“Are not the dominant
parties managed by the ruling classes, that is, the propertied classes, solely
for the profit and privilege of the few? They use us millions to help them into
power. They tell us, like so many children, that our safety lies in voting for
them. They toss us crumbs of concession to make us believe they are working in
our interest. Then they exploit the resources of the nation not for us, but for
the interests which they represent and uphold. We, the people, are not free.
Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we
choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose
between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. We elect expensive masters to do our work
for us, and then blame them because they work for themselves and their class.”
The original deaf, blind and dumb kid, Helen Keller, Manchester Advertiser, March 3, 1911.
The defenders of capitalism always make two claims: 1) That it increases prosperity for
all. 2) It creates a more secure and
democratic world. Both are
self-evidently false. The main argument defending capitalism is that the
poorest of every generation are doing better than they were before, and living
standards always increase. That is no longer true. We have the first generation
where everybody expects to be poorer than their parents. We’ve got more unrest
and international tension than we had 30 years ago. But one thing that
capitalism is very good at, is that whatever critique you throw at it, it
adopts it, and then throws you back some horrible nightmare of the same thing.
So with they say: okay, you want flexi-time and flexible working, we’ll give
you flexibility, watch this: you’re all casuals on zero-hour contracts which are
now rebranded as “flexible-hours contracts” by Iain Duncan Smith, the
Conservative work and pensions secretary defending contracts which do not
guarantee any hours of work for an employee.
There are those who criticise the Socialist Party for
participating in elections and we are accused of advocating parliamentary
action. Indeed we do but at no time do we envisage getting elected on a reform
programme which we would then try to get parliament to implement. Our case
against parliamentary reformism is that firstly many of the reforms that can be
achieved are reforms that would strengthen capitalism and would only be passed
with this end in view; and secondly, campaigning for reforms would corrupt a
socialist party and relegate the establishment of a socialist society to a
secondary purpose. Socialism can only come through the efforts of an
organisation having that as its goal, and in a capitalist society that
organisation must find expression as a political party – a socialist party.
 |
| TORY V. LABOUR |
The Labour Party has long hauled down their tattered, torn,
dishonoured Red Flag and instead nailed to their masthead, the yellow banner of
peaceful co-existence between worker and capitalist. “Make capitalism work,”
reads their manifestoes. In the distant past some have supported the Labour
Party not because they had any illusions that Labour was a socialist party but
because it represented in British politics with its trade union links the
principle of independent working class political action. Today, this has
required a tactical adaptation of their views so that they would not fall under
the one-edged disciplinary axe of the leadership—an axe that only cuts against
the Left. The pressures to vote for Labour are massive. Trade unions are
actively campaigning for Labour. This is not so much due to people being
attracted to the policies of the Labour Party government. People are scared of
a Tory victory. However, "holding your nose" while voting Labour is
not an option. The working class can only establish its political independence
and fight for its own class interests by carrying through a thorough political
break with the Labour Party.
Running Socialist Party candidates is all about exposing the
agenda of the employing class, challenging the false promises and policy lies
of the pro-capitalist candidates, and putting forward socialism as the
alternative for working people. Running candidates is about providing a
platform to gain support for the idea of socialism. Elections are an organising
tool to expose the powers that be and to confront the ideology of the bosses. There
are some who believe that the elections were created as a trap to ensnare the
socialist movement. In reality, the ruling elite have systematically looked to
deny anyone that dispute their right to exist the right to vote. f we limit our
struggles just to the workplace, schools, and the streets, then that allows the
1% to dominate the other arenas available in society. They already control the
courts, the police, and the mass media. But we can battle them in the political
arena. The idea that boycotting or abstaining from the election is the best way
to resist the 1% neglects this fact. That’s why we need to challenge them in
the elections as well as in every other arena. Also, if we do not try to win
support from those angry at the system’s failures, then the right wing will
endeavor to do so by tapping into working people’s legitimate frustrations and
anxieties. But their solutions will amount to not much more than populist
scapegoating.
It is true that we do not have a strong political party and
this may well be explained by decades of lesser-evilist campaigns arguing for
so-called stepping stones towards socialism. Many workers, particularly that
older, on 7th of May will reluctantly vote Labour as "the least
worst" option. We need to question the validity of throwing valuable
resources into electing candidates for reformist and ultimately pro-business
parties. Voting for the lesser-evil parties will only bolster the justification
they give when they face opposition to their policies, the fig leaf of
electoral 'legitimacy'. The Green Party leader, Natalie Bennett, when asked
"would you back Labour's decision to make cuts every year to current
spending through the next parliament?" if the Greens held the balance of
power, admitted that "we would have to, in the end, make a choice between
that and even worse Tory cuts". The Greens would be accomplices in
austerity.
The real question is - where is the political voice of the
working class? The Socialist Party say it is in the clarion call of our
candidates and our members.
The Socialist Party has kept alive lessons from the past that
today we should all be learning from. Today more than ever, our problems are
global. Capitalism is a global system. Not only is it attacking living
standards around the world but, due to its insatiable drive for profit with no
regard for social consequences, it is threatening the survival of life as we
know it on the planet. There has been a groundswell of resistance and a growing
disillusionment with “politics as usual”. Our experience on the 2015 general election
campaign trail has been that people are more open to alternative ideas and
visions. Voters are genuinely looking around for a serious alternative, for a
party they can identify with and one that articulates what they have been
feeling and thinking.
So, is a vote for the Socialist Party a wasted vote? The
answer is no. A socialist in parliament can amplify the voices of community,
workplace and social campaigns and activists, so they have a better chance of
being heard. We have to use all avenues at our disposal, including parliament,
to build the movements to defend and mobilise our class. Direct and
participatory democracy is all about empowering people so they become the
organised force for social change.
 |
| MAKE YOUR VOTE REVOLUTIONARY |
No comments:
Post a Comment