Against the anti-electoral purists

Turn universal suffrage from a means of trickery into an agent of emancipation

With the general election now fast approaching and the media reporting on it daily, this blogger has decided to concentrate the themes of his posts on democracy and elections until after polling day. Apologies if this adds to your feelings of a general world-weary ennui and apologies if the separate posts tend to repeat similar arguments although there was an endeavor to focus on different issues.

 The series begins with a defence of the Socialist Party against those who are anti-parliamentarians who have had a strong influence in the Scottish workers’ movement in the past.

Against the anti-electoral purists

The SPGB of today are not the socialist "party" that its founding members envisaged it becoming i.e. the mass of the working class organised politically for socialism. At the moment the SPGB are not much more than a socialist propagandist educational club and can't be anything else (and nor should we try to be, on principle). Possibly we might be the embryo of the future mass "socialist party" but there's no guarantee that we will be (and some think it’s more likely we may just be a contributing element). But it is such a mass party that will take political control via the ballot box, and since it will in effect be the majority organised democratically and politically for socialism , thus it will the majority, not the party as such as something separate from that majority, that carries out the socialist transformation of society. Without having any delusions of grandeur, we try to organise ourselves today in our small party in the same way we think that a mass socialist party should organise itself: without leaders and with major decisions being made democratically by a referendum of the whole membership ratifying decisions made by conferences of mandated delegates or by elected committees. But who cares? As long as such a mass socialist party eventually emerges. At some stage, for whatever reason, socialist consciousness will reach a 'critical mass', or in your words "when militancy becomes the norm" , at which point it will just snowball and carry people along with it. It may come about without people even giving it the label of socialism.

The Socialist Party strategy does not ham-strings the workers’ movement. The growth of the socialist movement would have profound and perhaps unpredictable impacts. The Socialist Party does not hold that the growth of the socialist movement will leave capitalism completely unchanged until a cataclysmic revolution occurs. But we cannot now predict in any meaningful way the various ways in which capitalism will change as socialist ideas spread, so we do not think it is possible or advisable to incorporate some version of these changes into our political position. We can determine, however, that all aspects of our daily life, from neighbourhood to work, will be re-organised democratically and assuming control over Parliament is complementary to that process. It has always been the established SPGB position to be organised on the economic front as well as the political front so to ensure the smooth change-over of production and distribution from capitalism to socialism.

But an important part of our case is that political organisation must precede the economic, since, apart from the essential need of the conquest of the powers of government, it is on the political field that the widest and most comprehensive propaganda can be deliberately maintained. It is here that the workers can be deliberately and independently organised on the basis of socialist thought and action.

When people want something and where elections exist they will organise to contest elections as well organize outside of Parliament. Where there isn’t a democratic opportunity to capture the state machine via elections and parliaments, then, of course, some other means would have to be used, probably mass protests, demonstrations, civil disobedience and political strikes. In Eastern Europe at the beginning of the 1990s there was no possibility of voting the rulers out, so mass street demonstrations were the only alternative. Despite the fact of nominally having at their disposal powerful means of suppression (the armed forces, Stasi, etc) the hard-line rulers in East Germany and Czechoslovakia decided to face the fact that a majority of the population were against them and to give up power without firing a shot (or rather without ordering a shot to be fired). Only Ceausescu in Romania tried to resist and he ended up before a firing squad within a week. There is a lesson here for those who insist that, faced with a mass movement for socialism whether or not also expressing itself as a victory at the polls, the ruling class would resort to violence to crush it. Unless they are suicidal or fools we wouldn't have thought this was likely.

In an anecdote recounted in Desmond Greaves's biography of James Connolly about what happened when Connolly left the De Leonist SLP of America (which was committed to using the ballot box) to join the IWW (which wasn't): “He was asked if he approved of its repudiating the principle of political action. He laughed, 'It will be impossible to prevent the workers taking it'.”

And in case we are accused of cherry-picking second-hand hearsay, here is another Connolly quote

"I am inclined to ask all and sundry amongst our comrades if there is any necessity for this presumption of antagonism between the industrialist and the political advocate of socialism. I cannot see any. I believe that such supposed necessity only exists in the minds of the mere theorists or doctrinaires. The practical fighter in the work-a-day world makes no such distinction. He fights, and he votes; he votes and he fights. He may not always, he does not always, vote right; nor yet does he always fight when and as he should. But I do not see that his failure to vote right is to be construed into a reason for advising him not to vote at all; nor yet why a failure to strike properly should be used as a gibe at the strike weapon, and a reason for advising him to place his whole reliance upon votes." 

Our “wise” counsel for fellow-workers is put not your trust in leaders - be they trade union or left-wingers - but strive for that goal which can only be brought about by your own efforts. The necessity for the industrial struggle and organisation of the workers as against the employing class and its organisations, is not denied by the Socialist Party. Being workers, socialists are also trade unionists, and engage in, and support all worthwhile trade union action, struggling side by side with their fellow workers on this battle-field. To the nationalists we say why help to change a flag and leave the old enemy, capitalism, with its poverty and exploitation and class-borders ? Why should socialists assist a clique that are forever eager to speculate with the blood of workers in the markets of international catastrophe.

Marx in 1852 “But universal suffrage is the equivalent of political power for the working class of England, where the proletariat forms the large majority of the population, where, in a long though underground civil war, it has gained a clear consciousness of its position as a class and where even the rural districts know no longer any peasants, but only landlords, industrial capitalists (farmers) and hired labourers. The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore be a far more socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the continent. Its inevitable result, here is the political supremacy of the working class.”

His meaning is clear - a working class majority in Parliament, backed by a majority of the population, can bring about the real transfer of power. Marx reaffirms “the way to show political power [in Britain] lies open to the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work.”

Several decades later Engels still argued for its use commenting that in the USA the workers "next step towards their deliverance" was "the formation of a political workingmen's party, with a platform of its own, and the conquest of the Capitol and the White House for its goal." This new party "like all political parties everywhere…aspires to the conquest of political power."

In Britain Engels continued to argue that the task of the British working class was not only to pursue economic struggles "but above all in winning political rights, parliament, through the working class organised into an independent party" (significantly, the original manuscript stated "but in winning parliament, the political power").

It is indeed a long and winding road, but all the supposed short-cuts that have been proposed over the decades led to cul-de-sacs. The Socialist Party will plod on until persuaded of another more viable route. So far, many of the previous road maps to an emancipatory society have been proved to be as fictitious wrong turnings and our party has been confirmed correct holding to its own compass.

Our position on workers councils and parliamentary action is not an either/or one but that there will be overlaps and parallel movements taking place. Its ideas that are vital not simply just organisational forms. The way to achieve it, the means to the end, certainly is important but one particular road should not exclude other paths. We all have the same compass that points the same direction, however, some are going to opt for the bus and others the train or plane to get there.It is to be expected that there will be some dispute over which is the best form of travel.

Ultimately, the Russian and German workers councils lost out to the party that held state control and could impose its political power and dismantle any class independence. The capitalist class rule, i.e control the state, because they have been able to deceive workers into voting for their representatives. But what if workers see through this and are no longer deceived? Incidentally, they exploit via capital but rule through the state. The ruling class cannot simply turn on and off political democracy just like that.  Political democracy is not just a constitutional matter. It's also, more so in fact, a sociological, even a cultural fact, the product of historical evolution reflecting past struggles. It can't be done away with by decree. It is not because they own the means of production, otherwise it would be the Confederation of British Industry that appoints or directs the government. We suggest that they own the means of production because they control the state. It is the state that grants and upholds their right to own. Without state backing their ownership titles mean nothing. Certainly, their (state-backed) wealth gives them power to influence the great mass of the people including how they vote. At present most people, holding or influenced by pro-capitalist ideas, vote for pro-capitalist politicians and it is this that gives the capitalist class control of the state. In other words, they rule (control the state) indirectly through universal suffrage and pro-capitalist politicians and parties. They don't rule directly by (somehow) appointing the government and the top state officials. The capitalist class do not own and control the means of production through physically occupying them or even own them personally as they once did. Nowadays they own them through limited liability companies or corporations but these are legal constructions created by the state. Without state backing they are nothing (a statement you found meaningless, I don't know why). In other words, it is because they control political power that they have economic power. Without that they have no economic power. It follows from this that if they lose control of political power they lose everything. They would be unprotected and there'd be nothing to prevent the workers, if they wanted to, taking over and running production. Hence the prudent strategy of trying to first take political power away from them.

Marx's coined the slogan "Turn universal suffrage from a means of trickery into an agent of emancipation". Of course it won't be the only such agent, but it can/will be one. Why not? What objection can there be, since we've got the choice, to voting out pro-capitalist politicians and replacing them by socialist delegates (in addition to whatever else is decided should be done)?

The Socialist Party advocate the revolutionary, not the reformist, use of elections. As part of the revolutionary process during revolutionary times and to capture a tribune from which to spread socialist ideas in non-revolutionary times, but not to try to get reforms of capitalism as leftists like Sawant in Seattle does. That only encourages the illusion that capitalism can be reformed to work in the interest of the working class (it can't be reformed to do this by "direct action" either, as some "electoral pessimists" seem to imagine). To free itself from wage-slavery and capitalist exploitation, the working class should organise as a political party that contests elections and not just in industrial unions or one big union or workers' councils.

Socialism is not possible without a mass communist consciousness, and the members of the Socialist Party cannot understand why this would not or should not express itself electorally as well as in the other ways people here have envisaged, e.g. organisation in the workplaces to take over and run them. In fact, it is inconceivable that it wouldn't.

If people were prepared to stage a general strike to try to overthrow capitalism then (if this would work) there would be no need to stage the more risky armed insurrection (if that would work). In any event if people are not prepared to even cast a ballot for revolution they are not likely to do anything else for it. Even from your perspective a ballot would be useful to measure the degree of likely support for your insurrection. If people in America are not prepared to vote for revolution. That must mean that they are even less likely to support an armed insurrection against capitalism and its state.

Of course the modern state has evolved to defend capitalism. So it has to be dealt with, but how? In today's conditions it cannot be smashed in an armed insurrection. So, what's left but two realistic possibilities. Ignore it and proceed to organise independently of it in the hope that it will collapse of its own accord. Given a mass communist consciousness, that might work as once this exists nothing is going to stop socialism coming into being. As Victor Hugo pointed out, “No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.” But it seems the long way round. The other way is to proceed to organise independently of the state but at the same time to organise to win control of it electorally so as to neutralise it.

Let us set a scenario.

The population in general has seen through capitalism and is in favour of replacing it with a stateless, classless, moneyless, wageless society based on productive resources being the common heritage of all and the application of the principle "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" i.e socialism or communism (depending on which term you prefer. We use them interchangeably) They have also self-organised themselves on democratic lines in the places where they work and where they live with a view to bringing about this change and ready to implement it on the ground.

Given these circumstances, the revolutionary use of the ballot would be one where they also voted to send mandated delegates to the elected central law-making body (aka Parliament, Congress) and to local municipal councils. Being the majority outside these bodies, they would also be the majority inside them. The majority could therefore declare all stocks and shares, all bills and bonds and all property titles and authorisations to form limited liabilities companies or corporations null and void. These would become useless pieces of paper and there would be nothing to prevent the population outside parliament proceeding to take over and run industry and services.

The second thing it would have to do is lop off the undemocratic features of the existing state. "Smash the State", if you like, but from the inside. The government and top state officials would be dismissed and replaced by committees of mandated delegates. What would remain would be a fully democratic central administration. What would the point be, however, in smashing existing current non-coercive parts of the existing state such as those dealing with the organisation of health, education, transport, energy, agriculture, industry, etc. At the start, some coercive powers including armed force (suitably re-organised) might have to be retained in case there was to be a "slave-holders revolt" by the ex-capitalist class, but if there was, it could easily be dealt with as the vast majority of the population would be against it.

This is what a revolutionary use of the vote might look like. The Socialist Party argues that the vote to acquire control of the State still possesses a revolutionary value. It is not the X itself but the person behind it at the ballot box which is more important -  knowledge is power.