The Socialist Forum: Parliament and Local Government. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Parliament and Local Government.

To the Editor.

Please accept thanks for publication and reply to my letter under above heading, Socialist Standard, June, 1933. It is not my intention to enter into a hair-splitting competition. Yet, if you ask me to define what I mean by Reforms, I should say that they are such “measures” which deal with effects, while leaving untouched the fundamental principles of Capitalism. If I allow myself to be dragged into this game of parsing and analysing every word I use, you can keep me at it for everlasting, just as the working class are, generation after generation, dissipating their political activity chasing the chimera of Reform. Of course it would be absurd for a Socialist to put forward the class position on each and every occasion. Nothing is so boring and tiresome as to hear some so-called Socialists and Communists airing their views by dragging in the class struggle when, say, for instance, that spectrum analysis, bee-keeping, vegetable blight, or something of that nature, is the subject under discussion. From your remarks I gather that the S.P.G.B., per the exalted personages known to the readers of The Socialist Standard as the Ed. Comm, will tell the M.P. delegate what to do. Apparently the people who voted for the man who is supposed to be the personification of a definite set of principles are not in the act. I am beginning to see what is meant by the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. To use your own language, the thing boils down to this: By your own admission there is nothing that divides the S.P.G.B. from the Labour Party, I.L.P. or C.P. There is no reason why they should not present an united front of varying degrees of Reforms. I will quote from your own words : “May we instance measures (of course they are not “Reforms” when you call them “Measures") for stopping or avoiding a war, for reducing hours of work, or for raising unemployment pay?” But why stop short of that? What about milk for starving babies, or Hitler’s marriage dowries ?

(2) Nothing could beat your woolly word spinning under the heading of what the S.P.G.B. would do with their delegate returned by a majority on a Local Body. The electors, we are told, will have voted for a “purpose," expecting nothing else. That “purpose,'’ according to your reply, cannot deceive, disappoint, confuse or disillusion the electors, as we are led to understand that their contentment will arise from the fact that they know that “the conquest of the powers, National and Local” is a necessary step towards Socialism, and so is reading, writing and arithmetic. As far as I can see, you have admitted every point that I raised, and if it pleases the members of the S.P.G.B., it is no one else's affair.

Yours,

"PRECISION.”

Reply.

Our reply will be brief and will be confined almost entirely to corrections of misstatements made by our correspondent.

We did not say that the Editorial Committee would give instructions to Party M.P.s in Parliament or delegates on Local Councils. What we said was: “The Socialist will take his instructions from the S.P.G.B.," i.e., from the Party.

Secondly, our correspondent is simply imagining something which nowhere appears in the reply to his last letter, when he writes: "To use your own language, the thing boils down to this: By your own admission, there is nothing that divides the S.P.G.B. from the Labour Party, I.L.P. or C.P."

Neither in that language nor in any other language did we make such an admission or anything even faintly resembling it. S.P.G.B. candidates at every election stand and will always stand for Socialism, and nothing else. Unless our correspondent thinks that the candidates of the Labour Party, I.L.P. and C.P. fight elections on the issue of Socialism and nothing else, he knows that there is this fundamental difference which divides those parties from the S.P.G.B.

Our correspondent is contemptuous of the notion that Socialist delegates in Parliament would be instructed by the S.P.G.B. to use their votes against war, or for measures reducing hours of work or raising unemployment pay. This same correspondent, two-and-a-half years ago (see Socialist Standard, November, 1930), wrote telling us that we ought to organise public meetings of protest against the L.C.C. bye-law which forbids us selling literature and taking collections in the parks, get the meetings to show by means of a vote that they disapproved, and send the result of the votes to the L.C.C. Thus he would have us canvass support and votes on a minor reform but would not have Socialist delegates in Parliament vote on it.

As our correspondent raises the question of reading and writing, etc., as an intended parallel with the necessity of gaining control of the local machinery of Government, may we point out an obvious difference. The Capitalists do supply the reading and writing, compulsorily, but they do not put Socialists in control of the machinery of Government. For our correspondent's further information, if the capitalists were to introduce a measure into Parliament, having for its object the abolition of education in reading and writing, etc., Socialist delegates would doubtless be instructed to vote against it, as also against measures for the limitation of the franchise, or the prohibition of public meetings and the sale of

literature.

Ed. Comm.

Letter: Some Questions on Parliament and Local Government. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Some Questions on Parliament 
and Local Government.

 

To the Editor.

(1) It is doubtful if any body of men could gather together who are agreed upon every detail of policy, but it is essential that there should be unanimity as regards general principles if they are going to make any headway. History records the fatal consequences of dissension at critical moments, hence it is advisable that the S.P.G.B. should analyse its position before the time arrives in which it secures Parliamentary representation. Obviously the return of a single member will not alter the character of the legislation, all that it will convey is the fact that the majority of a certain constituency have registered their disapproval of the capitalist system and a desire to replace it with Socialism. Yet this stage would mark a grave step as regards the rôle that the S.P.G.B. would play in the advancement of Socialism. To say exactly what should be the attitude of the first Socialist Member of Parliament towards the questions of the day almost amounts to Utopianism, and how far we are justified in anticipating the event it is difficult to say, but such a situation is likely to arise, otherwise the S.P.G.B. might as well abandon its programme and become a mass of non-effective units. We are all familiar with the process of capturing the ear of the working class. The Reformist Parties achieve their object by promises of immediate Reforms under the heading of a meantime policy. The S.P.G.B. denounces the Reformist Parties for the reason that their policy, instead of realising Socialism, merely perpetuates Capitalism. But at the same time, Reformist Parties, representing as they do a certain section of the community, are acting quite logically in formulating and supporting reforms in the House of Parliament. The pseudo Revolutionist who makes the excuse that he associates with the Reformists so that he can push forward his revolutionary theories is either a conscious fraud or politically superficial. In any case the results are the same. If, as a Member of Parliament, he ceased to support Reforms, he would not be re-elected, and there is no reason to suppose that a M.P. elected on a Revolutionary policy and who yet supported Reforms would survive another election. It should be apparent by now that Reformism is a failure, but the pity of it is that the working class are often inclined to listen to the men who have advocated this policy. These artful fellows suggest that the Parliamentary system has broken down, whereas it is the economic consequences of their policy which is the root of the trouble. Such being the case the lesson should be driven home upon the working class that all Reforms are but the reflection of capitalist interests intent upon preserving the economic status quo, that it is not only a waste of time but actually playing the capitalist game to support any Reform however pretty it may appear. The best analogy that I can think of is the story of the travellers in a sleigh in the arctic regions pursued by a pack of wolves. Driven to extremities they abandon provisions, crippled dogs, and even members of the crew to appease the hunger of the pack, that the remainder may reach safety. Hence it need not worry the Revolutionist. The stricter in his adherence to his policy the more frantic becomes the desire of the capitalist class and their supporters, the Reformist Parties, to avoid the consequences of their system. The Revolutionist’s attitude toward these Reforms should be that of scorn and derision, never supporting the most far-reaching Reform that can be conceived, for none of them can solve the social problem, as to be associated with them in any shape or form must of a necessity bring discredit, as they can at best but spread out the misery.

(2) Arising out of this attitude comes the delicate position of the S.P.G.B. and participation in Local politics. How the S.P.G.B. can administer a capitalist institution and avoid that economic miracle of serving all classes in society baffles me. What surprises me more is that the members of the S.P.G.B. have not realised the absurdity of their position in this matter. It was the illogical loose-thinking “Glasgow Greenism” that wrecked the S.L.P. more than anything. To transfer the venue to Poplar, etc., does not alter the principle that a Local body under Capitalism cannot function other than within the ambit of Capitalism, but a national assembly such as the Parliament can with a majority transform the economic structure of society.

Yours,

PRECISION.

Reply.

The criticisms made by our correspondent in his letter have been put and answered on several occasions in these columns. Part of the ground was covered in the issue for September, 1932. For convenience we have numbered the separate parts of our correspondent's letter.

First, there are some general observations to be made by way of introduction. Our correspondent confines his remarks about action in Parliament to the question of the attitude of Socialists towards "Reforms," but nowhere does he say what he means by a “Reform." In order to explain our attitude in full, and in order to avoid the criticism that we have dealt with only part of the questions that may arise, we prefer to use the broader term “measures." So that we are setting out to explain what attitude a minority of Socialists in Parliament should adopt towards measures introduced by non-Socialists.

The next point which needs some clarification is the relationship of future Socialist delegates in Parliament to the other members of the S.P.G.B., and to the non-Socialist workers outside the S.P.G.B. The Socialist will take his instructions from the S.P.G.B., he will not be a free agent but an instructed delegate. What he does will be what we tell him to do. And what we tell him to do will be what we, as Socialists, regard as the sound attitude to adopt in any particular set of circumstances, based on the principles of the S.P.G.B., and our knowledge of the interest of the working class. We know and accept the principles on which the Party is based, and those non-members of the Party who vote for Socialism at elections in preference to reformist parties will also know exactly what line of action to expect from the S.P.G.B., whether expressed through delegates in Parliament, or in any other field.

All of this leads up to the point which our correspondent's letter appears to overlook, that is, the important point that if a body of Socialists with their eyes open and in full knowledge instruct their delegate in Parliament to take a certain line of action there is no room whatever for any deception, any misleading of members by the delegate, or any disillusionment on account of the results of that action. (Even if we committed an error of judgment the position would be just the same, the error would be ours, not the delegate's.)

This clearly marks off the Socialist delegate in Parliament from the Reformist. The one is sent there by Socialists only, by men and women who understand where they are going and what use they can make of Parliament both as a minority and as a majority. The other is elected by people who are expecting their representative to do something for them; and who will be disillusioned and will turn on him when they find that he does not deliver the goods. The Socialist electorate knows precisely what are the limits of action while the capitalists are in control of the political machinery. The reformist electorate does not know the limits and is expecting something which is unattainable.

Now for answers to the two questions.

(1) The first question boils down to this: What should Socialists tell their minority group of M.P.s to do in regard to measures introduced by non-Socialists ?

Our correspondent says that "it is not only a waste of time but actually playing the capitalist game to support any Reform, however pretty it may appear."

We reply that this sweeping statement cannot be justified. We say that certain measures introduced by non-Socialists may incidentally possess a value for the working class or for the Socialist movement, and we would accordingly instruct our delegates to vote for such measures, but of course not to make any alliances or compacts with other bodies or individuals. Voting for these problematical measures, however, would not prevent the delegates from criticising them in the same way as our speakers and writers in the Socialist Standard deal with them. May we instance measures for stopping or avoiding a war, for reducing hours of work, or for raising unemployment pay.

The danger feared by our correspondent appears to be that reforms will appease the discontented workers (like the wolves) and prevent the growth of the Socialist movement. It should surely be obvious that if reforms could prevent the growth of Socialism then Socialism will never be achieved, and indeed no Socialist movement could ever have arisen. Another danger sometimes alleged is that to vote on a particular measure will confuse the workers in the constituencies. As regards the Socialist voters (as pointed out in the introductory paragraphs) no confusion can arise because the instructions to the delegate are in line with the known principles on which the Socialist electors vote, and emanate from the S.P.G.B. As regards non-Socialist workers, the position after such a vote will be neither better nor worse than it was before, 'or than it is now. The problem of the non-Socialist is the problem of getting him to understand Socialist principles. The non-Socialist voter may or may not approve of Socialist M.P.s voting for or against some measure in which he is interested, but it is by definition impossible for Socialists' actions to please the non-Socialist; nor should we allow our conduct to be influenced by that consideration. It is the duty of the Socialist to act in line with the interest of the working class and of the Socialist movement, irrespective .of what non-Socialist workers may think about it.

(2) Our correspondent’s second question differs from die first in that' we are now asked to consider the action of a Socialist majority on a local council while Parliament is still controlled by the capitalists.

Again our correspondent ignores the vital difference between Socialists elected by Socialists, and representatives elected by reformists. If a Socialist majority of electors decides to put Socialist delegates on to a local council it will not be because they want “Poplarism” or expect something which cannot be obtained, or because they want the delegates to “serve all classes.” If there is a Socialist majority among the electors then the instructions given by the S.P.G.B. to its delegates on the Councils in accordance with the principles of the S.P.G.B. cannot deceive, disappoint, confuse or disillusion the electors. They will have voted for a purpose, expecting nothing else. They will get exactly what they voted for, that is, control of the machinery of Local Government. They will want that control, not for the purpose of “Poplarism” or "administering capitalism,” but because they know that “the conquest of the powers of government, national and local,” is a necessary step towards achieving Socialism.

When our correspondent expresses surprise “that the members of the S.P.G.B. have not realised the absurdity of their position in this matter,” he is in reality only disclosing his own lack of understanding of what the S.P.G.B. stands for and does.

To imply that it was a similar view which wrecked the Socialist Labour Party is entirely misleading. The S.L.P., far from holding our view of the paramount need of conquering the powers of government, national or local, held views completely incompatible with ours.

In case anyone should be misled by our correspondent’s concluding remarks, we may as well explain that the S.P.G.B. never on any occasion engaged in or gave its support to what our correspondent calls “Poplarism ” ! 

Ed. Comm.

Answers to Correspondents: Why we obey the L.C.C. (1930)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why we obey the L.C.C.

A correspondent writes to criticise us for “accepting the ruling of the L.C.C.” which forbids us to take collections or sell literature in London commons and parks. He suggests that we ought to hold meetings of protest and get the audiences to show by means of a vote their disapproval of the L.C.C.’s action. The results of the votes should be forwarded to the L.C.C., and then he adds : “If the bye-law is not repealed, the L.C.C. is acting unconstitutionally and you can take a collection, sell literature, and tell the police.”

Our correspondent’s argument contains one fatal defect : his assumption that a bye-law ceases to be effective because a number of public meetings protest against it. Even if we assume (a very big assumption) that the Tory, Liberal, and Labour supporters who form the vast majority of the audiences who gather in public places, would support such a protest, the fact remains that a big majority of the members elected to sit on the London County Council are in favour of the ban, and their supporters, if not actively in favour, are at least not prepared to demand its withdrawal. It is not within the limited means of the S.P.G.B. to reach the whole of the electorate in London, and the few we can reach at our meetings arc too few to change the composition or to influence the actions of the L.C.C. So long as the L.C.C. is composed of people who want the ban, so long will that bye-law remain in force. And so long as it remains in force, the L.C.C. have the power to see that it is carried out.

If our speakers ignored it, they would be faced, as several individuals (not our members) have already been faced, with fines or the alternative of imprisonment. Being a working-class organisation, we cannot light-heartedly accept the burden of paying a number of fines and of losing our jobs (those who have them) by going to prison. To do so in the case in question would, in any event, be without effect upon the L.C.C., since the imposition of such fines would please them without causing the slightest trouble or embarrassment. It would probably not even lose them votes. 

When we have to consider taking such costly action, it must be for a purpose much more worth while than fighting this particular bye-law, which, troublesome as it is, does not prevent us from carrying on propaganda. It has indeed decreased our income, and so far we have not been able to make good the loss in other directions. We hope, however, that our efforts to do so will prove successful in the near future.

Editorial Committee.