Many
detractors of the socialist case criticise Marx and Engels and their
early followers as being advocates of violent revolution and are wont
to cite statements they made in support of this claim. And it is not
uncommon for these same critics to claim that socialist/communists
(the words means the same) of today still hold out for violent
insurrection as a means to an end. Whilst it may be true that the
first communist revolutionaries did advocate violent overthrow of the
then existing order, it has to be remembered that it was at a time
when they were barred from the ballot box, when they saw violence as
the only tool of change, before the Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 and
which enfranchised many workers.*
With
the 1867 Act Marx and his associates began to see a chink in the
armour of the master class. The franchise was being widened and they
knew it would widen more and, as the capitalist class ruled via their
executive in parliament, it was possible for revolution to be brought
about peacefully and democratically and via the ballot box.
Thus,
Resolution IX of the London Conference of the International in
September 1871, headed Political Action of the Working Class
stated:
“Considering,
that against this collective power of the propertied classes the
working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself
into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old
parties formed by the propertied classes;
“That
this constitution of the working class into a political party is
indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution
and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes…”
In
1880, in the Introduction to the Programme of the French Workers’
Party, Marx wrote:
Considering,
That
the emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings
without distinction of sex or race;
That
the producers can be free only when they are in possession of the
means of production;
That
there are only two forms under which the means of production can
belong to them
The
individual form which has never existed in a general state and which
is increasingly eliminated by industrial progress;
The
collective form the material and intellectual elements of which are
constituted by the very development of capitalist society;
Considering,
That
this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary
action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a
distinct political party;
That
such an organization must be pursued by all the means the proletariat
has at its disposal including universal suffrage which will thus be
transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until
now into an instrument of emancipation.
In
insisting that the working class had to constitute itself into a
political party “, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties
formed by the propertied classes”, Marx not only infuriated the
anarchists, alienated himself from those who hankered after the
spilled blood of the master class, he was stating quite clearly that
capitalism could only be defeated in the political arena and on the
battlefield of ideas.
Whilst
the capitalist class derive some power from their ownership
and control of the means for producing and distributing wealth, their
real power lies in their control over the machinery of state. This
power is derived by the mandate the voters give them at election
time, voters who can seen no fault in the existing system and will
readily support whichever bunch of brigands can hoodwink them the
best, via promises and pledges at election time, convincing the
workers that they can best run the capitalist system.
Our
detractors faced now with the argument that it is possible for the
workers to create a mass party capable of challenging the master
class in the arena in which they have hitherto been so successful,
and taking over the machinery of state, counter that faced with an
impending defeat at the polls, they (the masters) would suspend the
democratic process and establish a dictatorship. The democratic
process, which the workers are ready to use to oust the master class,
can now be declared obsolete by bunch of gangsters in high office!
The
problem here is that our detractors fail to realise that a mass
party, about to take power, would assume that a worldwide socialist
consciousness already existed and, moreover, that there had been a
change in the general mindset of parliament, with socialist delegates
already having been elected. It would assume that the big clashes had
already been won by the workers on the battlefield of ideas. The
character of government across the world would already have changed
as a result of these victories, so there would be no chance of a
suspension of democratic procedures, the establishment of a
dictatorship or a coup on behalf of those wishing to maintain the
profit system.
The
majority of governments around the world today rule by the consent of
the governed as previously mentioned. And they rule, in truth,
because the majority of workers have that false consciousness that
prevents them seeing what is in their real interests, not least
because of the propaganda churned out daily by the state, the media
(press, TV, radio etc), by the education system and via religious
institutions. A growing socialist consciousness assumes that in all
of these areas the workers have at last begun to reject the lies, the
false promises, the state’s version of history, the belief in
supernatural beings, the concept of leadership. A growing class
consciousness suggests here is a majority that will no longer be
bribed with reforms, although it can be imagined that many news ones
will have been introduced to win the workers back over to the
capitalist cause.
If
by some act of desperation and stupidity there was an attempt to
suspend democratic procedures and install a dictatorship by force of
arms, one would imagine that this class conscious majority would not
tolerate it one second. The workers would have no option but to
resort to violent methods to defend their interests. But having said
this, even this act of desperation on behalf of the master class
would be counterproductive, revealing to the last doubters of the
socialist case, the true nature of the beast that has exploited their
class for so long, revealing that they hold the wishes of the workers
in utter contempt and are more than prepared to suspend workers’
hard fought rights and maintain power at gun point.
Socialists,
though doubtful such a scenario would be enacted by the capitalist
class, would be the first to defend the hard won gains of the workers
against any violent backlash by the defenders of capitalism, though
quickly restoring the democratic apparatus as soon as the threat had
vanished. Make no mistake, socialists, whilst defenders of the
parliamentary road to socialism and hateful of violence for political
ends, are not died in the wool pacifists. If the master class wanted
to fight it out bloodily, we are more than ready to accommodate them.
All
said, genuine socialists insist the revolution will be bloodless and
brought about by a class conscious majority, aware of exactly what
socialism means, and via the ballot box.
*
The 1884 Act and the 1885 Redistribution Act
tripled the electorate, giving the vote to most agricultural
labourers. By this time, voting was becoming a right rather than the
property of the privileged. However, women were not granted voting
rights until the Act
of 1918,
which enfranchised all men over 21 and women over thirty. This last
bit of discrimination was eliminated 10 years later (in 1928)
by the Equal
Franchise Act
John Bisset
No comments:
Post a Comment