Vote for revolution

The SWP’s National Committee overwhelmingly passed a motion calling upon the working class to vote for another Labour Party government. No change there from all previous other elections where the SWP endorsed Labour . To back a vote for Labour is part of engaging with workers and building a movement from below , the SWP claim . If Labour wins, workers will feel a little more confident , the SWP argue. Uh-huh , or once more , retreat into cynicism and apathy when political promises remain unfulfilled .

But , of course , the SWP oppose the whole concept of ever using parliament as the means of achieving socialism . In this book review in the Socialist Worker they approvingly cite the author that the power of capitalism lies outside parliament and that the power to defeat capitalism must also be found outside parliament - that real power lies elsewhere in the unelected centres of power surround parliament such as the military and senior civil servants.

Sounds a very appealing analysis to assert that real power is not exercised by elected MPs and not even by those of them who form the government. Both are empirical claims which it should be possible to verify on the basis of the evidence of the facts observed.

First, that even in constitutional theory parliament is not supposed to take governmental decisions, but rather to hold the government accountable for the decisions it takes. While it is true that the government – at ministerial as well as civil service level – has to make so many decisions that parliamentary control of most of them can be little more than formal, it is still true that the members of the government are chosen from the group in parliament that has the support of a majority of MPs. In other words, parliament does possess the key power to decide who the government is.

The real government is some shadowy committee of capitalists and senior bureaucrats ? It is quite true that they govern in the general overall interest of the capitalist class, but this is not because they are taking direct orders from some committee of capitalists. It is because the government operates within the framework of the capitalist economic system and because this system can only operate as a profit-making system in the interest of the capitalist class. All governments have to take this into account. This is why they all end up governing in the interest of the capitalist class. It happens spontaneously and as a matter of course. There is no need to have recourse to any conspiracy theory to explain it.

If the power of capitalism lies outside parliament, then the power to defeat capitalism must also be found outside parliament , the SWP tells us . The trouble is they don’t seem to have thought through the implications of this. If on the eve of the revolution a majority of the population are in favour of it and are organised to participate in it, why should they not demonstrate this by putting up their own candidates to oppose and beat those who do support the continuation of the capitalist system? Naturally, these candidates would stand as mandated delegates not as unaccountable representatives. Being the majority, this would be reflected in a majority of seats in parliament. And if some pro-capitalists in the boardrooms, the armed forces or the police attempted a coup, what, as already pointed out, could they do against a participating majority committed to establishing socialism? Once there is an organised, determined majority the success of the socialist revolution is assured, one way or the other. It is then a question of the best tactic to pursue to try to ensure that this takes place as rapidly and as smoothly as possible. In our view, the best way to proceed is to start by obtaining a democratic mandate via the ballot box for the changeover to socialism. The tactical advantage of doing this is that, when obtained, it deprives the supporters of capitalism of any legitimacy for the continuation of their rule. This could be important should some of the pro-capitalists think of staging a coup: any wavering elements, especially in the armed forces, would tend to side with those who have the undisputed democratic legitimacy, i.e. in this instance those who want socialism.
If , on the otherhand , workers voted with their feet by marching into the factories and commandeering the means of production, the factories ,the mines, all the means of communications it would surrender to the constituted authorities the legitimacy that could deter any wavering elements in the armed forces from carrying out orders to stop this. It would thus unnecessarily increase the chances of the changeover being violent and more disruptive than it need be.

Much more sensible, if there is already a majority in favour of fundamental change, for them to first try the ballot box.When a majority, actively demanding and working for socialism, emerges it would be folly for them to leave control of the state – and its “armed bodies of men” – in the hands of supporters of capitalism. That would be to leave a potential weapon in the hands of the opponents of socialism. Certainly, with the spread of socialist ideas even amongst members of the armed forces, it would be a somewhat blunted weapon, but one still capable of inflicting some harm. So, it would be dangerous to take the risk. Better to use the fact of being the majority to take control of the state via elections and parliament, if only to neutralise it.


And the is the crux of the matter is thaT the SWP are a vanguard Leninist/Trotkyist political party that do not hold that a majority of workers are capable of understanding and organising for a socialist society hence their fetishism of The Party.For the SWP , all activity should be mediated by The Party (union activity, neighbourhood community struggles or whatever).Class struggle without any clear understanding of where you are going is simply committing oneself to a never-ending treadmill. This is where the SWP also goes wrong. They think mechanistically that a sense of revolutionary direction emerges spontaneously out of "the struggle" thus circumventing the realm of ideology - the need to educate . It does not.

Imagine a socialist election victory. Most workers convinced of the need for socialism and will have organised in unions and other bodies ready to keep production and administration going after the election victory. Socialist ideas would also have penetrated into the armed forces. With the spread of socialist ideas all organisations will change and take on a participatory democratic and socialist character, so that the majority’s organisation for socialism will not be just political and economic, but will also embrace schools and universities, television, film-making, plays and the like as well as inter-personal relationships. We’re talking about a radical social revolution involving all aspects of social life.

Not at all the the passive voting fodder which the SWP envisage in their straw dog argument against the use of the vote .