Socialism not Reformism

The capitalist system may well destroy itself but unfortunately it does not necessarily follow that socialism will be the successor. The need for revolution is increasingly realised. A new generation understand that their parents’ world is on a course of self-destruct, but they do not know what to do about it.

Socialism is defined as the rule of the people, a society of the free and equal. To use the word “socialism” for anything but working people’s power is to misuse the term. Socialism, though, is a hardy plant. Once it has taken root, no matter how unfavourable a soil, it tends to survive.

We socialists are the most consistent advocates of democracy in all fields and that, in fact, we are completely devoted to the idea that socialism cannot be realised otherwise than by democracy. The socialist movement will not advance again significantly until it regains the initiative and takes the offensive against capitalism.  Our task, as socialists living and fighting in this day and hour, is simply to restate what socialism and democracy meant to the founders of our movement, and to all the authentic disciples who followed them. The authentic socialist movement has been the most democratic movement in all history. The authors of the Communist Manifesto linked socialism and democracy together as end and means. All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The  claim—that the task of reconstructing society on a socialist basis can be farmed out to a privileged and uncontrolled bureaucracy, while the workers remain without voice or vote in the process—is just as foreign to the thoughts of Marx and Engels, as the reformist idea that socialism can be handed down to the workers by degrees by the capitalists who exploit them. All such fantastic conceptions were answered in advance by the reiterated statement of Marx and Engels that “the emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves”. Such a revolution is unthinkable without the active participation of the majority of the working class, which is itself the big majority of the population. Nothing could be more democratic than that. All Marxists define socialism as a classless society—with abundance, freedom and equality for all; a society in which there would be no state, not even a workers’ state.

 Nationalisation of mines, railways, steel, etc. is not socialism. Such nationalisation in a capitalist society is simply a degree of state capitalism, with no relation to socialism. Nor is the “Welfare State” socialist. “welfare” in a capitalist state, to improve the efficiency of that state as a profit-maker, is not socialism but a form of state capitalism. It can be an improvement on capitalism with no welfare, just as a 40-hour week is an improvement on a 60-hour week. But it is not socialism. (the “Welfare State” inevitably turns into the “Means Test State”.)

Reformism is the illusion that a gradual dismantling of the power of capitalism is possible. First of all you nationalise 20 per cent, then 30 per cent, then 50 per cent, then 60 per cent of capitalist property. In this way the economic power of capitalists is dissolved little by little. Reformism is therefore essentially gradualist. Socialists are not a mere wage negotiators. Their aim has to be not a better wage, but people’s power.

Ultimately, the power of capitalists to grant concessions depends upon the expansive power of their economies and of the world market. A crisis, such as the current repetition of the economic experiences of the 1930s, very soon finds capitalism showing its uglier side once more. Instead of the expected era of positive achievements, of social reforms, of the “hollowing out of capitalism,” we had a period of high prices, wage cuts, of armament spending and of war itself, of nationalist obstruction, of dictatorships and of stagnation in all social legislation. Even the accomplishments of the old social democracy – the precious but limited reforms which did not even challenge the capitalist order – are beyond the grasp of contemporary reformism.

Workers’ discontent is again beginning to grow and this time with more genuine, more real possibilities. It is occurring in a period of growing working class disillusionment with the servile politician lackeys in whom they had long placed their faith. The Socialist Party cannot unite with those “socialists” who preach reformism and the accomplishment of their goals under capitalism. What type of party do the working class want -- a revolutionary socialist party or a refurbished Labour Party? A party dedicated to overthrowing capitalism or a party set upon reaching accommodations with the capitalist class?

The SPGB holds that involvement in daily struggles is not inherently reformistic. Indeed, such involvement, conducted in principled, non-opportunistic fashion is an indispensible aspect of sound class struggle tactics. Only a dogmatist would insist upon a complete divorcement of the socialist forces from all others, everywhere and under all circumstances. Marx castigated those who looked upon workers' struggles against the constant encroachments of capital as contrary to revolutionary principles in his essay, "Indifference to Politics," written in 1873. However, that there is a fine line, an all-important line, between "practical every day action" that is consistent with socialist principles and goal, and reformism, which negates or contradicts those principles and obscures the goal as Rosa Luxemburg wrote: "But if we begin to chase after what is 'possible' according to the principles of opportunism, unconcerned with our own principles, and by means of statesmanlike barter, then we will soon find ourselves in the same situation as the hunter who has not only failed to slay the deer but has also lost his gun in the process." She observed, "From the viewpoint of a movement for socialism, the trade-union struggle and our parliamentary practice are vastly important in so far as they make socialistic the awareness, the consciousness, of the proletariat and help to organize it as a class. But once they are considered as instruments of the direct socialization of capitalist economy, they lose not only their usual effectiveness but cease being means of preparing the working class for the conquest of power." ("Social Reform or Revolution")

 Neither welfare nor social security has anything to do with socialism; yet, it may also be said that they are a result of socialism. The reason neither of these social reforms has anything to do with socialism, of course, is that socialism implies an end to the poverty and social insecurity that come from private ownership and control of the economy. Welfare, social security, NHS/Medicare, minimum wage, etc., are so many concessions to the socialist contention that capitalism is incapable of eliminating the social ills the system creates. They are like so many confessions of wrong-doing by the ruling class, as are all examples of so-called labour legislation. Socialism does not strive to lessen the effect of capitalism's evils on the working class: it strives to root out capitalism and the social evils it spawns. The fundamental principle of socialism is that freedom for the workers is not possible while the system of wage slavery lasts. Hence socialism has for its mission the overthrow of the capitalist system of private ownership of the machinery of production and the establishment of collective ownership in its place.

The theory that socialism can with safety depart from the hard and fast line of its ultimate goal and follow the lure of "something now" batters itself against the hard fact that "something now" is not obtainable by it, and the logical consequence of such departure would be the degeneration of the movement into a "something now," or reform, movement. If the aim of socialism were to be made the getting of "something now" and socialism later, socialism would have to be sacrificed to immediate progress. Hence for a “socialist” to preach "something now" means that he discredits socialism, and only helps to prepare the workers as voting cattle for capitalism, when capitalist parties, by "stealing," by taking up the "something now" demands, promise their immediate realization. The lure of getting "something now" will wind up by getting nothing now. Nor will it get anything later, because it will have lost the golden opportunity of preparing the workers and the way for the benefits of the socialist goal. The more attention that socialists pay to the  goal, the more will the capitalist class endeavour to stem the tide and check its progress by offering "something now" schemes galore; so that, granting that "something now" is desirable, the way to get it is not by bothering about it but by working steadily for the goal.

Whether  reforms are direct aids to capitalists in exploiting the workers, or in perpetuating the capitalist system, or in deceiving the workers into believing that their fate can be improved under the capitalist system, the fact remains that the are generally contrary to the interests of workers. They invariably are designed as, or turn out to be, scaffolds for the unstable edifice of capitalism. Incidentally, this is literally, not merely figuratively, true. Social security and workers' compensation were introduced onto the stage of the class struggle by none other than Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor" who in the 1870s, passed the infamous Anti-Socialist Laws aimed at destroying the socialist movement. When these failed of their objective, he, in the 1880s, introduced a number of so-called social insurance laws providing some compensation to victims of industrial accidents and old-age pensions. The purpose was not to ease the burden of the victims of the industrial system, but to deflect the socialist movement and, if possible, to split it. It was a brilliant piece of political strategy that worked like a charm, as the difficulty the movement has had in overcoming the seductive lure of such reform schemes shows all too well.

In their repetitious shedding of crocodile tears over the inequities of the present system, in their pious advocacy of relief for the most deprived and oppressed victims of capitalism's ruthless exploitation, in their selective and pretentious condemnation of the intensified onslaught against constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties, and in their unctuous lip service to the nation's traditional concepts of democracy, the liberal reformists have often been guilty of a degree of hypocrisy that would be difficult, if not impossible, to match. Their record of "accomplishments"  generally demonstrates convincingly the futility of trying to reconcile democratic principles and precepts with a social system -- capitalism -- premised on a denial of the most fundamental freedom -- economic freedom -- to the vast majority in society, the working class. It does not require any profound insight to realize that hopes for a sane and decent society do not lie with the  plutocracy nor politician. Nor do they rest with men and women "of good will," or of "a progressive persuasion," no matter how sincere or commendable such sentiments may be. Those hopes lie with the  latent political and industrial might of that working class.

In regard to those radical reformers, proponents of co-operatives and worker-owned enterprises, it is understandable that, in times such as these, some workers will be attracted to the idea of "worker-ownership." They are desperately seeking ways to assure a livelihood for themselves and their families. But this is worker capitalism, not worker management. No matter who owns and manages it, it's going to have to be run like a business. it would still function within the overall context of a capitalist economy. "Worker ownership" does not miraculously free a company from the anarchy of the marketplace, competition, and the effects of capitalism's recurrent economic crises. In order to compete in such a climate, "worker-owned" enterprises have little choice but to intensify exploitation just as much as their capitalist-owned competitors do. They must cut wages, close old factories, modernize outmoded equipment and lay off workers made superfluous by automation. The experience of co-operative schemes demonstrates that they do not attack the cause of workers' misery. In fact, to make such schemes "succeed" in a capitalist context, workers must make more sacrifices and intensify their own exploitation. Yet, they do undoubtably demonstrate that production in no way depends on a capitalist class whose sole function is to drain off the social wealth produced by workers' labor. But, if the concept of worker ownership is to truly benefit workers, it must be effected on a society-wide basis. To do that, a socialist revolution is needed to abolish the entire system based on private ownership and control of the means of production by a parasitic capitalist class. The potential of worker ownership can be fully realised only by replacing an economic system based on exploitation, competition, the market and the profit motive with one based on social co-operation for the common good. What workers must gain is not nominal ownership of individual plants, but real control of the entire economy.

The history of workers' uprisings concretely demonstrates that workers are capable of self-government and instinctively recognise the need to set up bodies capable of administering and operating the industries and services without any help from capitalists or bureaucrats. Taken as a whole, the history of workers' uprisings concretely demonstrates that workers are capable of self-government and instinctively recognize the need to set up bodies capable of controlling, directing, administering and operating the industries and services without any help from capitalists or bureaucrats. That history also demonstrates that during periods of extreme economic hardship and political and social upheaval they have repeatedly moved to create their own industrially based associations and elected councils and made them the basis for conducting a revolutionary struggle against their ruling-class oppressors. At the same time, the history of those uprisings is also a history of defeat. These defeats have always been at the hands of a well-armed class enemy. Contributing to those defeats, however, have been the workers' failure fully to understand the nature of its class enemy. Socialism, democratic workers' control of the economy, is an attainable goal. To attain the goal, however, workers must have a greater understanding of society and the social forces with which they must contend, and be better prepared and organized than any other revolutionary class in history. The more thoroughly the working class is already organised around a sound revolutionary program and principles during a revolutionary crisis, the better its chances for success.

APPENDIX
The Paris Commune was the first attempt at a workers social revolution. The next historical example of workers' capacity for self-government was during the Russian Revolution of 1905. In that year, general strikes spread throughout the industrial centers of Russia. To coordinate their efforts, workers' organized Soviets -- locally based workers' councils consisting of elected delegates from factories. The Soviets were reborn during the Russian Revolution of 1917. More significantly, workers also formed factory committees -- elected and controlled by assemblies of all the workers in each factory. Through these committees, the Russian workers collectively controlled and operated much of the industrial means of production during that chaotic period.  The Bolsheviks soon curtailed the powers of the factory committee and brought them to heel. In the aftermath  of World War I, workers' council movements, in large measure patterned after the Russian Soviets, workers' assemblies and factory committees emerged and struggled for power in Hungary, Poland, Italy, Germany and Bulgaria. All of these movements were put down by the stronger forces of counterrevolution. In some instances, the workers' movements were co-opted and integrated into the capitalist system, as in Italy. In other instances, they were smashed outright, as in Hungary. In still other instances, they were neutralized by a combination of these two tactics, as in Germany. During the Spanish Civil War the entire province of Catalonia, including the city of Barcelona, and other sections of Spain was administered through councils directly controlled by and responsible to the workers and peasants. In Hungary, in October 1956, the violent suppression of a protest by students and writers set off a nationwide rebellion and general strike. Workers spontaneously formed inter-industrial councils in the major cities. As Hungarian state authority collapsed, the councils assumed control of much of the country. Demands for workers' control of production were raised and efforts initiated to form a National Workers' Council to supplant the existing state ruling class. The list can go on: Paris 68, Portugal 1974, Poland in the 80s, Argentina in the 90s