Power, dictatorship & democracy
It has come to my notice that you fundamentally accept Marx’s economic interpretation of capitalism and the materialist conception of history. It would therefore logically follow that you accept Marx’s theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, but this is not so and instead you claim that society can be changed through Parliament. This is because you do not understand the true nature of the class struggle and the capitalist state. Even you must realize that the power of society does not lie in Parliament but in the economic wealth of the ruling class. There is no parliamentary road to socialism (as the Labour Party showed), and the way to achieve socialism is by violent revolution and the smashing of the capitalist state.
In no. 8 of your declaration of principles you say the SPGB is “determined to wage war against all other political parties’. Why? History is littered with instances of working-class parties linking up temporarily with other parties, which have been beneficial to the working-class movement. You are reducing Marxism to a dogma.
Lastly, I notice the SPGB refuse to participate in workers’ struggles for higher pay, against unemployment and public spending cuts etc. I accept that such action by itself will never achieve socialism but it will help to strengthen, organize and educate the workers’ party.
I therefore advise everyone to study Marx by all means, but also study Lenin.
Andrew Mounsey
Sunderland
Reply:
You say that Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism and the materialist conception of history ought logically to lead to the acceptance of the view that “the power of society” lies in “the economic wealth of the ruling class”, and that the way to Socialism “is by violent revolution and the smashing of the capitalist state”.
To which the complete answer is that both views were explicitly repudiated by Marx (and Engels). They never ceased to insist that power is political, “the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force of society” (Marx, Capital Vol. 1, page 823, Kerr edn.). As our Declaration of Principles puts it, gaining control of “the machinery of government, including the armed forces”. It was control of the state machine that enabled the Tudor monarchy to plunder the great wealth of the Church and, as Marx showed in the section of Capital referred to above, it was political power which enabled the capitalists “to hasten, hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode . . . " .'
The suicidal tactic of “violent revolution” to smash the state instead of gaining control of it is not Marxist. As Engels wrote in the 1895 Introduction to Marx’s Class Struggles in France: “The rebellion of old style, the street fight behind barricades, which up to 1848 gave the final decision has become antiquated.” It had become antiquated militarily but in addition, without the great majority of the working class having become convinced socialists, such a victory would be meaningless for the achievement of Socialism.
What the 19th century taught Engels (and the SPGB) is that where it is “a matter of the complete emancipation of society” no such violent “short cut” is of any use because “the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they must act”, and for this to be achieved "long and persistent work is required”. (Introduction to Class Struggles in France.) This means using the vote. It was Marx who wrote that “the carrying of universal franchise in England” would have as its “inevitable result” the “political supremacy of the working class” (article in New York Tribune, 25th August 1852).
You refer to “the dictatorship of the proletariat” without explaining what you have in mind. Is it the total misrepresentation to be seen in state-capitalist Russia where it is Communist Party military dictatorship over the working class; or Engels’s example of the Paris Commune where majority control was based on democratic elections, no suppression of newspapers or the propaganda of the majority, no denial of their right to vote?
Though you claim to be aiming to achieve Socialism, it is obvious that what you understand by Socialism is not what Marx (and the SPGB) were led to accept by Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism and the materialist conception of history. For Marx and us it means “the abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself” (Communist Manifesto) and includes “the abolition of the wages system” (Marx, Value, Price and Profit). The fact that you are not aiming at this at all is shown by your astonishing statement that what “the Labour Party showed” has something to do with Socialism. The Labour Party does not aim and has never aimed at Socialism. Its declared aim is “the mixed economy” — a mixture of state and private capitalism. The Labour Government’s current policy includes reaffirmation of its desire to see capitalism profitable. Its aim is not to abolish capitalism but to show the electors that it can run capitalism more successfully (or less disastrously) than the Tories.
You state that history is “littered” with instances of working-class parties linking up temporarily with capitalist parties and that this has been “beneficial” to the working-class movement. It is true that organizations claiming to represent the workers have supported Tories and Liberals and the Labour Party, and their leaders from Disraeli and Gladstone to Churchill, MacDonald, Wilson and Callaghan — but where are the benefits that are supposed to have accrued? (“Littered” is the appropriate word to describe the non-results.)
Also we are told that the Socialist Party of Great Britain ought to divert effort from achieving Socialism in order to participate in the day-to-day struggles about the effects of capitalism, and that this would help to “educate”’ the workers. For a century and more organizations have pursued that policy, among them the Social Democratic Federation and the ILP. But where are the educational gains? Both of those organizations, after temporary flourishing, are now defunct, with as the only end product the Labour Party devoted to trying to reform capitalism.
One last comment: we note that you coyly abstain from naming the political party which has your support.
Editors.
No comments:
Post a Comment