![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidOnuGySAycWoSOaear1CHQuX6SYvwgtRKYtBZRejXt7gjEojp0ap2adzrgtmPoMFtg5PCAk05Ek8_3ATcby42BbSYBz6CDguSlUy693mMbzbUnPU9x_94yoklhsFJezfD_bzDKQ/s400/Where%2520Leaders%2520Are%2520Binned%25202-1.jpg)
AUGSBURG, GERMANY, September 1969.
Fellow workers ,
1) We state below some of the principles on which, from our point of view, a genuine socialist party must be based and we hope by making a useful contribution to your discussions. We have divided our report into three parts:
1) We state below some of the principles on which, from our point of view, a genuine socialist party must be based and we hope by making a useful contribution to your discussions. We have divided our report into three parts:
I Socialism.
II Path to Socialism
III Reform Capitalism .
I. Socialism
2) The socialist party must first be clear that socialism is a system of society based on common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of production and distribution and in the interest of the entire community. Socialism is a world community without borders, where goods are produced only for use. Buying and selling , and with it prices, wages, money, profits and banks will disappear. Instead, everyone will have free access to the common store according to his need. Socialism is a fully democratic society. The state coercive machinery of class society will be replaced by the simple democratic administration of the affairs of society.
3) The government ownership of industry, or nationalization, is state capitalism. Workers in state industries are still exploited for profit by the wage system and still need to organize into unions and to strike to protect their interests. The nationalized industries are run on capitalist lines to produce for sale. This has absolutely nothing in common with socialism.
4) Socialism and communism are not different systems of society , both describe the same society based on social ownership or common inputs. The false distinction which sees socialism as a stage in social evolution between capitalism to communism is a fabrication of Lenin.
5) Russia is not and has never been a socialist society. Its social system has all the essential features of capitalism, ie the class monopoly of the means of production, class domination by the state, the wage system, the accumulation of capital and production for the profit. Russian society is best described as state capitalism.
6) The 1917 revolution was not a revolution of the working class or socialist revolution . It was at most the equivalent of the English Revolution of 1688 and the French Revolution of 1789. Like them, the Russian revolution brought to power a class whose task was to clear away the obstacles to the further development of a market economy based on wages and profits, ie capitalism. Despite their socialist talk , the Bolsheviks had to develop capitalism in Russia. No matter how ruthless their dictatorship, they could not overcome the laws of social evolution which stated that Russia, as a backward country with a predominantly peasant economy, was ripe only for capitalism and not for socialism.
7) In fact, socialism has not been established in other places, or in East Europe or China, nor in Yugoslavia or Cuba for example, the "socialist" leaders preferred these states comes from deformations of Lenin and Stalin. Their policy of national state capitalism has nothing in common with genuine socialism.
8) The various parties alleged Communists are not socialist organizations, but have functioned primarily as over-seas agents of the Russian capitalist class and its government.
II. The Path to Socialism
9) Socialism can be established only by the political majority of working class that wants and it . To establish socialism, the working class must first win control of political power and to do this ,they must organize a political party.
10) That the majority must want and understand socialism has been a principle that has always distinguished us from all other parties who claimed to be socialists. The Social Democrats did indeed that they wanted the support of the majority but did not insist that this support be socialist in nature while the Bolsheviks never thought it even possible that a majority can achieve socialist consciousness.
11) Once the nature of socialism understood as a free society based on voluntary work and free access to all the fruits of this work, it is clear that socialism can be established only by a conscious action of the majority. The voluntary cooperation and social responsibility that socialism demands can not be imposed by a minority of leaders and the people must cooperate to make it work because they want to .
12) This is why the principle of leadership is anti-socialist. Once again, the pernicious influence of Lenin on the political thought of the working class is evident. For he believed that workers could only reach by themselves a trade unionist or reformist political consciousness and socialist understanding had to be made by their leaders, his "vanguard party". As a result Lenin's conception of the socialist revolution - a conscious minority leading a disconted majority by means of well chosen slogans in an assault on the state , smashing it and building another with the enlightened minority as the new leaders: it was a caricature of bourgeois revolution. In fact, Bolshevism is really a modern theory for the bourgeois revolutions in peasant countries.
13) Lenin's pamphlet entitled "The State and Revolution" is a gross distortion of Marx's views on the state , in which he tries to demonstrate that Marx argued that workers should trigger an armed revolt against the "bourgeois" state and then build a "socialist" state in its place. For us (as for Marx), the words "socialist state" are contradictory. Where there is socialism then there is no state ; where there is a state and then there is no socialism.
14) Traditionally, the discussion on peaceful or violent methods to achieve power for socialism took place among those who favor a minority action in one form or another - the Bolsheviks, the Social Democrats and the anarchists. For us, as supporters of a majority action, such a discussion is rather academic, but we can readily admit that a minority has much more need to resort to violence to achieve power as than a majority .
15) The discussion takes a completely different dimension when it is based on the recognition that in the first place a majority of convinced Socialists must be obtained. With a majority with a socialist consciousness, violence is not necessary, unless the pro-capitalists resort to it . The Socialist majority can use universal suffrage to both show that it is a majority and to send its delegates to parliament and local councils, thus gaining control of the state apparatus.
16) We maintain that developments subsequent current economic and political trends Marx himself saw as making for a peaceful revolution has made barricades and street battles out-moded as a revolutionary tactic. In the modern political situation - the overwhelming numerical superiority of the working class, universal suffrage, political democracy, an army and civil service recruited among workers - the working class can and must use the elections and the parliament as a way leading to power for socialism. A socialist party should contest as often as possible elections, but only on a socialist program. Where there no socialist candidates, the party should advocate the casting of blank or spoiled voting papers and never engage in anti-election propaganda of anarchist type.
17) The idea of anarcho-syndicalist general strike of industrial unions as a means of overthrowing the capitalist yoke is obviously impractical because it would leave the means to crush such a strike, the state machine , in the hands of the capitalists.
18) Much the same can be said of the use of soviets or workers councils, as an alternative parliament. After 1917, Lenin (somewhat hypocritically, since he knew that the Bolsheviks seized power not by the Soviets but by a military coup well prepared in which the Soviets formed the facade only) proclaimed that the Soviets in the method specific emancipation of the working class had finally been discovered. But the Soviets were only, as noted in a brilliant series of articles on Russian Marxist J. Martov, an expression of lack of political development in Russia. The Tsarist oppression was so strong that once the workers and peasants had to create makeshift institutions to express and implement their wishes in the most developed political conditions, this would not have been necessary because of Such institutions have been in existence with the unions, political parties and local councils.
III. Reform of Capitalism
19) The party that the working class used as a tool to gain political control must be organized on a democratic basis. The control of policy and administration must be entirely in the hands of its members, it should not be leaders and those who are designated to perform different functions must be accountable to members. The free discussion of party policy should be complete. These are the foundations of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
20) At some stage in the development of the socialist movement in each country, the Socialists should organize themselves into a party, with its own democratic rules and disciplines, rather than the discussion groups, , educational or journal societies they may find convenient initially.
21) Since a political party can only be what its members are. If a socialist party wants to remain as such, it must recruit only the socialists in its ranks. This is particularly necessary in a democratic party where all members have equal votes on forming policy . Pass a test on basic knowledge of socialism must be a condition of admission to the ranks of the party of socialism.
22) Moreover, to remain socialist, the party must seek support solely on the basis of a socialist program. Inevitably, in the present circumstances, the result that the party will be comparatively small in number, but there is no other logical way to build a genuine socialist party. This showed us that the fate of social democratic parties of Europe, which despite a formal commitment to socialism as "ultimate goal" admitted the non-socialist into their ranks and sought the support on a program of capitalism reforms rather than a socialist program. In order to maintain their non socialist support , they were themselves forced to drop their talk of socialism and become even more openly reformist . Today the social democratic parties are firmly committed to capitalism in theory and in practice, as those who have never pretended otherwise . We say that this was the inevitable result of admitting non-socialists and of advocating reforms of capitalism.
23) That is why we have always advocated socialism alone and never reform of capitalism. We are not saying that all reforms are anti- working class, but a socialist party advocating reforms would be the first step towards its transformation into a reformist party.
24) This is an important point on which we differ in views with Rosa Luxemburg in "Reform or Revolution?" . It presents a good argument against reformism but continues to argue that socialists should advocate reforms under the pretext that socialist consciousness emerge from the struggle for reforms. We believe that experience has proved that it was wrong. Regardless of why or how the reforms are advocated, the result is the same: confusion in the minds of the working class instead of growth of socialist consciousness.
25) Rosa Luxemburg was wrong on many other points, for example, his economic theory based on the collapse of capitalism. Capitalism will never collapse of himself, as she suggests, plod along from crisis to crisis until the organized working class consciously to stop. It was also wrong about the "spontaneity" when it suggested that the "mass action" has often faltered because of the role and brakeman conservative parties backed by the working class, while it was the non-socialist ideas workers themselves. Nevertheless, we recognize that on many other issues, such as reformism, Bolshevism, the first world war and nationalism, she came to much the same conclusions as us.
26) The Socialist Party must oppose nationalism in all its forms and refuse any compromise of any nature whatsoever. Talking about socialism in Germany or Czechoslovakia for the Czechs and Slovaks is dangerous nonsense. The Socialists have always clearly said that workers have no country and that socialism can only exist worldwide.
27) A socialist party must also expose religion and its role as a prop for class society. Religion tries to prevent the spread of a scientific view of the world, man and history, and must be opposed by a clear statement of scientific materialism. However, a socialist party should not get bogged down in mere anti-clericalism in itself advocating reforms such as separation of church and state and secular education.
28) There are several other aspects of our policy that we wish to present (such as war, fascism, anarchism, trade unionism , whether a transition period is necessary) but this statement is already long enough. Please send us your comments and criticism on what we have written above and we ask our views on all subjects that we could cover.
London, August 1969
I. Socialism
2) The socialist party must first be clear that socialism is a system of society based on common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of production and distribution and in the interest of the entire community. Socialism is a world community without borders, where goods are produced only for use. Buying and selling , and with it prices, wages, money, profits and banks will disappear. Instead, everyone will have free access to the common store according to his need. Socialism is a fully democratic society. The state coercive machinery of class society will be replaced by the simple democratic administration of the affairs of society.
3) The government ownership of industry, or nationalization, is state capitalism. Workers in state industries are still exploited for profit by the wage system and still need to organize into unions and to strike to protect their interests. The nationalized industries are run on capitalist lines to produce for sale. This has absolutely nothing in common with socialism.
4) Socialism and communism are not different systems of society , both describe the same society based on social ownership or common inputs. The false distinction which sees socialism as a stage in social evolution between capitalism to communism is a fabrication of Lenin.
5) Russia is not and has never been a socialist society. Its social system has all the essential features of capitalism, ie the class monopoly of the means of production, class domination by the state, the wage system, the accumulation of capital and production for the profit. Russian society is best described as state capitalism.
6) The 1917 revolution was not a revolution of the working class or socialist revolution . It was at most the equivalent of the English Revolution of 1688 and the French Revolution of 1789. Like them, the Russian revolution brought to power a class whose task was to clear away the obstacles to the further development of a market economy based on wages and profits, ie capitalism. Despite their socialist talk , the Bolsheviks had to develop capitalism in Russia. No matter how ruthless their dictatorship, they could not overcome the laws of social evolution which stated that Russia, as a backward country with a predominantly peasant economy, was ripe only for capitalism and not for socialism.
7) In fact, socialism has not been established in other places, or in East Europe or China, nor in Yugoslavia or Cuba for example, the "socialist" leaders preferred these states comes from deformations of Lenin and Stalin. Their policy of national state capitalism has nothing in common with genuine socialism.
8) The various parties alleged Communists are not socialist organizations, but have functioned primarily as over-seas agents of the Russian capitalist class and its government.
II. The Path to Socialism
9) Socialism can be established only by the political majority of working class that wants and it . To establish socialism, the working class must first win control of political power and to do this ,they must organize a political party.
10) That the majority must want and understand socialism has been a principle that has always distinguished us from all other parties who claimed to be socialists. The Social Democrats did indeed that they wanted the support of the majority but did not insist that this support be socialist in nature while the Bolsheviks never thought it even possible that a majority can achieve socialist consciousness.
11) Once the nature of socialism understood as a free society based on voluntary work and free access to all the fruits of this work, it is clear that socialism can be established only by a conscious action of the majority. The voluntary cooperation and social responsibility that socialism demands can not be imposed by a minority of leaders and the people must cooperate to make it work because they want to .
12) This is why the principle of leadership is anti-socialist. Once again, the pernicious influence of Lenin on the political thought of the working class is evident. For he believed that workers could only reach by themselves a trade unionist or reformist political consciousness and socialist understanding had to be made by their leaders, his "vanguard party". As a result Lenin's conception of the socialist revolution - a conscious minority leading a disconted majority by means of well chosen slogans in an assault on the state , smashing it and building another with the enlightened minority as the new leaders: it was a caricature of bourgeois revolution. In fact, Bolshevism is really a modern theory for the bourgeois revolutions in peasant countries.
13) Lenin's pamphlet entitled "The State and Revolution" is a gross distortion of Marx's views on the state , in which he tries to demonstrate that Marx argued that workers should trigger an armed revolt against the "bourgeois" state and then build a "socialist" state in its place. For us (as for Marx), the words "socialist state" are contradictory. Where there is socialism then there is no state ; where there is a state and then there is no socialism.
14) Traditionally, the discussion on peaceful or violent methods to achieve power for socialism took place among those who favor a minority action in one form or another - the Bolsheviks, the Social Democrats and the anarchists. For us, as supporters of a majority action, such a discussion is rather academic, but we can readily admit that a minority has much more need to resort to violence to achieve power as than a majority .
15) The discussion takes a completely different dimension when it is based on the recognition that in the first place a majority of convinced Socialists must be obtained. With a majority with a socialist consciousness, violence is not necessary, unless the pro-capitalists resort to it . The Socialist majority can use universal suffrage to both show that it is a majority and to send its delegates to parliament and local councils, thus gaining control of the state apparatus.
16) We maintain that developments subsequent current economic and political trends Marx himself saw as making for a peaceful revolution has made barricades and street battles out-moded as a revolutionary tactic. In the modern political situation - the overwhelming numerical superiority of the working class, universal suffrage, political democracy, an army and civil service recruited among workers - the working class can and must use the elections and the parliament as a way leading to power for socialism. A socialist party should contest as often as possible elections, but only on a socialist program. Where there no socialist candidates, the party should advocate the casting of blank or spoiled voting papers and never engage in anti-election propaganda of anarchist type.
17) The idea of anarcho-syndicalist general strike of industrial unions as a means of overthrowing the capitalist yoke is obviously impractical because it would leave the means to crush such a strike, the state machine , in the hands of the capitalists.
18) Much the same can be said of the use of soviets or workers councils, as an alternative parliament. After 1917, Lenin (somewhat hypocritically, since he knew that the Bolsheviks seized power not by the Soviets but by a military coup well prepared in which the Soviets formed the facade only) proclaimed that the Soviets in the method specific emancipation of the working class had finally been discovered. But the Soviets were only, as noted in a brilliant series of articles on Russian Marxist J. Martov, an expression of lack of political development in Russia. The Tsarist oppression was so strong that once the workers and peasants had to create makeshift institutions to express and implement their wishes in the most developed political conditions, this would not have been necessary because of Such institutions have been in existence with the unions, political parties and local councils.
III. Reform of Capitalism
19) The party that the working class used as a tool to gain political control must be organized on a democratic basis. The control of policy and administration must be entirely in the hands of its members, it should not be leaders and those who are designated to perform different functions must be accountable to members. The free discussion of party policy should be complete. These are the foundations of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
20) At some stage in the development of the socialist movement in each country, the Socialists should organize themselves into a party, with its own democratic rules and disciplines, rather than the discussion groups, , educational or journal societies they may find convenient initially.
21) Since a political party can only be what its members are. If a socialist party wants to remain as such, it must recruit only the socialists in its ranks. This is particularly necessary in a democratic party where all members have equal votes on forming policy . Pass a test on basic knowledge of socialism must be a condition of admission to the ranks of the party of socialism.
22) Moreover, to remain socialist, the party must seek support solely on the basis of a socialist program. Inevitably, in the present circumstances, the result that the party will be comparatively small in number, but there is no other logical way to build a genuine socialist party. This showed us that the fate of social democratic parties of Europe, which despite a formal commitment to socialism as "ultimate goal" admitted the non-socialist into their ranks and sought the support on a program of capitalism reforms rather than a socialist program. In order to maintain their non socialist support , they were themselves forced to drop their talk of socialism and become even more openly reformist . Today the social democratic parties are firmly committed to capitalism in theory and in practice, as those who have never pretended otherwise . We say that this was the inevitable result of admitting non-socialists and of advocating reforms of capitalism.
23) That is why we have always advocated socialism alone and never reform of capitalism. We are not saying that all reforms are anti- working class, but a socialist party advocating reforms would be the first step towards its transformation into a reformist party.
24) This is an important point on which we differ in views with Rosa Luxemburg in "Reform or Revolution?" . It presents a good argument against reformism but continues to argue that socialists should advocate reforms under the pretext that socialist consciousness emerge from the struggle for reforms. We believe that experience has proved that it was wrong. Regardless of why or how the reforms are advocated, the result is the same: confusion in the minds of the working class instead of growth of socialist consciousness.
25) Rosa Luxemburg was wrong on many other points, for example, his economic theory based on the collapse of capitalism. Capitalism will never collapse of himself, as she suggests, plod along from crisis to crisis until the organized working class consciously to stop. It was also wrong about the "spontaneity" when it suggested that the "mass action" has often faltered because of the role and brakeman conservative parties backed by the working class, while it was the non-socialist ideas workers themselves. Nevertheless, we recognize that on many other issues, such as reformism, Bolshevism, the first world war and nationalism, she came to much the same conclusions as us.
26) The Socialist Party must oppose nationalism in all its forms and refuse any compromise of any nature whatsoever. Talking about socialism in Germany or Czechoslovakia for the Czechs and Slovaks is dangerous nonsense. The Socialists have always clearly said that workers have no country and that socialism can only exist worldwide.
27) A socialist party must also expose religion and its role as a prop for class society. Religion tries to prevent the spread of a scientific view of the world, man and history, and must be opposed by a clear statement of scientific materialism. However, a socialist party should not get bogged down in mere anti-clericalism in itself advocating reforms such as separation of church and state and secular education.
28) There are several other aspects of our policy that we wish to present (such as war, fascism, anarchism, trade unionism , whether a transition period is necessary) but this statement is already long enough. Please send us your comments and criticism on what we have written above and we ask our views on all subjects that we could cover.
London, August 1969
SOYMB apologises for the google translation in some sections
No comments:
Post a Comment