Letter: What about countries without political democracy? (2026)

Letter to the Editors from the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

What about countries without political democracy?

We have received the following from a reader . . .

I’ve been wrapping my head around SPGB’s democratic approach. It sounds like SPGB puts itself under the mercy of capitalist democracy. So, when capitalists feel threatened, they will curtail the democratic rights that would endanger their capitalist interests, let alone endangering their class rule. One example of this is from SPGB history itself during WW2, where the state issued the prohibition of anti-war ‘propaganda’ and the SPGB had to comply. Don’t you think that there is a contradiction in this approach and this might be the reason why the SPGB failed to become popular among the workers (thus fulfilling one of its main missions of raising class consciousness that leads to the conviction for the need for socialism among most workers) for over a 100 years?

Also, this democratic approach would also mean that workers in un-democratic countries and regions would have to fight (not in a bloody way under the banner of the capitalists of course, but through protests and strikes) for those democratic rights like free speech, freedom of assembly and universal suffrage. But you know before anyone that not all countries and regions can have such a class structure and the level of the development of the productive forces that would allow them to have a capitalist democracy without having ‘robust’ capitalists at their helm. This case can be clear here from the example of Russia after 1917 or China after 1949, where so-called ‘communists’ had to do the dirty work of capitalists (by being capitalists themselves of course). Transforming these countries from predominantly peasants backward agrarian countries with weak capitalists tied to the landed aristocracy and powerful foreign capitalists (both having interest in the status quo to remain as it is) to predominantly workers industrialized countries ripe for capitalist democracy that SPGB sees as an indispensable tool for socialism. So, wouldn’t that make SPGB’s call for fighting for democratic rights in un-democratic countries and regions ‘utopian’ if taken on a universal basis because the case doesn’t apply everywhere, where the conditions aren’t there yet? Wouldn’t the SPGB be sending a covert message for workers in these un-democratic and unripe-for-democracy countries and regions to wait for ‘the third worldists’ to prepare the ground for capitalist democracy (thus socialism) by rallying the workers behind them, to crush them later and brutally exploit them? Isn’t the crux of the problem the ‘socialism through parliament approach’? Which if it is the case, then that means that capitalism isn’t ripe to be overthrown, not because the development of the means of production didn’t reach the sufficient level for socialism (we both know that it was reached a long time ago) but because the uneven development of capitalism across the national frontiers.

A food for thought: wouldn’t that necessitate the SPGB to change its program to accommodate the fight to erase national boundaries and borders? Wouldn’t that constitute the solution for this uneven development of capitalism? (which in fact would lead to the end of imperialist wars and other calamities that affect the workers around the globe and hinder and divide their struggle for socialism through the democratic approach the SPGB advocates for).

Sem

 

Reply:

You are mistaken in assuming that we think that political democracy is ‘an indispensable tool for socialism’ in the sense that if it doesn’t exist then socialism cannot be established. What is indispensable for socialism is that a majority should be in favour of it. There can be no socialism without a socialist majority. What we say is that, where effective political democracy exists, sending delegates to parliaments and similar bodies or positions is the obvious and most straightforward way to win political control and likely the most effective too. If, or where, this does not exist then the socialist majority would have to find some other way.

We do say that, in non-democratic states, workers are right to struggle for basic democratic practices such as free speech, organisation and assembly, if only to better defend their interests under capitalism. But we don’t presume to tell them how to go about this beyond saying it should be based on a recognition of the class struggle and be organised democratically. Socialists in such states should still campaign for socialism as part of and with help from the worldwide socialist movement. The whole world is ripe for socialism, including where political democracy does not exist. It is not our position, as you seem to be implying, that workers in such places first need to struggle for political democracy and, after that, start struggling for socialism.

Your claim that a capitalist class has the power to close down political democracy at will implies that it is a conspiratorial group that somehow controls state power other than through the election of pro-capitalist politicians and parties. In fact, a capitalist class is not a monolithic group with a single interest but is made up of different groups with differing interests, especially over economic policy. In Britain parliament, elected originally on a franchise restricted to property-owners, evolved as the place where these differences were aired and where the question of which section of property-owners got to control the government was settled.

In the course of the last century the vote was extended to all the citizens of a state, often against the will of sections of the owning class, but the basic situation remains the same. It is through elections that a capitalist class controls the state. Universal suffrage has the added advantage of getting the consent of the governed, which makes a state more governable. A one-party or military dictatorship, even if it supports capitalism, puts political power in the hands of a group that could use this position to line its own pockets at the expense of capitalist profits. Elections keep those who run a state under control. In short, some form of political democracy is the ideal political form for a modern capitalist state.

You envisage a government abolishing this if a capitalist class were under an existential threat from a growing socialist movement. But by the time a majority wanted socialism — which would be reflected in elections — then it would be too late. The boot would be on the other foot. Instead of a minority of socialists having to accept that most people want capitalism (or a war), those who benefit from capitalism and want it to continue would have to accept that a majority wanted socialism and that it was ultimately pointless to try to resist this. If a coup did happen then it would not be able to last for long as a state, with a socialist majority that wouldn’t accept its will being frustrated, would be ungovernable. One way or another a socialist majority would get its way. — Editors

Workers don’t control political power (2026)

From the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The state presents itself as a neutral arbiter, a set of institutions that balances competing interests, responds to democratic pressure, and governs in the common good. This is an illusion.

 The state is not neutral. It is the organised power of the ruling class. Its courts, police, military, and legal apparatus exist primarily to protect property relations, to guarantee that those who own the means of production continue to own them, and that those who don’t must continue to sell their labour-power to survive.

The wage system: concentrating wealth and power simultaneously

This is the mechanism at the heart of everything. Workers are paid less than the value they produce, the difference is appropriated by those who own the means of production. This isn’t occasional exploitation or the result of individual greed. It’s how the system functions by design.

And here’s the critical point: wealth and power are not separate things. Money is power, directly and immediately. Accumulated capital buys political influence, funds media outlets, finances lobbying operations, endows universities, and shapes the terms of public debate. Every pound extracted from the wage relationship doesn’t just enrich an owner, it widens the power gap between owner and worker. Wealth concentrates, and with it the ability to shape society in the interests of the wealthy.

The wage system therefore performs a double function simultaneously: it extracts wealth upward and concentrates political power upward at exactly the same rate. These are not two separate processes. They are one process with two consequences.

The anger this produces

Most working-class people don’t articulate this in political terms. But they feel it, viscerally, daily, in ways that produce real rage.

The nurse who works twelve-hour shifts and can’t afford to heat her home properly while energy company executives collect eight-figure bonuses. The warehouse worker tracked by an algorithm, disciplined for toilet breaks, earning just enough to survive while the company posts record profits. The young person who does everything right, works hard, studies, plays by the rules and still cannot afford to rent a decent flat, let alone buy one. The family that chooses between food and bills at the end of the month while being told the economy is performing well.

This is not bad luck. It is the system working exactly as intended.

The frustration deepens when people turn to politics for relief and find the same story. A new government arrives promising change. Within months it is managing the same constraints, making the same concessions to capital, explaining why things cannot move as fast as promised. The cycle repeats. The sense that the game is rigged, that no matter how you vote, nothing fundamental shifts, is not cynicism. It is an accurate reading of how power actually works.

When anger is misdirected

That anger is real and legitimate. But without a clear analysis of where it comes from, it gets captured and redirected. At migrants. At benefit claimants. At a remote cultural elite. At any target that doesn’t threaten the underlying system.

The worker who resents his neighbour for claiming housing benefit while a landlord extracts half his wage in rent has had his anger pointed in exactly the wrong direction. The voter who turns to a nationalist strongman because mainstream politics has failed them is expressing genuine grievance through a vehicle that will deepen their exploitation while appearing to challenge it.

This misdirection isn’t accidental. Concentrated wealth funds the media, the think tanks, and the political movements that perform this redirection. It is one of the functions that money-as-power performs most effectively.

The vote and its limits

Workers can vote. In many countries they won that right through bitter struggle. But voting periodically for competing sets of managers of the capitalist system is not political power. Governments change; the underlying economic structure does not. Whichever party takes office inherits the same constraints, bond markets, capital flight, corporate lobbying, and the basic requirement that the economy remains profitable for investors. Policy operates within those limits or faces immediate economic punishment.

The wealthy don’t need to buy every politician or rig every election. They don’t have to. When economic power is sufficiently concentrated, the range of politically possible options narrows automatically. The system polices itself.

The structural problem

Economic power can precede and shape political power. Those who control investment, production, and employment set the terms within which governments operate. A government that seriously threatens property rights finds capital withdrawn, currency attacked, and media turned hostile almost immediately. This isn’t conspiracy, it’s the structural logic of a system where production is privately controlled.

Reform and its ceiling

Reforms, like better healthcare and labour protections, can sometimes be won. These matter. But they are concessions extracted under pressure, not transfers of power. And they are reversible, as decades of austerity have demonstrated. The ceiling on reform is the point at which it begins to threaten profitability. Beyond that point, the state’s coercive functions become more visible.

The conclusion

The anger felt by working people is not irrational. It is the rational response to a system that extracts their labour, concentrates the proceeds as wealth and power in a minority’s hands, offers them a vote every few years as a substitute for genuine agency, and then blames them when they lose faith in the process.

Real political power for workers would mean controlling the conditions of their own lives, the economy, production, distribution. That requires not managing capitalism better but replacing it with common ownership and democratic control. As long as the wage system stands, wealth will continue to flow upward and power with it. Everything short of abolishing that relationship leaves economic power, and therefore real political power, in the hands of a minority.

Jake Ambrose (Australia)

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.

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.

Question and answer (1986)

From the November 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does the Socialist Party of Great Britain recognise that its Declaration of Principles cannot apply to those countries where political democracy does not exist?

Capitalism is a worldwide system which gives rise to both the need for socialism and the possibility of achieving it. It is not the type of government or the mode of election which now stands in the way of socialism; the factor common to all countries from parliamentary democracies to dictatorships — is an extreme shortage of socialists.

While in Britain the development of political democracy took place along with the growth of capitalism, there are very few countries which do not now have at least the machinery associated with democracy and hold elections. All governments need the passive support of their people and elections of some kind are a convenient way of demonstrating it.

Wherever capitalism exists, however administered. workers are not immune from the contradictions which underline the need for socialism. This includes peasants who are increasingly affected by world capitalism. Apart from anything else, modem communications make it extremely unlikely that the socialist movement could grow to any size in a few countries and have absolutely no impact in the rest of the world.

How does the Socialist Party propose that the working class of those countries (without political democracy) are to organise for a socialist revolution?

In those countries where there are severe restrictions on political activity any socialists must, taking all circumstances into account, do the best they can to carry on their work for socialism, as indeed the SPGB did during the two world wars. (Elections were suspended. The Socialist Standard was subject to censorship. In World War 1 because of Defence of the Realm regulations, we suspended all outdoor meetings; platforms had been smashed and members injured, a speaker arrested and imprisoned, others "bound over to keep the peace followed in some cases by the loss of their jobs.) At times it may prove nearly impossible to continue, especially while our numbers are still so few and not only because of state-imposed conditions. We have the example of socialists in Northern Ireland who. after a very difficult time, were ready to resume a full propaganda programme at the earliest opportunity.

The prospects are not quite as bleak as might be imagined; governments are not able permanently to prevent the dissemination of ideas not condoned by the state. A 19th century example is of the German Social Democratic Party which, while the Anti-Socialist Laws were in operation recovered from the initial setback and grew to be the strongest single party, polling 1½ million votes in the 1890 election (the Anti-Socialist Laws then came to an end). Bismarck also introduced reform measures aimed at undermining support for the SPD. More recently the tight control of the media, education and so on in Poland, did not prevent the emergence of Solidarity — 10 million strong. The current situation is unlikely to be the end of the story and it is still true that the actions of the government are tempered by the likely response of the majority. The careful attitude of the authorities to the Catholic Church in Poland reflects the mass support which that organisation has. Underground publications circulate in Russia and other East European countries.

This is not to underestimate the difficulties but to underline the fact that lack of political democracy is not. at this time, the main problem

In those countries where political democracy does not exist, does the Socialist Party advocate and support reforms that could lead to political rights for workers, free trade unions etc. ?

The Socialist Party learned from the experience of the early parties of Social Democracy; having a programme of immediate reforms and the ultimate aim of revolution meant trying to implement the reforms which led to compromise — taking part in running capitalism. It was the reform programme which gained the large following of people not interested in revolution. It is the failure of parties of reform to solve working-class problems that has brought the use of parliament into disrepute. We point out that the choice is not between parliament plus reforms and socialist revolution. Parliament has not failed, it has never been used by a vast majority of socialists as a means to revolution. The vital lesson is that the issue of socialism must be kept clear; the party aiming for socialism must seek support on that basis alone.

Co-operation with other parties, or groups, for any other purpose will always be on the terms of those parties. Democratic freedoms are seldom sought as an abstract ideal. People leading campaigns for democracy are likely to have some other purpose in mind, seeing democracy as a stepping stone to economic or political power in their own sectional interest as the rising capitalist class made use of working-class agitation in securing its own political supremacy in this country. Many widely differing interests came together to overthrow the Shah in Iran; organisations were there despite the Shah s secret police and the exile of some leaders, but though this is an extreme example, it does show that it is not enough to aim to get rid of a tyrant — or for generalised freedoms.

To campaign for constitutional reform as a separate issue will only serve to perpetuate capitalism — in whatever form. All attempts to gain freedom to organise politically must go hand in hand with working for socialism — but this presupposes that there are socialists.

In fact workers do not need any advice from us about the advantages of trade union organisation, and gaining a political voice. Socialists welcome the formation of independent trade unions organised along sound lines. In recent years millions of people who have been compelled to work for the multi-national companies which have taken advantage of cheap, non-unionised labour in "Third World" countries have begun struggling to improve their pay and conditions by organising in unions. Witness also the struggles of black workers in South Africa where, as elsewhere, there are many factors at work, including economic problems and the conflict of interests between different sections of the capitalist class.

While we are considerably cheered by any success achieved by fellow members of our class in the lightening of their particularly heavy loads, we also recognise the likely limitations of that success. Workers also act against their class interest, regularly voting for parties to run capitalism, and will even support anti-democratic parties and accept the use of repressive measures. Our specific and vital contribution is to keep the issue of socialism clear.

Will political democracy have to be established in the majority, if not all. of the world's capitalist states as a necessary precondition for a socialist revolution?

The short answer is yes. We always emphasise that socialism is by definition democratic and can only be established by democratic means. Parliamentary democracy is the means which, when we are in the overwhelming majority, socialists will be able to use to gain control of the machinery of government. It is not the prerequisite to the formation and spread of the idea of socialism. This is not to ignore the difficulties; we have already said that where there are particular problems socialists must do the best they can. Nor do we underestimate the usefulness of political democracy — it makes our task easier — but at this stage it is not the deciding factor, or there would be many more socialists in the more "liberal" democracies. The missing ingredient is still class-conscious socialist understanding, in democracies and dictatorships alike.

The spread of socialist ideas, the expansion of the socialist movement with its democratic aim and organisation, will ensure the fullest appreciation of democracy in every country and the speediest adoption of political democracy and independent trade unions in those countries where they do not yet exist. Workers who have understood their class position and are ready to work for socialism will insist on taking an active part in their unions. They will not rely on leaders, they will not be misled into supporting dictatorships of any kind, and they will certainly not be fobbed off by any calls to nationalist sentiment.

It is inconceivable that the growth of the socialist movement could accelerate and yet those millions of class conscious workers leave the administration of capitalism untouched — by this stage there could already be socialist delegates in some parliaments. Long before the necessary majority is near governments would have to take their views into account. It is unlikely that when most countries have got substantial numbers of socialists, a few countries will still have only a minority of socialists and be without political democracy. If this did happen the worldwide socialist movement would decide, in close cooperation with those minorities, how best they could be helped. We repeat that this event seems unlikely. There would be no question of an increasingly socialist working class in, say. America, allowing the government to prop up dictatorships in other countries.

Letter: Power, dictatorship & democracy (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Power, dictatorship & democracy

It has come to my notice that you fundamentally accept Marx’s economic interpretation of capitalism and the materialist conception of history. It would therefore logically follow that you accept Marx’s theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, but this is not so and instead you claim that society can be changed through Parliament. This is because you do not understand the true nature of the class struggle and the capitalist state. Even you must realize that the power of society does not lie in Parliament but in the economic wealth of the ruling class. There is no parliamentary road to socialism (as the Labour Party showed), and the way to achieve socialism is by violent revolution and the smashing of the capitalist state.

In no. 8 of your declaration of principles you say the SPGB is “determined to wage war against all other political parties’. Why? History is littered with instances of working-class parties linking up temporarily with other parties, which have been beneficial to the working-class movement. You are reducing Marxism to a dogma.

Lastly, I notice the SPGB refuse to participate in workers’ struggles for higher pay, against unemployment and public spending cuts etc. I accept that such action by itself will never achieve socialism but it will help to strengthen, organize and educate the workers’ party.

I therefore advise everyone to study Marx by all means, but also study Lenin.

Andrew Mounsey

Sunderland

Reply:

You say that Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism and the materialist conception of history ought logically to lead to the acceptance of the view that “the power of society” lies in “the economic wealth of the ruling class”, and that the way to Socialism “is by violent revolution and the smashing of the capitalist state”.

To which the complete answer is that both views were explicitly repudiated by Marx (and Engels). They never ceased to insist that power is political, “the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force of society” (Marx, Capital Vol. 1, page 823, Kerr edn.). As our Declaration of Principles puts it, gaining control of “the machinery of government, including the armed forces”. It was control of the state machine that enabled the Tudor monarchy to plunder the great wealth of the Church and, as Marx showed in the section of Capital referred to above, it was political power which enabled the capitalists “to hasten, hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode . . . " .'

The suicidal tactic of “violent revolution” to smash the state instead of gaining control of it is not Marxist. As Engels wrote in the 1895 Introduction to Marx’s Class Struggles in France: “The rebellion of old style, the street fight behind barricades, which up to 1848 gave the final decision has become antiquated.” It had become antiquated militarily but in addition, without the great majority of the working class having become convinced socialists, such a victory would be meaningless for the achievement of Socialism.

What the 19th century taught Engels (and the SPGB) is that where it is “a matter of the complete emancipation of society” no such violent “short cut” is of any use because “the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they must act”, and for this to be achieved "long and persistent work is required”. (Introduction to Class Struggles in France.) This means using the vote. It was Marx who wrote that “the carrying of universal franchise in England” would have as its “inevitable result” the “political supremacy of the working class” (article in New York Tribune, 25th August 1852).

You refer to “the dictatorship of the proletariat” without explaining what you have in mind. Is it the total misrepresentation to be seen in state-capitalist Russia where it is Communist Party military dictatorship over the working class; or Engels’s example of the Paris Commune where majority control was based on democratic elections, no suppression of newspapers or the propaganda of the majority, no denial of their right to vote?

Though you claim to be aiming to achieve Socialism, it is obvious that what you understand by Socialism is not what Marx (and the SPGB) were led to accept by Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism and the materialist conception of history. For Marx and us it means “the abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself” (Communist Manifesto) and includes “the abolition of the wages system” (Marx, Value, Price and Profit). The fact that you are not aiming at this at all is shown by your astonishing statement that what “the Labour Party showed” has something to do with Socialism. The Labour Party does not aim and has never aimed at Socialism. Its declared aim is “the mixed economy” — a mixture of state and private capitalism. The Labour Government’s current policy includes reaffirmation of its desire to see capitalism profitable. Its aim is not to abolish capitalism but to show the electors that it can run capitalism more successfully (or less disastrously) than the Tories.

You state that history is “littered” with instances of working-class parties linking up temporarily with capitalist parties and that this has been “beneficial” to the working-class movement. It is true that organizations claiming to represent the workers have supported Tories and Liberals and the Labour Party, and their leaders from Disraeli and Gladstone to Churchill, MacDonald, Wilson and Callaghan — but where are the benefits that are supposed to have accrued? (“Littered” is the appropriate word to describe the non-results.)

Also we are told that the Socialist Party of Great Britain ought to divert effort from achieving Socialism in order to participate in the day-to-day struggles about the effects of capitalism, and that this would help to “educate”’ the workers. For a century and more organizations have pursued that policy, among them the Social Democratic Federation and the ILP. But where are the educational gains? Both of those organizations, after temporary flourishing, are now defunct, with as the only end product the Labour Party devoted to trying to reform capitalism.

One last comment: we note that you coyly abstain from naming the political party which has your support.

Editors.

The Forum: Our Position Queried. (1909)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Harrison (Salford) writes :

I should esteem it a favour if you would explain through your journal the following points. (1) Does the S.P.G.B. control the votes of its members by similar conditions that obtain for the speakers ? (2) Does the Party consider it futile for members to use their votes in support of the other political parties (S.D.P., I.L.P., Liberal, Conservative, etc.) when not represented by their own party ? (3) What is the motive of your Rule 31 (that no member shall take office unless the whole number be elected)? Knowing that several representatives from scattered constituencies should equal the influence of a like number from one constituency, what is the object of the Party in seeking representation ? (4) Assuming the success of all its candidates in a given area, what would be their attitude in the House to such reforms as State Maintenance of School Children, Eight Hours’ Day, States Railways, and Old Age Pensions, and in the Council chambers toward Municipal enterprises (Trams, Gas, Water, etc.) when brought forward by the other parties ? Although refraining from advocating these reforms, does it consider such measures as mentioned no alleviation to the suffering masses? (5) There are pronounced opinions respecting the relations between Socialism and Religion, Christianity, etc. Numerous Church ministers assert that the two doctrines run smoothly together, others assert that they are antagonistic. Notable Socialist (so-called) speakers definitely affirm that the two doctrines may be conscientiously observed. A quotation appears this week in Justice to this effect. When questions are asked in public there is always a lot of uncertainty in the replies, as if afraid of hurting someone’s feelings. Do you affirm that the two are in harmony ? (6) In what sense are we to accept the phrases “Revolutionary Socialism” and “Revolutionary Socialist”? A lucid definition of these points will oblige,

Yours truly, 

H. Harrison.

Reply:

In reply to Mr. Harrison’s first question the only rules giving the Party control over speakers specifically are rules 2 (“A member shall not speak from any other political party platform except in opposition”) and 6 (which requires that before a member is put on the official lecture list he shall give evidence of the possession of the necessary knowledge and ability to expound the principles of Socialism and defend the position of the Party).

The same reason which led to the formulation of the quoted item of rule 2 makes it clear that a like control, at least as far and as effective as the “secret ballot” will allow, over the votes of members is exercised by the Party. That reason is found in the opening sentence of the last clause of our Declaration of Principles, where it is declared that our Party “enters the field of political action determined to wage war upon all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist.” This being the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, it follows that no member can use his vote in favour of any other political party without acting contrary to the principles he subscribed to upon becoming a member. The sixth clause of the Declaration contains a syllogism—two premises and a conclusion which necessarily follows from them. The premises are : “All political parties are but the expression of class interests” and “The interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class.” The conclusion arrived at from these two propositions is that “the party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other political party.” The only possible ground of escape from this conclusion is that these two classes are not the only ones in society. Apart from this, if the two premises are correct, then the conclusion must be correct also, and that being so, members of such party must not in any circumstances support by any political activity, whether of voice or pen or at the ballot box, any other political party. Of course, it is open to Mr. Harrison (or anyone else) to suggest that the two classes named are not the only ones in society, or to challenge the truth of one or both of the premises, but until that is done the answer must be regarded as conclusive.

The reply to the first question may be extended to the second, which is “Does the Party consider it futile for its members to use their votes in support of the other political parties (S.D.P., I.L.P., Liberal, Conservative, etc.) when not represented by their own Party ?” It only remains to be said, in referring our inquirer back to the syllogism, that as neither the S.D.P. nor the I.L.P., stand in opposition to the capitalist class (they both support capitalist candidates and otherwise ally themselves with the master class on the political field, see S.P.G.B. Manifesto) they therefore cannot represent interests opposed to the capitalist class. They do not stand opposed to all other political parties, hence they are not in actual fact, and judged by their deeds—not their words, parties seeking working-class emancipation. The political arena being merely the battle-field of class interests, where every tie and obligation is forgotten, every allegiance cast to the wind, every barrier swept away, saving only the barrier of class interests, those who, found upon that battle-field, do not stand with us upon our side of that barrier, are against us. Do we think it futile to support such as these ? Oh, we think it much worse than futile !

The third point concerns our 31st and last rule, which lays it down that the Party shall only contest elections by putting forward a candidate for each vacancy in the particular ward, district or constituency, and that no member, though elected, shall take office unless the whole number for the particular ward, district or constituency be elected.

Once again Mr. Harrison is referred to the sixth clause of our Declaration of Principles. If the three propositions of the syllogism are true, if in particular the last of them—”The party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other political party”—is correct, then hostility to all other parties must be one of the basic principles of its political activity. A vote, to be of any value to such a party, must be the vote of a person who is also hostile to every other party, and no such voter could be guilty of the idiocy of voting both ways, or giving one vote for Socialism, as symbolised by the S.P. candidate, and one for capitalism, as expressed by the candidates of all other parties. Neither could the class-conscious worker who has the opportunity of voting for two Socialist candidates, use the vote in one case and wilfully fail in the other. The rule is a safeguard against building up a position upon such votes as these. That such a safefuard is necessary will be at once seen when we consider the position of men who are elected by unsound votes. Whatever their private and individual opinions may be, in their public and official capacity they are neither more nor less than those who put them in office. The real power is not the man, or the seat, but those who control the one because the other is in their gift. It is a remarkable fact that those who so proudly label themselves Social Democrats, in contradistinction to us (who are merely Socialists), are blind to this first axiom of democracy, that power is with the electors, and not with the elected. They are guilty of undemocratic action at very outset, in suggesting, and acting upon, the idea that once in position, under no matter what pretext, they make themselves the masters of those who have placed them there, and who have power to presently cast them out. This is the very essence of demagogy, the central idea of bosses and fakers, the cherished instrument of all working-class cheats and misleaders and men who have taken “the print of the golden age” and want to “get there” for various reasons. Against a majority of men so elected, and upon such a mandate presuming to take action upon the only lines that could seriously touch capitalist interests — revolutionary lines—the master class would find their easiest and simplest remedy in an appeal to the country ! Those who had voted for reform would soon settle the attempt to cheat them into Revolution. Well if that appeal did not take the shape of bloody suppression, aided, connived at, or at least passively disapproved of by those constituents who had sanctioned reform only. This is why the masters are not afraid of the “Labour” Party. They know them at once for dishonest men, who can be bought whenever they have anything to sell—which is usually before they are elected, not after. They know perfectly well that they represent only the ignorance of the working class, and stand, opaque and obfuscating figures, between that ignorance and the light. And so long as they are content to do this the capitalists are willing to allow them, and even to help them into office and invite them to their little feasts, as a sign to the multitude that “Capital and Labour are Brothers.”

What is our object in seeking representation ? Simply the seizure of the political machinery for the purpose of overthrowing capitalism. We do not want the so-called palliatives—for they don’t palliate. Even if they did we should condemn the present system and clamour for a new one, for obviously it is the business of those interested in the continuance of the capitalist system to patch it up to last a little longer. And the louder we shout for its demolition the harder will they try to patch it up. It is our business to show the rottenness within—theirs to present a fair exterior : it is not for us to show them how to perpetuate their domination. We have work enough to see that the reformers do not lull the workers into such apathetic belief in the possibilities of the capitalist system that it shall be left to fall of its own rottenness, and plunge humanity into fatal chaos born of its own ignorance and unpreparedness. Seeking representation therefore, for the purpose named, we desire to build up our position with sound bricks, or sound, revolutionary votes, in order that it may be a true index of our strength and we may be neither led nor driven into the appeal to force until the time is ripe. It is in order to assure, as far as possible, that every vote given us shall be a clear demand for the ending of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism that we have formulated rule 31.

As to our elected representatives’ attitude towards reforms, it is hardly fair to ourselves to answer this question without ample room for supporting it with argument. And further, it is possible that the last word has not been said upon that subject yet. The S.P.G.B. is a scientific party. As such it is open to assimilate each scientific truth as it is unfolded, and to adapt itself to such altered circumstances as might be advisable. This remark has special reference to the possible contingency of the capitalists putting forward a measure to extend the franchise with a view to swamping the Socialist vote with the vote of the slum. But confining ourselves to the class of measures our correspondent enumerates, and pending a special paper on the subject (by editorial grace) the following may be said. We ask for no vote for palliatives or reforms or “municipal enterprises,” but only for Socialism. Just as we by our 31st rule try to avoid annexing “palliative” votes, so if voting against “palliatives” lost us votes they could only be votes we try by all means to get rid of. As we declare before winning seats that “palliatives” are no good to the workers, and as they cannot be one iota more useful after we have won seats, obviously we must go on saying the same thing about them, and pointing out their fraudulent nature. It is plain then that our representatives cannot vote for these things. Shall we oppose them ? Well, why not ? At present there is evidence that before one class-conscious constituency is evolved in this country, and therefore before one S.P.G.B. representative takes his seat upon any elected public body, bitter experience will have sickened a vast portion of our fellow workers of such expedients. The return of our representatives will signify as much, in fact. The demand for reform is not in any sense of the word an attack upon capitalism, but the movement for revolution is. Against the first the capitalists have no need to defend (as history since the Chartist movement shows), but against the last they are compelled to exert their greatest efforts. Therefore the first man returned to Parliament under conditions such as the S.P.G.B. candidates will alone accept office upon, will carry consternation into the enemy’s camp, for it will be an unmistakeable declaration against reform, an undeniable demand for Revolution. As the Revolutionary must necessarily attack, so defense lies with the reactionary. The only defense at that stage will be the pretended reform. The evils of the system will be too patent for denial: they must use the arguments of the quasi-Socialist that the social edifice can be reformed. They must try and patch up the crumbling structure in order that it may last a little longer. Unnecessary to state, the dominant class will do this in their own interests— which are tied up in capitalism. Once more if there is any truth in that clause of our Declaration of Principles which declares that the interests of the master class and the working class are diametrically opposed then the duty of revolutionaries is clear. The reform becomes the reactionaries’ defense, therefore it must be attacked tooth and nail. It will be defended, for it is the last ditch of capitalism, beyond which is nothing but the force of arms on the open battle field. So we shall have to take their reforms as long as we are not strong enough to reject them, and when the master class are too weak to continue to force their reforms upon us, then indeed the day of the Social Revolution is near at hand.

In view of the apace already occupied, Mr. Harrison must be referred to our 43rd issue for the answer to the fifth query. Under the title of “Can a Christian be a Socialist” the matter was ably dealt with. Further, a pamphlet on the subject of Socialism and Religion is in course of preparation.

The final question concerns the meaning of the terms “Revolutionary Socialism” and “Revolutionary Socialist.” Well, the terms mean simply “Socialism ” and “Socialist.” There is no need to qualify these two plain words, for as Socialism at this stage implies revolution, Socialism must necessarily be revolutionary and every Socialist a revolutionary. Some of us who now know better may have been guilty of thus distinguishing terms that need no such distinction, but as we get older and learn the ropes we realise that speaking of “revolutionary” Socialism may create, does create, the impression that there is a form of Socialism which is not revolutionary, and of Socialists who are not revolutionary—an absurdity, at least until such time as (long after the realisation of the Socialist system) evolution shall have made the upholders of that system reactionaries against the system that is to follow it—if such a time ever comes. But it is probably the term “revolutionary” that is in question. The word “revolution,” from which the adjective is derived, signifies the entire change in the nature of the social structure which distinguishes Socialism from capitalism. It is the very antithesis of reform. Its root, germ or essence is the changing of the very basis of society—the property condition—while the root principle of reform is to preserve the social basis as the essential of perpetuating the social fabric unchanged. It is evident that one cannot be both revolutionary and reformer at the same time. To act in both directions at once, if such a thing is at all possible, is but to negate oneself, to cancel one’s political activity, to reduce oneself to the standing of the passive supporter of the status quo, and therefore of the anti-Socialist. The term “revolutionary,” then, implies the advocate of a change in the basis of society, and a “revolutionary Socialist” is a revolutionary who advocates that in making that change, it shall take the form of substituting social ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth for the present private ownership of these things. But as only thus can Socialism appear, every Socialist must be revolutionary, and is best known as a Socialist only.

A. E. Jacomb

Labour has failed: give socialism a chance (2025)

From the August 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

One thing the Chartists understood was the importance, to bring about social change, of first winning control of political power as the power to make and enforce laws. They campaigned for universal suffrage (at least for men) as they rightly saw the vote as the way to political control. Once the workers had the vote, they reasoned, they could use it to send delegates to parliament who would pass laws to improve their social and economic situation.

They weren’t wrong about the need to win political control to bring about social change or about the vote as the way to win such control, but the vote has its limitations. It can’t change the way the capitalist economic system works, based as it is on minority class ownership of the resources society needs to survive and on production for profit.

For over 150 years now, a majority of the electorate in Britain has been made up of workers: those who, excluded from ownership of the means to produce wealth, are forced by economic necessity to sell their mental and physical energies to some employer for a wage or salary in order to live. From time to time voters have elected Labour governments but, when in office, these have accepted capitalism, only trying to reform it to make things better for workers.

The theory was that a series of successive Labour governments would gradually transform capitalism into a more equal society by extending nationalisation and the welfare state to be paid for by redistributing wealth away from the rich. But what happened was that, instead of Labour gradually changing capitalism, capitalism gradually changed Labour, the final result being what we see today under Starmer: a party that proclaims itself the ‘party of business’ and which openly seeks to govern as such by putting profits (and military spending) before people’s needs and welfare.

As Starmer has put it: ‘Our job is to work with businesses to create the best environment that allows them to thrive’ (The Times, 29 January). Businesses ‘thrive’ of course on making profits. All Labour governments have been forced to do this but this is the first one to have openly proclaimed this from the start and to have acted on it so quickly.

Understandably, many who have supported Labour up to now no longer have any faith in it. There are calls to set up a new leftwing party, with Jeremy Corbyn as figurehead. That the Labour Party is a pro-capitalist party is now plain for everyone to see, but it is important to understand why the original Labour project of gradually replacing capitalism with a more equal society prioritising people’s needs failed — and was bound to fail. Otherwise, the same mistake will be made again.

The Green Party is already making this mistake of imagining that capitalism can be gradually transformed by a series of reform measures into something else, in their case into a more environment-friendly society. If they ever get the chance to form the government, they too would fail just as all Labour governments have. So would any new leftwing party if it adopts, as have previous breakaways from Labour, the same gradualist and reformist approach that the Labour Party once did. The plain fact is that capitalism just cannot be made to work in any other way than it does, ie, it puts profits first.

The Labour project didn’t fail because of the betrayal or incompetence or lack of determination of its leaders. It failed because it set itself the impossible task of making the capitalist leopard change its spots. Capitalism is an economic system which functions according to its own economic laws that impose themselves on those who run governments as well as on those who run businesses. Capitalism is driven by the quest for profits. It is a profit-making system that can only run in the interests of the profit-takers and never in the interests of workers whose labour is the source of profits. No government can overcome these laws and all governments have to apply them on pain of provoking an economic downturn.

What is needed is an understanding that capitalism cannot be reformed so as to work in the interest of majority. That understood, it follows that what is needed is a political party based on a different strategy from that pursued by Labour in the past, a party committed not to tinkering with capitalism’s effects but exclusively to abolishing it altogether and replacing it, in one go, by a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of resources with production directly to meet people’s needs and not for profit. In a word, socialism.

Once a majority want this they can use the vote to win political control with a view to carrying out this revolution in the basis of society. Given this, and that currently most people seem to see no alternative to capitalism, the urgent task of socialists is to convince more people that socialism is the way out.

Adam Buick

Suffragette Humbug. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not long ago the hoardings of London startled the man in the street with ugly black and white posters asserting that women were poor, that women were sweated, that women walked the streets, and that misery and vice stalked in our midst, all because women had not the vote. Those statements, issued by the Suffragettes, were and are unblushing falsehoods, unsustained and unsustainable by any shred of evidence.

The Socialist is in no quandary as to why the many are poor. It is not because propertied women have not the vote, nor even because women in general are not electors—it is because the many are robbed. And the stopping of this robbery depends not upon a mere all round increase in the number of votes, but upon the intelligence of the workers and the correct use of the vote in their hands.

Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; and for us that end is Socialism. And were the workers to understand rightly their position and their policy, the political freedom they now possess would enable them to achieve their emancipation irrespective of sex. 

It is, moreover, not a sex war that  exists in Society but a class war, but the Suffragettes endeavour to blur this class issue by screeching qualifications.

What are the facts regarding the Suffragettes? Under the pretence of sex equality they are buttressing class privilege. Under the guise of democracy they are endeavouring to strengthen the political power of property. They plausibly propose that women be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men, and since all Socialists want sex equality this looks attractive. But wait. What does it really mean? Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands’. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so.

The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers’ movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste.

In their cry for “equality” do not their methods betray them? Every move on their part is an appeal not to sex equality but to sex fetishism. Their tactics rely upon and appeal to the worship of sex. They know that their sex gives them privileges before the magistrate and protects them from the usual police brutality, and that any strong measures against them would immediately raise a storm in their favour amongst the sex worshippers. Hence their peculiar tactics, which have no other explanation. Let anyone compare mentally the treatment that would be meted out to working men did they pursue a similar policy to these Suffragettes. Let them compare the way the suffragist invasions of Downing Street or the House of Commons were dealt with, with that which would follow persistent forcible entries of the Commons by bands of unemployed. Broken heads, bullets, and long terms of imprisonment—and not in the second division—would be their lot, and instead of hysteric sympathy being created for the ill-treated unemployed, horror at their audacity and a determination to repress them brutally would take its place. And the middle class examples of sex arrogance rely upon this very woman worship and sex inequality to further their demands.

The Suffragette movement is upon all counts but a bulwark of capitalism. It is directly opposed to the interests of the working class—women as well as men, and the Independent Labour Party shows its capitalistic nature when it supports that movement in strengthening the political power of the propertied against the propertyless.

Both sexes of the workers are exploited and suffer. Both are  victims of those who live by the ownership of the means of life. Therefore the salvation of working class women lies in the emancipation of their class from this wage-slavery. Their interests are identical with those of working men, and the women of the middle class do but attempt to lure them with false phrases to desert their fellows and to aid the propertied enemies of their class.

The duty of working women is to refuse to allow themselves to be used as catspaws of the wealthy, and to join with their fellows in The Socialist Party, the organisation of their class; thus working for the emancipation of the toilers as a whole, irrespective of sex. Sex-equality cannot be the fruit of the Suffragette humbug, it can only come through economic equality—and economic equality is impossible except through Socialism.

F. C. Watts

Correspondence: Could the workers capture the House of Commons? (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Could the workers capture the House of Commons?

Dear Comrade,—Are we justified in assuming that the working class, being the majority of the electors, could return a majority of Socialists to the House of Commons ? I am at present rather dubious on this point, having seen some figures in the “Daily Mail Year Book” for 1908, which seem to disprove the contention that the working class have the power to elect a Socialist majority. For instance, Kilkenny has 1,584 electors and returns one M.P. while Wandsworth has 34,461 and only returns one M.P. The Romford Division of Essex returns but one M.P. and has an electorate numbering 47,614, and Newcastle, with 37,417 voters returns two M.P’s.

Let us imagine an election to have taken place. A Conservative is returned for Kilkenny with 1,000 votes, and a Socialist is returned for Romford Division with 30,000 votes. We see here one Conservative and one Socialist returned, but the Conservative vote is only one-thirtieth that of the Socialist.

I should certainly think that the majority of the voters in divisions with a large electorate are proletarian, as it is only the workers who are found crowded together, while those divisions with a small electorate, which I believe are usually country divisions, would be mostly bourgeois.

In 1886 the Unionists were in a minority of 65,000 votes, yet they had a majority of 104 seats. We find a similar thing in Germany. The Social Democrats polled 3,251,000 votes and obtained 43 seats, while the Centre Party obtained 105 seats and polled only 2,247,000 votes.

I have written this letter in the hope that it may produce a discussion that will dispel these doubts from my mind.—Yours fraternally,

H. A. Young.

Dec. 8th, 1907.

Answers to Correspondents. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

S. J. Cresswick (Kennington).—The policy of the Socialist Party is to convince the working class of the need for Socialism, and to organise them for its realisation. The Socialist finds all the forces of capitalism arrayed against him, and the tactics to be pursued in combating them depend at all times upon the stage of the economic and political development that capitalism has reached. One thing is certain, however—we can never ally ourselves with the enemy, but must wage unceasing war against him. We have no qualms about using any measure the capitalists provide, such as Suffrage, for instance, to prosecute that war to a successful conclusion. As to the support of a particular measure, that would be decided at the time according to its merits.

L. S. (Nottingham).—Just as on any other specific question, the Socialist Party would decide the action to be taken.

The Forum: Is the ballot-box a necessity of the present system? (1914)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received from a correspondent in Berlin the following query, which we were unable to deal with earlier on account of pressure on our space.

[To the editor.]

Dear Sir,—Will you please answer the follow­ing question in the next number of “S.S.”

In No. 113 “S.S.,” page 35, third column, you criticise the quotation: “If putting a piece of paper into a tin box would effect a revolution, you can bet your boots that the State (i.e., the bosses) wouldn’t supply the box” (“Daily Herald,” 27.11.13), as follows: “Which is quite forgetting the fact that the ballot box is a necessity of the present system, and is provided by the masters as a receptacle for the votes of the working class after they have been kidded into voting for them. When this method no longer suits their purpose they may endeavour to change it.”

Now, (1) if it is a fact that the ballot-box is a necessity, then it must also be a fact that the present system cannot exist without it. (2) The State (i.e., the bosses) therefore, cannot change this method even if it does no longer suit their purpose, or else you are wrong by stating it is a fact that the ballot-box is a necessity of the present system. (3) If again, it be no necessity, has your organisation an alternative to voting?

Sincerely yours,

KROLL.

—————————-

Reply:

The use of the term “necessity ” in a Jottings paragraph must, of course, be taken in a relative sense. While the existence of capitalism without the ballot-box may be conceivable, no evidence of its existence without it has yet been known.

Under the circumstances in which capitalism came into existence, the ballot-box was a necessity for its establishment, and its use and value to the capitalist system grow, rather than diminish, with the development of that system.

The reason for this is clear to the Socialist, or anyone else who has made a fair study of capi­talism. With the increasing complexity and interdependence of the various parts, it becomes more and more imperative to extend the delega­tion of various functions to larger numbers of the working class. This is the more necessary as the capitalists have long ceased to be capable of running capitalism, and have to depend upon the working class to do it.

Every extension of this delegation requires that, sooner or later, an extension of the basis of representation must take place. Hence the con­tinual, if somewhat lop-sided, “democratisation of the franchise ” that is sometimes pushed for­ward by Liberals and sometimes by Tories. The only alternative in front of the capitalist class is chaos. Unable to manage capitalism themselves, they must arrange for the workers to do it or see the system collapse.

Now the more desperate, or stupid, of the capitalist class may attempt to change the ballot-box in the last stages of the struggle, but it will then be too late in itself, while the majority of the class will waver, hesitate, flounder, and—be overwhelmed by the workers.

What Kroll fails to see is that a factor of a system may be forced out of that system—with resultant collapse—and yet be a “necessity” for its smooth continuance. Hence the statement, though brief, was correct in essence. The Ballot is a necessity for the smooth working of capi­talism. Conceivably it could be removed, but only at the cost of the collapse of the system.

The Socialist position is, therefore, obtain control of power through the use of the ballot, because it is the easiest, speediest, and surest way.

ED. COM.