The Impossiblists

Capitalists were always happy to call the old USSR socialist or communist, because it allowed them to say, “Look, there is no alternative to capitalism, see what a mess communism was in the Soviet Union.” They can argue that capitalism is obviously detestable – but is not socialism more detestable? Was it not socialism in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that plunged the common people of Russia into the most unspeakable poverty and deprivation? Is not socialism, on the evidence, a system of society which is even more bureaucratic, unfair and irresponsible than capitalism? If socialism is what the people of Eastern Europe have overthrown in favour of capitalism, should we not accept that capitalism is here to stay, and try to reform it a little?

And, of course, capitalism in the Soviet Union was just as rotten as capitalism in any other capitalist country. But real socialism is something all together different.  Socialism means that all the wealth created by the workers became the common property of the working class. Under capitalism, workers have no control over what is produced and how. All that is decided by how much profit some capitalist will gain. But socialism enables the working class to decide how to organize itself and the resources of society to meet the needs of the people. Socialism is the opposite of capitalism and therefore entirely different. Socialism, real socialism, is the only alternative to capitalism.

The general conception of socialists has been that they are a bunch of agitators, with a great preponderance of good-for-nothings, advocating a highly-colored exceedingly fanciful and totally impractical economic scheme. Opponents of socialism frequently say as an objection that there are different kinds of socialists and different kinds of socialism. At one time, even genuine socialists accepted that proponents of nationalisation could be termed state-socialists. Yet such a designation is a contradiction in terms for the state is the representative of the ruling class. State rule always has meant class rule. Words still count largely in the formation of ideas. The state regards reforms as little more than temporary ameliorations of deplorable and often unendurable conditions. The state is used to introduce such palliatives on the behalf of the capitalist class as a whole, rather than just one section of it. The state merely furnishes  better wage-slaves and better organisation for the profit-takers. State control of the economy may be better or it may be worse than private control, but brings with it no change from competition to co-operation such as we are striving for.
State -socialism’s aim is to make concessions to the working class while leaving the present system of capital and wages still in operation. No number of merely administrative changes, until the workers are in possession of all political power, would make any real approach to socialism.  The capitalist class over the years have shown that can happily reconcile themselves to state ownership.

If we socialists do not impress on to the minds of our fellow workers that we are working and fighting for a complete social revolution, which shall abolish the present state and establish a new type of society in its place, we will mistakenly lead them to think we, too, are merely tinkerers with present forms of social development. To allow the term  state-socialist to pass  without demur is to convey a false idea  which causes confusion and hamper our cause to which we have devoted ourselves. We should  refuse to let the word socialism to be hyphenated with state when socialism is about  best sweeping away the state.

Socialists have argued that state ownership takes all control away from the workers and leaves them at the mercy of government ministers and their advisers. State control can never be democratic control but has been shown to be the degrading and despotic control of bureaucrats.

The horrors and problems of capitalism are immediate effects caused by the contradictions which the system has developed. Thus reforms, palliatives, and patches will not rid capitalism of its problems. It must be replaced with the new system of socialism. Socialism is, therefore, not a reform movement. It means a transition from capitalism to a higher system. And that is a revolution. Our political declaration is to aim at the capture of the political machine in order to tear the state, along with its armed forces, out of the hands of the capitalist class, thus removing the murderous power which capitalism looks to in its conflict with the labour movement. The value of political action lies in its being the instrument specially fashioned to destroy Capitalism. The Socialist Party believes in the political weapon as the instrument by means of which the workers can capture the state in order to uproot it. Our repudiation of the concept of state-socialism earned us the title of “Impossibilists.”