To speak for the Socialist Party is usually enough for some to view you its leader as the teacher in the class-room; the lecturer at college; the captain of a ship, or the conductor of an orchestra. Aren't they leaders? "A single violinist is his own Conductor. An orchestra requires a separate one" said Karl Marx. In most job-processes involving group co-operation a supervisor to coordinate. What about the surgeon in the operating theatre? Isn’t he a leader? Even the SPGB has a General Secretary so isn't he you’re your leader? Doesn’t the SPGB elevate Marx to the position of a leader?
Socialists are interested in leadership from a number of different perspectives. Capitalism as a class society engenders owners of the means of wealth production, the privileged, the leaders; and non-owners, the unprivileged, the followers. Most of the followers don't oppose the system, which is why it persists. They elect leaders to get the best deal they can from the system. Socialism as a classless society based on social and political equality (though not on the absence of difference) is inconsistent with leadership. However, socialism is not inconsistent with some functions associated with leadership such as organisation, co-ordination – and even inspiration. There are those who perceive the necessity and inevitability of leadership as an objection to socialism - “There will always be leaders and followers and you can't change human nature.” This objection needs to be met.
Leadership only makes sense when there is a ruling class and a ruled class, and it implies that most people are incapable of organising affairs in their own interest and so must accept the dictates of a few. Ours differs from all previous revolutionary movements in that it doesn’t aim to replace one ruling class by another but to abolish classes altogether. All leaders are placed in a privileged position by their followers, who either agree with the policies laid down or think they can do nothing about them. By contrast, socialism means that nobody will be placed in a position of governing others. If there are leaders then there must be the led, but there cannot be much difference between their ideas since a leader can only offer to lead where he is likely to be followed. He is not really in advance of his followers because if he stops leading them in the direction they think is the best open to them they will soon desert him for another who will. It may be a bit clichéd now but there is a saying “Where the masses go, the leaders will follow!“ People who are easily persuaded to think one way by a powerful personality can usually be persuaded by a more powerful one to change their minds. Socialist ideas do not depend on such barren methods for their growth. The blunt truth is that if people want leaders they want class society, and if they want class society they cannot want socialism. We do our utmost to sign-post the road to socialism and to encourage others along the way but there can be no substitute for their knowledge of what is needed to take that path. We are always eager to help people to understand our case and to discuss with them the difficulties and objections they have concerning it. From our understanding of the past and the needs of the present, we try to show what the destination of the socialist movement will look like. But we cannot work out all the details in advance. If we did that, however, we should be acting no differently from the reformers who offer to lead the working class to better conditions and consistently fail to do so. The lesson is that no matter how well-meaning you may be, once you are given political power you must follow where events lead and, without a majority of socialists, that cannot be to socialism. To think in terms of political power without political knowledge on the part of those who make up that power is to oppose all that socialism means.
In socialism, there will have to be administrators. Hopefully, people with a flair for organising, and their job will be to help a socialist society to run smoothly, ensuring that production and free distribution of the good things of life take place to the benefit of all. But they will not have the power to dictate to, to coerce, or give promises to the rest of the population as leaders do at present. They will be the agents—not the masters—of the people. In socialism, there will be not leaders but delegates—the difference being that delegates carry out the instructions of—not give orders to—the people who voted for them.
On 16 June 1836, the London Working Men's Association was formed and its first secretary, William Lovett, explained:
"We had seen enough of the contentions of leaders and the battles of factions; to convince us, that no sound Public Opinion, and consequently no just Government, could be formed in this country as long as men's attention was constantly directed to the useless warfare of pulling down, and setting up, of one Idol of Party after another…The masses, in their political organisations, were taught to look up to "Great Men" (or to men professing "greatness") rather than to great Principles. We wished therefore to establish a political school of self-instruction among them, in which they should accustom themselves to examine great social and political principles, and by their publicity and free discussion, help to form a sound and healthful public opinion throughout the country...We have not wished, neither do we desire to be, Leaders, as we believe that the principles we advocate have been retarded, injured or betrayed by Leadership, more than by the open hostility of opponents. Leadership too often generates confiding bigotry, or political indifference on the one hand, or selfish ambition, on the other. The principles WE advocate are those of the peoples' happiness, and for these to be justly established, each man must Know and feel his Rights and Duties. He must be prepared to guard the one; and perform the other with cheerfulness. And if Nature has given to one Man superior faculties, to express or execute the general wish, he only performs his Duty at the Mandate of his bretheren; he is therefore the "Leader" of none, but the equal of ALL."
"An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought." - ANON
No comments:
Post a Comment