The revolutionary vote

Many political organisations profess to assist the working class and they have drawn up scores of programmes for reforms which they guarantee would, if the workers would only trust them and vote for them; solve the ills which afflict working people. The Socialist Party has presented no wish list of palliatives and ameliorations and it is opposed to all parties who ask the workers to support a reformist policy. Reform of capitalism would still leave workers in their wage-slave condition. The ever-changing lists of reforms should be an example to the workers of the futility of wasting valuable time and energy attempting to reform a system which can not be reformed in the interests of the working class. Social reform is no solution to the ills suffered by the workers the Socialist Party points out that all the evils could be traced to the one cause and to this one cause only – private property, the cause of poverty, slums, disease, crime, war and all the other curses of the human race. Having stated the cause of all our troubles we offer the remedy - socialism. Abolish private property with production for profit and establish a new system of society based on common ownership of production for use. The Socialist Party had been advocating nothing else since 1904 and since socialism is our object, all our activities are directed towards getting it established as soon as possible. Therefore, we are opposed to all other political parties.

Our analysis is not based upon some narrow sectarianism — it's based on principle. We do not, nor have we ever, supported capitalist parties, especially those that dress up in radical or progressive garb in order to hoodwink the workers. We do not doubt that well-meaning individuals get caught up in such chicanery for no other reason than a desire to see a better world. But despite their good intentions, socialists cannot unite with those who want to reform and administer capitalism. Do we unite with those who claim socialism can be established by a benevolent paternalistic leadership without a class-conscious working class? Do we unite with those who see socialism as a system based on state control and state ownership of industry? Do we unite with those who refuse to recognise the possibility of a peaceful parliamentary road to socialism? If there is no common ground upon which agreement can be reached then there can be no unity. Unity has no meaning unless based on the common realisation that its sole object is to introduce socialism. It is not the wish of the Socialist Party to be separate for the sake of being so. If another socialist organisation arose, then we would make immediate overtures for a merger. We would offer welcoming open arms of comradely greetings. But we cannot be a reform party attempting to mop up immediate problems with sops, and remain revolutionary at the same time. We cannot be a half-way house to accommodate the more timid members of our class spend their time making concessions. We oppose all the so-called working-class parties which compromise with capitalism and do not uphold the socialist case. The socialist case is so fundamentally different, involving as it does the total transformation of society. Some members of other organisations have the best of intentions, but good intentions do not change the nature of those organisations. Those activists have claimed impressive “successes” and “victories” in every field except a vital one. History has shown beyond any shadow of a doubt that they have not remotely convinced the workers of the need for socialism. From their activities carried on in the name of socialism, the one thing conspicuous by its absence has been any mention of the socialist case. The efforts of these “socialist" activists have been geared to an attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable contradictions of capitalism.

Reforms, no matter how "radical", can never make capitalism run in the interests of the workers. Nor should supporting reforms be some kind of tactic pursued by socialists to gain support from workers, for workers who joined a socialist party because they admired its reformist tactics would turn it into a reformist organisation pure and simple. To attract support on the basis of reformist policies but really aim at revolution would be quite dishonest to get workers’ support on the basis of saying one thing while really wanting something quite different. History showed us the fate of the social democratic parties, which despite a formal commitment to socialism as an "ultimate goal", admitted the non-socialist to their ranks and sought non-socialist support for a reform programme of capitalism rather than a socialist programme. In order to maintain their non-socialist support, they were themselves forced to drop all talk of socialism and become even more openly reformist. Today the social democratic parties are firmly committed to capitalism in theory and in practice. We say that this was the inevitable result of the admission of non-socialists and advocating reforms of capitalism. That is why we have always advocated socialism and never called for the reform of capitalism. We are not saying that all reforms are anti-working class, but as a socialist party advocating reforms, it would be its first step towards its transformation into a reformist party. Regardless of why or how the reforms are advocated, the result is the same: confusion in the minds of the working class instead of growth of socialist consciousness.

We see little wrong with people campaigning for reforms that bring essential improvements and enhance the quality of their lives, and some reforms do indeed make a difference to the lives of millions and can be viewed as "successful". There are examples of this in such fields as education, housing, child employment, work conditions and social security. Socialists have to acknowledge that the "welfare" state, the NHS and so on, made living standards for some sections of the working class better than they had been under rampant capitalism and its early ideology of laissez-faire, although these ends should never be confused with socialism.However, in this regard, we also recognise that such "successes" have in reality done little more than to keep workers and their families in efficient working order and, while it has taken the edge of the problem, it has rarely managed to remove the problem completely. Socialists do not oppose reformism because it is against improvements in workers' lives lest they dampen their revolutionary ardour; nor, because it thinks that decadent capitalism simply cannot deliver on any reforms; but because our continued existence as propertyless wage slaves undermines whatever attempts we make to control and better our lives through reforms. Our objection to reformism is that by ignoring the essence of class, it throws blood, sweat, and tears into battles that will be undermined by the workings of the wages system. All that effort, skill, energy, all those tools could be turned against class society, to create a society of common interest where we can make changes for our common mutual benefit. So long as class exists, any gains will be partial and fleeting, subject to the ongoing struggle. What we are opposed to is the whole culture of reformism, the idea that capitalism can be tamed and made palatable with the right reforms.

Anarchists tell us that voting is a waste of time, that Parliament is not the real seat of power but a "talking-shop" and that contesting elections perpetuate what anarchists see as harmful illusions about the law, the state, and parliamentary democracy and many see the Socialist Party as little different from all other parties. There is no reason to suppose that the electoral process necessarily corrupts as anarchists assert. On the other hand, we contend, a reform programme does corrupt.  It is power obtained on the basis of followers voting for leaders to implement reforms that “corrupts”. Fellow-workers should not turn their back on the electoral system as such. Once the world’s working people demand socialism, the electoral system can be utilised to effect the revolutionary act of abolishing capitalism by signalling that a majority fully understand and want to effect that change. When enough of us join together determined to end inequality and deprivation we can transform elections into a means of doing away with a society of minority rule in favour of real democracy and equality.

We appeal is to those who are committed to the concept of a self-organised majority revolution without leaders to abandon their opposition to the working class forming a political party to contest elections and eventually win control of political power, not to form a government but to immediately abolish capitalism and usher in the class-free, state-free, money-free, wage-free society that real socialism will be. The socialist message in this election is that our fellow-workers should think long and hard before casting their vote. In this election, there will be no Edinburgh or Glasgow branch candidates. We are recommending to those who, nevertheless, agree with our ideas to register this by writing “world socialism” across their ballot- paper

The future is in your hands.