford (April Socialist Standard) and his ridiculous assertion that the bombing of Dresden was anti-fascist violence, it obviously wasn’t!

I (and Class war) are on the side of the working class in struggle, and that means against fascism and fascists who are active against the revolutionary forces (eg attacks on the SWP and the recent attack on Freedom Bookshop).

An act of violence in itself doesn’t change anything. It is the combined weight of collective violence which will win the revolution. It seems that a lot of people on the left do not understand the class struggle as a dynamic, a living force which we mould every day. It is a balance of forces which we have to tip or kick in our direction. This is because they are not going to give the working class freedom. We are going to have to take it.

Dave Clark

London E8

Reply:

You're confusing force with violence. Of course the majority will have to force the ruling class to give up their wealth, power and privilege, but this can be done by mass democratic political action based on socialist understanding rather street fighting which wouldn't work anyway (they've got bigger guns and better bombs)— Editors.

Dear Editors,

Ref your article on the Mail on Sunday (April), I wrote in very similar terms to the Western Mail and South Wales Echo years ago, and the replies I had were more or less what you received from Chris Rees.

One way out would be to change the name to something that is not in existence, in this country at least, then register it like Marks and Spencers so that nobody else can use it.

E. H. Evans 

Newport, Gwent

Dear Editors,

The commonly held idea of socialism as nationalisation, or some form of state capitalism, is an Aunt Sally that the Mail on Sunday and other opponents of socialism are quite happy to accept as their target. They are not disposed to engage in any real objective discussion on socialism.

The responsibility of explaining socialism as Marx and Engels and the Socialist Party of Great Britain have always interpreted it is the task of the Party itself. The extent to which this has been achieved is the question we have to face. I am firmly of the opinion that a mistake was made when the name of the party was abbreviated to "The Socialist Party" and the full name relegated to the inconspicuous last item, printed in the smallest type, on the back cover of the Socialist Standard.

J. E. Apling

Harlow, Essex

Reply:

Unfortunately the capitalist press are going to distort the meaning of socialism whatever we call ourselves, and whatever version of our name we use. As you say, it's up to us to explain what socialism is—Editors.