Readers of the Socialist Standard are far greater in numbers than the membership of the “Socialist Party.” At this time of the year especially, when more meetings are held and more of our literature is sold, the official organ of our Party reaches a still wider circle. The result of this activity reflects itself in wider discussions at our meetings and in the letters we receive from critics.
Now there is one very curious thing about certain of our critics, whether well or ill-acquainted with the Socialist Party’s case. They show as keen a desire to agree with the Party position as they do to disagree with the Party’s exposition of it. A few words in explanation will illustrate the apparently unconscious mental contradiction. Every issue of the “S.S,” includes a statement of our Object and of our Declaration of Principles. The latter, to all but very simple minds, is bound up with , the Object — Socialism. These are a lucid and logical statement of the essential facts about capitalist society, and describe the basic action necessary for its removal and for the establishing of Socialism.
The type of critic referred to often shows some acquaintance with the doctrines and teachings of Socialism to the extent that they will not quarrel with our definition of Socialism nor our Declaration of principles. They will even compliment us on their clarity and will express approval of them —“but” and it is the qualifying ‘‘but” which exposes our critics. In fact, they show that what they agree with is a form of words. They completely fail to interpret the Declaration of Principles in the light of the realities of the modern political world.
What is Policy ?
Consider some of the familiar arguments of our opponents, remembering, too, that they are also the arguments of some professing friends. “The Socialist Party has been in existence for thirty-four years and has done nothing . . .” “After thirty-four years the S.P. has only one candidate for. Parliament . . . ." “The Socialist Party has no policy—has never had a policy.” Like the proverbial Irishman who is “agin the Government,” the obstinate negator offers the same difficulty as trying to get to grips with a shadow. But never let it be said that we evaded the job. We will try to be simple, to avoid phrases, to avoid giving offence by appearing to be clever when really we are merely stating an accurately tested truth. Now: The Socialist Party is organised for Socialism. It has defined Socialism. The definition of our Object, “. . . the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth . . . " appears in every Party publication. The attaining of that Object is the task of the Socialist Party. Logically there could be no other. To achieve this object the Socialist Party must first concentrate upon the making of Socialists. There can be no other policy at this stage, because, simply, there can be no Socialism without first there are Socialists. Nor do our critics who profess to agree with us, "but”— tell us what they consider the policy of a Socialist Party should be. They do not because they cannot or dare not. They cannot because to deny the obvious necessity for the making of Socialists before Socialism can be established would stamp them as being incapable of interpreting the political world with the .weapons of Socialist understanding. They dare not because any alternative policy would reveal its reformist and capitalist character and expose the ignorance of its supporters. Let us not be misunderstood. The making of Socialists is not the end all in Socialist policy. But it is the only policy for the moment. There will come a time when the detailed working out of the necessary steps for the dispossessing of the capitalist class will have to be made. But this will only be practical policy when there are sufficient Socialists for the task. The need for it will, in fact, quite obviously, arise out of the conditions of the time. Just as now the first essentials of Socialist policy, the making of Socialists, arises out of the conditions of the present. Doubtless the working out of a detailed policy for the future, aimed at and showing the step-by-step process by which a Socialist working class would effect the dispossession of the capitalists and the overthrow of their system, would be an interesting task. It would, however, in view of the smallness of the Socialist movement and the fact that the structural administration of capitalism is subject to change, be almost purely academic, and most certainly useless. Even the working out of a tactical policy for pursuing the fight with our opponents in the political field is not even an immediate practicable question because: (1) there can be little struggle with opponents who mostly choose to ignore us and (2) because we have little effective backing from the workers. With regret, but without pessimism, it must be admitted that the immediate task of Socialists is chiefly propagandist, that is to say, explaining and interpreting the events of the capitalist world with Socialist knowledge and understanding. This burden we carry out with all the difficulties of voluntary organisation. We have, therefore, no time for unreal grandiose planning. We are busy working-men who, with Engels, would say: "The man who has something serious to say cannot compete with those who have all day to gossip in.” It is, however, the absence of detailed plans which confuse would-be critics (many who style themselves Socialists) of the Socialist Party.
No plan appears to them to mean no policy.' They are wrong and misled by interested leaders whose positions depend upon producing plausible plans purporting to aim at a short cut to social salvations What is not recognised is the irrefutable fact that the subject social position of the worker is bound up with' the Capitalist social system and will only disappear with capitalism, and that any policy which is not directed to bringing capitalism to an end is useless from the Socialist point of view.
The Day-to-Day Struggle
Almost a term of abuse now is the charge that the Socialist Party does not take part in the “day-to-day struggle.” The charge is, of course, untrue. In relation to our numbers our members are engaged in trade union activity comparable to those in any other political organisation. Some of our members hold official positions in their trade unions. Heavy demands are made on the time of our speakers in visiting trade union branches in order to state the case for the Party. Trade union activity is encouraged to its fullest extent. At all times Socialists enter the struggle on the economic field conscious of its limitations. But more often our critics have in mind the struggle on the political field when they charge us with ignoring “the day-to-day struggle.” In that field the struggle is represented to centre around the struggle for peace, democracy, and so forth. We are represented as having no interest in these things because we refuse to line up with the conglomeration of parties in the Labour Movement which is organising to demand them. It is not understood that the amount of democracy possessed by any section of the workers is the result of its struggles with its own capitalist class and independent of the struggles between sections of the capitalists; that when workers are able to impose peace upon the capitalist world they will have achieved such a degree of understanding that they will be in a position to impose far more than that. There is never peace in the capitalist world, only Socialism can guarantee peace. But let us look at the so-called working-class parties with whom it is assumed we should have some common interests and a common policy.
The Communist Party: It is committed to the policy of advocating the military alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia. This has been interpreted by one British Communist writer (T. A. Jackson) as willingness to defend the British Empire. In France the same policy found its expression in Communist advocacy of a Popular Front, which in reality is a premature anticipation of the war-time need of a coalition of all parties in order to defend French capitalism. Though Maurice Thorez has gone further and has said:
“ Our policy of the People’s Front was not a transitory or temporary tactic, or an electoral pact, but an application of the fundamental principles of Marxism and Leninism, an alliance that will last between the working class and the middle classes'' (Discussion [Communist monthly], July, 1937).
Imagine a parallel picture applied to England. The Communist Party, the Liberals (including Mr. Lloyd George), and “progressive” Conservatives, like the Communist Party’s new sweetheart, the Duchess of Atholl, all included in a Popular Front which is represented to be an alliance between the working class and the middle classes that will last, and as an application of Marxism!
So far as the Labour Party is concerned its difference with the Communists seems to be that it will not have anything to do with them. But, like the Communist Party, it is committed to "Collective Security.” What that means can be measured by the statement of the Minister of War in the British Government that “Britain would only fight in ? future war with allies, that is to say, within a system of Collective Security.” All that need be said about the I.L.P. is that they are at present attempting to negotiate electoral arrangements with the Labour Party. These “working-class” parties are certainly engaged in the day-to-day struggle— but for the benefit of the capitalist class, not for the working class.
It is sheer self-delusion and a misrepresentation of Socialist principles to suggest that because these parties have their origin in the working-class struggle and screen their reform activities with high-sounding working-class sentiment and what appear to be Socialist phrases and slogans, that Socialists can make common cause with them.
The Socialist attitude on war, as on other major questions, is so fundamentally different from that of these parties that it would be a betrayal of Socialist principles and working-class interests to pretend that there could be any point of contact between them and us which could provide a basis for common policy, and no Socialist has any illusions about it. This position, we know, results in our isolation and prevents us engaging in activity which to masses of workers appears to be in their interests. The plaudits provoked by demagogic appeals to political ignorance and popular sentiment are attractive to the weak and the unstable. For us, for the moment, lies apparent isolation and unpopularity—but independence. The ability to endure it in the face of the attractions of demagogy is a test for real virility.
The Making of Socialists
Spontaneous discontent with capitalism rarely in itself makes a Socialist. Something else is necessary. That something is the assimilation of ideas—Socialist ideas. The extent to which the workers are able to do this depends on many factors, but the chief one is propaganda. In a clear field, without the strains and stresses of capitalist propaganda pulling in the opposite direction, Socialist propaganda would easily win a rapid and decisive victory. Whilst all prophecy is speculative, the facts of history are pertinent. In the earlier days of capitalism capitalist propaganda was brutally anti-Socialist. When the Labour movement came into existence (after two hundred years of capitalism) a gradual change took place. Capitalist propaganda is now more subtle and has learned how to use pseudo-Socialist phraseology to serve capitalist interests. Hitler and Mussolini are excellent examples of the use of this trick. The British capitalist class are able to use the British Labour Party and its doctrines for the same purpose. How far the working class will have to acquire Socialist knowledge to nullify the influence of capitalist propaganda will depend upon how far that propaganda exposes itself. Enough to say that at the moment a worker has to be well grounded to escape that influence. But the capitalist has to be everlastingly on the look-out for new ways of preventing the worker from seeing his social relationship as it really is.
Each new effort on the part of the capitalist class expresses a weakening of its influence. As this goes on it will be easier for the worker to interpret the world in the light of his interests. The stresses and strains of capitalist propaganda will lessen their pull. At a given point the acceptance of Socialist ideas must become more general and consequently develop more rapidly. No one with a knowledge of historical movement would deny the possibility of reaching that historical stage within our lifetime. Those who are Socialists will work for it as tenaciously as the Socialist Party has worked for it for 30 years. We have worked for it, never once betraying Socialist principles nor obscuring the immensity of the task. We have maintained our existence on a voluntary basis and have outlived organisations which had far greater resources in finance and membership. We have never been guilty of fostering disillusionment, like the Communists in 1919, when they prophesied the end of capitalism in Europe in a few months and in America in a few years.
In short, the Socialist Party’s policy is based upon a sound understanding and application of Socialist principles, which expresses itself in the immediate and urgent task of making Socialists.
Harry Waite
2 comments:
Superb article.
Agreed
Post a Comment