Make history or be it? (1996)

From the September 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists can be forgiven for getting frustrated and annoyed when
 we are told by politically active workers that, although they
sympathise with and support our ultimate goal, they prefer to join
 other parties — like New Labour — and “do something now”.
After all, they have been “doing something now” for over a century 
and they’re in a worse position now than when they started

In the final analysis, numbers count. Without the growth of a mass movement for socialism there can be no socialism. How then are we to build such a movement?

The case against capitalism has been thoroughly vindicated. This is a society that impoverishes us, emotionally and materially, that constantly saps our sense of security, that wantonly plunders our planet in the pursuit of profit. That much is well known and increasingly accepted. Nor does the idea of socialism seem particularly problematic Indeed, it usually evokes a quite favourable response, is considered a “nice idea". Yet, how often, no sooner are these words uttered, do they seem to prompt the afterthought, “but it will never happen . . . “?

Some years ago, a US state official, Francis Fukuyama, penned a controversial tract with the intriguing title The End of History. Fukuyama’s thesis in a nutshell was that notwithstanding such contemporary aberrations as Islamic fundamentalism, the world was inexorably moving towards a consensual cul-de-sac organised around the closely intertwined institutions of the bourgeois-democratic state and the free market. Socialism did not even figure in Fukuyama’s vision of the future. What he called "socialism" or “communism” turned out (predictably) to mean the discredited and floundering state capitalism of the Eastern bloc—more grist to the mill of his basic argument: the inevitable triumph of political and economic “liberalism”.

Future not predetermined

Socialists reject any notion of a future that is predetermined. Such fatalistic thinking is grounded in a view of history as something that happens to as, not something we make ourselves. Socialism is not inevitable but then neither is the continuation of capitalism. To assert that capitalism will always be with us, that we have reached the “end of history” is, in a sense, to justify not doing anything about it—for what would be the point? —and thus, ironically, to ensure socialism can never happen. Because unless we strive to make socialism happen it certainly will never happen.

For the moment, however, most people have probably never heard of the movement for real socialism and what that entails. Even so, among these, there are probably thousands of individuals unbeknown to us, or each other, who are already more or less on a socialist wavelength. I can recall once standing in a supermarket queue eavesdropping on a discussion between two women behind me enthusing over the benefits of a moneyless society. Many minutes later, with the store still gridlocked by trolleys, you could see that had a point. Anyone could.

It is little instances like that which highlight the potential of socialist ideas. If the spread of a socialist consciousness depended exclusively on the political activity of socialists it would be a long time in coming. At bottom, the socialist cause is only ever going to take off because it makes sense in terms of our life experiences and our human needs.

That said, unless we combine together to promote that cause we are not going to make headway. As isolated individuals we are powerless. And it is this sense of powerlessness that lies behind the sentiment that socialism is just a “nice idea”, worth talking about but without any real prospect of being realised.

That is why we need a genuine socialist movement. It provides a means of coordinating and focusing our individual efforts, spurring us on, as William Morris once put it, in the great task of “making socialists”. It imparts a sense of confidence that comes from knowing there are others who share our point of view. In short, it empowers us.

That much seems obvious enough and a good enough reason to join such a movement—for there can be no movement without individuals willing to join it. Yet, even a majority of those who have heard of us and know what we stand for, still decline to join us.

Their reasons appear to fall into two categories. The first of these is predicated on the premise that socialism is somehow intrinsically unworkable. Thus, it is claimed that it takes no account of “human nature” or that for technical reasons you cannot organise production in a complex modern society without recourse to money or some form of capitalist accounting. Such objections have been dealt with elsewhere in our literature and so need not detain us at this point.

But there is a second category based on what might be called “subjective” reasons which arguably constitute a far more formidable obstacle to the growth of our movement, for instance:

"I like what you stand for but while socialism remains such a remote prospect I prefer to devote my time and effort to something more achievable than something that is only likely to materialise in the very long term, if ever. ”

()n the face of it this is not at all an unreasonable proposition, given that as individuals we only have a limited amount of time and energy at our disposal. Given that the socialist movement, with a history' of struggle behind it spanning a turbulent century or more, has still not even reached the point of political “take-off”, it is perhaps not surprising that most of those who have come into contact with it have come to the conclusion that it is not worth their practical support.

How do we respond to this point? Let us start by clearing up a possible misunderstanding. The struggle for socialism does not entail forsaking one’s “immediate concerns”. Besides promoting the case for socialism on the political front, socialists are involved in a whole range of activities and organisations that are of immediate benefit to themselves, their families, their fellow workers or their local communities. These include trade unions, tenants’ associations, claimants’ unions, various voluntary and self-help organisations and schemes. We acknowledge the practical benefits that can stem from involvement with them. More than that, we recognise that they can serve as a kind of practical illustration of the principles of voluntarism and democratic control which will animate a future socialist society.

So we have no quarrel with anyone who wishes to participate in such activities. As a political organisation, however, the Socialist Party does not and cannot directly involve itself in these activities; that would detract from our sole purpose—to propagate the case for socialism.

It is part of that case that the basic problems that confront working people within capitalism are insoluble within the framework of capitalism. It is on this fundamental point that socialists and non-socialists part company.

Capitalism can’t be controlled

As socialists we reject the notion that governments can eliminate, or can be pressured into eliminating, the problems of present-day society through the implementation of reforms. This is what we mean by “reformism”. Reformism, we claim, does not work but not because of any lack of will to make it work. If politicians were able to make it work they would have every reason to make it work—if only to secure the popular support of the electorate. They do not make it work because they cannot. And because they cannot, reformism reveals itself to be a manifest waste of time and effort, time and effort that could have otherwise been used to hasten the only lasting solution to those problems: socialism.

Capitalism, we argue, operates according to inherent economic laws which are not amenable to political manipulation. What we perceive as very real problems through our human eyes—like unemployment, poverty, homelessness and hunger—are quite invisible from the perspective of the system itself. “The system” is analogous to a machine that has been designed to function according to a built-in programme. The only command it can recognise is the need to realise profit. Without profit it grinds to a halt. Thus capitalism strives continually towards the maximisation of profit—economic competition rules out any other option—and, in the process, continually reproduces the very problems we have to suffer in order to realise that goal.

Any political party that sets out to operate this machine, rather than dismantle it, will in time become little more than a mere appendage to it. If confirmation of this were needed we need look no further than the Labour Party, its very rhetoric speaks for itself. This is a party that set out to transform capitalism in the interest of the workers but instead has been transformed by capitalism. Though always a capitalist party it has never been quite so consciously comfortable in that role as it is today, in its transmogrification as “New labour”.

Were the Socialist Party to go down that same road for the sake of courting short-term popularity we would end up in the same quagmire as New Labour; we too would be just as incapable of running capitalism in the interests of workers. It’s not a question of remaining “pure” or being “unwilling to get our hands dirty” in the squalid politics of opportunism; it is rather a hard-headed and utterly realistic assessment of the situation that compels us to reject such reformism.

So distinguishing between the pursuit of short-term objectives and the “long term” objective of socialism—which is only as long term as we allow it to be—is to beg a fundamental question: what is realisable in the short term? We are not opposed to individuals pursuing their “short term” interests in those ways outlined earlier providing this does not close off, or detract from, the ultimate objective of achieving socialism. But we make a sharp distinction between that and reformism. For the latter necessarily constitutes a political choice in favour of retaining capitalism and rejecting socialism.

Reformism may achieve certain desirable results in the short term but this will often be at the expense of other reforms (for example, due to a change in funding priorities) while the inherent instability of capitalism with its boom-slump business cycle means that any gains made today are likely to be wiped out tomorrow. But the most tragic aspect of reformism is not so much its inherent futility but the fact that it can only be promoted at the expense of socialism. In the final analysis, it has to presume that socialism is rendered unnecessary by the alleged capacity of government to manipulate capitalism at will and to be benefit of the electorate at large.

Ironically, it is a growing socialist movement uncompromisingly opposed to reformism, that is more likely to force governments into granting reforms if only to head off the growth of our movement. Not only that, such growth, by profoundly altering the social climate is likely to exert a far more positive impact on a whole host of baleful and divisive prejudices than can be achieved by tackling any one of these in isolation.

Consider for example, the following. Can an ideology like racism which serves to divide black and white workers continue to thrive in the face of a movement to unite them? Can sexism persist when women and men of the working class come to recognise that they have a common interest? Will workers of the world be as easily lured by national chauvinism to take up arms against each other when they come to see that collectively they have a world to win? To ask such questions is to answer them.

To join or not to join

However, we are not yet at that stage. That leaves us with a problem which could be posed as follows:

“I agree with what you say but you are still a relatively small organisation. Surely then it would be better to work within an organisation that had more clout than the Socialist Party to bring about the kind of change we desire? ” 

The short answer to this is that size counts for nothing if the organisation concerned is not oriented towards the achievement of that change. Yes, we want to build a mass movement but it is not only movement that matters, direction counts just as much. New Labour, for example is an organisation vastly greater in size than the Socialist Party. However, by joining it, or by urging workers to “vote Labour” (as does the SWP), one would be contributing to the illusion that a Labour government would be to the advantage of working people. That being so, all one would have done is to help bring about the inevitable disillusionment and cynical backlash that a future Labour government will incur. Ironically, the likely beneficiaries of one’s actions—SWP’ers please note —would be the Tories. Hardly the kind of change one had in mind!

Let’s put it like this—if the size of an organisation was the only consideration, the effect of any one individual, from the standpoint of changing society, joining a large organisation would be no different from joining a small organisation; one might then just as well join a small organisation. If society could be compared to a plate of soup we are, each of us, tiny morsels which contribute to its overall flavour. The question is what kind of flavour do we want society to have?

The Socialist Party today is still a relatively small organisation. Because it is small it appears to lack credibility. And because it appears to lack credibility it continues to remain relatively small. In short it finds itself trapped within what is classically called a “vicious circle”.

To break out of this vicious circle it will need to breach a critical threshold of support; its take-off requires this. For that to happen depends on you. If you agree with us then why not join with us? For it is only by making socialists that, collectively, we can begin to make our own history.

Robin Cox