The first issue of Thesis Eleven, published in 1980 by a group of academics from Monash University, Victoria, carried an article by Steven Wright on "Left Communism in Australia: J.A. Dawson and the 'Southern Advocate for Workers Councils'". Since Dawson was for a period a member of the Socialist Party of Australia (now called the World Socialist Party of Australia after the original name was usurped by a break-away from the Australian Communist Party in the 1960s) and since Wright used this as a pretext to criticise our principles and policy, a member of the World Socialist Party who was acquainted from first-hand experience with the historical events discussed by Wright sent in an earlier version of the following article as a reply. As it was not accepted for publication we must assume that the editors of Thesis Eleven are merely interested in interpreting the world in the course of academic discussions amongst themselves.
"You rightly consider yourself as a herald of uncompromising fight and clear opposition to capitalism, enabled to do that by clear understanding of capitalism and Marxian science". The writer of these words was Anton Pannekoek, who had been a prominent theoretician of the Second International and was later a leading exponent of Workers Council Communism as a system of society based on workers' control of industry. Pannekoek's words were addressed to Jim Dawson, an active political propagandist in Australia during the first half of this century.
In an article in Thesis Eleven, a publication announcing itself as "a new journal working at the crossroads of socialism and scholarship", the editors made way for an article on Dawson by Steven Wright. One of Wright's major objects in dogging Dawson's political peregrinations was to attack the Socialist Party of Australia and its companion party, the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
Wright steps off on the Dawson trail, saying:
The beginning of the second half of the 1940s, in the wake of the military defeat of fascism, marked a time of resurgence of working class struggle in Europe and America, a wave whose crest the left seemed to be riding everywhere, much to the consternation of both Washington and Moscow. This was the time of victorious Labor governments in Australia, of the Australian Communist Party's peak in membership, of Labour MPs standing in their seats in the House of Commons to defiantly sing 'The Red Flag', and of partisans, Soviet tanks and 'Socialist Unity' parties in Eastern Europe.
Whatever significance this "resurgence" had for the working class, it was certainly no indication of increased actual socialist understanding on the part of the workers.
The rise to power of Labor governments was no new phenomenon in Australian political history and the sordid records of such governments in the second half of the 1940s was merely a repeat of past history, the second half of the 1940s was merely a repeat of past history. The "Australian Communist Party's peak in membership" was merely a reflex of the influx of numerous fellow travellers who had been attracted to the CP after the belated entry of Russia into World War II. Together, the Labor Party and the Communist Party had hopped on the Tour de Triomphe of the Red Army on the Eastern Front While triumphantly proclaiming the "defeat of Fascism" (German variety) the Labor Party pledged support for the Red Fascists — Stalin and Co. The degrading and hypocritical spectacle of British Labour MPs singing the Red Flag in the House of Commons was a miserable vote-catching stunt.
As we claimed at the time, the mushrooming "socialist" and "communist" parties were all part of the Soviet con-game, directed towards trapping unwitting workers into the ranks of Soviet supporters. The only significant feature of the Wright-styled "resurgence" was the willingness of the politically ignorant workers to fall for the political bunk pedalled by self-appointed leaders who were impatiently preening themselves for the romantic roles which they visualised they were to play in what they regarded as the impending world revolution.
What really happened in Russia
It was merely history repeating itself — a replica of the aftermath of the first world war, with the rise to power of the Bolsheviks, when the self-appointed workers' leaders of the day were lining up for the favours of the Kremlin. Numerous outfits, lefts, rights, centre, and others, sought handouts from the Kremlin coffers, including trips to Moscow with all mod-cons, while battening on the credulity of those they regarded as sheep to be led. Ample proof of this to be found in the belated admissions of these "ambassadors" to Moscow, some of whom were later relegated to "lower mass work" and resigned, while others were unceremoniously kicked out because they offended the local commissars.
One of the few organisations which understood what was really happening in Russia was the Socialist Party of Great Britain and its companion parties in the rest of the world, including the Socialist Party of Australia (which had been founded in Melbourne on 22 January 1924). Unlike our critics and adversaries, we did not wait for fifty years after the Russian Revolution to realise that it was impossible to establish socialism in the immature social, economic and industrial state of Russia. We based our analysis of the situation in accordance with the scientific theories of Karl Marx. Subsequent developments in Russia, China and their satellites vindicated our position.
Still, we can't keep that Wright man down. He pops up again with the old jargon:
October 1917 changed that irrevocably. The new star in the East rendered obsolete the time-honoured charts by which revolutionaries had previously navigated the path to socialism . . . The SPGB was simply left behind From being one among many small socialist sects in Britain, the SPGB found itself standing haughtily out in the cold, watching the rest of the far left fight amongst themselves for official recognition from the Communist International.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain was not left "out in the cold"; it had never been in the hot romantic furnace of the Moscow pseudo-revolutionaries. Nor had it been involved in the frantic fight for recognition by the Kremlin. Hence it did not have to suffer the frustrations of those who saw their former comrades liquidated by the very bureaucratic dictatorship they had, in their stupidity, helped to create.
Furthering flaunting his bias against the Socialist Party, Wright asserts:
. . . the Socialist Party of Great Britain sometimes gave the distinct impression of wishing that the October Revolution had never taken place.
By this he has in mind our strongly-held view that the Russian Revolution helped put the clock back as far as the development of the socialist movement in the West was concerned. But far from wishing that the revolution had never taken place, we said that a capitalist revolution was inevitable in Russia because the material conditions were not there on which to establish a socialist revolution.
Notwithstanding the ridiculous apologetics from Lenin and his supporters, we were proved to be correct when Lenin, with the backing of the bureaucracy, introduced the New Economic Policy. Announcing NEP, Lenin admitted that it was "a step back to capitalism". Actually, except in name the dictatorship had never been in any way socialist
Other superficial changes in nomenclature were introduced in place of the long-recognised definitions used by Marx. These have been recognised and are too widely known to be set out here, but we might mention two: the substitution of "surplus product" in lieu of "surplus value" and the deliberate falsification of one of Marx's most well-known aphorisms "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" into "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work" (our emphasis). In this falsified version it became the key for the Soviet classification which cleared the way for piecework, "socialist competition", subotniks and the Stakhanovites who were used to con their fellow workers in the speed-up gangs. Then there came the "Heroes of the Soviet Republic" who, like the Chief Commissars and the military leaders, carried more decorations on their chests than could be found on a Christmas cake.
All these measures have vindicated our attitude, but Wright castigates the Socialist Parties for telling the truth about the lamentable history of the Russian dictatorship and those who supported or apologised for it.
The Dawson enigma
One of those who had been associated with these disappointing ventures was Jim Dawson, the subject of Wright's political and industrial biography.
On Dawson's own testimony he had been through numerous organisations before seeking salvation for a while in the Socialist Party of Australia. Starting off in Britain he was taken in by the "Clarion Socialism" of Blatchford; then he turned to the Single Tax theories of Henry George. Returning to Australia he voted and propagated for the Australian Labor Party. On the outbreak of World War I, he opposed it in accordance with his Christian ethics which he was taught as a child.
After hearing their speakers he joined the Industrial Workers of the World. By mistake he enlisted in the Detroit IWW Club and became hostile to the real IWW. Later, he found his way into the Socialist Labor Party, explaining to Paul Mattick, a well-known US radical, that his reason for doing so was "on account of their 'Plan' — the average worker 'wants' something in the nature of a blue-print".
Once again divesting himself of his previous political and industrial garments, he adopted the garb of the Australian Socialist Party. At that time the ASP had joined the scramble for recognition by the Kremlin during the early years of the Russian dictatorship. However, they were out-manoeuvred by what became the Australian handmaid of Moscow, the Australian Communist Party. This comprised disgruntled ALP members, One Big Union advocates, ex-IWW remnants and other non-socialist opportunists, all led by Jock Garden, secretary of the Sydney Trades and Labor Council.
Referring to these events in 1946, Dawson said:
The Russian Revolution of 1917 burst upon us like an atomic bomb. We went crazy about it. I wrote it up in lengthy articles in the International Socialist (Sydney organ of the ASP) and like most zealots distorted the facts to fit in with our theoretical yearnings (our emphasis).
Dawson then made another switch. He returned to the Detroit IWW, which by then had become the Workers International Industrial Union, and edited its journal the OBU Herald. Later he discarded this outfit accusing it of "sectarianism", a term adopted by the Australian Workers Union which at that time was considered to be the biggest union body-snatcher in Australia because it stood over members of other unions forcing its victims to pay levies to the Labor Party irrespective of what their political leanings were. It was a case of "no ALP levy coupon, no job".
Bad health kept him out of active participation for a time. In the early years of World War II, he set up his Workers' Literature Bureau, stating his reasons for this was to offset the flood of Stalinism by spreading the views of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. At this point Wright finds another excuse for his unsupported attacks on the SPGB, beginning with the caption "Principles First — The Small Party of Good Boys" and continuing:
Of all the schools of revolutionary thought toward which Jim Dawson was drawn in the 1940s, the Socialist Party of Great Britain was undoubtedly the most peripheral. Despite boasting a higher membership than previously by the end of the decade, the SPGB commanded a smaller audience within the labour movement than on the eve of the Russian Revolution thirty years before.
Seeing that the so-called labour movement was always hostile to the Socialist Party, what significance is there in this subtle charge? Fluctuations are common in most organisations, political or industrial. But when Wright uses numbers as a criterion of truth or sincerity he thereby adopts the sneer of the large political parties throughout the world which contain hugh majorities of unenlightened adherents.
By this time Wright is beginning to analyse the Dawson enigma, asking "what had led Dawson to join the Socialist Party of Australia in the first place?". According to Wright,
What attracted Dawson most to the Socialist Party was its vision of a 'genuine' socialism free from such Stalinist distortions, a society 'based upon the common ownership and democratic control' of the means of production and distribution.
Dawson himself had already provided this answer. Having read about the SPGB attitude towards Russia, he found himself in agreement with it Quoting an article from the Western Socialist (official organ of the Workers — later World — Socialist Party of the US) which had pointed out that "the wage system still prevails in Russia", Dawson said:
the exploitation being no different there than in any capitalist society. That is sufficient for us. The existence of a wage system indicated clearly that neither socialism or communism prevails. The wages system, no matter what form it takes, indicates that capitalism exists.
Wright himself then quotes an article written by the present writer that appeared in the Socialist Comment (official organ of the Socialist Party of Australia) at that time:
If the people of Russia own and control the instruments for producing and distributing wealth, why do they pay themselves wages to buy back from themselves the things which already belong to them?
Having acquired this knowledge from the SPGB's Object and Principles Dawson discarded it. Claiming that the Socialist Party of Australia was loath to fulfil the role he expected from it he decided to shoulder the job himself and set up his own propaganda concern. After his wide experience in almost every organisation available to him, Dawson could never understand why a socialist party, based on Marxist principles, could not compromise those principles.
In effect Dawson sought to seduce an impoverished party with his personal wealth. But the Socialist Party of Australia always safeguarded its socialist integrity by refusing to accept donations with strings attached. We had seen too many so-called socialist parties slither down the opportunist path after their wealthy self-seeking patrons demanded the conditions tied in with their apparent benevolence. SPA finances were — and are — controlled democratically by the party, that is by the members themselves.
Dawson could never understand that; it didn't suit him. It does help, however, to understand his disappointment at being denied his paternalistic and condescending offer to become a socialist sugar daddy. It also throws light on this pique at our refusal to cooperate with him after he left the party. Wright seems to have missed these points.
 |
| See the blogger's note at the end of the article. |
Trying to further explain Dawson's peregrinations, Wright takes another slam at the Socialist Party of Great Britain, accusing it of championing "a 'pure' parliamentary road to Socialism" that was anathema to the "outside left". Revealing no understanding of the Socialist Party attitude towards the machinery of government he says:
. . . the SPA and SPGB called upon workers to vote into government representatives 'whose sole business will be to abolish capitalism and introduce socialism' . . . What this meant practically was that, apart from at election times, the Socialist Parties refused to dirty their hands with the real world, concentrating instead on weekly classes designed to clarify the participants' grasp of the Socialist program, or public debates where every opportunity was taken to 'prove the case for socialism' through the forcefulness of the argument, and where necessary humiliation of the opponent.
In other words, Wright claims that educating workers in socialist theory is not participating in the real world.
When we contested elections, as socialists we told the workers that if they didn't want socialism we didn't want their vote. At elections where we had no candidate we urged socialists to write "Socialism" across their ballot paper. For the Victoria State election of 1945 Dawson wanted to abandon this position and give support to a non-socialist candidate.
The candidate in question, Jim Coull, who had at one time been a member of the Socialist Party of Australia, was standing as a "communist-socialist" candidate. An official of the Liquor Trades Union he, along with the rest of his Communist and Labor supporters had jumped on the "people's war" (as the war became for them after the German invasion of Russia in 1941) bandwagon and had been rushing around the country boosting war bonds. Incidentally, as the government had exempted union officials from military service, these latter fought the war at their firesides, urging workers to defeat the Nazis and that when "we" had done that "there would be a brand new world" for mugs. Coull had become one of Dawson's darlings and Dawson gave him every support during the election.
Wright says that Coull "performed impressively" in receiving 3514 votes. But he does not mention (perhaps he never knew) that an SPA candidate standing in the same constituency before the war, in 1934, had polled 12,173 votes [see the blogger's note at the end of the article] and against a much stronger opponent in the person of Jack Holloway, head of the Melbourne Trades Hall Council who had defeated the Prime Minister, Stanley Bruce, at the previous election. And during the election the "communist comrades" dubbed us "social fascists".
Now, let us look closer at the picture: Coull lost his deposit, we polled more than the "half-pie communist" whose showing Wright calls "impressive". What price numbers after that? Most irrelevant, one might say.
Over the years the Melbourne branch of the Socialist Party of Australia had been conducting open-air meetings on street corners in Elsternwick, Port Melbourne, South Melbourne, Albert Park (we just about founded the Red Square there), Brunswick, Newport and Williamstown. On Sundays we held meetings on the Yarra Bank, lectures in the city on Sunday evenings, classes on economics, industrial history and other kindred subjects, speakers classes, all based on teaching workers Marxist history and philosophy.
We never claimed to be supermen and the work fell on a limited number of workers. Some were class leaders, others lecturers, some good at debating, and there was a regular number of the Jimmy Higgins type who sold the literature, arranged meetings, carried the platform, and all contributed to the work of the party to the best of their ability.
All our meetings, business and propaganda, were open to the public — we had no secrets, no air of conspiracy and, chief of all, there were no leaders. When people know what they want and where they are going, they don't need leaders. To get socialism, the working class must understand what it is all about. The activity of the Socialist Party of Australia was directed towards this end. Can Wright suggest any other way?
We were always willing to meet our opponents but we could not meet them all; we regret that we could not accommodate Wright's choice of opponent, namely Dawson. Wright demands more. He complains that we allowed only accredited speakers to address our audiences or in debate. We had no mere spouters. We selected representatives who knew and understood the socialist position on many subjects. Our representatives had to be well-versed in their subjects. We could not depute a novice to tackle skilled anti-socialist opponents, including MPs, leading Communist Party speakers, Labor politicians and university professors.
But Wright says that we disdained to get our hands dirty in a world known only to him. What sheer effrontery!
Knowledge is power
Why Wright should constantly criticise the Socialist Party of Australia on its policy of insisting on Marxian education, it is hard to understand. One striking feature of the pseudo-communist and socialist organisations is their muddled politics. This is reflected in the lack of understanding in their rank and file of the import of the policies put forward by the upper echelon.
Constant pandering to ignorant political prejudice to obtain support from any quarter can never bring success to any real socialist party. Nor will it ever, in the long run, bring support to those who practise it. Sooner or later some of their members will wake up. In any case, as all such parties are aspiring to run the capitalist system, it is always the capitalists who win. All the non-socialist parties are reformist and their reforms can never bring success to the cause of socialism. Whatever the result, it is always the worker supporters who suffer the backlash. The more sincere the well-meaning members of these parties are, the more they suffer for the sins of their treacherous "leaders".
Wright himself seems to be infected with the old IWW slogans "Put the Boss in Overalls", "Smash the Ballot Box with an Axe", "Sabotage", etc, to which the boss class responded with the all-powerful reply "Put the Lot in Jail", much to the chagrin of the well-intentioned but misguided followers in the rank and file. The majority of the IWW officials in Australia, together with their rank and file followers, finished up in the Labor Party or in one of the various so-called communist parties. Many of the rank and file suffered for the whims of their inconsistent leaders.
When he criticises the Socialist Parties for their insistence on socialist understanding on the part of ordinary workers Wright decries the one important safeguard against their being misled by "leaders". He twits when we say "Knowledge is Power". When we use this phrase we equate it with socialist understanding. And an understanding of the capitalist system and how to get rid of it is the greatest power that the working class can possess. As Marx said, "Knowledge, too, is a force". And the knowledge of the need for socialism is the greatest force the working class can acquire in their struggle to abolish capitalism.
Bill Clarke (Australia)
Blogger's Note:
". . . that an SPA candidate standing in the same constituency before the war, in 1934, had polled 12,173 votes"
It has to be pointed out here that the Socialist Party of Australia candidate, W. J. Clarke, did not receive 12, 173 votes at the 1934 election. He polled a [still impressive] 3,872 votes at that election.
In the above article, the votes of The Socialist Party of Australia and that of the United Australia Party candidate have been switched around. The correct result is recorded on the wiki page for the Melbourne Ports parliamentary constituency, and the correct result is also recorded in this article from the April 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard. I can only surmise that this misinformation in the article was a genuine mistake by a man in his 80s, who had misremembered the result of the election contest in 1934.
Bill Clarke's obituary appeared in the September 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard issue of the Socialist Standard. It's worth reading. He was a remarkable man.
No comments:
Post a Comment