Are strikes and reforms alike?
Dear Editors,
I accept the S.P.G.B. point of view on all declarations except one in their position on “Reformism." The
S.P.G.B. seem to suffer from a inconsistency on this problem.
The Party members, so it seems, can support the T.U. movement’s struggle on the industrial field for' increase in wages and better conditions. But what would be the position of the Party if their members supported the Old Age Pensions Association’s demand for increased pensions?
In any case, what really is the difference between struggle for the day to day struggles for improvements through the Parliamentary system and the same kind of demands through the T.U. movement?
To be consistent the Party should either abandon their acceptance of struggle on the industrial field or alternatively accept such a policy on both the political and industrial fields.
The Party sneer at what is called die Welfare State, yet I am prepared to wager that more workers are given to support Capitalism and its economic system arising from gains made in their wages than through any benefits from the Social Insurance system. They talk almost with affection of die money they receive. I believe it is called Lolly!
.
However, I agree with you that the establishment of a system of World Socialism is the only real solution of the Social Problem.
Meanwhile I support “reform” on both the Parliamentary and Industrial Fields, and meanwhile the SP.G.B. will continue to do so on the latter field.
Should you return or the S.P.GE. supporters return a minority number of M.P.s, what will be their methods' during the "Third Reading” of Bills before the House? Will they either "move” or vote on amendments during this state? I know you will understand the Parliamentary constitution.
It seems such a great pity Socialists are so divided and because they cannot agree on all points,
Am not a professional writer, but have done my best to state a case.
Yours fraternally,
Sidney Warr,
Romford, Essex.
Reply:
The gist of our correspondent’s letter is that trade union action and campaigns for reforms are really the same kind of thing and, therefore, it is illogical for the Socialist Party to support strike action but oppose reformism.
This is quite fallacious. Strike action and campaigns for reforms are alike in one thing—they can neither of them achieve Socialism. Where, then, is the difference?
By strikes workers can, according to the varying economic situation, resist wage reductions or gain wage increases and influence hours of work and other working conditions. They, therefore, have a value for the workers within capitalism.
Campaigns for legislative reforms can operate broadly in only one way, through political action. Apart from mere demonstrations of protest, a body seeking a reform must either seek election for its nominees or help other political parties to secure election. In neither event is it or can it be a question of seeking election only on a Socialist policy for the establishment of Socialism—that being the S.P.G.B.'s position that our correspondent rejects. On the contrary, such reformist action can only secure the return of M.P.s committed to the perpetuation of capitalism; they have not and could not have a mandate to abolish it and institute Socialism.
This is the difference in principle between strike action and political reformism, and if our correspondent wants practical proof of our contention that the two are essentially different, he has only to look at the behaviour of reformist organisations when in power. They (Tories, Labour, Communist, etc.) all introduce reforms, but they all with one accord oppose strike action by the workers to get higher wages. They can very well see the difference between the reforms thy enact and the wage increases they try their best to prevent.
Which brings us to our correspondent’s plea that we should cease to be divided from the "Socialists” who are reformists. He omits to name them. Whom has he in mind? Is it the Communist reformists who ordered the slaughter of Hungarian workers and are now using troops to break a strike in Poland? Is it Nehru’s government which uses emergency legislation to smash a Post Office workers’ strike? Or is it the British Labour Party, whose spokesmen claim that they prevented the workers from getting the wage increases they could have got by striking?
Our correspondent also asks what a Socialist minority, if there were one, would do with regard to a measure in Parliament. If a measure, for example, a vote against armaments or war, were before Parliament Socialist M.P.s would, of course, take instruction from the Socialists, whose delegates they were, and vote accordingly.
One last point Our correspondent shows in his letter that he holds the view (which we do not) that the workers are deterred from turning to Socialism by their wages and by the reforms imposed on them. But if our correspondent really believes this, and if he really wants Socialism, then his clear policy should be to support a party that would oppose reforms as well as wage increases, because, according to his view, this would hasten Socialism.
Ed. Comm.
No comments:
Post a Comment