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.

S.D.P. Befogged. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

For some weeks past a discussion has been carried on in the columns of our contemporary, “Justice,” a periodical which presumably claims,to be a Socialist journal, on the above question. The mere fact of such a subject being debated is sufficient to prove that the publication referred to is not an organ of Socialist thought, and that the party for which it speaks does not understand the principles of Socialism.

We find in the discussion under consideration, many and various policies advocated ; but even the slightest study of the records of the S.D.P. will reveal the fact that politically they are all at sixes and sevens. And to this the obvious fact that after thirty years of political existence they do not know what to do with the chief weapon for working-class emancipation, and we see that so far are they from being Socialists, that they are still floundering in the morass of Capitalist philosophy.

The use of the vote is no problem to Socialists, because their whole thought and action is based on the recognition of the class struggle. By this term is meant the struggle that must exist when, in society, one section own all the means of wealth production, while the other section, owning nothing but the energy in their bodies, have to sell their energy to obtain a living. Between these two sections—capitalists and workers— a bitter war rages.

The class struggle—of which the foregoing is an explanation—forms a part of the basis of Socialist principles, and anyone rejecting the same either does not understand those principles, or is deliberately misleading the working class. In either case he is of no use to the proletariat.

Of such is the kingdom of the I.L.P. and the S.D.P., with which latter body I am, for the time being, more immediately concerned.

The first significant note in this controversy was struck by Mr. T. Stanley Mercer, in “Justice” (Feb. 5th, 1910); who put the question : “Is there any possible means of finding out definitely the actual policies pursued by the I.L.P. and S.D.P. ?”

He says when he first joined the I.L.P. there was no greater authority than himself on the “ways and objects of the Party” (a large order to start with, as Keir Hardie, Philip Snowden, Ramsay MacDonald & Co., must have been lesser lights by comparison), but as months grew into years he felt less and less certain of his position, etc.

The mere possibility of asking the query with which Mr. Mercer opens his letter is sufficient to show that these parties do not act according to Socialist principles, but that their actions are governed by the exigencies of vote and seat capturing at any price.

Mr. Mercer further says “I think the worst shock I have had was . . . when an I.L.P. member, on having his position challenged, retorted, ‘You’re trying to obscure the constitutional issue by dragging the red herring of Socialism before the members of the I.L.P.’ ! ”

These are the people who are going to emancipate the workers some day—perhaps.

No, so far from accomplishing that will they be, that they will only lead the workers into the Desert of Reform, and so make them the more secure victims for capitalist exploitation.

Now for the S.D.P.

Mr. J. Maclean, writing in “Justice” for Feb. 12th, 1910, deals with local affairs at Pollokshaws (Glasgow). He says amongst other things: “If we had no candidate we always issued a manifesto, supplemented by public meetings, to advise the voters which candidate to reject.” He also says : “Encouraged by our success in local elections, we thought it expedient to experiment with the General Election by adopting similar tactics, although not with the unanimous consent of the branch.”

So there are some members, at least, who see the light.

Socialist policy should at no time be governed by expediency for “experiments” or otherwise, “but should at all times be decided by principle and principle alone.

I suppose that Maclean and others like him would say : “Of two evils choose the lesser.” But Liberalism and Toryism both stand for the same thing—Capitalism, and working class exploitation —and voting for one in preference to the other will not alter the fact that they are both the enemy.

But the gem of the whole matter is the contribution by Mr. H. Quelch, editor of the “official organ of the Social-Democracy,” whatever that may mean.

Dealing with a complaint by Maclean in the previous issue, where that gentleman said : “Had a special conference been convened, or had the E.C. given a definitely clear lead, there might have been the possibility of united action,” Quelch says : “there is not yet among the general body of our members, and still less among sympathisers, a clear conception of what political action should mean for Social-Democrats.” (Italics are ours.)

That is, in common parlance, “they dunno where they are.”

Nothing more unkind than this has yet been said of them even by any member of the S.P.G.B.

Socialists, on the other hand, have got that “clear conception,” the lack of which amongst the Social Democrats is so deeply deplored by Mr. Quelch.

“In order to gain that clear conception,” says Mr. Quelch, “it is necessary for it to be understood . First that we mean what we say when we declare that from our point of view there is absolutely nothing, fundamentally, to choose between the two parties—Liberal and Tory” (that, it seems), is why Quelch & Co, are so frequently angling for Liberal—or Tory for that matter—support and votes) ; “second, that politics are not an end, but a means—not a question of principle at all, but of tactics,” etc.

Now bearing in mind the premises laid down at the beginning of this article, I cannot believe that Quelch does not understand the position, therefore in view of this brilliant utterance, I am forced to the conclusion that he is deliberately obscuring the issue in order to confuse the working class.

This idea is further borne out on a perusal of the remainder of Quelch’s illuminating (?) quota to the discussion. He says that to abstain, from voting or to mark or spoil ballot papers “is not political action but inaction. Absolute abstention is simply disfranchisement; it is to withdraw ourselves from the political arena altogether, and leave it entirely free to our capitalist enemies for the continuance of their petty, superficial faction fight. Abstention pure and simple is to make ourselves as a party a negligible quantity, no matter how strong numerically we may become,” and more to the same effect. He also says : “except for tactical purposes, there is absolutely no reason. . . why a Social Democrat should . . . vote for either Liberal or Tory.” Expediency again ! It is not a matter of principle at all, but of seats at any price.

But let us go back a little—where is the need for Socialists to take part in the “faction fights” of their masters, even for “tactical purposes” ?

Mr. Quelch goes on : “Accepting the first principle that I have submitted an essential to a clear understanding of our position in politics —that there is nothing fundamentally to choose between Liberal and Tory—the policy of abstention, where there is no Socialist to vote for, is from the point of view of principle, the only possible policy to adopt.” Yet he negates this by wanting us to abandon “the only possible policy” in order to vote Liberal or Tory “for purely tactical reasons.” However, he shows the mental tangle he has got into by saying “If there really is no fundamental difference for us between the two parties, then obviously we cannot vote for the Liberal as being the lesser of two evils. To do so is to admit that after all there is a difference, and one to the advantage, in our estimation, of the Liberal.”

Mr. Quelch sees the danger of this policy, because “it follows, as naturally as night follows day, that the good ‘practical’ Socialist had much better vote Liberal, even where there is a Socialist candidate, rather than risk letting in the Tory.”

Now let us see where Mr. Quelch has landed himself.

(1) He admits that there is no fundamental difference between Mr. Liberal and Mr. Tory. This means that in voting for either we are supporting our natural and historic enemy. (2) But to abstain means self-effacement, politically, and therefore we must support one section of the enemy against the other, “for purely tactical reasons.” Yet to do so is to admit that there is a difference,” etc., etc. At the same time “this is a most dangerous policy” because it will cause those, “good ‘practical’ Socialists to vote Liberal rather than risk letting in the Tory.”

But we find later on that Quelch is quite willing to enter the capitalist “faction fight”—”to use our organisation in every possible constituency to defeat the Liberal and to destroy the Liberal Party—not because that Party is any worse or any better than the Tory ; but because it is the party which stands in our way, which saps our strength,” and so on.

Mr. Quelch says that “At the Annual Conference held at Edinburgh in 1898, he proposed a resolution to the effect that the organised vote of the Social-Democratic Party in Great Britain should be directed solidly to the extinction of Liberal candidatures by the vote being cast steadily on the Tory side up to and through the General Election.” The resolution goes on to give instructions as to the means of its being carried out; but with characteristic Social-Democratic duplicity it provides for exceptions “where the candidate belongs to the extreme Radical Left, and is prepared to work with us,” etc., etc.

Mr. Quelch and the average S.D.P.er cannot see that the nearer some other body may appear to be to them, the more dangerous that other body will probably be. But Quelch’s eloquence was not sufficient to carry his resolution, for after considerable opposition the following was carried :

“That this Conference in view of the growing tendency of the capitalists and landlords to unite against the interests of the people, instructs the E.C. to use its influence to throw the Socialist vote against the Liberal and Tory candidates indifferently, as may seem to the greatest advantage of the Socialist cause, except——”

They must have the usual exception.

Now they admit of no fundamental difference between the sections of the political expressions of capitalism. They further recognise that this admission means that it is dangerous to support either political faction, yet they are prepared to support one against the other, except where that other is a representative of those who are prepared “to act with us for the realisation of immediate practical measures,” and so on ad nauseam.

Oh ! but I forget! This course is adopted for “purely tactical reasons.” As if that makes any difference. The tactical advantage—if any—is much more likely to be on the other side than on theirs ; for they stand to gain greater tactical advantage by being in constant opposition to all capitalist parties than by supporting at one time and opposing at another.

This can easily be confirmed by reference to the famous Albert Hall speech of butcher Asquith, in which the Irish party, having adopted a policy of hostility to the Liberal party, are promised Home Rule. The Suffragettes, having consistently opposed the Liberals, are promised votes for women ; but the Labour Party are promised—nothing.

In the recent election we find Social Democrats fishing for Liberal support (vide Northampton). Not getting it, they opposed the Liberals with a second candidate. Elsewhere they had no settled policy. Thus in Battersea we find them supporting the Tory against Burns (just the reverse of what they did in 1900).

Mr. Frank Colebrook, writing in “Justice” for Jan. 22nd, 1910, advocates the claims of the Liberals to S.D.P. support in view of the great constitutional crisis. In the same journal dated Feb. 5th Mr. Stanley Briggs reports a resolution of protest passed by his branch against Colebrook’s letter in the previous issue. In the issue for Feb. 26th Mr. Colebrook made some attempt to defend his action in voting Liberal, pleading the “purely tactical reasons” beloved of Quelch. Neither tactics nor any other consideration would allow members of the S.P.G.B. to use their votes in conflict with the Party’s constitution, for we are governed not by expediency but by principles.

E. W. Spackman puts forward in “Justice” (12.3.10) a novel proposition. That is to “put up candidates in every constituency where a branch of the S.D.P. exists at every election. …Not having the cash to pay the returning officer’s fees, he will not be allowed to go to the poll. Nevertheless, so far as we are concerned, the candidature could be proceeded with.” The writer then goes on to press for payment of Members, etc., so ruining a proposition that had the promise of a sound foundation by introducing the eternal, vote-catching reform.

Mr. Quelch is continually denying any compromise or bargain of any shape or form with the Liberal Party, but “M.G.” puts the position very neatly in “Justice” for March 29th, when he says : “There are, of course, in the English language, other expressions for this than ‘arrangement with one of the orthodox parties,’ as used in my letter (“Justice,” March 5th, 1910), but in such an important question preciseness is very desirable.” That is very true, and it is the hope of some, at least, of that desired preciseness being attained, that has inspired this long article.

To sum up, Socialists should give their votes to none but Socialist candidates, or if there is no such candidate in their constituency, they should mark their ballot papers by writing “Socialism” across them. This is not self-disfranchisement, as Quelch says, but is a practical demand for a candidate to be put up for that constituency.

To do anything else is to support the exploiting class and so enable them to live by the exploitation of the workers. Socialists should be governed by principle alone. Let Quelch and his fellow reformers and job-hunters flounder in the bogs of “tactics” and expediency if they will—they will surely become engulfed.

Hutch.

Blogger's Note:

This may be the first mention of John Maclean in the pages of the Socialist Standard.

Socialism and the immediate future (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The starting point of any fruitful discussion about the conditions of the immediate future must be found in the present ones. Past revolutionary changes of the economic system have taught us that in any new society there can never be a complete break with the conditions of the immediate past. The physical basis upon which the new society rests is the end product of the development of the economic and political forces within the old society. This is why socialists stress the necessity of understanding how capitalism functions, as a necessary pre-requisite to taking action to replace it by Socialism.

The method and means of production that Capitalism has developed and will develop are the only ones upon which Socialism can be built. As long as thinking about the future takes the form of planning an ideal world, as an architect plans a house, it will remain a dream, unrelated to and without bearing upon the present. One of the chief reasons why those who agree that Socialism is desirable refuse to work for its establishment is that it is regarded as having no connection with what to-morrow is likely to bring. It is important, therefore, to emphasize that the form of society we direct all our efforts towards attaining is possible to institute to-morrow, given the understanding of and desire for it by the majority of people.

What is there about Capitalism that enables it to continue, in spite of the fact that it produces effects which are repulsive to the majority who endure them? The answer is that acceptance of its basic institutions— wage-labour and capital, money, the state—is deeply rooted in most people’s minds. These institutions govern property relationships and their continued existence is, in fact, unchallenged except by socialists, though others may express a desire to modify some of them.

The basis of production under Capitalism is the pursuit of profit and this economic basis creates effects which permeate the whole of capitalist society. It is not just production for sale and profit that is tacitly, if not avowedly, accepted by the majority, but the whole set of ideas, ethics or morals that is in line with it The two-class nature of present society is accepted, not consciously as a scientific theory, but implicitly in all the conventional mental attitudes towards it in practice. Such is the power of tradition that most people invariably expect the continuation of property relationships into the immediate future at any rate and can conceive the possibility of only superficial changes in them.

Having acknowledged the power of tradition let us now look more closely at how it exercises its sway over the minds of all who fail to examine it critically. The class that owns the means of production and distribution also controls the instruments of mass education and propaganda — schools, churches, newspapers, cinemas, radio, etc. Only those ideas and concepts that do not militate against the present order of things are reproduced on any wide scale. In effect there is an even narrower choice of mental diet than that dictated by the requirements of Capitalism as a world system. Periodically the citizens of each nation are inculcated with the ideas needed to ensure their support for the prosecution of a particular war, though not for war in general

The ideas and edicts which make up the moral code (in the widest sense) of the present system must be acceptable to or at least not opposed by, members of both capitalist and working class. In the case of the former, rights connected with property ownership are to be upheld and of the latter their continued acceptance of wage-slavery is required. Although the moral code is interpreted in a different way in each of these rôles, it necessarily has certain feature which are common to both. For example, most workers offer as much resistance to the idea of a world without money as capitalists do, and they have the satisfaction of knowing that this is a “common sense,” i.e. mass produced, attitude. Their explanation of this similarity of outlook is that the basic difference between capitalist and worker is not primarily a political one, but one of relationship to property. An employer stands in relation to his employee as owner of means of production to non-owner and the relationship is accepted, willingly or not, by both.

In order to retain the acquiescence of workers as a whole in this arrangement the capitalist class, through all the media of mass influence, diverts their attention from abolishing it by allowing and often encouraging them to reform it The level of political understanding is prevented from rising by the dominance of the so-called "practical” programmes which involve the continuation of the property system and the consequent need to preserve it in modified or unchanged form.

Thus Capitalism continues because the possessing class uses its control of the means of mass influence to persuade the producing class that no other order of things is possible. It is the task of socialists to point out that there is an alternative which may be put into effect just as soon as the need for it is commonly understood. To hold no opinion about how society is and could be organized is not neutrality but assent to its present form, Capitalism. It is not logical for workers who are capable of achieving Socialism to refuse to work for it because it appears to be out of the question as far as the immediate future is concerned. Once the position is taken up that Socialism is the only solution to our common problems then all political effort should be directed towards bringing the day of its establishment nearer. This involves the rejection of all the ideas and concepts that sustain Capitalism and the adoption of a revolutionary outlook towards all its institutions.

To many workers it may seem a tall order to refuse to swallow the mental dope which is offered on every hand to give the ugly present a roseate hue. This is no doubt partly due to the fact that the routine work connected with capitalist propaganda is mainly carried on by members of the working class themselves, either as their paid job or, in its less obvious forms, as conventional conversation. Unfortunately most minds tend to act only as receivers of ideas, which they repeat to others, and the most powerful transmitters are capitalist controlled. However, once it is realized that their object is to keep the property basis of present society intact then there is a strong incentive to challenge every idea that seeks, no matter how indirectly to prolong it.

Stan Parker

Democracy or leadership? — the difference (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Regular readers of the Socialist Standard will probably be aware that the Socialist Party doesn’t have leaders. They will also hopefully be aware that the Socialist Party claims to be completely democratic, with each member having one vote.

The reason for this is that we realise that democracy and leadership are mutually exclusive. We argue that a democratic socialist society will not have leaders because if it did then it could never be fully democratic. The same applies to the organisation of a Socialist Party. 

So what’s wrong with leaders? Leaders are only necessary in a society where a minority own the means of living and the majority of the population arc exploited for profit. In a society based on free access to the means of living via common ownership, all there will be is democratic organisation. There wouldn’t be a propertied owning class or state — in other words no people with more rights than others, or leaders.

Some people confuse organisation with leadership. The Socialist Party may not have leaders, but it does have strong democratic organisation, in which the members have full control over Party office-holders. Democratic organisation is therefore completely different from leadership. If anything, a democratic party requires more organisation than a semi-democratic leadership party, because it relies more on the initiative of the membership.

This being said, the next area of confusion is the concept of “dominant personalities”. The argument here is that even if you don’t have leaders, and the organisation is democratically controlled by the membership, you will always have those people who are: more knowledgeable than others, better at arguing than others, and generally more influential and active than others. Of course, this is true, and again there isn't a problem here. The point is everyone has the same “legal” weight, so no matter how well known you are or how good you are at writing articles for the Socialist Standard, at the end of the day you only have the same “legal” power as the least able or active member of the Party.

A third point which is often raised is the assertion that any party whose aim is to change people’s ideas is de facto a leadership party. This is pure semantic quibbling. The point is, we don't propose to lead the revolution and we don't propose to exist as a party after the revolution.

Compare this with the SWP. They are an unrepentant leadership group that aims to lead the working class to a “workers’ state” that they will inevitably control. Their concept of democracy is “democratic centralism”. The basic idea here is that the membership democratically vote for their all-powerful leaders on the Central Committee. This is obviously open to abuse, but the main point is that having leaders of any kind can never be fully democratic. Having the right to vote for your superiors doesn’t make for a democratic organisation. Democratic leadership is a contradiction in terms. Leaders and leadership are therefore incompatible with democracy.

The Socialist Party is broadly organised along the lines of how socialist society will be organised. There will be those who seem more dominant and capable than others. A democracy of class-conscious workers will ensure that any leadership pretensions that any of these “strong" people might have will come to nothing. The nature of the “power structure” simply will not allow it.

When it has been proved that leaders are, have been, and always will be our enemy, do you really think a democratic socialist society will ever feel the need to reintroduce them? 

Dave Flynn

Leaders Get Lost! (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism is on the agenda — and right now. But it will not come by people putting their trust in leaders. It will be established when the vast majority of workers understand it, want it and democratically organise for it in a party which is not out to mend capitalism but to end it.

Socialism means the total abolition of capitalism. An end to private and state ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution. Production will be solely for use, with all people having free access to the common store of goods and services, instead of production for sale with a view to profit.

To win workers to organise for socialism is no small task and it is easy to be demoralised or to deceive yourself that there is an easier way to initiate the new system. But there is no alternative to the hard work being carried out by the Socialist Party — whose sole aim is socialism — and the sooner those who want socialism join us, the sooner it will be achieved.

Letter: Achieving Socialism (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Achieving Socialism

I have read the Socialist Standard for seven months now and find it most interesting, and my political sympathies lie with the SPGB. However, there are three points I would like to raise with you.

Firstly, I note that it is the SPGB's aim to establish Socialism by the ballot, not the bullet—Socialism can be achieved by the workers using their vote en masse. You also contend that Socialism must be world-wide. How then do you reconcile these two circumstances—the vast majority of workers do not have the free vote to use, whether they be in China, Africa or India. In this case, surely, Socialism cannot be achieved until the whole population of the world has a free vote to use.

Secondly, you must accept that a basic education is required for the vast majority to understand Socialism and then make it work. However, the large majority of the world is either uneducated or indoctrinated with other ideas.

From these two points I contend that, although Socialism is the best answer for the world, the world is not ready for Socialism because the vast majority of the population is uneducated and does not possess the vote.

Thirdly, you make great issue of the fact that capitalism and Socialism are diametrically opposed to each other—the armed forces, police, government and press are all instruments to ensure the continuance of capitalism. Why then are the SPGB and its companion parties allowed to exist? Surely, as the SPGB is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism, it would be in the interests of the ruling class to abolish all parties opposed to them?

Timothy Eldridge

Welwyn Garden City

Reply:

1. Socialism will be a world-wide system established by a politically conscious majority. We should expect support for it to grow first in the “advanced" industrialized capitalist countries, where the contradictions of capitalism are most glaring and the need to replace it most obvious. Here, in America and most of western Europe for example, political democracy is well-entrenched. This is no accident. Capitalism demands free movement and a free flow of information, and this is the form of political organization which enables it to function most smoothly. The pressure for a democratic state comes from the capitalist class—which then exhorts workers to regard this “freedom” as an end in itself. We can see this from events in Spain and Portugal, and the holding of General Elections in India and Pakistan. A growing Socialist movement will itself have profound effects on the political situation in the world at large. As it gathers pace workers anywhere will be able to see that this is where their interest lies and will organize politically. A working class aware and organized enough to work for Socialism could take the establishment of political democracy in its stride.

2. We agree that political education is necessary before we can get Socialism, and that at the moment most workers are politically ignorant since they believe problems like poverty and unemployment can be solved within capitalism. The main job of the Socialist Party is to combat all the political parties which spread and reinforce this belief. But the case for Socialism is not complicated; it can be understood by anyone of normal intelligence (the majority, by definition). And once again capitalism works in our favour It makes ever more apparent the possibility of an abundance of wealth without being able to make it a reality. Sooner or later this must be understood.

3. The idea of Socialism arises from the material conditions of capitalism, and would continue to exist even if the Socialist Party were formally suppressed. Suppression means difficulties, expense and unpopularity for governments supplying it. Other people than Socialists advocate free speech and would oppose any such move. For our part we recognize that freedom of discussion is necessary for the growth of Socialist ideas and we therefore argue with our opponents rather than trying to silence them. Finally, policemen and soldiers are themselves workers who will not remain immune to Socialist propaganda. But after the capture of political power through the ballot box they will in any case be controlled by the working class through Parliament so that there can be no question of effective resistance to the setting-up of the new society. And when that has been done the coercive forces will cease to exist.

Editors.

A Debate with the I.L.P. (1932)

Party News from the March 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

H. Crooks, representing the Independent Labour Party

Edmund Howarth, representing the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

“Which Party Should the Workers Support: the l.LP.. or S.P.G.B.?” This proposition was debated at Newcastle-on-Tyne on Thursday, January 14th, 1932, 7.30 p.m., at 3, Higham Place.

Mr. J. Yarwood, Secretary of the Newcastle Trades Council, presided. The Chairman intimated that the conditions of debate were : each speaker 30 minutes, followed by a general discussion for half-an-hour, then a closing speech of 15 minutes for both speakers.

H. CROOKS, on behalf of the I.L.P., opened by stating that, unfortunately, at present the workers supported neither the I.L.P. nor S.P.G.B., but hoped that eventually the workers would support Socialism. He would confine the debate to the main issues. The I.L.P. was a workers’ party which believed that Socialism is not likely to be brought about by anything but a mass movement. No sudden transformation would be possible unless the workers realised their class position and subjection to the master class. To achieve Socialism, the workers must capture political power, national and local, and this must be the work of the workers themselves. He stated that the I.L.P. was the “midwife” of the Labour Party, and that he did not believe the Labour Party was ever Socialist, but only a workers’ party. He believed, however, that the Labour Party would take the right steps forward to reach a state of Socialism. As a member of the I.L.P. for 27 years, he believed that Socialism would now come very rapidly owing to recent development. His views as to the imminence of Socialism had often changed during the past few years ; his view of the approach of Socialism had never been static, but constantly changing. He accepted Marx’s principle of wage-labour and capital, and was convinced that the capitalist system would break down through the weight of contradictions in its own systern. Every Socialist was not bound to have read Marx, but must adopt the principles of Marx. Most of the I.L.P. members have the essential sincerity to achieve Socialism, although there had been unfortunate episodes in I.L.P. history through the Party not having been wisely led. Leaders such as MacDonald and Snowden had admittedly let them down. So long as the fight for Labour representation was necessary, Labour members had, unfortunately, shelved Socialism. The Labour Party had shown weakness when it first took office, but the I.L.P., although affiliated, opposed the Labour Party when it dropped Socialism. The aim of the I.L.P. was to convert the Labour Party to Socialism from inside; in fact, because of these activities, the I.L.P. was expecting to be thrown out of the Labour Party. The economic situation shows that the revolutionary period foretold by Marx is on us now. Capitalism is in its death throes. The workers’ part in this must be to organise politically. Capitalism may attempt to re-organise in order to stabilise itself, but he thought that the question of International Debts would stand in the way. Capitalists will not forego their debts ; it is nor capitalist mentality to do so. The workers’ standard of living will fall with the unemployed’s falling standard, but there was no fear that the I.L.P. would not try to maintain that standard as high as possible. The S.P.G.B. does not believe in Parliamentary representation or putting candidates before the electorate until thev are certain of a majority. This attitude was negative and not forcible enough to achieve Socialism. He could prove his assertion by figures. The I.L.P. has 30,000 members; the Communist Party 2,500; and the S.P G.B. about a quarter of that number. He would like to ask Howarth how long it will take the S.P.G.B. to get the support of the workers at this rate of progress? The workers should support the I.L.P. on its past record.

FIRST SPEECH FOR ‘THE S.P.G.B.

EDMUND HOWARTH, on behalf of the S.P.G.B., said that his opponent had merely stated his own views, and not necessarily those of the I.L.P. His opponent had contrived to give the impression that the I.L.P. accepted the. teachings of Marx. That was entirely false. He (Howarth) would read out the stated object of the I.L. P., which was,—

“. . . the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth. The Socialist Commonwealth is that State of Society in which Land and Capital are communally owned, and the processes of production, distribution and exchange are social functions.”

The expression “communal ownership of capital” was self-contradictory. Capital is that part of wealth used to make a profit. Socialism meant the elimination of profit-making and profit-taking. The division of society into classes disappears under Socialism. The reference, to “exchange” was also an absurdity. The new form of Society would be concerned only with the production and distribution of material requirements. “Communal ownership of capital” was not Socialism, but a meaningless phrase. The I.L.P. definitely rejected the teachings of Marx, and their notion of common ownership included such futilities as Nationalisation, State Control, Municipalisation and Public Utility Corporations of the type sponsored by Mr. Morrison, the ex-Labour Minister of Transport. The sole object of the Socialist Party was the establishment of Socialism, that is, a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests, of the whole community. The Socialist Party alone had a clear grasp of the principles of Socialism, and were able to correctly define it. The uselessness of Nationalisation to change the economic conditions of the workers was well exemplified in a paragraph appearing in “The Socialist Programme,” published by the I.L.P. in 1923. On page 24 it is stated that : —

“The present shareholders in mines and railways could receive State Mines or Railway Stock, based on a valuation, and bearing a fixed rate of interest.”

Under this magnificent scheme the capitalists continued to exist upon interest extracted from the wage-earners. The Post Office was often held up by I.L.P.’ers as an example of the benefits of State control, which they fondly imagine is a form of Socialism. The Daily Herald made the following significant admission respecting this nationalised institution.: —

(14th December, 1925).—”So far from being a charge on the community, the Post Office has, in thirteen years, 1912-13 to 1924-25, made a profit of 44 million, all of which has gone in the relief of taxation. Since 1914 there has been a decrease of more than 24,000 in staff, while much work has been added to the Post Office. This has resulted in speeding-up and over-work.”

Nationalisation changed the form, but not the substance of capitalist ownership, and was a measure that could be, and was, supported by various capitalist groups. We were told by the late Mr. John Wheatley, Labour ex-Minister of Health and a prominent member of the I.L.P., in a speech reported in the Daily Herald on November 20th, 1925, that : —

“It must be affected without making the capitalists poorer, or lowering their standard of life.”

His opponent had endeavoured to prove that the I.L.P. was something fundamentally different to the Labour Party. The I.L.P. was an affiliated body, and differed only in the number and kind of reforms advocated. The Living Wage proposals, Family Allowances, etc., would leave Capitalism intact and leave the social problem unsolved. That could only be solved by ending capitalism. The futility of the I.L.P. programme was asserted by Philip Snowden, who had been chairman of the I.L.P. for six years and had spent a good deal of his life in advocating the reform theories of the I.L.P. He wrote in Reynolds’, April 24th, 1927 : —

“The I.L.P. Programme does not enthuse me. It is neither Socialism nor a colourable imitation of it.”

The I.L.P. was a party of social reform engaged in the business of enlisting support for various fantastic schemes to catch votes from non-Socialists. The purpose of their “Socialism in Our Time” proposals was candidly admitted by the Acting Editor of Forward in the issue of July 7th, 1928. He wrote :—

“The I.L.P. is certainly not committed to advocating ‘the overthrow of the Capitalist system.’ Its ‘Socialism in our Time’ programme is a carefully reasoned out programme, which, as the I.L.P. states in its resolution, ‘aims at the immediate raising of the standard of life of the working classes and the transference of the key sources of power within Capitalism to the Community.’ That is a line of policy which does not mean ‘the overthrow of the capitalist system.’”

The reference to “Raising the immediate standard of life” of the workers was a phrase that could fit in well with the slogans of social reformers of all brands. Reference had been made to the 30,000 members which the I.L.P. claimed. It would he interesting it learn how many of these understood Socialism. The membership of the I.L.P. had seriously declined in recent years, whilst the membership of the Socialist Party was growing. The Socialist Party is concerned with making Socialists, not enrolling large numbers attracted by reform theories and ignorant of Socialism. The I.L.P. had a large number of M.P.’s, it is true, elected on a programme of reforms by non-Socialists and committed to the support of the Labour Party, which, in turn, was dependent on Liberal votes. Years ago, the I.L.P. made compacts with the Liberal Party at Leicester, Halifax and in other constituencies. At the last General Election the Labour Party exchanged their support for the support of Mr. Lloyd George and his section of the Liberal Party. The I.L.P., a short time ago, allowed Mr. H. N. Brailsford to advocate a definite alliance with the Liberal Party. The I.L.P. was not even united on the merits of the particular reforms to be held out to the workers as a bait for votes. All kinds of views and doctrines were expounded by the I.L.P., but not Socialism. In Gateshead, the Labour candidate, Ernest Bevin, at the last General Election issued a leaflet enjoining Liberals to vote Labour. During the War the I.L.P. allowed its members to vote war credits and to take office in the Liberal-Conservative-Labour Coalition Government. Prominent members of the I.L.P. appeared on recruiting platforms and assisted in the prosecution of the War. Mr. Keir Hardie wrote in the Merthyr Pioneer, November 27th, 1914: —

“I have never said or written anything to dissuade our young men from enlisting ; I know to well all there is at stake.”

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald contrived to give the appearance of opposing the War, but his attitude merely showed that he did not believe that “national interests” were at stake. On August 3rd, 1914, he said in the House of Commons :—

“I want to say to this House, and to say it without equivocation, if the Right Hon. Gentleman had come here to-day and told us that our country is in danger, I do not care what party he appealed to, or to what class he appealed, we would be with him and behind him. If this is so, we will vote him what money he wants. Yes, and we will go further. We will offer him ourselves if the country is in danger.”

The attitude of the Socialist Party to the War was clear and definite. We opposed it from the commencement and stated the Socialist position. We were the only party to remain steadfast to Socialist principles. The principles of the Socialist Party were erected upon the teachings of Marx, upon the basis of the Materialist View of History, the recognition of the class struggle, and the necessity for the enlightened and conscious aim of the workers to capture the political machinery for the institution of the Socialist Commonwealth. We had no reform programme, like the I.L.P., to deflect the workers from the need for emancipation, and had no use for leaders, good or bad. The I.L.P. by their activities sidetracked the workers by promises of tangible benefits now, which could not be obtained. They therefore showed their affinity to all the other parties of capitalism. It was a party helping to maintain capitalism, and therefore useless to the workers. The Socialist Party alone were concerned with the need for emancipation, and pointed the way to the ending of wage-slavery and exploitation in all its forms.

(At this point a general discussion of 30 minutes took place, in which members of both parties joined. Persons unattached to either party also spoke.)

(To be continued in next issue).

A Debate with the I.L.P. [Continued] (1932)

Party News from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the last issue.

LAST SPEECH FOR THE I.L.P.

Mr. CROOKS, in his closing speech, stated that he was delighted with the trend of the debate, and pleased with the fair way in which Howarth had put his case. There had been a complete absence of abuse, which he much appreciated. However, Howarth’s quotations from papers and periodicals had tried to indicate that the I.L.P. were a bad lot. He considered the actual difference between the principles of the I.L.P. and S.P.G.B. was small. The real difference was one of method, and in all ideas of method there is bound to be a disparity of opinion. Are you going to get Socialism by preaching, which is the only method of the S.P.G.B.? The S.P.G.B. certainly did not carry out its policy to run candidates. If they did get their candidates into the House of Commons, what would these members do? Sit with folded arms and not attempt to better the conditions of the workers at present? Education must be followed by practical work, and it is in practical work that men come into conflict. The I.L.P. will go forward and achieve Socialism in spite of the fact that they might sully orthodox Socialist principles. While you live by bread, you must not forget the bread. The revolutionary period is here, so all workers should support the I.L.P., which is a real practical force for Socialism, and not a negative force like the S.P.G.B.

LAST SPEECH FOR THE S.P.G.B.

HOWARTH, in winding up the debate, pointed out that the open discussion had shown that there were many misconceptions as to the object and principles of the Socialist Party. The terms of the debate had been dictated by the I.L.P., and he (Howarth) had protested that not sufficient time had been allowed to enable the speakers to state their cases adequately.

The notion that the Socialist Party refrained from putting candidates forward until they were certain of a majority was ridiculous. Candidates for municipal elections had been put up, and advantage had been taken of these elections to spread the knowledge of Socialism. It is true that we have not secured the election of candidates, but that is because there are not sufficient Socialists to elect them. No doubt our candidates would be successful if we ran on the same basis as the I.L.P. by promising immediate benefits. As Socialists, it was not our desire to secure office by false pretences. I.L.P. candidates were elected by pandering to the ignorance of the workers. I.L.P. members elected to public bodies are powerless to state the Socialist case. They have no mandate to do so, as they were elected by non-Socialist votes. The Socialist Party has no programme of social reform to dangle before the workers. The immediate need of the workers is emancipation. Palliation merely serves to keep capitalism in existence, and invariably fails to palliate. The complete failure of the Labour Government in Britain and also in Australia demonstrates the utter absurdity of expecting to get rid of the evils of capitalism without getting rid of the system from which these evils spring. The notion that members of the Socialist Party ignore the need for bread is fantastic. Members of the S.P.G.B. were forced to take part in the every-day struggle for bread. They did so as members of Trades Unions, but we never failed to point out that the workers are always at a disadvantage under capitalists. It was because we realised the need for bread and all the amenities of life that we realised the limitations of Trade Union action and pointed to the abolition of capitalism as the sole means of access to the means of life. The idea that a party can work for Socialism and Social Reform at the same time is entirely contrary to fact. The I.L.P.’s activities in the direction of social reform measures completely overshadows any interest in Socialism. Besides, if reform measures could give the workers security or substantially better their conditions, all interest in Socialism would be killed. The adoption of the entire Labour programme would leave capitalism intact, with all its corresponding defects. In spite of the enormous energy spent in promoting social reforms, more persons are cornpelled to seek parish relief than at any other time in history. The differences between the I.L.P. and the Socialist Party are not superficial, as suggested by Mr. Crooks, but fundamental. The I.L.P. chases the will-o’-the-wisp of social reform, while the Socialist Party opposes all sections of the master class. The I.L.P. imagine that Society is at this moment in a state of transition from capitalism to Socialism, and many of its proposals are put forward as transitory measures. The transition to Socialism can only commence after the capture of political power by the conscious efforts of the workers. That is the beginning of the transition stage. Reform measures merely strengthen the existing system and assist its smooth running. That is why the capitalist class support and institute reform measures. The terms of existence for the workers are dictated by the possessing class. The I.L.P. cannot alter that with all their practical measures. The Liberal and Conservative Parties could outdo the I.L.P. or Labour Party at the game of reform. The capitalists could safely adopt many items on the I.L.P. programme without endangering their social system. That is what they have done, and will do, to stave off the demand for a fundamental change. He (Howarth) submitted that sufficient had been said to encourage those present to undertake a full investigation of the Socialist Party’s case, and he would invite all to read the Party’s literature with a view to acquiring the requisite knowledge.

The usual vote of thanks to the Chairman terminated the proceedings.

C. S. Bates

Editorial: Manpower and the Crisis (1947)

Editorial from the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Remedy the Labour Government Cannot Use

Capitalism breeds war, waste and want as a jungle swamp breeds pestilence. Practically every minister in the Labour Government has acknowledged the truth of this some time or other and has pointed the obvious moral that if you want to remove the pestilential effects you must remove the capitalist cause, and introduce Socialism in the place of Capitalism. They said this, but did any of them understand what they were saying? Probably not. If by chance some of them did then by taking office in the Labour Government they were acting a deliberate lie for they were promising something it was not in their power to do. There can be no Socialism until there are a majority of convinced Socialists in the electorate and even the most deluded of Labour leaders would surely not claim that the 12 million Labour voters were Socialists. A government cannot impose Socialism on an unwilling electorate. This should be obvious, but it took the recent crisis to jolt the “Daily Herald” into even a partial recognition of the facts. The “Herald’s” admission, a veritable masterpiece of understatement, was framed as a warning to Ministers not to entertain the “treacherous delusion” that would “regard the whole electorate as enthusiastic converts to Socialism” (February 8th, 1947). The same Editorial goes on to claim that “a peaceful revolution is being wrought in this land which will bring solid benefits within our lifetime, and will confer blessings untold on posterity.” We can leave posterity to speak for itself and content ourselves with foretelling a time when the electorate will count it an immediate blessing to be rid of the Labour Government.

The reader is of course entitled to ask us why we are sure that Labourism cannot succeed. The answer is to be found in the opening paragraph of this article. Capitalism we know; Socialism the workers can have when they are ready to grasp it; and there is no other choice. The root fallacy of Labourism is the belief that a Labour Government can administer capitalism in a non-capitalist way. With all the good intentions in the world it cannot be done” Labour Ministers may make election promises with perfect sincerity, but in office they learn day by day what it really means to keep this exploiting, profit-making system .going, in competition with the rest of the capitalist Powers. It means resisting wage claims so that the capitalists can go on making profit. It means perpetuating the vast gulf between rich and poor. It means maintaining the armed forces and struggling with rival Powers for trade, raw materials and colonies.

It is hardly necessary to say that it also involves swallowing past declarations of what ought to be done, such, for example, as Sir Stafford Cripps’ complete reversal of his views on trade rivalry. Now he is chief director of the export drive. Five years ago he declared, “If, after the coming of peace, we were to start once again the vicious circle of international trade competition, we should be lost, and in a few years would be confronting another war” (interview with a Brazilian newspaper—”Sunday Express” November 8th, 1942).

The recent crisis, forerunner of others, took on the appearance of a problem of fuel and manpower, brought to an acute phase by an “Act of God,” the British weather. It was, however, not a crisis of coal or of cold, but of capitalism. Let us examine this and see how capitalism, which caused the problem, prevents the Labour Government from solving it. The second World War (itself a product of capitalism) destroyed vast amounts of wealth and left a legacy of shortages of housing, food, fuel, clothing, transport, etc. Not that want was a new experience for the working class, but the war aggravated the problem by the immensity of the destruction it wrought all over-Europe and Asia. What would a sanely organised human society have done about this, assuming that such a form of society had to tackle the problem? It would have stopped all waste of labour and materials, halted the production of armaments, and of luxuries for the rich, and would have concentrated on producing the necessities of life in the quantities urgently needed by the population of the world. How did the Labour Government (and all the governments in all the countries) tackle it? They spoke the right words, but proceeded to apply fiddling half-measures. The British Labour Government said they needed man-power in production, but they found that British capitalism had a still more pressing need to keep 1,500,000 men in the armed forces and other hundreds of thousands supplying the needs of the forces and preparing for future wars. They said they needed more workers producing coal, food, houses, etc., for the millions who lacked bare necessities, but they left intact the class structure of capitalism, with its hundreds of thousands. of wealthy idlers consuming without producing, and its hundreds of thousands of workers engaged in banking, financial and other operations that only arise because of capitalism. There are over 700,000 non-industrial civil servants, about 350,000 of whom are Post Office workers. The great bulk of the remaining 350,000 are doing work rendered necessary only by capitalism, as is also much of the work of the Post Office. We are told that many civil servants are employed on insurance and similar work which the Labour Government regards as socially useful; but it is only the mind habituated to capitalism that cannot see what this work really is. Staffs handling unemployed and health. insurance are not there to see that the needy (needy because of capitalism) receive enough to satisfy their needs, but to protect capitalism against the needy receiving more than the niggardly amount allotted to keep them quiet.

The same contradiction between proclaimed aims and practical activities can be found in every sphere. The luxury needs of the wealthy have not been sacrificed to speed up the provision of necessities. On the contrary, the Government has encouraged the planning of luxury liners, luxury air travel, and luxury goods for export. These schemes are defended with the plea that luxury exports make it possible to import necessities unobtainable in other ways. The curious thing is that the governments of other war-damaged countries (France, for example) are doing the same and on the same plea, so that some luxury goods are being imported by all the countries which declare their inability to supply enough necessities for their populations. What it shows is that, despite Labour Party talk about a “new world,” the British and other Labour Governments are basing their plans for the future on the continuance of the same old capitalism, with its extremes of wealth and poverty. They are all catering for the needs of the wealthy.

Here then is the simple problem and the simple solution. On a conservative estimate the production of useful goods could easily be doubled in short time if the armed forces and propertied idlers and the workers doing work necessitated only by capitalism, were brought into production. Why doesn’t the Labour Government even attempt to do it? They don’t do it because even if they wanted to they dare not. They were put into power by an electorate that does not understand or want Socialism and which therefore gave the Labour Government nothing more than a man¬ date to go on administering capitalism.

The recent crisis arose because the capitalist state needs to have millions of people taken from production for the armed forces and other non-productive activities and therefore cannot take simple straightforward measures to make good the destruction of war. It led to great suffering and to the increase of unemployed to about 2,500,000 at the peak. In due course another and more usual type of capitalist crisis will blow up. Goods will be produced in excess of what can be sold at a profit, then unemployment will soar again. Then the Labour Government will be looking for other excuses than the cold weather to explain the failure of its plans. The “New Statesman,” which shared all of the foolish Labour Party beliefs in the possibility of applying so-called Socialist policies to capitalism, has in anticipation already coined the appropriate face-saving formula for the next crisis: “… the Government is confronted with the certainty, now that the illusions about a liberalisation of America’s trade policy have finally been dispelled, that a Socialist experiment confined only to this country is bound to fail” (February 8th, 1947). So the “New Statesman,” shedding one illusion, grasps at another equally absurd. It proposes that Britain cut adrift from trade and financial ties with U.S.A. and collaborate instead “with other countries which are experimenting with planned economies.” If it is a fallacy, as it certainly is, that a Labour Government can apply Socialist plans to capitalism, common sense should make it clear that you do not escape from the dilemma by linking up with other countries in which similar governments are trying to perform the same impossible feat. Capitalist crises know no frontiers, and Labour Governments here and elsewhere will no more escape the next crisis than they did the “economic blizzard” that blew down the British Labour Government in 1931 and simultaneously toppled over the Labour Government in Australia.

For the world’s workers there is no escape from the problems and crises caused by capitalism except by introducing Socialism.

Correspondence: Committee of 100 (1965)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor,

With reference to News in Review (December 1964). Some of your criticisms of the apolitical attitude of the Committee of 100 are probably justified. But by their courage they have had more success in a couple of years in getting ideas through to the general public than the SPGB has had in a lifetime.

As you say, the Committee is tackling subjects only remotely connected with the Bomb, perhaps (with a little encouragement—not abuse) the next development will be Direct Action for Peace and Socialism.

Bill Evett, 

Secretary West Ham YCND.

Reply:

There is really no great problem in “getting ideas through to the public “, provided we are not particular about what sort of ideas they are.

The SPGB is small, not because we have not worked hard to propagate our ideas, but because the working class does not support Socialism.

The progress of the Socialist movement depends upon the growth of political consciousness among the working, class. The Committee of 100, like the other organisations which stand for capitalist reform, have not helped in this. They have only spread continued their own confusion among the working class at large.

In our December issue, we drew attention to an example of this. The anti-nuclear movement once said that the only issue worth concentrating on was nuclear disarmament; now they are chasing up and down the old, well trodden blind alleyways of reform. And still their original object is as far away as ever.

A movement like that could never stand for Socialism. Mr. Evett, for example, adds his own little bit of confusion to the rest by referring to “Direct Action for Peace and Socialism”.

The only hope lies in a party which remains steadfast in its Socialist principles, and does its best to convince people like Mr. Evett of the futility of demonstrating for capitalist reform instead of working for the system’s overthrow.

Editorial Committee

Revolution’s Reply to Reform. (1909)

Pamphlet Review from the December 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The answer to “Arms for the Workers: A Defence of the Programme of the Social-Democratic Party.” (E. C. Fairchild, Lon. Organiser S.D.P.)

“By common consent, Socialists agree that the control of the National Executive by the working class must precede the use of land and the instruments of production for the common good. Conflicts between the classes in society are but struggles to secure possession of the central authority that decrees the law, which registers or changes the conditions of property holding. Control of politics means control of property.”

Thus Mr. Fairchild opens. But he is incorrect. Politics is the science of government, or, the contests for power of government. Our author means neither the control of the science nor of the contests, but the control of political power. Then Control of political power is political power. Henceforth we shall transcribe the sentence : “Political power means control of property.”

The palliator then deals with his subject under sectional headings. We will do the same, using his headings.

The Principle Common to Socialists

“We cannot escape restraints upon our freedom imposed by our life in the past. Custom and tradition weigh as heavily in politics as in other departments of human activity.”

Is this the language of regret ? It seems so, for as a consequence :

“The political party that appealed to electors upon a statement of object only, would soon find the average man so far rational that he wished to know the means by which the object would be realised.”

Exactly. Were it otherwise Socialists, optimists as they are, might deem the fight hopeless. But reformers dread the question, and for fear of it will not appeal to the electors upon a statement of object only. We read:

“For this reason, the Socialist Party in every country has formulated a number of proposals, variously known as palliatives, platforms, or stepping-stones.”

The object of Socialists, reduced to the utmost limits of brevity, is—Socialism. Not so sententiously, but with more information, the S.P.G.B. states its object as “The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.”

The “rational” man at once asks “Is present society so based ?” No. Then how is the property change to be effected ? Mr. Fairchild himself supplies our answer to the dread question.

“Control of the National Executive by the working class must precede the use of land and the instruments of production for the common good.” 

Then we must get control of the National Executive, or, to lift ourselves above the S.D.P. loose verbiage, must capture the political machinery. Why ? Because it is “the central authority that decrees the law, which registers or changes the conditions of property holding.” Because, to use a less questionable phrase, “control of the National Executive” means political power, and “political power means control of property.”

The answer is clear and easy. Why then, does the reformer try to put ‘”the electors” off asking the question by giving them “a number of proposals” which are not Socialism to think about?

Of course, the reform defender has the alternative that his language is as loose in this passage as elsewhere, that these “proposals” are not formulated to avoid the question, but to answer it—and the use of the term “stepping-stones” would bear him out. But to submit these “palliatives” as the answer to the question “how is Socialism to be attained?” is to claim that they are indeed stepping-stones to Socialism ; that they are revolutionary, and undermine the capitalist basis of society. Perhaps we shall see later if he dare take up this position.

Concerning the proposals we read :

“While the private possession of land and capital continued, these proposals could be applied by a government representing the interests of the capitalist class, or by a government acting on behalf of the workers and having Socialism as its aim.”

So we are asked to imagine that the working class have obtained that “control of the National Executive” which “must precede the use of land .and the instruments of production for the common good” ; have captured that political power which means “control of property” ; are installed (in the persons of their “Socialist” representatives) as the “central authority that decrees the law, which registers or changes the conditions of property holding.” And this “Socialist” Government, with its control of property, its power of “changing the conditions of property holding”—what does it do? Does it announce the fructescence, the fruit-time longed for by the tired labourers of “myriad meetings” ? Does it, having attained all that is needful for the purpose—control of the armed forces and the other instruments of government—change the property condition from private to common ownership, and so establish Socialism and free humanity from the curse of wage labour and all its concomitant evils ? Oh no ! At the moment when exploitation should cease for ever it begins to dabble with Eight Hours Days and Minimum Wages !

But this seeming idiocy can be easily accounted for. The palliator puts forward “palliatives” in order to catch votes. When we are invited to suppose a government “having Socialism as its aim” installed at Westminster, we are really asked to imagine the most complete realisation of the “get there at any price” policy. The pseudo-Socialists have captured the seats, but, as our author knows well enough, they have not captured one shred or vestige of political power. As a matter of fact, as far as essentials go, the position remains unchanged. The working class have control of the “National Executive,” but only in the sense that they had it previously. Formerly, in their ignorance, they elected their masters ; now, in their ignorance, they elect men of their own class who are not honest enough, or intelligent enough, or brave enough, to come before them with the plain statement of Socialist object only, but have formulated a number of proposals which were perhaps intended to carry them into power, but have only carried them into place. The minds of those who elected these misleaders have undergone no change, and since it is the mind of the electorate which controls the National Executive, the control of this “central” authority means exactly what it did before—the perpetuation of capitalist control of property, decreed by working-class ignorance.

The “government having Socialism for its aim” occupies a false position. Seated on fraudulent pretensions, it is utterly impotent. The most honest of it members thought to snatch a victory for Socialism on the votes of those opposed to the revolutionary principle, and now they find that, true as it is that “political power means control of property,” it by no means follows that political power and political place are synonymous, or that property is controlled in the interests of those who have control of the “central authority.” That depends upon their consciousness of those interests.

In order to have obtained political power for working-class interests it was necessary for the working-class representatives to draw their strength from an electorate cognisant of those interests, instead of which, in the case we are invited to imagine, they are upheld by a working-class electorate with the capitalist mind, who have given them no mandate for revolution, no authority for changing “the conditions of property holding.” If it is true, then, that “conflicts between the classes in society are but struggles to secure possession of the central authority that decrees the law which changes the conditions of property holding,” then the recognition that this “Socialist” government which has become the “central authority,” is powerless to interfere with the property condition of present society is a confession that the palliator’s vote-catching policy is fighting the battle on wrong lines.

Without political power, and therefore without control of property, our “government having Socialism as its aim,” is reduced to its Minimum Wage bill, its Eight Hour act, and so on. But whether these things are “applied by a government representing the interests of the capitalist class, or by a government acting on behalf of the workers,” the result must be the same. “Political power means control of property,” but, given the property conditions, the economic laws which arise out of them are beyond its reach. Political power may sweep away private ownership of the means of production, but so long as that property condition continues, the exact degree of misery of the workers as a class will be determined by industrial development, and will be unamenable to palliatives.

Concerning the central idea of the section, that “the principle common to Socialists” which our palliator observes “beneath, or running through,” the various proposals, is “the extension of collective or communal action for the general well-being, in place of the use of national resources for private gain,” this implies “control of property,” which only political power can give the workers. To say that they have this political power is to say that they have the power to abolish private property in the means of life and to establish Socialism; to say that they have it not is to say, on our opponent’s own showing, that they cannot extend “collective or communal action for the general well-being,” or, as he earlier put it, use “land and the instruments of production for the common good.” To maintain that they have that political power which should accompany political place (and which is only important to the workers because it confers the power to change the property conditions of society) and yet allow “the private possession of land and capital” to continue while they apply their “palliative” is to rebuke the lie that they have Socialism as their aim, and expose themselves as willful perpetuators of capitalism.

Further, so far from true is it that there is any “principle common to Socialists” running through these proposals, that the principle common to capitalists—exploitation—is implied by and writ large over most of them, for example the Eight Hours Day and the Minimum Wage.

The Socialist in Politics.

There is little in this section that Mr. Fairchild has not touched upon in the previous one. He claims that “the items of the Socialist (!) programme are a recognition that the claims of society are greater than the rights of private property in land and capital.”

Are they, indeed ! It seems to the present penman that if anything could have denoted the utter abandonment of all and any rights, claims or hopes by the workers, it is to hear “Socialists” talking of the application by “a government acting on behalf of the workers, and having Socialism as its aim,” of Eight Hour Days, Minimum Wages, feeding necessitous children, and (p. 2) “public control of those agencies which supply public needs, on lines that will secure release from the burdens imposed by the payment of interest to idle money-lenders.”

What touching solicitude for the property owners’ welfare !

“The Socialist in politics,” it seems, is bound to formulate a palliative programme. We take the opposite view.

We hold that only by the change of the property basis of society from private to common ownership can the workers’ position be improved. “Political power means control of property.” To have political power we must have political place, but we may have political place without having political power. But since it is not political place which controls property, that alone is useless to us, and its attainment would prove calamitous for working-class interests. For in such a case the “Socialist” government must be on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand they would be pushed in the direction of revolution (the direction of changing the property conditions of society) by the “Social-Democrats” and others who believed they had won power for Socialism, on the other hand they would be expected by the vast majority of their constituents, who had elected them upon reforms and for reforms, to institute those reforms they had promised.

Mr. Fairchild’s statement that, “while the private possession of land and capital continued” the reforms “could be applied by a government having Socialism as its aim” indicates the direction he anticipates they would be forced to move in. But we shall show presently that these “palliatives” will not palliate, that all the economic laws which govern commodities are against the “palliatives,” and must inevitably render them powerless to affect the economic condition, of working-class existence. If we are correct in this; if, being applied the “palliatives” prove to be inoperative, what will be the result ? They will be detected for the misleaders they are and incontinently thrown overboard. Should they, on the other hand, attempt the revolutionary property change, they will quickly find out what it means to be without political power. Their political castle, built upon the rotten foundation of a non-Socialist electorate, will collapse at the first blast of their own trumpets, crumble beneath the tramp of their own feet.

Whichever course the “government having Socialism as its aim” should follow, the result must be the utter waste of all the precious working-class enthusiasm and weary effort—blood and treasure in the very essence—and consequent apathy and loss of confidence in themselves among the workers.

In order to avoid this misfortune, the Socialist Party of Great Britain takes the field without palliatives or other vote-catching devices. Holding that the duty of “the Socialist in politics” is to build up a position upon a thoroughly sound, revolutionary foundation, it discourages support from those who do not hold its principles. It is with this object it has framed a rule (31) to the effect that all or none of the vacant seats in any particular ward or constituency must be contested and that all must be elected or none allowed to take their seats. Our political place must be the measure of our political power.

A. E. Jacomb.

To be Continued.

Letter: When and how? (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

When and how?

When—and how? For more than half a century you have preached socialism. For nearly that long I have read your literature and listened to your speakers. Constantly I ask; when and how. Your speakers repeat, parrot-fashion; “When the workers want socialism they will have it”. Fine, but this is dependent on the question, “How?”, to which you have no answer. Propaganda by itself is useless. There must be a plan of action. Do you envisage a time when it will be impossible to recruit a single soldier, sailor or airman; when at a General. Election not a single vote will be cast; and when workers will all simultaneously and spontaneously, without leadership or organisation of any sort, suddenly refuse to work for their capitalist masters? Supposing such a fantastic state of affairs could come about what then? How do you set up and how administer the socialist society?

It is true that the Labour Party, by attempting to bring about a socialist society through a process of gradual reform has foundered because it was forced to compromise with capitalism but it is also true that the Soviet by bloody revolution overthrew the capitalist society yet the workers are certainly no more free than they were under private capitalists. Private capitalism has simply been succeeded by State Capitalism. I certainly do not expect to get the answers to my two simple questions but I suggest that the SPGB thinks about this problem. By all means continue your good work in converting the workers to socialism but please, for the sake of convinced socialists co-sider, when—and how?

B.W. 

London, W.10.

Reply:

Here is a pleasant surprise for B.W.—answers to his questions. The first one—”When”—he answers himself: “When the workers want Socialism they will have it.” To the second question— “How?”—the answer is much the same. When the great majority of workers in this country and all over the world are convinced Socialists then they will handle the business of bringing about a Socialist society without any difficulty. They (the workers, including the administrative and supervisory workers) already handle the much greater problem of running a capitalist society— much greater because the necessary production and distribution of goods is complicated by problems of exchange, of payment, of credit, of competition, of national frontiers, of strategic considerations, and so on—all of which will cease to exist when capitalism is abolished. Besides that, many workers, are at present employed on useless jobs (bank clerks, insurance men, bus conductors) or directly harmful ones (soldiers, munitions makers) thus greatly reducing the number of workers available for the useful work of production and distribution. And at present the workers do this much more difficult job—of running capitalism—when it is not even in their own interests. Under Socialism they will have a much easier task which will be in their own interests. It is hard to see why our correspondent thinks that the same people who are now doing a very difficult Job will not in the future be able to do a much easier one.

Our “plan of action” is straight-forward: to make Socialists. Why does B.W. think there will be “no organisation . . . of any sort”? The Socialist Party is the very organisation he is looking for. As we state in the Declaration of Principles we publish every month “The Socialist Party of Great Britain . . . calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner”. The organisation is already here—the too! of the working class in the Socialist revolution. All that is lacking is a majority of class-conscious workers, and we are doing our best to bring that about.

B.W. says “Do you envisage a time when it will be impossible to recruit a single soldier, sailor or airman; when at a General Election not a single vote will be cast”—presumably B.W. means for capitalist parties, since our appeal to Socialist workers is to vote for Socialist candidates or write “Socialism” etc. on the ballot paper. B.W. is correct to describe such a state of affairs as fantastic. When “nobody” is prepared to join the armed forces or vote for capitalist parties these institutions, because of that fact, will have ceased to exist.

If B.W. has been reading our literature and listening to our speakers for as long as he says, he should know that the Labour Party has never attempted to bring about a Socialist society, whether by gradual reform or otherwise. It aims at nothing more than state capitalism, and a “welfare state”. A state capitalist party will never bring about Socialism. As for Russia, the Soviet revolution overthrew the landed aristocracy, and brought in capitalism —at first partly private and partly state, now wholly state. It is perfectly true that the workers are no better of under state than under private capitalism, but this is only what the Socialist Party has been saying since its inception.

Editorial Committee.