Reform and Revolution: Three Early Socialists on the Way Ahead (1996)

Book Review from the Sep-Oct 1996 issue of the Discussion Bulletin

Reform and Revolution: Three Early Socialists on the Way Ahead — William Morris, John Carruthers, Fred Henderson. Edited and Introduced by Stephen Coleman The William Morris Library #12. Thoemmes Press. 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR. U.K.

One hundred years ago a familiar dispute raged within the anti-capitalism movement Should we socialists organize our class to improve their lot under capitalism, or should we limit ourselves to educating workers about the need to abolish the system in its entirety? Today it’s very clear that the reformers have won for the time being. To everyone except small grouplets of libertarian non-market socialists—DeLeonists, world socialists, and anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists—socialism and communism mean social welfare programs and varying degrees of government ownership of the means of production, all within the market system.

The three anti-reformist pamphlets collected in this volume were written between 1887 and 1915 by William Moms and two other prominent British socialists whom he had influenced. Steve Coleman, who probably convinced the William Morris Society to commission the book, has written a thirty-eight page introduction that places that debate within the context of the events and preoccupations of the spokesmen and organizations of the time. Morris wrote "The Policy of Abstention” (20 pages, 1887) after his new group, the Socialist League, split from the Social Democratic Federation over the question of reformism. Carruthers’ “Socialism and Radicalism” (15 pages, 1894). written a few years later. describes the failure of the reformist-“radical" in his lexicon-politics of the Labor Party of New Zealand, where he lived for a time, to change substantially the lives of working people in that country when it held power. "The ABC of Socialism" by Fred Henderson (18 pages, 1915). was published by the Independent Labor Party, which supported Labor Party reformism but permitted dissenting views. It was published as part of a larger work presenting standard reformist ideas.

Coleman's introduction, after examining the historical context of the debate between the revolutionary anti-reformist impossibilists and the reformist gradualist possibilists in both England and abroad—including the US where the IWW and the SLP are mentioned—concentrates on Morris’s contribution to the book. His idea of abstention (boycotting elections) stems from the view that electoral activity by socialists must inevitably involve the advocacy of reforms to relieve the immediate misery working people suffer. Since Coleman belongs to that substantial part of the existing revolutionary movement that advocates electoral activity, he spends some time trying to explain and demolish Morris's contentions—and not too successfully as I see things now after decades in the electorally oriented SLP. But this aside, socialists will find the book useful both for its historical information on reformism and as a source for the never ending debates with the well meaning reformists we meet m our day-to-day discussions of social issues.

Frank Girard

Blogger's Note:

This book was also reviewed in the June 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Voting: is it worth it? (2024)

From the June 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Thursday 2 May 2024 saw another round of elections for local councils and regional mayors. They were followed by a media glut of psephological analysis and speculation as to the significance of results.

Claims and counter claims as to the reasons behind outcomes vied with each other. Those who had increased their numbers of elected councillors, such as Labour, the LibDems and the Greens, claimed vindication for their opposition to the present government and called for a general election now. Unsurprisingly this call went unheeded by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, who instead highlighted the odd anomalous result as indicating an underlying trend of support in their favour.

By the following Tuesday there were only occasional references to the election in news broadcasts as Parliament reassembled following the May Day bank holiday. Then it was back to the knockabout pantomime politics in the Commons. It turns out the elections and their reporting were largely, to quote Shakespeare, ‘…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing’ (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5).

Should there be doubt expressed over this sentiment, it is worth considering the extent to which the significance of the ballot was generally considered. A measure of this is the turnout, a factor briefly mentioned in the subsequent reporting. In one Metropolitan Borough Council area the rounded-up turnout figures ranged from 35 percent in the highest ward down to 16 percent in the lowest, with a borough average of 25 percent. Abstention was clearly the winner.

Was this feature due to apathy or antipathy, or perhaps an amalgam of them both? If apathy was the demotivating factor it maybe reflects negative attitudes cultivated by experience of previous voting making little or no practical difference. Antipathy is likely the expression of a cynicism grown from the same circumstances. One is a passive acceptance, the other can manifest as what might be described as bar-room anger, often expressed as vitriolic denunciation of politicians of all stripes and politics in general.

There are those who would denounce both attitudes for not making use of a most valuable asset, the vote. The argument runs along the lines that workers fought, and in some cases died, to secure the vote for working people in general, or women in particular.

Cannot deliver

Democracy, however flawed, is certainly always preferable to tyranny, so the vote is indeed a precious thing. However, accepting this raises a question. If the vote is valuable, why give it to someone you know will not, cannot, deliver on promises made?

Politicians are often fundamentally dishonest, but they can never be in a position to make the really radical changes that would benefit all society. Their problem is that everything people might aspire to costs.

The NHS is a case in point. It has grown from a quite basic level of medical provision at its foundation in 1948, to the hi-tech service it is today, dealing with a vast range of illnesses and conditions quite beyond its scope in the early days. The technology involved now would have seemed almost sci-fi in 1948. But those machines are expensive to develop, buy, maintain and operate. So when a government claims to be spending so many billion pounds more on the NHS than its predecessors, that is accurate.

It does not, though, come close to meeting the continually rising cost of realising actual need, or paying the staff adequately (in capitalist terms). With the result that voters have negative experiences from not being able to get GP appointments to not receiving vital treatment. The only source from which those costs can be met is the wealth owned and controlled by capitalism. Every pound raised rather than borrowed by government, national or local, ultimately comes from capitalism’s wealth, either directly as business taxes, or indirectly via income tax.

People see the problems and seek solutions, and replacing the party in power with another one promising change appears to be an option. Indeed, palliative measures may well be enacted, only for them to be frustrated by the economic demands and realities of capitalism. While voting is indisputably integral to a democratic political process, it is by no means a guarantee. Indeed, ‘democratic’ is often the word of choice in the titles of authoritarian regimes seemingly untroubled by the notion of irony.

The German Democratic Republic (GDR) of the Cold War period made use of institutions apparently modelled on those of its National Socialist predecessor. While the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) serves as a present-day example of the word erroneously used. A country claiming to be both socialist and democratic shamelessly promotes dynastic rule that so far has consisted of grandfather, father and grandson with, it seems, the great granddaughter being prepared for her turn. No doubt to unanimous popular acclaim.

The promotion of democracy is fundamental to the socialist cause, actual socialism that is, not just in name. A worldwide society in which capitalism has been replaced by the conscious action of the international working class, not some self-selected vanguard acting supposedly on its behalf. A society without rulers, dynastic, presidential or otherwise with truly democratic institutions organising the meeting of self-determined needs, rather than the production for profit.

Important but limited

Unless and until capitalism, driven to accumulate capital, has been replaced by socialism, there cannot be a fully democratic society. The present political expressions of democracy – free speech (more or less), universal suffrage (more or less), secret ballots and regular elections for local and national assemblies – are important.

Socialists can and do contest elections, being very much in favour of electors being able to engage with and show support for socialist ideas. Indeed, socialist candidates being able to garner increasing numbers of votes will be an indication that the working class is moving towards making the break with capitalism. However, this will only be realised when the working class develops democratic institutions whereby the ultimate component of democracy, presently excluded from the process, economic possession and control can be achieved.

Unfortunately, at the moment there seems to be no short-term prospect of that happening. So, while the knockabout nature of party politics remains, and the merry-go-round of office swapping continues, socialists must make whatever use they can to put their ideas. Democracy even in its limited form must not be demeaned, but challenged to become a more profound agent of change. Present limitations have been highlighted by the ease with which two Conservative MPs, Dan Poulter and Natalie Elphicke, crossed the floor to the Labour benches. Natalie Elphicke is particularly interesting as she was regarded as being on the right wing of the Tory Party, stepping easily into the centre-left opposition and welcomed by its leader. The promotion of democratic choice between left, right and centre proves to be little or no choice at all.

It is illuminating, however, that even authoritarian regimes often do hold elections, be it well-managed and controlled ones. Voting, it would appear, confers some, if spurious, legitimacy, even when the outcome is so predetermined it would make a political pollster blush.

Passive role

While what are sometimes termed liberal democracies, such as the UK, hold regular open elections with secret ballots, this does not mean democracy has been achieved. The vast majority, the electorate, are subordinated to a very passive role. They play no active part in formulating polices or selecting likely candidates to become their representatives. Rather they are consumers who choose, from a limited range of political products, those they consider best able to administer and manage the state for capitalism.

As for capitalism itself, the electorate have no role in its decision making, no vote as to its operation. It has but one imperative, the ceaseless pursuit of profit, unhindered, as far as possible, by political or social considerations.

The electoral system also serves the prevailing ideological focus on national concerns. Voters are restricted to their limited participation in politics that stop at the borders. Devolution, often mooted as a more localised politics, narrows this focus even more, as do independence movements, such as the SNP. There is no sense of galvanising an international electorate to look beyond borders towards a worldwide politics. And certainly no prospect offered of transcending capitalism by organising a truly democratic movement to socialism.

This does not deprive the vote of its value. However unlikely or distant such a transformation might presently seem, voting must ultimately play a significant, perhaps determining, role in its peaceful and democratic achievement. The vote, therefore, is valuable no matter how cheaply it is presently spent. Refusing to give it away to parties who will not, and cannot, deliver promised benefits in return, is to recognise its worth and honour those men and women who struggled and fought for it. As a resource, spoil your vote until it can be put to good use, but don’t waste it or ignore it.

Dave Alton

Does voting matter? (2024)

From the January 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Every four or five years, you get to vote for some well-meaning individual, who promises to cure unemployment, poverty and homelessness. After that, you have no control over them, no power to influence events. Tony Blair once said that you are at your maximum power when you vote. If this is the most power you have, it’s not a lot, is it?

Real power lies in the hands of the owners of the wealth in our society, the capitalists. They control the decisions that affect us most: what food to grow, what houses to build, what clothes to make. They do so on one principle: no profit, no production. Our needs come second to profit.

Voting for a party that works within this principle cannot address the problems of our community. Any party that promises this or that tax or law is leaving this principle intact, and the capitalists in charge. So a vote for them – Labour, the Tories, the Liberals, the Greens, the Nationalists, etc – is a wasted vote.

Maybe you don’t vote at all. Maybe you think voting is a waste of time because it doesn’t change anything. Certainly, we’d agree with you that a vote for Labour, the Tories, the Liberals or the others is a waste of time.

It’s a waste, particularly, if you leave it there, at the voting, at the nose counting, and take no further part until the next election. Democracy means much more than a cross on a bit of paper; it means organising, debating, discussing and examining the world around us to work out how to change it for our benefit. Democracy is too important to be left to the professionals.

We’d argue, though, that it’s still a waste of time unless you see that inequality of wealth means inequality of power. That as long as a minority own society, it must be run in their interest. Labour, the Liberals, the Tories, none of them want to do anything about that, they’re content just to beg the owners of our society for some scraps from the table.

There is, though, an alternative. You can join with your fellow workers with the aim of taking control of society, in which we do all the work anyway, and begin running it directly for our mutual needs. You can have the power of membership in a democratic organisation that does not seek to take power on capitalist terms, but just seeks to abolish this rotten system. You can use your vote to show others where you stand, and proclaim your opposition to capitalism.

That is why we campaign for the common and democratic ownership and control of the wealth of the world. If you do that, you can make democracy and equality mean something, and change the world so that it is run for your benefit, not the tiny minority’s. We’re asking you to join us in that campaign.

Election Items. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Northampton Branch of the S.D.F. ran two candidates with the object of securing a solid vote.

* * * *

The Southampton Branch of the S.D.F. complain of “the mean trick of the Liberals in bringing out a second candidate in order to defeat us.”

* * * *

The Southend Branch of the S.D.F. issued a ” No Vote ” manifesto.

* * * *

The Plymouth Branch of the S.D.F. supported the Liberal Candidate (vide Daily News).

* * * *

The Stratford S.D.F. issued an “abstain from voting” manifesto and endeavoured to hold a meeting, but were broken up by Masterman’s supporters.

* * * *

J. J. Terrett held meetings in Stratford Grove in favour of the Liberals and made collections for the S.D.F. war chest.

* * * *

Dan Irving and Geo. Belt both signed the L.R.C. declaration and then the L.R.C. declined to adopt them.

* * * *

The S.D.F. delegates at the Amsterdam Congress gave as their reason for not affiliating to the L.R.C., that the L.R.C. refused to allow its candidates to run as “Socialists.”

* * * *

Geo. Belt, the S.D.F. “Labor” candidate for Hammersmith, issued a leaflet denouncing the Liberals for refusing to “arbitrate” as to who had the greater right to be the candidate, and expressing his willingness and desire to “arbitrate.”

* * * *

“Justice” describes Liberals as “liars” “thieves” etc., and it is with “liars” and “thieves” that they would arbitrate.

* * * *

John Burns is at a loss to decide whether his success was due to the manifesto against him issued by the Battersea S.D.F., or to the telegram wishing him success which the Countess of Warwick (S.D.F. member) sent, and which was read at Burns’s meeting at the Latchmere Baths on Wednesday, January 10th.

* * * *

John Burns returned the Countess’s compliments by telegraphing to the Camborne Liberals, “The Socialist have bitterly opposed me.”

* * * *

The Camborne Liberals got their own back by “taking it out” of Will Thorne.

The Countess then tripped over on her motor car to sympathise with “poor Will,” and stayed at Upton Park “quite twenty minutes.”

* * * *

If the Stratford S.D.F. deserved to be publicly reprimanded and apologised for, as was done by Councillor J. Jones at Stratford Town Hall, for engaging Mr. E. E. Hunter, a once expelled member of the S.D.F. to do “dirty political work” for them, what punishment is deserved by Councillor Jack Jones for engaging Mr. J. J. Terrett, a thrice expelled member of the S.D.F., to do his “dirty political” work at Camborne ?

In the News: Nobody cares about you! (2001)

From the July 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

So, has anything positive come out of another instalment of British capital’s election farce? Well, 41 percent of those eligible to vote on 7 June turned their backs on it altogether. The representatives of capitalism and the media have done no end of moaning about our “apathy”, but then, of course, they are never going to give workers the credit that we might actually have seen through capitalist political “democracy”. So, maybe we can talk of rejection rather than apathy. But are there any positive challenges or alternatives coming from the working class?

Any readers from the Bristol area will have seen the posters and stickers stating “Nobody Cares” and “Vote Nobody”. Well, on 3 May (the date council elections were originally meant to take place) people in the Easton area of the city did indeed really have the chance to “Vote Nobody”. Thousands of forms were delivered ahead of an “election” held at Easton community centre, where those voting had a choice on the question “who do you want to run Easton?” between Bristol City Council and “Nobody”. 150 local people participated, with the result being Council – 5, “Nobody”– 145. The Nobody campaign then “derecognised” the council and invited people to meet on Thursdays at the community centre, at an assembly where they could discuss local issues. There are now a few “You are now entering free Easton” signs to be seen around the area.

As reported in the Big Issue South West (April 30–May 6 edition): “We’re telling people to ‘Vote Nobody’ for two reasons,” said campaign spokesman ‘Nobby O’body’.

“Firstly, we want to ridicule the idea that democracy is working. Democracy isn’t about ticking a box every four years to choose between a few cloned candidates whose manifestos say almost exactly the same thing. Secondly, on a more serious level, if the council is failing local people, we believe that the community has a right to say that it doesn’t recognise the council’s authority any more”. (The Vote Nobody campaign can be accessed at: http://uk.geocities.com/votenobody)

The “Nobody” team then went on to encourage people pissed off with the political con-game to express themselves by writing “Nobody” across ballot papers in the general election on 7 June. Spoilt ballot papers? Sound familiar?

Yes, in this respect there is more than a little common ground between the Socialist Party and the Nobody team in the elections just gone. We were both saying, if you are opposed to all the political con-merchants and the capitalist interests for which they stand – why vote for any of them? Why not vote for yourself, for a change, rather than just saying “voting changes nothing”? Why not vote “Nobody”? Or, better still, as we support the use of the vote as a potential revolutionary form of political expression, write “world socialism” across your ballot paper?

Both the world socialist campaign and “Nobody” rejected all the parties of capital. And, in the case of the 3 May Easton “referendum”, the Nobody campaign was perhaps tentatively exploring the sort of community/workers’ councils embodying direct working class democracy that would be vital in any future social and political movement for socialism. In our case though we are slightly more specific that this must be accompanied by electoral action to win control of parliament for the revolutionary working class. This in order to neutralise the capitalist state and its forces of repression, express the revolutionary desire of the working class majority and formally dismantle capitalism and its state apparatus. These, of course, are questions and situations for the future. But at least we have seen in Bristol, for any criticisms that could be made, a positive reaction to the evident failure of capitalist politics of all shades to work in the interest of the working class and their communities.

Local Socialist Party comrades delivered our own “anti-capitalist guide to the general election” leaflets to homes in Easton, putting our case for the rejection of capitalism’s election charade and for the rejection of the capitalist system entire – and for self-organisation to build a free society based on the principle of from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs. So let’s put self-emancipation and the abolition of capitalism on the agenda. Let’s vote for ourselves for a change, and act for ourselves for a change – turning “apathy” into positive action.

Ben Malcolm

News of Party Activity (1975)

Party News from the July 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Two more successful debates have taken place recently, and we give short reports of both below.

Labour Party

A good-sized audience attended Ealing Town Hall on 6th June for our debate with the Labour MP Sydney Bidwell. The subject “Labour Party and Socialism — is there a connection?” was chosen by Bidwell himself; he also asked for last-minute changes in the speaking arrangements. After he had thus called the tune, it turned out to be an atrociously flat one.

Bidwell spent more than half his opening twenty minutes on the positions he held and the importance of the work he did. In the remaining time he spoke of the Labour Party as a loose movement not bound by principles and of its being supported by trade unionists. No attempt was made to explain “socialism”, or the political purposes of the Labour Party.

Our representative, Comrade Barltrop, defined Socialism and gave an analysis of capitalism. Being a loose movement without principles meant simply that Labour existed on the support of non-Socialists. Labour’s history was of reform legislation and — on the quoted evidence of many Labourites themselves — this left capitalism and the situation of the working class unchanged. The Labour Party was an anti-socialist, anti-working-class party.

A period of questions to both speakers showed unmistakably what the audience thought. Bidwell responded to every instance of the perniciousness of Labour policies by saying that the Tribune group, of which he was chairman, disowned all the disagreeable things. His closing speech was received silently, while our speaker’s summing-up of the Socialist case was enthusiastically received. Literature sales for the evening were excellent.

Common Market

In a debate arranged by the Philippa Fawcett College on 30th May on the Common Market Referendum issue William Shelton (Tory MP for Streatham) spoke in favour; John Fraser (Labour MP for Norwood) urged a “No” vote; Sue Slipman (NUS Executive) also said “No”; and C. May (SPGB) put the Socialist position.

Shelton argued the benefits of staying in. He spoke of the greater opportunities for capital investment which would give more jobs; the military advantages; and the myths put out by the anti-Marketeers to frighten the electorate. Fraser’s case was that membership had not brought the promised benefits and would create difficulties for the Labour Party in carrying out its programme. Sue Slipman’s remarks can be summed-up as “student nationalism”; her concern was that European influence would dictate how our colleges and universities would operate.

Comrade May challenged the other speakers on the poverty of their contributions. He analyzed the EEC’s capitalism and pointed out that the problems of unemployment, housing, poverty etc. were features of capitalism everywhere. All the other contributors had to offer the working class was work (and that only if things went to plan).

The SPGB would vote neither “Yes” nor “No” but register votes for Common Ownership: a world system to deal with world problems. Socialism would organize production solely for use and abolish all markets. Such a society could solve the major problems. When the majority understood and wanted it they would take political action to build a world where, in the words of Oscar Wilde, “Man will be known not for what he has, but for what he is” — a refreshing thought compared with the abysmal standard of contribution on the Referendum issue.

There was an audience of about 70.

The Guardian Doesn't Apologize

On 1st June we held a rally at Trafalgar Square on the theme “Common Ownership not Common Market”. The Guardian published a photograph of part of the audience, with a caption describing the meeting as an “anti-EEC” rally. Two letters of correction, one from a regular contributor to this journal and the other from a speaker at the rally, produced only the reply that The Guardian would try to print a clarification of our position at some time. A further letter to the Editor, saying that printing one of the letters now was the only useful way of rectifying the matter, received no answer. Presumably The Guardian has varied its old slogan to: “Comment is sacred, but facts are free.”

A Silly Weekend

We were recently in touch with London Weekend Television over the possibility of a Party speaker taking part in a discussion of London rates. At their request, we sent a three-minute script outlining the Socialist case on this question. London Weekend’s reply was that this was not appropriate to their programme because: “You have no particular proposal to make other than that an unspecified form of socialism would wipe out the need to pay taxes and rates.”

Well, it isn’t much of a proposal when you think of it, is it? All these people want to do is abolish capitalism and change the whole of society, and get rid of money and have free access instead. What’s special about doing that?

What the reply reveals is that TV discussion programmes want only trivia, of course. If our script had proposed replacing rates with a Tax on Amorous Glances, or putting comic hats on parking meters, we should have been invited to send a speaker to sit facing an interviewer with corrugated brow asking "But is it viable ?” — and, no doubt, a couple of economists saying earnestly “What about the cost- push and demand-pull?”

Interesting Figures

One feature of the Common Market Referendum voting was the large number of ballot papers recorded as “spoiled”, i.e. marked otherwise than as required. The total over Britain was nearly 55,000, and there were 6,874 in Greater London.

At every election we urge people (except where there is a Socialist candidate) to write “Socialism” across the ballot papers as a means of registering what they want. How many did so on this occasion?

Trafalgar Square

A successful 2½-hour meeting was held with an attentive audience of around 500 on a fine but occasionally chilly afternoon. A total of £14.60 literature was sold from the two literature tables, in addition to sales by members; the final total was probably in the region of £18. Two collections realized £21.06.

58 members were present and the three speakers dealt with the subject of the Common Market extremely well. Several members of the audience took advantage of the roving microphone to ask the platform questions, and it was a most successful propaganda meeting.

The ballot strike in Tunisia (2023)

From the March 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 2011, discontent and unrest in Tunisia spread and ignited wider discontent in what became known as the Arab Spring. Now, more than a decade later, protests have returned so that Tunisians may once again put food on their tables.

Tunisia’s president, Kais Saied, assumed almost total power in 2021, having sacked the prime minister, suspended parliament and enacted a constitution that gave him, as the head of state, supreme control and command of the military and granted him the ability to rule by decree.

In December’s election for the new, mostly powerless, legislature most of the opposition political parties announced an election boycott. It resulted in only 8.8 percent of the nine-million-strong electorate voting in the parliamentary elections. A required run-off election was held in January 2023 after only 21 candidates out of 161 Assembly seats were elected in the first round. Just 88,000, or 11 percent of the 7.8 million entitled to vote in the run-offs cast their ballots.

People, rather than feeling cheated of their right to vote, have understood that the election was not a sincere engagement in democracy.

A non-voter explained, ‘He promised serious reforms but we haven’t seen anything. People have had it with these promises and that’s why they boycotted the last two elections. They don’t believe this regime is going to find an answer to their problems, especially their economic problems’ (bit.ly/3ll6WuX).

Another said: ‘We don’t want elections. We want milk and sugar and cooking oil’ (bit.ly/3XipR6Q).

Despite losing legitimacy and credibility, Saied has remained in power, retains the loyalty of the army officers and continues to be recognised as the head of state by foreign governments and international institutions.

For example, he can still negotiate and secure from the International Monetary Fund a $1.9bn loan to finance his 2023 budget and accept the accompanying austerity conditions that will likely lead to ending food and fuel subsidies, cutting public spending on public health, education, social services and the privatisation of state enterprises (bit.ly/3llYbAV).

When in Hong Kong the people were deprived of a say in electing the Legislative Assembly, they saw that the district council elections, previously akin to neighbourhood council elections, offered them an opportunity to express their political preferences. Hong Kong’s pro-democracy candidates won close to 60 percent of the total vote, 347 of the 452 taking control of at least 17 of the city’s 18 district councils.

But once again, as we see with Tunisia, as long as political power is not in the hands of the people of Hong Kong, change will not happen. The election boycott strategy still preserves political power for the government and although its validity is questioned, it remains intact.

There are differences between boycotting elections, abstaining from voting and what is described as the Sinn Fein voting strategy of standing but, if elected, not taking the seat in Parliament.

What is important is capturing political power to exercise the will of the people. Simply abstaining from voting – or not taking the seat – is not sufficient

When there is no genuine socialist candidate, we favour going to the polling station to cast a write-in vote for socialism rather than merely abstaining as this shows that we attach some significance to the existence of the universal suffrage that our antecedents struggled to gain. In this country, where there is a stable political democracy, we favour using it to win political control. In other countries where this is not the case a socialist majority there would be obliged to adopt a different method. There will also be occasions, as in Tunisia, when a parliamentary process will be purposefully gerrymandered to deny the possibility of the people’s will.

We have never held that a merely formal majority at the polls will give the workers the power to achieve socialism. We have always emphasised that our fellow workers must be knowledgeable in the essentials of socialist ideas and be democratically organised.

A socialist party’s role is to strive to be educators, agitators and organisers, to act as catalysts and not to substitute the party for our class. Without an educated and organised working class as the motor for achieving socialism, we cannot have socialism.

William Morris put it well, ’It should be our special aim to make Socialists by putting before people, and especially the working classes, the elementary truths of socialism… before any definite socialist action can be attempted, it must be backed up by a great body of intelligent opinion — the opinion of a great mass of people who are already socialists…’ (bit.ly/3YDLIqs).

It is not just the quantity of the votes but the quality of the voters behind them that will be decisive.

ALJO

The Quick Change Artist. (1924)

From the May 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the moment Winston Churchill is very much in the public eye on account of his latest change of front. He was once a Conservative, then he became a Liberal, and lately he appears to have returned to the Conservative ranks again. But in one thing he is at least consistent, he has always supported Capitalism and has not pretended to do anything else.

There is another man, once very much in the public eye, but now a setting star. This other man is Tom Mann. He has also changed his front many times, but he also has at least been consistent in one thing— consistent in advancing the personal interests of one Tom Mann.

For years Tom Mann waved the big stick of Industrial unionism and cut capers on platforms whilst pouring scorn upon Political Action as a weapon in the working class struggle for emancipation. We have, on previous occasion, given examples of the way in which this platform pantaloon at one time backs industrial action and at another political action. A recent illustration of his change of front moves us to extract one or two more examples from his record.

The Labour Leader of June 20th, 1918, issued an appeal inviting workers to join the I.L.P. The following extract is from this appeal:—

  We must not go back to pre-war conditions— else why all the sacrifice of the. war? We must have a fuller life—which is only possible on Socialist lines advocated by the I.L.P. This Party, of which we, the undersigned are members, is growing rapidly, is a fine propagandist body, and will assist to co-ordinate the industrial and political efforts of the Unions. We must not forget all we owe to the I.L.P. in the past.

Amongst the names of those who signed the above appeal (wherein it is stated that the “undersigned are members” of the I.L.P.) appears that of Tom Mann, the industrial unionist!

Later on Tom Mann signed the Trade Union Leaders’ 'Manifesto supporting the League of Nations. Item 4 of this Manifesto runs as follows :—

 4. The prospect of another and still greater war is one we must either prepare for by vaster armaments than ever, or prevent. The first alternative is unthinkable. There remains only prevention. Prevention is possible by the League of Nations to enforce the peace. There isno other way.—The Times, 7.11.19.

Is this Tom Mann the Industrialist or Tom Mann the I.L.P.’er who signs the Manifesto? If the “League of Nations” is the only way to prevent war, then where does Socialism come in? A very little examination of the “ League of Nations” should convince those who will look at it from the working-class standpoint that it cannot prevent wars in a Capitalist world because it leaves the cause of wars untouched. It has a two-fold object. It is a method by which a section of the Capitalist Class hope to cut down the enormous sums they have to throw away on large armaments, and it is also a convenient method of throwing dust in the eyes of the workers and keeping them from finding the real cause of wars—the profit-making nature of the Capitalist system. The Capitalist hoodwinking scheme then has the support of Tom Mann.

In 1920 a pamphlet was issued by “The Labour Abstentionist Party” (a party that was still-born). This party advocated

  (a) Securing the election of Parliamentary Candidates pledged to abstain from taking their seats; (b) Propagation of the futility of Parliamentary action.

The “Foreword” to the pamphlet was written by Tom Mann and the following extracts are taken from it:—

  The workers are travelling rapidly in the direction of obtaining control of industry. They will travel with accelerating speed as they learn the unwisdom of relying upon Parliament. .   .   .
 The glamour of Parliament naturally has attractions which many good men are reluctant to forego; as these comrades grow in strength and clearness of view they will discard the plutocratic institution and learn the wisdom of Direct Action, and complete. control of industrial affairs in the communal interest.  .    .    .
  I therefore heartily commend this pamphlet as being in my judgment calculated to be really educative in enabling readers to estimate Parliamentary action correctly, and to see the necessity for Industrial Solidarity.

Here we have a change back again to Direct Action—he has apparently grown (backwards!) in strength and clearness and discarded the “ plutocratic institution ”

But now we come to the cream of the business—the “real currant bun.” The monthly journal of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, number forty-four, March, 1924, has been brought to our notice, and was the immediate inspiration of this article. On turning to page 6 we find the following:—

ELECTION OF THREE PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATES, 1924.

The following have accepted nomination for the above positions. All pay the Political Levy and accept the objects, policy, and programme of the Labour Party, and are prepared to accept a constituency in the event of being selected. (Italics ours.)

On looking down the list of those who "have accepted nomination," etc., we find among them

Mann, T., Woolwich, 6th.

So the Labour abstentionist has grown further in “strength and clearness” and is back in the Parliamentary fold trying to get a seat in the "plutocratic institution” ! He accepts "the objects, policy, and programme” of the party which assisted in sending thousands of working men to the battlefield and whose present programme includes the settling of strikes, the increase of armaments, and the attendance at glorious feeds provided by their wealthy patrons—the Capitalists.

We have given the above particulars not because any great importance attaches to Tom Mann (as a matter of fact among “labour leaders” he is practically a back number at the moment), but because his record offers a convenient illustration of the futility and foolishness of trusting in "leaders.”

The antidote to the blind following of blind or tricky leaders is to arm yourself with the necessary knowledge that will acquaint you with the road you must travel to achieve your freedom from wage slavery. Once you have grasped the fundamentals of your position in society you will lay down the policy to be carried out and you will not require ‘‘leaders.”

Popular idols are the abomination of working-class movements. Away with them !

Gilmac.

Are you an abstainer? (1999)

From the May 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

This year has been dubbed the "year of elections". This month there are local elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly, next month elections to the European Parliament. We're putting up a limited number of candidates, but are you one of those very many people who doesn't see the point in voting, and can't be bothered with politicians? If so, read on, you just might find this interesting.

You may have noticed that whoever gets elected, nothing really changes. This is because politicians normally have no intention of changing anything. They're really doing very nicely out of the system as it is, thank you, slump or no slump. While they enjoy their executive lunches, cars and kickbacks, the rest of us miserable suckers are supposed to toe the line, "yes" the bosses, and work ourselves into early graves to earn wages that wouldn't buy one of their bottles of claret.

If you're still reading this, you'll notice it isn't your ordinary run-of-the-mill election manifesto, with the usual vague promises and smiley conman confidence. Well, that's because we're not politicians, and don't let our name, and the fact that we are standing for election, fool you into thinking we are. The fact is, we represent an idea which is most unpopular and unfashionable these days, an idea which is ignored by the media, dismissed coldly by politicians, and avoided by anyone who prefers the status quo to stay put. This idea is revolution.

What are we proposing? Well, you must admit it would be difficult in one short article to prove any case beyond question, especially a case as big as this. All we can do is give you the bare bones, so don't be surprised if it doesn't convince you straight off. We're revolutionaries, not magicians. If you don't have questions to ask at the end of this then we're not doing our job properly, or you're not giving it any thought. And if you have questions, we can only suggest you contact us to ask them.

OK, you know that in our world, private property is king, and that the rich make the rules. You probably know that only about 5 percent of the world's population is rich, while 95 percent does all the work and lives in varying degrees of poverty, debt and stress. You may have concluded that this situation causes everything from street crime to international warfare, and you have almost certainly suffered yourself from the effects of overwork, deprivation and other people's "anti-social" behaviour. Considering that private property society, or capitalism in its developed form, was built by human beings, it is an amazingly anti-social and unfriendly system, and it brings out the worse in us. We treat each other with suspicion and we treat the planet with contempt.  

Undoubtedly this state of affairs is bad news all round, but what can be done? The politicians' response is to ignore the problem and talk about trivia instead, hoping nobody will notice. Look at their manifestos. That's why nothing changes. Our response is direct, and simple: the 95 percent need to sort their act out and abolish the private property principle, that mutual agreement that says one person has the right to own and keep what other people need, even if they should die because of it. And every single day, people are dying because of it. The real enemy of humanity is not a person or a group of rich people, it is simply this agreement.

What comes after capitalism?

Privately-owned property is an anachronism in this day and age. There is enough food in the world to make every individual fat. There are ten empty houses to every homeless person. Technology is producing abundance so fast that commodity prices keep collapsing, yet nobody has yet recognised what this all means. It means that there is a higher level of civilisation, of science, or arts, of culture, of personal fulfilment, waiting to come after capitalism—an advanced society which, because it has abolished scarcity, does not contain all the horrors that have dogged human organisation until now. From the standpoint of such a society, we in capitalism are still living in the Dark Ages, with our wars, famines, pollution and other disasters, and our outlook is suitably bleak. And from our present standpoint, a post-scarcity society seems a dim and distant image, a matter for the 22nd century perhaps, but not now. Lulled by the incessant idiotic chatter of politicians and their meaningless agendas, we do not notice that even now, today, we are standing on the very threshold of that post-scarcity world. All we have to do, as individuals, is take one step.

Revolution is a scary word, but it doesn't have to be a scary thing. If you prefer, think of it as a kind of social "upgrade", like building a better and faster computer. We don't advocate violence, although we can't know of course that the rich will quietly abdicate when they see that the game is up. But there is a personal revolution to face, as well, because a free society requires responsible members, not children who just play "follow-the-leader" and do as they are told. It's true that we get the society we deserve. Revolution consists in learning to deserve better.

Well, you've made it to the end of this strange manifesto. No mention of Europe. No mention whatsoever of local issues. No promises of "I'll do this and I'll do that for my constituents", no flattery, no sweet talk. Maybe now you'll sigh and throw this in the bin. If you vote for us you won't get a wage rise or a tax cut, but then again you probably won't anyway. Just remember, all those other candidates are happy to continue with the private property society you know and don't love, and equally happy to assist it in every possible way. They are selling you out, and your kids, and their kids after them. They are politicians. We are private citizens, democratically organised as a party to advertise revolution but not lead it, to abolish political power not keep it for ourselves, to promote a free society without rulers, and to disband when we have served our purpose. So if you vote for us now, it's not because we've conned you into it with charming lies. It's because you've just taken that all-important small step, the step that begins the journey.

Paddy Shannon