Why not join the Labour Party?
The Editor, the Socialist Standard.
Isleworth, Middx.
May 16th, 1930.
Dear Comrade,
Why this continuous attack upon the Labour Party: The Labour Party has declared in belief in Socialism, and the aim of all Socialist bodies and Socialists is to obtain Socialism in the shortest possible time.
How can this end be attained? ‘By holding meetings,’ by talking to our fellow-workers, and by the distribution of literature. Yes, all these methods can be employed and have been employed in the past. But are they sufficient? Is it not perfectly obvious that by these means we can only hope to make a few among the many thousands into competent Marxists, and that even those few must do some hard thinking and hard reading if they really wish to understand. But the majority of them live under conditions which compel them to think about the immediate necessity of getting a living, and therefore are not interested in Socialism as a distant theory.
If, however, we talk to them about things they do understand, such as the houses in which they live and the education which is given to their children, then we have some hope of getting them interested, and if we can hold out the prospect of improving things in the immediate future then we can not only get them interested hut we can get them to work hard in order to attain the aims of the party. Having got them into the party and made friends of them, we can now teach them Marxian economics and make real Socialists of them.
There are many competent Marxists within the ranks of the S.P.G.B. Would it not be better policy for them to get inside the ranks of the Labour Party and carry on their educational campaign there?
Come on, comrades, there is plenty of work to do and too few people to do it, and if we are going to get our objective we must use every means that offers. These people are already prejudiced in favour ; hundreds of them are young and intelligent—the very soil on which the seed should be dropped. Yours fraternally,
A. F. Forrest.
Our Reply.
Our correspondent’s picture of the Labour Party is purely fanciful. It is seeking to establish not Socialism, a system of society based upon common ownership of the means of production and distribution, but nationalisation, or State Capitalism. The Post Office is its model ; an institution which is privately owned by investors in various Government loans, and whose services are not provided freely for use, but sold in order to produce profit, just like other capital concerns.
Our correspondent envisages the Labour Party winning and retaining the “friendliness” of the workers by “improving things” for them. We deny that a Labour Government, elected by non-socialists, is in a position to carry out its promises of improving things. Has our correspondent considered what is going to happen when workers who voted Labour find that the improvement does not materialise ? Does he think that the reduction in wages of cotton workers and wool workers, and the half-million men thrown out of work since the Labour Government entered office, are steps on the way to Socialism, and calculated to make the workers more friendly to those responsible?
Our correspondent’s arguments are self-contradictory. He first tells us that the Labour Party is committed to Socialism, and then urges us to get inside in order to convert them. Convert them to what? In truth, the overwhelming majority of Labour Party supporters are ignorant of the elements of Socialist knowledge, and to talk of them having declared their belief in something which they do not understand, is merely the evasion of an unpalatable truth.
If we wished to enter the Labour Party (which, of course, we do not) we would most certainty not be permitted to carry on our propaganda for Socialism, for the reason that it would involve, as it does now, pointing out that the programme of reforms of that Party is valueless to the working class.
Our correspondent also assumes that the Labour Party desires to provide its members with Socialist knowledge. We deny this, and ask our correspondent for evidence that the desire, let alone the effort to that end, exists or has ever existed. If it exists, why does not the Labour Party use its press and its platform for that purpose?
Editorial Committee.
The Capitalists and reforms.
A correspondent suggests that the Capitalists will introduce a large number of reforms in order to dissuade the workers from interesting themselves in Socialism. He asks whether such reforms will, to any degree, make the conditions of the workers better.
If the Capitalists were agreed on the question, there is no reason why the position of the working-class should not be improved at the cost of the Capitalists themselves, but such agreement is not easily achieved. Even in those cases where Capitalist politicians perceive the advisability of a more generous treatment of some of the victims of the system, it is difficult for the Capitalist politicians to convince their backers that need exists, or that “generosity” is the way to deal with discontent. Occasions often arise of the Lloyd Georges, and Baldwins and Churchills of Capitalist politics being forced by their more stupid and ignorant supporters to carry out policies which go against their better judgment and their human sympathies. Future historians will probably be amazed at the appalling meanness (unnecessary, from a Capitalist standpoint}, of the treatment meted out to the victims of war and of unemployment, at the present time.
Even when the workers in large numbers go over to the Socialist Party, there will still be influential sections of the Capitalist class (with their working class followers) who will resist reforms, either on the ground that they are “demoralising” to the workers, or that they hamper trade, or that they merely encourage the workers to ask for more. It is, therefore, probable that reforms will always tend to lag somewhat behind the evils which Capitalism goes on producing.
Editorial Committee.
What is Capital?
An enquirer asks why we talk of abolishing Capital, since, in his view, Capital merely means machinery, tools, etc.
Our correspondent is in error. Capital is wealth used for the purpose of profit. Wealth not used for the purpose of profit is not Capital. When the tools, machinery, buildings, etc., cease to be used for profit, they will not be Capital. The abolition of Capitalism will leave the means of production to be used for the purpose of producing articles for the use of the members of society. There will be no question of private profit, and, therefore, no question of “Capital.”
Our correspondent goes on to suggest that “money, or, more truly credit-power,” will be needed under Socialism. This is incorrect. Under Socialism, there will be no function for money to perform. Money is a means of trading between the private owners of goods of various kinds. Where private ownership does not exist, the possibility of exchange, of buying and selling, disappears. The processes which will be necessary under Socialism are the production of useful articles and their distribution to those who need them. Exchange does not enter in, and money is not required. If our correspondent bears in mind that the means of production will be commonly owned, and the products freely distributed, he will see that money can have no function to perform. Looking at it in another way, he will see that money, by its nature, cannot be “commonly owned.” To contemplate individuals holding stocks of money under Socialism is to contemplate the possibility of private persons being able to purchase the means of living of other persons—which is, on the face of it, incompatible with our definition of Socialism.
Communism or Socialism?
Finally, our correspondent asks if Communism and Socialism are terms which mean the same.
It is not a sufficient answer to trace back the original and interim meanings of the words, because the use of words changes from one generation to another. The chief point is that when we use the word Socialism we define it carefully. (See object on back page.)
Those who use the word Communism, define it differently from our definition of Socialism, or do not define it at all.
In popular usage, the word Communism is associated with the anti-working class policies of the Communist parties. Nothing whatever is to be gained by using two words interchangeably when one will do. Therefore, we do not use the word Socialism to mean the things ordinarily intended by those who use the word Communism.
Editorial Committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment