Letter: Some Questions about Socialist Policy. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

1. In the event of the Socialist Party attaining a majority in Parliament, would they endeavour to pass legislation in the “House” for the purpose of obtaining the means of production and distribution for the working class?

2. If so, how would the Socialist Party act in the event of the Capitalists impeding the passing of the legislation, by force or otherwise?

3. I take it, that the Socialist Party is against cuts, including the biggest cut of all (the exploitation and robbery of the working class through the appropriation of the surplus value created bv the workers). How would they organise the workers against the attacks which are now taking place—unemployment, Means Test, wage-cuts, extension of hours, etc. Would they combat this by mass action, demonstrations, strikes, or what is the Socialist Party’s method of immediate policy, if any ?

4. Does the Socialist Party believe in running candidates for the immediate local and Parliamentary elections?

Thorne, Nr. Doncaster. “SEEKER”

Reply

(1) The working class need to obtain control of the political machinery before they can institute socialism. Having obtained control of Parliament and the machinery of local government, the workers would enact the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

(2) Given a majority of the population determined to achieve socialism and politically organised for that purpose, they could obtain control of the political machinery by the vote unless the capitalists then in power decided to suspend democratic elections. In either event it would have been shown that the majority wanted socialism. If Socialists had obtained control of the political machinery, including the armed forces, the capitalists would not be able seriously to impede the passing of legislation. They would not have at their disposal the means of resisting by force.

If, on the other hand, the capitalists were in power and had suspended democratic elections in order to prevent the Socialist majority from obtaining control of the political machinery, steps would have to be taken to make the position of the usurping minority impossible. In view of the fact that the organised majority would be hostile to the Government and able to interfere with the smooth running of industry, the Government would find it in the long run impossible to make capitalism function in a way satisfactory even to the capitalists. The political position of the Government would be weakened owing to its undemocratic basis and the state machine would be unable to function on account of the conflicting views among civil and military employees.

When it is recalled that capitalists have in the past had to institute democratic elections in order to make capitalism stable and efficient, even with the population overwhelmingly in favour of capitalism, it will be perceived how hopeless would be their position if they tried to go back on democratic methods in face of a united Socialist majority. Any attempt on their part to carry on without a mandate from the electorate would be bound to break down in time. Even the capitalists themselves would be forced to see the necessity of choosing socialism in preference to chaos.

(3) The S.P.G.B. is against all attempts to reduce the workers’ standard of living, and in favour of actions which will raise, it, above all, the act which alone will end exploitation, i.e., the institution of socialism. It is only possible to organise the workers to resist “cuts” if the workers wish to resist and believe it to be possible to resist. Similarly, it is only possible to organise the workers for the purpose of achieving socialism when the workers want socialism and believe it possible to achieve it. Neither the S.P.G.B. nor any other body can, at present, induce the working class to organise for the resistance to cuts or for the achievement of socialism, because the majority do not believe either to be possible. As our correspondent will have observed at the last election (if, indeed, such evidence were needed), the overwhelming majority voted for capitalism, and the majority were also prepared to accept cuts because they believed them to be necessary for the maintenance of the social system. Having voted power into the hands of the capitalists, the workers must act in accordance with the situation they have produced. They cannot act as if the situation did not exist. If they attempt to take “mass action” they will be bludgeoned into subjection by the weapon which they placed in the hands of the capitalists last October. Within the limits set by the fact that the capitalists have political power, the workers can demonstrate or strike in order to resist as far as possible further attempts to reduce their standard of living, or in order to raise it. Any sound action on these lines would be supported by the S.P.G.B. in the future as in the past. The actual control and organisation of such action must, however, be a matter for the workers themselves, since only a small minority are in the S.P.G.B. It is the policy of the S.P.G.B. to point out what such action can achieve and also to point out its limits, i.e., that it is dealing only with the effects of capitalism, and cannot lead to socialism.

(4) The S.P.G.B. is a political party, and therefore, in line with its principles, recognises the necessity of running candidates for local and Parliamentary elections. The question of doing so immediately is one to be decided in the light of many factors outside our control. There is no constituency in which there is more than a small minority of socialists, and, therefore, participating in elections at the moment would be only a propaganda effort. It has to be considered in relation to its cost in money and effort, and in relation to alternative and less costly forms of propaganda. This applies particularly to Parliamentary elections in which a deposit of £150 is required and is forfeited if the candidate polls less than one-eighth of the votes. With a growth in the number of socialists the arguments in favour of contesting elections will be stronger and the means will become available.—Ed. Comm.

Letter: The position of a Socialist minority in Parliament and on local councils. (1938)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The position of a Socialist minority in Parliament and on local councils.

Mr. R. Jessop (Spalding) asks a question which has often been answered in these columns, but which is obviously of continuing interest and merits repetition.

“What are the tactics of Socialist Members of Parliament in a minority position to be? Supposing the Government should introduce a Bill to increase Old Age Pensions, introduce wages boards, or any measure that would be of benefit to some section of the workers. Would the Socialists oppose such measures on the general grounds that they only deal with the effects of capitalism, or would they support them as giving the workers some small benefit whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem?

The position of a Socialist Town or County Councillor also is not quite clear to me. Whilst capitalism continues, such individuals will be obliged to administer that system on housing committees, gas and water committees, A.R.P. committees, etc. Except that they will be standing by to help in the administration of Socialism, when it is instituted, they will, for the time being so far as I can see, have to do a similar job to any Labour Party member who can see nothing beyond combating the immediate ill-effects of capitalism. Is this your view?”

Regarding Parliament, the answer, in brief, is that a minority of Socialist M.P.s would vote for or against measures introduced by other parties, or refrain from voting, in accordance with the Socialist Party’s view as to which course would be in the interest of the working class and Socialism. To use our correspondent’s own words, they would vote for certain measures “as giving the workers some small benefit, whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem.”

A minority of Socialist M.P.s would obviously not vote against a measure which simply raised old-age pensions, or raised wages, or helped trade union organisation, or made it easier to carry on Socialist propaganda or organisation.

It would, however, be of the greatest importance that a Socialist minority should retain its complete independence and not enter into pacts or bargains with other parties or groups. Its position would be quite different from that of the Labour Party minority, which is elected on a non-Socialist programme by electors who are reformists, not Socialists, and which does enter into arrangements with other Parliamentary parties.

The position is much the same on local Councils, but it is not that stated by our correspondent, who takes it for granted that the minority of Town Councillors must take part in and share responsibility for the administration of local affairs. Although Labour minorities habitually sit on the sub-committees of the Council there is no need for them to do so. A Socialist minority of Councillors would use their position on the Council to put forward the Socialist view, but would make it clear that the majority in control were responsible for Council decisions and for the carrying out of the work of the Council on sub-committees and in the various departments of the local authority services.

The local authorities in Great Britain only have the powers devolved upon them by Parliament and the central Government. They cannot act on their own responsibility, outside the limits set for them. The Council majority are, in effect, only the agents of the central Government, and when a Council refuses to carry out the central Government’s wishes steps are taken, as at Poplar some years ago, to have local services carried on irrespective of the wishes of local electors and their representatives on the Council. A Socialist minority (or even a Socialist majority) on a local Council would be governed as to what they could do by Parliament and the central Government and the electors who voted Socialist would very well realise this and not expect their Socialist delegates on the Council to do the impossible.

Ed. Comm.

Letter: Housing, Crises and the S.P.G.B. (1949)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hampstead, N.W.3.

24th March, 1949.

To the Editor,

Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,

Taking a little time off from my joyous Capitalistic task of enslaving the Working Classes, I read for the first time, and with great interest, The Socialist Standard of March.

Confronted with a Declaration of Principles and with view points so startlingly original I quite naturally failed to absorb the feast in one sitting. I would like, however, to comment on some of your articles and to ask a few questions.

The opening page consists of a skirmish with Sir Will Lawther and it would seem that this gentleman differs in opinion from the S.P.G.B. In fact I notice that he has had the temerity to “challenge the position taken up by the S.P.G.B.”, and strangely enough, also in your own words, he is by no means the first T.U. Official to do so. Could not these poor benighted dissidents possibly be right and the Party be wrong? Of course not, because we immediately find Mr. J. R. Clynes quoted in Reynolds Newspaper of 1919 and in the short space of eighteen months he is shown to have made a bloomer. This game of pulling pieces out of ancient quotations is a jolly one with the dice loaded heavily in favour of the Editor.

I don’t suppose that any member of your Party has ever been wrong on any subject—although I do seem to remember having a most enlightening conversation with one or two of your members during which I was assured that none of the so called War Criminals would ever be executed because the ruling clique of this country would undoubtedly prevent such an unpleasantness occurring in the ranks of the privileged class, "aristocratic and plutocratic.”

On the second page I find the opponents of Socialism neatly divided into two classes and with no great effort I find myself falling snugly into class A. Human nature being what it is I find bitterness and enmity pervading even The Socialist Standard. "R.H.” writes on workers’ houses being stacked and barrack-like blocks of buildings without gardens. Not one house well made and properly erected? Not one fine block of flats? Not one teeny weeny little garden? This distortion of facts ill-becomes a Party so proud of its honesty and sincerity.

"Abolish Capitalism, overthrow privilege, etc., be hostile to every other Party.” In carrying out this happy programme a lot of people are going to be hurt one way or another, and what are you going to do with the "overthrown”? Is the World to exist only for the S.P.G.B.? And when all this is comfortably arranged, who is to decide the measure of the contribution according to the ability of each, and the measure of the needs of each?

Let us imagine that Human Nature changes, suddenly or otherwise, and that all Peoples feel and think exactly as the Party does and are agreed on carrying out its Principles. How do you start next Monday morning? Does the dustman continue his job, the coalminer, the black-coat worker, the shop assistant, the rent collector, etc., etc.? What about Bill Smith in two rooms in Bermondsey and Ivan Ivanovitch in Moscow? When do they move and where? Who is to arrange for the new accommodation, the new demands for the needs of each? Again, what of the “overthrown”? Who re-educates them and in what tasks? To what use will you put the "abilities" of the languid gentry?

These and a few thousand other details will have to be settled pretty quickly because there are quite a number of lads and lasses everywhere ready to change some onerous and/or dirty job for a nice pleasant one, such as arranging all these things for the other fellow.

If there is a book or pamphlet in existence showing the "How to do it" by the S.P.G.B. I would be delighted to read it because as Mr. Waters points out in the S.S. there are many who see the evils of the present system and want to remedy them. He actually says many "workers" but I hope he will permit even a Capitalist to hold such a view.

Your Principles are clear enough, your declaration of war plain enough, but I feel that I ought to withhold my application for membership until I am reasonably sure that you have a plan to put into operation on the glad day when all other Political Parties are overthrown.

Yours faithfully,

Sidney Bolsom.

Reply.

Mr. Bolsom clearly does not approve of what he read in the March issue of the Socialist Standard. If he had contented himself with saying so in general terms there would be nothing more to say. He has, however, chosen to go into details and we shall naturally expect him to justify himself.

His first move is to come to the defence of Sir W. Lawther, J. R. Clynes and other trade union officials who have claimed at different times that there would not again be a capitalist crisis of "overproduction" and consequent mass unemployment. We say that those who did so in the past were wrong and were proved to be wrong by events, and that the same fate will befall those who do so now. Mr. Bolsom says: “Could not these poor benighted dissidents possibly be right. . .?", All that is now needed is for Mr. Bolsom to prove that they were right How he will prove that Mr. Clynes was right when he claimed in 1919 that there was no risk of "overproduction, causing unemployment" for at least a dozen years, we do not know. What Mr. Bolsom has taken on is the task of disproving the Ministry of Labour's declaration that in the early part of 1921 there were over 2,000,000 unemployed. He will find the figures in the Ministry’s "Abstract of Labour Statistics" (18th Issue, 1926, Page 51). We await Mr. Bolsom’s disproof.

Then there was the similar experience of the late J. H. Thomas. In the Labour government which came into office in 1929 he took on the post of Lord Privy Seal with the special function of dealing with unemployment. Unemployment then stood at just over a million and Mr. Thomas explained that he and his colleagues in the government "were going to do what they could to reduce unemployment while accepting the present order of society." (Daily Herald, 6th July. 1929). He was as unlucky as Clynes had been, for by the middle of 1931 when the government fell the figure had risen to over 2,800.000—again these are Ministry of Labour figures. Mr. Thomas’s own story, admittedly related in a jocular way, was that on taking office he had consulted the late Josiah Stamp, believing that as an economist Stamp could give him the real expert view. Stamp is alleged to have told his friend Thomas that trade was on the mend whereas it was actually on the verge of another crisis.

We now await Mr. Bolsom’s proof that Thomas was right and that unemployment did not nearly treble within two years of Mr. Thomas’s undertaking to reduce it.

We should perhaps explain to Mr. Bolsom that this is not a guessing game. What is at issue is the reasoned case put forward by Socialists that capitalism, because it is a system based on private ownership of the means of production and because it functions through the sale of commodities for profit, necessarily follows a cycle of expansion and contraction, boom and slump. Against this innumerable 19th century economists, followed more recently by Labour Party politicians, have argued that governments, by following certain trade and financial policies can extricate capitalism from the trade cycle. They have been proved wrong at every succeeding crisis for 100 years or more. Still, if Mr. Bolsom feels able to prove that this time they really will succeed we shall be interested to know how he thinks they will do it.

We note that one or two of the members of the S.P.G.B. are alleged to have disbelieved that the "war criminals" of the second world war would be executed —at least they had a reason, they remembered that the Kaiser and his fellow war criminals, despite the threats and pledges to bring them to trial, succeeded in living to a ripe and honoured old age.

On the question of the article on housing Mr. Bolsom is guilty of a piece of distortion himself. He implies that our contributor declared that there has not been built a single well made and properly erected house, not a single house with a garden, not one fine block of flats. Of course he did nothing of the kind. He claimed that one can see around London "uniform barrack-like blocks of buildings, without gardens for children to play in." He also expressed his opinion that these blocks of flats are "loathsome" and are not the kind of dwellings the workers would like to live in and that the rich can live in. Our contributor did not say that no houses at all except these blocks of working class flats have been built. We would, however, add that the kind of houses the workers can live in is determined by their wages and though better houses and luxury flats do exist (as our contributor pointed out) the mass of workers cannot afford to pay the rent demanded.

Incidentally if Mr. Bolsom thinks that the standard of new working class houses is quite satisfactory can we take it that he lives in one himself or would like to?

Then Mr. Bolsom asks us to take note that if capitalism is overthrown and Socialism is established in its place a lot of people are going to be hurt one way or another. He does not tell us how or why this will happen nor who the people are. Perhaps because he does not at all understand what Socialism is and how it will be achieved. He imagines, for example, that we claim that this will all be done by the S.P.G.B. As this is the reverse of what the S.P.G.B. has been claiming for 45 years perhaps Mr. Bolsom will tell us where in our literature he thinks he picked up that nonsensical idea so completely at variance with the S.P.G.B.’s case. Is it not ironical too, for a defender of capitalism, with its periodical wars and preparations for another war. to tell us that lots of people will be hurt? We can assure him, if he needs assuring, that quite a lot of people will certainly be hurt if capitalism is allowed to continue and produce its next world war.

The rest of Mr. .Bolsom’s questions about how Socialism will be administered after it has been established arise entirely out of his absurd caricature of the S.P;G.B.'s case. If we had ever suggested that Socialism will be achieved by the S.P.G.B. overthrowing other political parties (Mr. Bolsom’s description, not ours) and that than the S.P.G.B. will proceed to plan and impose Socialism, then his questions would be relevant. Our actual case is, of course, that until the majority have become Socialists and have democratically gained political control to establish Socialism, there will be no Socialism. But when these necessary preliminary conditions have been fulfilled these questions will take on a very different character from the one assumed by Mr. Bolsom, who in effect asks us to believe that Socialists who have worked to establish a new system of society on a basis they understand and desire will then proceed to wreck it over who shall do this or that particular job. If on reflection Mr. Bolsom still thinks this is a reasonable proposition and will give reasons we will deal with them.

The broad principle of distribution accepted by Socialists is “From each according to capacity: to each according to need.”

In conclusion we cannot resist pointing to a seeming discrepancy in Mr. Bolsom’s argument. He asks us what Socialist society at its inception will do about the workers who lack proper housing accommodation (poor Mr. Bill Smith “ in two rooms in Bermondsey ”); but did we not gather from the earlier part of Mr. Bolsom’s letter that Bill Smith is already being provided with proper accommodation under Labour Party administration of capitalism? Can it be that on second thoughts Mr. Bolsom does agree that the housing problem is not going .to be solved under capitalism?

Ed. Comm.

The Socialist Forum: Socialism and Toleration. (1933)

From the April 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism and Toleration

A correspondent asks the following question: 

Would the S.P.G.B. forbid religious instruction and close down the churches, as has been done by the Bolsheviks in Russia, in view of the fact that, even after revolution, a minority will probably still cling to superstition; or, on the other hand, would the Party adopt an attitude of toleration, relying upon the march of science and progress to eradicate religion ?

Reply.

Although the Bolsheviks suppress their political opponents our correspondent is mistaken in saying that the Russian Government has closed down the churches. Subject to certain restrictions and disabilities religious worship is permitted in Russia and is fairly widely practised.

With regard to the main part of the question, of course, the Socialist majority after conquering political power, would not use that power for the needless and provocative purpose of suppressing the propagation of minority views, whether religious or political. The work of the S.P.G.B. is based on the fact that the Socialist case is sound and only needs to be understood by the majority of the workers for them to accept it. Our confidence in the correctness of our position rests on the only sure foundation, that is, that so far from trying to suppress criticism we permit and encourage our opponents (including religious opponents) to state their case on our platform. Ours is the only party in Great Britain which does this, and we can say with confidence that the movement built up in this way will never take refuge in the cowardly and in the long run unnecessary persecution of a religious or political minority. 

Ed. Comm.

Letter: Actions speak louder than words (1995)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

Whilst agreeing with some of your reply to Tom Paine (October Socialist Standard), I also have some rather serious reservations/questions.

I accept that a socialist majority is vital for the establishment of socialism but do you feel that a socialist majority of seats in Parliament will invoke a reaction from the ruling classes along the lines of: “Oh dear, the majority wants socialism and despite the fact that this involves the loss of our power and property we’d better go quietly"? I think not, for to assume the ruling classes will not use any means available (in the case probably violence and oppression on a colossal scale) to protect their class interests is not only extremely naive, but lethal. Whilst despising violence myself, I refuse to delude myself into thinking it will not be part and parcel of a truly revolutionary change: of course it will; in self-defence if nothing else.

Secondly, by playing bourgeois politicians at their own game and standing for election. are you not merely doing what supposedly revolutionary groups have tried in the past and failed? If we accept, as Marx stated, that bourgeois democracy is the means by which the ruling class maintains its position of dominance, then by subscribing to it we merely legitimise it and fatally compromise ourselves to a game which they are far better at playing.

Thirdly, what of the repercussions of a socialist majority in Parliament? Will we not see the seizure and control of the State machinery and, as has happened for time immemorial, the replacement of one set of leaders by another with all the coercive power of the state at their disposal? (this happens whether you claim to be a vanguard or not: I’ve spoken to SWP members who claim their party doesn’t intend to "lead” the revolution!)

Fourthly, if we also accept that the political superstructure is not really where power lies anyway, why would a socialist majority in Parliament actually facilitate in any way the coming of socialism (apart from “representing" people who should really be acting for themselves)? Do you really feel an Act of Parliament could inaugurate our socialist society?

Your reply to Tom Paine also demonstrates considerable ignorance of what is deemed the “Green Movement". To characterise green activists en masse as people who want to reopen footpaths is one of many ridiculous distortions which demonstrate this clearly. Admittedly some Green activists are naive and unclear about why environmental destruction takes place but these people should not be dismissed out of hand for this; surely they can be “educated"? Many others do perceive underlying factors and see their struggle against one manifestation of these factors as demonstrating opposition to the system in its entirety. The Direct Action movement in Britain now is not a "palliative” but a movement which scares the Establishment to its very core— and rightly so. This is your "DIY revolution": people organising themselves at grass roots level to take back control of their lives and this is the means by which socialism (and I fully agree with your definition of it) will come about: not by elite majorities in bourgeois Parliaments.

What the vast majority of those involved in Direct Action (be it anti-Roads campaigns or whatever) and progressive forms of non-exploitative production do is give an example of how people can organise together to achieve their aims in contrast to the divisive and destructive nature of capitalism. This is surely a phenomenally more potent force for convincing people of the validity and practicality, as well as vital necessity of socialism than theorising and the odd leafleting session. (The SPGB has been around since 1904; I only heard about its existence last week!)

Actions really do speak louder than words and I am disappointed that the SPGB seems to adopt a highly blinkered and reactionary (not to mention sickeningly arrogant) view of what many deem highly important developments. Interaction and exchange of ideas between socialist and Environmental groups can only serve the positive end of educating and informing both sides. Sectarianism, as has been aptly demonstrated by you, is ignorance. It is also weakness.

R. Sydney, 

Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Reply:

Your two criticisms of us contradict each other. First, you say that the capitalist class are so powerful that they would be able to unleash violence on a colossal scale against a clear majority decision to establish socialism. On the other hand, you say that they will give in to pressure from weak grassroots groups who are not united in organisation and have not shown that they represent the majority view. Which is it, then, are they all-powerful or are they amenable to pressure from below?

Under modern industrial conditions, where the actual work involved in running both production and administration (and, for that matter, the armed forces) is entirely performed by people paid a wage or salary to do so, the ruling class is dependent for the continuation of its rule on the acceptance of this rule by the useful majority in society.

They don't rule by brute force but with the consent (unfortunately) of the majority. What maintains capitalism in existence is not the power of the armed forces at the disposal of the capitalist state, but the ideas—the pro-capitalist ideas about needing rulers, governments. countries, armies, money, wages, profits, and so on—held by the majority of the population.

This is why we say that those who want socialism should concentrate on the battle of ideas, on combating capitalist ideologies and spreading socialist ideas. In our view, this is a much more effective way of undermining capitalism than your suggestion of supporting single-issue piecemeal struggles. It hurts capitalism where it matters—in the ideas that sustain it—while what you propose isn't even effective on its own terms. When have any direct action protests ever stopped a road under construction from being built?

Once we, the useful majority, withdraw our consent to capitalist rule it cannot continue, and the question then arises: what is the best way for the socialist majority to proceed so as to ensure that the by then inevitable change-over from capitalism to socialism takes place as peaceably as possible? It is in this context that our advocacy of contesting elections and sending mandated socialist delegates into Parliament and other bodies should be seen. Incidentally, we are not absolute pacifists. If a pro-capitalist minority were to take up arms to try to resist the majority's wish to establish socialism, the majority would be fully entitled to use force against them, if necessary as a last resort

Marx (since you mention him) also supported sending socialist delegates to Parliament urging workers to convert universal suffrage "from the instrument of fraud that it has been up till now into an instrument of emancipation". So, he for one saw no contradiction between analysing the democratic state as the ideal political form for capitalist class rule and urging the working class to organise to win control of it. Nor did he share your view that this would merely lead to a change of rulers rather than to a classless society.

In our view, he was right and you are wrong. It is true that all examples up to now of supposedly revolutionary groups winning control of power (whether by armed insurrection or through the ballot box) have resulted in the imposition of new sets of leaders. This is for the obvious reason that there was no majority desire to establish socialism on the part of the workers. There was no conscious effort on their part to change society—only to ameliorate the immediate problems of the day. and trusting in leaders to do it for them.

We agree with you: socialism won’t come through the action of "elite majorities in bourgeois parliaments”; it will only come through the mass democratic action of a socialist-minded majority amongst the population generally, of which the socialist majority in Parliament will be a mere reflection. But you haven't answered the question of what you think this majority, once it has come into existence, should then do.

We say it should do the obvious: use the electoral system which is the historically-evolved (partly due to pressure on the ruling class from below, incidentally) and socially-accepted means for registering what actually is the majority view and for giving that majority the political authority to put their view into practice.

Ignoring parliament would be an option, but not one that would minimise the risks of violence. But why take this risky and more roundabout about way when a more direct and less risky one exists? You tell us.

Editors.

Letter: Two minor disagreements (2004)

Letter to the Editors from the November 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

I recently read the 100th anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard and I wish to congratulate you for maintaining the case for socialism for a century and not falling into the traps which have ensnared so many who claimed to be socialist, such as reformism, industrial unionism, defence of state capitalism and taking sides in wars.

    

I have, however, two minor points of disagreement I wish to address and would like your views.

    

The Socialist Party contends that once having captured political power, a socialist majority is then in control of the armed forces. In fact in, I believe 1955, an article in the Socialist Standard stated: “Should a violent minority attempt to destroy socialism they would have to be forcibly dealt with . . . no violent minority could be allowed to obstruct the will of the majority.”

    

In my view the capitalist class controls the armed forces if they also control parliament then the services can receive their orders from the capitalists’ political errand boys and, in some cases, girls. Spain in 1936 was a clear cut case of parliament not being in control of the army and air force. I consider this is a minor point because if the majority of the working class are socialists then it logically follows that most workers in the armed forces will also be and, as such, will refuse to attack fellow socialists.

    

Another minor point concerns the resolution about political democracy that was debated at the 1990 conference. Though it is understandable that certain improvements within capitalism are desirable, isn’t openly stating the Socialist Party’s support for such, inviting support from non-socialists who also welcome such improvement. Doesn’t such a thing smack of reformism?

Steve Shannon, 

Mississauga, Ontario, 

Canada

Reply:

The capitalist class can indeed be said to “control” parliament, the government and the armed forces but this is not to be taken literally: there is no direct line of command, public or secret, between the Confederation of British Industry and the chiefs of the armed forces or the cabinet or parliament. The CBI in fact has to lobby the government and MPs just like any other pressure group.

    

Capitalist control is much more indirect since it’s a question of the government, parliament and the voters accepting capitalism and of capitalism being able to function only in the interests of the capitalist class, meaning that governments have no choice but to pursue policies, including how the armed forces are used, that are in the interest of the capitalist class. That’s why they end up being mere “errand boys and girls” for the capitalist class, not because they take direct orders from them. Since in fact the capitalist class is not a monolithic bloc but is made up of sections with differing interests over trade, taxation, etc they require a forum in which to debate and settle such differences; that forum is not the annual conference of the CBI but parliament where the section that has the support of a parliamentary majority gets its way.

   

In all developed capitalist countries, such as Britain and Canada, the government does firmly control the armed forces. It is only in economically backward countries (such as Spain in the 1930s and even there a part of the armed forces did obey the government – that’s why there was a civil war) where the armed forces can play an independent political role. As capitalism develops in these countries, together with a stronger and more self-confident capitalist class, the pressure arises to tell the armed forces to stay out of politics and to bring them under parliamentary control.

    

Capitalist control of parliament, the government and the armed forces depends, then, in developed capitalist countries, on the base of the structure – the voters, the overwhelming majority of whom are workers – accepting capitalism. When this base rejects capitalism then the structure that guarantees the capitalist class control of the government and the armed forces is bound to collapse one way or another. Our strategy is that the socialist-minded working class majority should try to bring this about with a minimum of social disruption and violence, by sending a majority of socialist delegates – socialist errand boys and girls – to parliament and take over political control, so depriving the capitalist class of the possibility of using the armed forces to protect themselves.

    

If a minority of recalcitrant pro-capitalists were to seek to resort to violence to defy the politically-expressed will of the majority for socialism, obviously they would have to be dealt with, as we pointed out in 1955. But, frankly, we don’t see that, faced with a socialist majority legitimately in control of political power, even the top brass of the armed forces, let alone the rank and file (who will, as you point out, also be influenced by socialist ideas) would throw in their lot with a doomed hypothetical revolt by a recalcitrant pro-capitalists minority.

    

As to the question of the importance of political democracy to the working class, obviously we socialists in places like Britain and Canada where this exists can’t be indifferent to the struggles of our fellow workers to get it in places where it doesn’t yet exist. This is just an expression of solidarity with our fellow workers in struggle, and not at all a bid to attract the support of non-socialists and so not in the least reformist.

Editors.

Vote for yourself for a change . . . (1983)

From the September 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist system is fundamentally undemocratic: it does not run in accordance with the wishes and needs of the majority, but to satisfy the material interests of the small minority who accumulate rent, interest and profits. In Britain, capital ownership is confined to a very small minority: not only does one per cent of the population own more of the accumulated wealth than the poorest eighty per cent put together, but they have access to areas of power, information, communication and luxury goods and services which are not within the price range of the vast majority. Three quarters of all daily newspapers in Britain are owned by just three massive companies. The statistics of inequality are similar throughout the capitalist world; indeed, there are countries in Africa and South America where the ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution are in the hands of a few powerful families who, between them, determine the destinies of millions of human subjects.

It is nonsensical to speak of genuine democracy within a capitalist world when the vast majority of people — the working class, who do not own capital, but must live by selling our labour power for a wage or salary — is excluded from control over the resources and productive machinery of the earth. The workers have never been consulted as to who will own and control the vast multinational companies; there are no referenda called before the commencement of trade wars in which thousands of workers’ lives are wasted; the editorship of the Guardian or The Nine O’clock News has never been a matter for working class election; the millions who are starving in a world of potential abundance were never asked to cast a vote for malnutrition.

The workers run capitalist production and distribution from top to bottom but have no ownership or control. The minority, who live in affluence on the backs of the wealth producers, are in no position to determine precisely how capitalism will run. They are, of course, entitled to ensure that decisions made are socially beneficial to themselves rather than the workers, w'hose economic interests are diametrically opposite, but they are not able to plan the system with any accuracy. Capital, as a social force, is uncontrollable even by the capitalist class. For example, most capitalists would love to have a society where there was no war, no unemployment and no working class discontent. The anarchy of the profit system does not allow the bosses to govern the system: it governs them. So. capitalism is undemocratic not only because the majority class of people is alienated from the means of living, but also because it is impossible to plan capitalism on the basis of democratic decisions for the market, with its profit priorities, is a dictator which cannot be controlled by votes.

The only way to establish human control over society is to create socialism, which will be a democratic world society based on common ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution. Once we have done away with classes, markets and profits we will be able to take hold of this global village called the world and run it in direct accordance with democratically expressed human needs. The way that socialism will be organised will have to be decided consciously and democratically by the working class at the time of the establishment of the new system: we in the Socialist Party of Great Britain are unable to lay down blueprints for the next stage of social evolution. We can, however, make some comments about the advantages of worldwide socialist democracy.

Firstly, the new system would enable humanity to collect and use information on a global basis. At the moment countries duplicate the storing of necessary information about production and distribution; they often spend their time trying to mislead trade competitors as to what the real situation is or keeping secret knowledge which could make world production much more efficient in relation to human needs. World information authorities which exist at the moment, often under the auspices of the United Nations, are often ignored by governments because the statistical possibilities publicised by such bodies all too frequently are in conflict with the market capacities of capitalism. So, in a world socialist society there would be worldwide collection and storage of information relating to production and distribution. Such information could be handled with case by the computer technology which has already been invented, but which is presently used for the useless purposes of military communication and world trade.

Secondly, socialist society will utilise the information technology which has been developed within capitalism in order to allow every human being to have a say in matters which they feel to be important. Of course, not every person in a socialist society will want to be involved in every decision; democracy does not mean that all people must contribute to all decisions made by society, but that all people will be able to do so. On hearing this, the opponent of socialism has often asked whether it will be the case that every human being in a democratic socialist society is going to meet together in Wembley Stadium and put up their hands for or against a particular proposition. We would doubt very much whether four billion people are going to fit into Wembley Stadium — and we doubt even more whether the inhabitants of Peking or Mexico City will know the nearest tube station to Wembley! Of course, those who present such an objection are hopelessly caught up within the primitive thinking of capitalism which only allows them to envisage democracy in terms of some sort of grand tribal ritual. Society now has technology to enable human beings to sit in their homes and buy food from the local supermarket by pushing a button; business conferences are held with executive managers sitting in front of television cameras in London, Tokyo, New York and Moscow. These modern means of communication must be placed at the disposal of the whole community, who will make decisions on all the available evidence. Such decision-making will sometimes involve the entire world population but. needless to say, it will not require four billion people to decide whether to build a dual carriageway on the stretch of motorway between Hexham and Newcastle.

Thirdly, socialism will create a democracy where those who disagree with the majority will be free, within the confines of implementing the majority decision, to live in accordance with their own desires. It is quite possible that upon the establishment of socialist society there will be some people — perhaps millions — who are religious: they would be able freely to indulge in their primitive superstitions. Under capitalism, to be a nonconformist is to face problems ranging from psychological persecution to capital punishment; socialism will depend on the right of men and women to assert their individuality, but will require them to remember at all times that democracy is the only workable alternative to tyranny.

Democratic political action

There are two accusations which are often thrown at socialists: one is that we are Utopians who want to create a society of perfection; the other is that we are undemocratic and seek to impose our aims on a society which does not want it.

Socialism was only a Utopian proposition when it was detached from the concept of democratic change. The old Utopians, like Owen. Fourier and Saint-Simon wanted the new system, but imagined that it could exist without a socialist community to run it. It is only when a majority of the world’s workers understand and want socialism that it becomes a practicable proposition. The new system will not be free from problems but — and this is the essential qualification — a socially conscious world community will be infinitely more capable of dealing with those problems than is the present working class which is alienated from real social power. The socialist proposition depends entirely on the capacity of men and women to think consciously and to act responsibly. That is why, when the defenders of capitalism have been defeated in discussion on every single aspect of their outdated social system, as they invariably are, they always resort to the final argument of the anti-socialist: It's Against Human Nature. Of course, if they were correct and humanity was incapable of mass consciousness there would be no possibility of creating a democratic society. Curiously enough, many of the historically paralysed minds which assert confidently that humans are incapable of running society for ourselves insist that they are convinced democrats. We have all met the opponent of socialism who is sure that he or she would be quite capable of acting consciously within a democratic world society, but you'll never get everyone else to behave so intelligently. Capitalism's ideology of anti-democracy is based on the myth of inherent inequality; once workers realise that what they can understand, want and do others can also we will be ready to make our move to the next stage in history.

Do socialists seek to impose our aims on an unsuspecting majority? Alas, we could carry on insisting that socialism can only be established democratically until Ronald Reagan's hair turns grey; there will always be someone who will not believe us. Opponents of socialism will point to the Bolshevik revolution and to those anti-democrats who support its tactics today and, quite correctly, conclude that such socialism has nothing to do with democracy; it simply changes one ruling class for another. We go further and say that such so-called socialism has nothing to do with either socialism or democracy. It is nonsensical to imagine that you can impose social liberation on a majority of people who are content with the system of exploitation, oppression and misery. The socialist task is to take the discontent which capitalism inevitably engenders within the working class and to educate the discontented to reject the system which is the cause of their social problems and to establish socialism. Of course, capitalism is an undemocratic system and therefore socialist persuasion and education is made very difficult by the virtual monopoly by the capitalist minority over the means of education and communication. But we have on our side a valuable weapon: the experience of the working class which does not conform to the false ideas thrown out by the capitalist propaganda machine.

There will be no socialist revolution without socialists. The socialist revolution, unlike all those before it which have depended on the substitution of one ruling minority for another, will require a conscious majority. But it requires more than that: there can be no socialism without democratic political action. What form will that action take? Where democratic elections are held, workers will need to use our votes, not to elect the representatives of capitalism, but to elect delegates whose sole mandate will be to transfer the legal ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution from the minority to the whole community, without any distinctions of race or sex. Of course, capitalism's elections are never going to be completely democratic, but they are sufficient barometers of social consciousness to be used by the working class for the purpose of capturing political power. In those countries where democratic elections do not exist socialists must use their energies to create such institutions, either by putting pressure on the state or — perhaps — by setting up their own rival democratic institutions which the ruling class will be unable to ignore. In Britain, however, the political task of socialists is to capture power by means of the democracy of the ballot box; the fact that the ballot boxes are under the legal control of the capitalist class does not deny their validity as an instrument of revolution, any more than the potentiality of a blade to cut one’s throat denies its usefulness as an instrument for shaving.

Those who claim to be democrats and support the undemocratic system of capitalism are no more democrats than the Russian dictatorship is socialist. Democracy, in its fullest and most exciting sense, has yet to be tried by the inhabitants of our society. At the moment, to want power is considered a greedy and rather unpleasant aim; that is understandable, because power under capitalism means power to deny power to the majority. Socialists want power to produce what we need to survive, to live in comfort and to be free. Let those who stand against us tremble: the democratic revolution will not go away as long as men and women have brains in our heads. 

Steve Coleman

Letters: Civil servants (1983)

Letters to the Editors from the September 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Civil servants

Dear Editors

Now a regular reader, I find myself in broad agreement with your views. Particularly. I see people’s faith in the money system as being capitalism’s jugular vein. Your position on Right to Work campaigns is also sound. If this were not so, armaments production could be justified as it provides jobs.

However. I found your April article on the power of the Civil Service's permanent officials to be unconvincing. You say that "the ease with which different governments adopt different policies, and the same government goes in for U-turns, shows that government policies are not determined by the permanent officials." Well, as you have pointed out, how “different” are the policies of Labour and Conservative governments? Secondly: surely, U-turns are more likely to be precipitated by the permanent officials, who remain anonymous while government officials face the music.

A. Beckett 

Great Boughton, Chester

Reply

Mr. Beckett holds that it is the Permanent Officials who determine government policies and reversals of policies; which, he thinks, explains why there is no real difference between the policies of Tory and Labour governments.

However it is a basic error to suppose that the capitalist class is a monolithic body having only one interest, that of defending capitalism and opposing socialism, for within that general framework different groups have sectional interests, absolutely vital to themselves. These lead to conflicts fought out with all the resources at their disposal, including stirring up the workers to support one side or the other.

This aspect of capitalism was already noted by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, 1848:

The bourgeoisie finds itself in a constant battle. At first against the aristocracy; later on with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries.

The struggle for the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1846 was not a sham fight. The factory owners wanted cheap food imports as the way to reduce wages, but the agricultural interests saw in it their own near-ruin.

Other struggles between sections with conflicting interests have been between those favouring the gold standard and those opposing it; (in America the anti-gold campaign by Eugene Debs, with his slogan “Shall mankind be crucified upon a cross of gold?” was backed by the silver mining companies); over a low pound exchange rate good for exporters and a high rate good for importers; over entry to the EEC; over Keynesian doctrines and “monetarism”; and between capitalists supporting the nationalisation of particular industries and those opposing it.

According to Mr. Beckett’s theory it was the permanent officials who made the 1945 Labour government nationalise steel; then made the Tories denationalise it; renationalised it under the 1964 Labour Government and made the Thatcher government get a mandate to denationalise all or part of it. (The Labour Party pledged itself to maintain nationalisation in its 1983 programme.)

But this is quite wrong. Labour Party demands for nationalisation all originated in resolutions passed by their conferences and embodied in election programmes. Likewise, all the Tory demands for denationalisation were, first, items in their election programmes. There can be no explanation why permanent officials should behave in this very peculiar way, giving contradictory advice to successive governments.

Of course the permanent officials have not advised governments to introduce socialism but no government has ever wanted, or would have accepted, such advice. If by chance one of them gave that advice a Tory government or a Labour government, both being firmly committed to capitalism, would get rid of that official or, as has happened in some instances when the advice ran completely counter to government policy, transfer the person concerned to a department in which they would no longer be involved in such policy questions.

Editors.

Crackpot Colonels

Dear Editors,

How is the neutralisation of state power to be made effective? In your publications, you say that with the advent of socialism, socialists will predominate throughout society, including the armed forces, which is fair enough as far as it goes. If the armed forces are for the most part socialists, then they will hardly oppose the new order.

But how will the armed forces first become socialists, in the main? Often the workers mistakenly joining the armed forces will be those who wish to preserve the existing social set up. But that’s not the point, after all, most workers, if not actually desiring the status quo. grudgingly accept it as a fact of nature, and I don’t consider that a barrier! The workers in the army etc. will be subject to more intensive indoctrination and greater isolation than the rest of us. This can only impede the spreading of socialist knowledge, so how do they become socialists? Through their families or acquaintances on the outside? Or perhaps socialists (when in sufficient numbers) will overcome their revulsion at being the boot-boys of capital, and enlist to propagate socialist ideas? Though as I understand it. being a member of the SPGB precludes membership of the armed forces (at least it will with a large socialist movement, hence aware capitalist politicians) and certainly vice versa.

Whatever the outcome, the non-socialists will be in a small minority. Fair enough, we will have abolished the state, and as military geezers are taught to obey orders, they should accept the change with no more trouble than a bit of flag-waving which most people wouldn’t particularly care for. But if there is a comparatively large anti-socialist faction remaining in the armed forces, mightn't some crackpot colonel take it into his head to attempt a disruption of the new society?

H T Muirhead

Dymock, Glos. 

(This letter has been slightly shortened — Editors.)

Reply

Let us be quite clear, that a socialist society will not submit to any efforts on the part of a minority to frustrate the will of the majority. Crackpot colonels will be suppressed with whatever persuasion, or force, is necessary.

But how will a minority be able to resist the revolutionary majority? How will they persuade people who have opted for socialism to turn back the clock to the society of war, famine, poverty, the Bomb? What point of social reference will they have, in a society without classes and class privilege? In whose interests will they advocate the abandonment of socialism?

The argument, of course, is that they will try to win their point not through persuasion but through violence. What instruments will be at hand for them to use in this? If violence is to have any hope against the wishes of the majority it must be a social effort, with popular support in its conception, organisation and carrying out. But the act of setting up socialism, by a conscious majority, will deprive it of these very essentials. The armed forces, for example, do not exist in isolation but rely in all senses on the sanction of the rest of society; deprived of that they cannot exist in any effective sense.

Workers join the armed forces for a variety of reasons; nowadays, probably because they are unable to find a job anywhere else. The armed and police forces are not peculiar in their requirement that their members act against working class interests; this happens in many other jobs as well. Although it is impossible to say why workers take up one job or another, we do know that the growth and the spread of socialist ideas affects them all; none of them are immune. The developing strength of the movement to socialism, then, will enfeeble the coercive state forces and finally the revolutionary act of establishing socialism will entail the working class taking over the state machine as the only public power of coercion. No minority will endure against that.

Editors.