.jpg)
Due to the recession people are actually questioning capitalism because they’re being forced to. So-called ‘self-evident’ capitalist ‘truths’ are being delegitimatised by experience on the ground. People are educating themselves, however, it is not enough that theory seeks people, people need to seek theory. People need to use that education intelligently. If they do not become part of the solution, they may well become part of the problem. So-called ‘experts’ offer solutions to the economic woes of capitalism but many of the remedies and supposed cures are throw-backs to earlier populist movements during previous depressions.
In an age where the internet provides us with unlimited access to information, how can it be that the idea of socialism can be so completely misunderstood and distorted? One reason is that the reformist social democrats, believed they were the enemies of capitalism but for them, socialism is not a society fundamentally different from capitalism, rather instead, just a form of capitalism in which the working class has achieved a higher status. It is, as Engels described it, ‘the present-day society without its defects.’ They genuinely do believe in a better world – but they believe it can be achieved by a kinder, gentler capitalism and that profits can be used to promote environmental, anti-poverty, and other noble causes. But they don’t dare to ask – or to admit – where these very profits come from: the unpaid labour of the entire working class. The Communist Manifesto puts it well:
‘The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society, minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat.The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best… [It requires] in reality that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie…It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working class.’
There is no greater misrepresentation than that which is to be found in the thought of the state-capitalists, the reformists, and the avowedly capitalist opponents of socialism alike, all of whom assume that socialists want only the economic improvement of the working class, and that we want to abolish private property so that the worker would own what the capitalist now has. The truth is that for socialists the situation of a worker in a then Soviet Union "socialist" factory, a British state-owned factory, or an American factory are essentially the same. Our concept of socialism is not a society of regimented, atomised individuals, regardless of whether there is equality of income or not, and regardless of whether they are well fed and well clad. It is not a society in which the individual is subordinated to the state, to the machine, to the bureaucracy. Even if the state as an ‘abstract capitalist’ were the employer, even if ‘the entire social capital were united in the hands either of a single capitalist or a single capitalist corporation’ this would not be socialism. Socialism is a society which serves the needs of mankind. Socialism for Marx, meant neither the mere abolition of poverty nor the idea of fairness which he rejected so scathingly in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. Least of all, did Marx see socialism in which ‘representative’ power and authority replaced individual power and authority over men.
Stated below are some of the principles on which, from our point of view, a genuine socialist movement must be based and hopefully will make a useful contribution to discussions.
I. Socialism
1) The socialist "party" must first be clear in its socialism, that socialism must be a system of society based on the 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 global community without borders, where goods are produced only for use. Buying and selling, and with them 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 coercive state machinery of class society will be replaced by the simple democratic administration of the affairs of society.
2) The government ownership of industry, or nationalisation, is state capitalism. Workers in state industries are still exploited for profit by the wage system and still need to organise into unions and to strike to protect their interests. The nationalised industries are run on capitalist lines to produce for sale. This has absolutely nothing in common with socialism. Socialism and communism are not different systems of society , both describe the same society based on social ownership. For us, the words "socialist state" are contradictory. Where there is socialism there is no state, and where there is a state then there is no socialism.
II. The Path to Socialism
3) Socialism can be established only by the political majority of the working class who want and understand socialism. To establish socialism, the working class must first gain control of political power and to do so, we must organise a political party.
4) That the majority should want and understand socialism has been a principle that has always distinguished us from all other parties who call themselves socialists. Once the nature of socialism is 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 only be established by the conscious action of the majority. The voluntary cooperation and social responsibility that socialism demands cannot be imposed by a minority of leaders. The principle of leadership is anti-socialist.
5) When it is recognised that there must be a majority of socialists who understand and want socialism, a majority with a socialist consciousness, then violence is not necessary, unless the pro-capitalists use it first. The socialist majority will use the popular vote to show they are a majority and to send its delegates to the various parliaments and city administrations, thus gaining control of the state apparatus.
6) We maintain that barricades and street battles are out-moded revolutionary tactics. 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 programme. Where there are no socialist candidates, the party should advocate blank or spoiled ballot papers but does not engage in anti-election propaganda of the anarchist type. The idea of an 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 apparatus, in the hands of the capitalists.
III. The Futility of Reformism
7) The party that the working class use as a tool to gain political control must be organised on a democratic basis.The structure of the socialist party will have to reflect the democratic nature of the society it is seeking to establish. Its policies and administration must be entirely in the hands of its members, there should not be leaders and those who are designated to perform different functions must be accountable to members. Full free and frank discussion of party policy should exist. In keeping with the tenet that working class emancipation necessarily excludes the role of political leadership, it should be a leader-less political party where its executive committee is solely for housekeeping administrative purposes and cannot determine policy or even submit resolutions to conference whose decisions should be ratified by a referendum of the whole membership. A general secretary should not be a position of power with authority over any other member.
At a certain level of development of the socialist movement in each country, socialists should organise themselves into such a party rather than remain discussion or study or reader groups that may have been previously more convenient and appropriate. 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 policy decisions. Possessing a basic knowledge of socialism must be a condition of admission to the ranks of the party of socialism.
8) Moreover, to remain socialist, the party must seek support solely on the basis of a socialist programme. Inevitably, in the present circumstances, the result will be that the party will be comparatively small in number, but there is no other logical way to build a genuine socialist party. History showed us the fate of the social democratic parties, which despite a formal commitment to socialism as an ‘ultimate goal’, admitted the non-socialist to their ranks and sought non-socialist support for a reform programme of capitalism rather than a socialist programme. In order to maintain their non-socialist support, they were themselves forced to drop all talk of socialism and become even more openly reformist. Today the social democratic parties are firmly committed to capitalism in theory and in practice and this is the inevitable result of the admission of non-socialists and advocating reforms of capitalism. That is not saying that all reforms are anti-working class, but as a socialist party advocating reforms, it would be its first step towards its transformation into a reformist party. 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.
9) The preservation of the environment is a social problem which requires humanity to establish a viable and stable relationship with the rest of nature. In practice this implies a society which uses, as far as possible, renewable raw materials and energy and practice the recycling of non-renewable resources; a society which, once an appropriate balance with nature has been formed, will tend towards a stable level of production, indeed towards ‘zero growth’. This does not mean that changes are to be excluded on principle, but that any change will have to respect the environment by taking place at a pace to which nature can adapt. But the employment by capitalism of destructive methods of production has, over two centuries, upset the balance of nature.
It is not ‘humanity’ but the capitalist economic system itself which is responsible for ecological problems. It is only after having placed the means of society’s existence under the control of the community that we will be able to ensure their management, no longer in the selfish interest of the capitalist class , but in the general interest.
Most environmentalists accept the economic dictatorship of the owning minority since they don’t understand the link that exists between the destruction of the environment and the private/state ownership of the means of production.Because by definition capitalism can only function in the interest of the capitalists, no palliative can (nor ever will be able to) subordinate capitalist private property to the general interest. For this reason only the threat of a socialist movement setting down as the only realistic and immediate aim the establishment of social property of society’s means of existence so as to ensure their management by and in the interest of the whole community, would be able to force the capitalists to concede reforms favourable to the workers for fear of losing the whole cake. Yet more reason to advance the maximum programme of socialism.
10) As the trade union movement stands to-day it is still craft and sectarian in outlook, still mainly pro-capitalist.The struggle on the economic field has to be, and is, carried on by socialists and non-socialists alike. The ideal trade-union, from a socialist point of view, would be one that recognised the irreconcilable conflict of interest between workers and employers, that had no leaders but was organised democratically and controlled by its members, that sought to organise all workers irrespective of nationality, colour, religious or political views, first by industry then into One Big Union, and which struggled not just for higher wages but also for the abolition of the wages system.This cannot become a full reality until large numbers of workers are socialists. We cannot have a union organised on entirely socialist principles without a socialist membership. The small number of workers who really understand the meaning of socialism is such that any attempt to form a separate socialist economic organisation at present would be futile, for the very nature of the workers' economic struggle under capitalism would compel such an organisation to associate in a common cause with the non-socialist unions during strikes and all the other activities of the class struggle. A socialist party, therefore, urges that the existing unions provide the medium through which the workers should continue their efforts to obtain the best conditions they can get from the master class in the sale of their labour-power.
11) A socialist party must oppose nationalism in all its forms. The interests of working people are the same in all countries and they should never be enemies of each other. Anti-imperialist nationalism is the ideology of an actual or aspiring capitalist class that seeks the way to its own independent state; they are striving to carve out a place for themselves within the existing system, not to overthrow it. The logic of such movements is to subordinate the interests of workers to those of the capitalist leadership. Socialists have always said clearly that workers have no country.
To me there's a difference in believing in a religion and believing in God, i.e. in a world/reality beyond our limited understanding of material reality. Rejecting everything "spiritual" implies that we accept that all there is, is all we can see and detect. Why do we think our senses can detect everything that exists? For example, what is dark matter? Science through mathematics can say that it exists but not much else. Socialism also becomes a kind of religion when each belief becomes necessary so that one can call themselves a socialist. "You reject religion and leaders, but you believe in nationalism, so therefore you can't call yourself a socialist." I see it this way.
ReplyDeleteAssuming you are correct that there is "something" beyond our understanding, beyond our reality, and beyond the detection of our senses...then why even consider it part of your viewpoint. Even something that we can see, can detect, can comprehend - a star in a galaxy millions of light-years away doesn't influence our thinking or beliefs so your "God" is more of an irrelevancy that doesn't even possess language to define it, other than call it "spiritual", not even mathematically equations. But i believe bio-medicine is in fact able to reproduce that "spiritual" sensation by stimulating certain parts of the brain.
ReplyDeleteWe aren't arguing for belief but agreement on what is socialism, why it is necessary to have it and how to achieve it and they often interlock and they do have an effect on politics. Religion, leaders and nationalism all have a direct influence that we experience and consider to be a negative one.
What do you mean with mayority...51 %?what happen with the another 49%?.How will be 51 % worldwide be possible?
ReplyDeleteThe control of society resides in Parliament, the centre of state power. Although we advocate sending delegates to parliaments as the way for the working class to gain control of political power, we are not a “parliamentary” party in the conventional sense. We use terms such as “majority” and “majoritarian” this is not because we are obsessed with counting the number of individual socialists, but to show that we reject minority action to try to establish socialism – majority as the opposite of minority. A majority (yes, but in the democratic rather than mere mathematical sense). It is about an EFFECTIVE MAJORITY, not simplistic formalism of number counting but a class struggle position. It should be remembered that when the SPGB was formed , women did not yet possess the vote and many men did not qualify for the franchise. The franchise, even when considered "universal", always excludes large sectors of our class as even today in the USA a several million prisoners and even reformed ex-felons are excluded from the vote.
ReplyDeleteIn the fall of the Communist Party governments no-one waited around for a massive vote of millions of people since the malaise of state capitalism was plainly evident, allowing individual revolts in each of the countries. Legitimacy was established after the fact in the following elections. This of course raises the question if you can have the revolution first, and count the ballots afterwards, what price the parliamentary road to socialism? We argue that parliament is the engine of change, whereas in reality of circumstances it might be nothing but a rubber-stamping exercise. We think it is the most effective way to get socialism with the minimum of violence. Elections are an useful expedient. But we're not legalists - if the capitalists withdraw the franchise or change its rules we'll have to act without it.
In past revolutions, it is considered required no more than perhaps a third active support - which would be enough for an election of any capitalist party. If more or less a third of the population actively supporting the revolution outweighs active opposition sufficiently to achieve its goals, with the rest of our class either passively support us or just only keeping their heads down below the parapets to see what comes out of whatever crisis and comes to pass. That constitutes a sufficient majority of socialists. It should be defined as FUNCTIONAL MAJORITY, or such terms. Some members have argued why not be patient and wait a few months more and lessen the possibility of violence, because then the chances are that we would have 40-50% of workers revolutionised, but it will be left up to the revolutiuonary period to decide. We cannot assume that all of our class will want to be actively involved - many for purely personal social or health reasons but for whatever reason will not want to stick their heads above the parapet. We should have a revolutionary model which refers to socialism being brought about by a sufficient majority of socialists - sufficient in their political willingness and awareness, not a 100% at the polls or even a 51% active support. We talk of as in a 1955 EC Statement of "The overwhelming mass of the people will participate, or FALL IN LINE WITH, the process of reorganisation "[my emphasis]. Class societies only persist because a majority acquiesce to the social system. Once these start to be withdrawn we can expect a revolution.
Ideas are social and a metaphor is that socialism will arrive like a snowball gathering snow...or like an avalanche...either way it will cross borders and continents as we have seen in previous spread of social ideas. For sure, certain parts of the world may lag behind but as long as the crucial regions, say the industrialised coastal strip of China rather than all its rural interior are included in the revolutionary transformation socialism will be possible.
I agree with most of what your party puts forward about what socialism is and isn't. Where we part company is in the notion that a class conscious proletariat engaging in a classwide general strike would be of no use because of the continued existence of the State. A classwide strike would certainly be impossible without the radical subjectivity necessary to ensure that its political representatives in the State would support it.
ReplyDeleteOur power as workers lies in our union at the places where we produce the wealth of nations. When we become socialists, we know that the social product of labour should be ours to own in common and control democratically. If we become socialists gradually over time, as opposed to all at once, we might elect our fellow class conscious workers to represent us in the government, representatives who would propose more access to the wealth we create by supporting the power of workers in their struggle with their employers and legislating more time for ourselves e.g. shorter work week with not cut in pay, without losing sight of the strategic goal of supplanting the capitalist State with an administration of things within a classless society.
I would guess that the SPGB believes that the above proposal would lead to cooptation of workers; but my argument is that a class conscious worker cannot be coopted and if s/he can, s/he's really never been clear about the fact that socialism means a change in the mode of production and exchange which would result from the abolition of the wage system.
"Where we part company is in the notion that a class conscious proletariat engaging in a classwide general strike would be of no use because of the continued existence of the State."
ReplyDeletei don't think we are as dismissive as saying it would be "no use" but rather economic action will be supplementary when and where appropriate. There are a wide variety of potential scenarios for revolution. We would be fools if we limit ourselves to what is theoretically perfect - and thus highly unlikely - rather than asking the question "what do we actually need to make a revolution?" and proceeding on that basis.
You are right in saying that the problem is not only getting people to think "socialism is a good idea" but also transforming that into mass social action. . We need to be able to act in an imperfect world rather than waiting for a perfect one. Revolution is not merely an announcement of a successful ballot, it is a process, and the process itself will draw our fellows into the struggle. The revolution makes the mass party - the actual date that power can be seen to shift to ourselves is not the beginning, but the beginning of a different phase. The workers en masse don't need create a different and more democratic decision-making structure from the ground up. What they need to do is to take over and perfect the existing, historically-evolved structures. we don't need to construct socialist society from scratch; this is not the way social evolution works; there will be a degree of continuity between what exists now and what will exist in socialism as there always has been between one system of society and another. Workers will use both fists to fight for socialism, and will not rely on only a right hook or be just a south-paw boxer.They will recognise it will be both parliament and non- parliament means to socialism. It is the democratic result that we want. Our case for Parliament is that it is the most efficacious application of the workers will to establish socialism. We seek the least disruptive method of revolution and in the UK at this moment in time, parliament is that route. Elsewhere, will be different.
I'm sure you also don't need to be told that although we all accept and agree with unions, there too there will need to be fundamental changes.
Our argument against reformism isn't so much about co-option (another way of saying power corrupts) but that for a socialist party rather than a trade union or a community action group, we require socialists not just numbers to be effective. If we advocate reforms...and become successful...those who join us may well be doing it to achieve the reform and not the revolution. The party will become the scene of internal strife of vying factions who...again you don't need me to tell you of the history of workers parties. By our one demand - socialism, we hope to avoid dissension. Other organisations can take up the baton for immediate improvements...the shorter working week can be the task of the trade unions... but eventually they will come up against the brick wall of no more concessions will be granted...and then they must join the socialists.
By coincidence, a book review has been added to the archives that you might like to read
ReplyDeletehttp://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/
" 'Every piece of art can't contain everything everybody would like to say . . . That's the slogan mentality at work, as if there were certain holy words that must always be named.' ... If socialism is to become more than a dream then all of us are going to be discussing how we each want to see the world shaped."
I mostly don't disagree with what you say, ajonstone.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't think that real reforms which have to do with the political direction which the wealth that we produce and the time we spend creating it are incompatible with advocating a social revolution as a strategic goal. I do think that its a practical matter to get socialists elected to office and for them to be quite clear before an election about which class they will be supporting in the battles over surplus value which the State is involved in settling, including legislation for shorter work time.
I imagine members of the SPGB to be the right people for this job. Imagine an MP supporting strikes in Parliament. Imagine an MP calling for a shortened work week with no cut in pay. Imagine an MP using her office to barrack for social housing for all who wanted it. And at the same time, an MP consistently saying that fundamental problems of democracy cannot be solved under class rule.
I think William Morris would echo your view, Mike, when he said
ReplyDelete“I believe that the Socialists will certainly send members to Parliament when they are strong enough to do so: in itself I see no harm in that, so long as it is understood that they go there as rebels, and not as members of the governing body prepared by passing palliative measures to keep ‘Society’ alive. ”
“I admit, and always have admitted, that at some future period it may be necessary to use parliament mechanically: what I object to is DEPENDING on parliamentary agitation. There MUST be a great party, a great organisation outside parliament actively engaged in reconstructing society and learning administration whatever goes on in parliament itself. This is in direct opposition to the view of the regular parliamentary section as represented by Shaw, who look upon Parliament as THE means…” (His emphases)
He seems to express sympathy to your previous comment when he states “getting the workmen to organise genuine revolutionary labour bodies not looking to Parliament at all but to their own pressure (legal or illegal as the times may go) on their employers while the latter lasted”
A member of the Socialist Party of Canada was elected to a provincial assembly and his approach i think will similar to any SPGB MP.
"When I voted on the last division I did so because I saw an opportunity to benefit a few of my class, the laborers in the construction camp. There is no opportunity to get anything for the workers on this vote, and I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get something for my class, I shall not vote. On every vote where there is no opportunity to get anything for my class, I shall leave the House and refrain from voting."
Yes, that's what I mean, ajohnstone. Thanks for that Morris quote. Excellent, just excellent. Let's bring it on, a Socialist Party of Australia. I shall do my best to make it happen.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of WSM members scattered around Australia. You should contact our HO and they might be able to put you in contact with the nearest.
ReplyDeleteI always recommend baby-steps at first...a study class, then a propaganda group, then the party ;-)
Easier to attract some who are interested but who may not be 100% on your wavelength which will most likely be the situation but they may well learn and discover some new thoughts by education. Then to maintain the interest, activity is required to promote the ideas and make new contacts, then with some roots, there is less chance of disillusionment at any slowness of development or set-backs when party is established....but who am i to teach my granny to suck eggs ;-p