Dismantle the Old to Re-build the New

The Socialist Party welcomes any upsurge in the militancy and resistance and organisation of our class. But from bitter experience, we also know that work of an altogether different more political kind is also needed. The class war must be fought if we are not to be reduced to penury but as we are also capable of rational thought and long-term planning, we must also seek to end the battles of the class struggle by winning the war. This can only be done by dispossessing the capitalist class of its wealth and power. That means that the working class as a whole must understand the issues, and organise and fight for these ends themselves by organising a political party for the conquest of state power.

The Socialist Party clearly explains that to achieve socialism requires a clear understanding of socialist principles with a determined desire to put them into practice. For socialism to be established the mass of the people must realise the nature and purpose of the new society. Our theory of socialist revolution is grounded in the proposition that the working class within capitalist society is forced to struggle against capitalist conditions of existence and as the workers gain more experience of the class struggle and the workings of capitalism, the labour movement will become more consciously socialist and democratically organised by the workers themselves so require no intervention by people outside the working class to bring it.  Socialist education and agitation is necessary but will be carried out by workers themselves whose socialist ideas have been derived from an interpretation of their class experience of capitalism. The end result is an independent movement of the socialist-minded and democratically-organised working class aimed at winning control of political power in order to abolish capitalism. We regard socialism not as a purely political theory, nor as an economic doctrine, but as one which embraces every phase of social life. The Socialist Party has never held that a merely formal majority at the polls under no matter what circumstances, will give the workers power to achieve socialism. It stresses the necessity of capturing the machinery of government including the armed forces. That is the fundamental thing. The method, though important, is secondary to this.

If the capitalist class, in view of the possibility of an adverse vote, disfranchise the workers our answer is in such an event, we would be faced with a new problem where the situation has changed by the constitutional methods being closed to us; and the only course left open to ourselves is to adopt methods of secret organisation and force – so be it. But there is little likelihood of the master class being so blind (not that the master class will hesitate at bloodshed if they deem it necessary to the maintenance of capitalist privilege).

The problem of the methods to be adopted must be determined by the circumstances of the time. Our first need is the development of the desire for socialism among the working class and the preparation of the political party to give expression to that desire. The actions of our class foe against the success of a socialist party will determine our future strategy. If the fight is kept to the political field within constitutional limits, with the ruling class taking the defeat when it comes in a spirit of contrition and resignation – well and good. If they choose not to accept the verdict of the majority when expressed through their own civic institutions and challenge the result by armed force, the working class will be confident of a repeat victory on that battle-field as they were on the electoral field. If the capitalist class follows the example of its predecessors of blood and carnage, it will be on its own head. The important thing is for the workers to gain control of the political machinery because the political machine is the real centre of social control. Given, then, the socialist idea firmly set in the mind of the working class, any action taken by the master class to prevent the realisation of that idea would be countered by the workers solidly organised. Even if a pro-capitalist minority were to try to prevent a change of political control via the ballot box, the socialist majority will still be able to impose its will by other means, such as street demonstrations and strikes. Faced with the hostility of a majority of workers (including, of course, workers in the civil and armed forces, as well as workers in productive and distributive occupations), the capitalist minority would be unable, in the long run, to enforce its commands and the workers would be able to dislocate production and transport.

“An historical development can remain ‘peaceful’ only so long as no forcible hindrances are put in its way by the existing rulers of a society. If, for example, in England or the United States, the working class were to win a majority in Parliament or Congress, it could legally put an end to laws and institutions standing in the way of its development, although even here only so far as societal development permitted. For the ‘peaceful’ movement could still be turned into a ‘violent’ one by the revolt of those whose interests were bound up with the old order. If such people were then put down by force (as in the American Civil War and the French Revolution), it would be rebels against the ‘lawful’ power.” Marx 1878

The 2002 coup against Hugo Chavez failed because people were prepared to take to the streets to back up their vote and because the bulk of the armed forces remained loyal to the constitution and the constitutionally-elected president. The theory that power obtained by the ballot box to effect radical changes can’t be retained was disproved by actual experience. It confirmed our view that a socialist majority can both win and retain power via the ballot box if that majority is sufficiently organised and determined and if there is no question as to their democratic legitimacy. Our view of the police and army is basically that they are workers in uniform, as receptive to revolutionary ideas as any civilian.

The Socialist Party does not think that when faced with a massive majority vote for socialism, and a working class outside parliament organised to back it up, the ruling class would put their life and liberty on the line by resorting to violence to try to resist the inevitable. Perhaps there may be some isolated acts of violence by fool-hardy individuals, but these would be effectively contained and the socialist revolution should be able to pass off essentially peacefully. A recalcitrant minority or as Marx and Engels described them "pro-slavery rebels" will not hold back socialism.

The Socialist Party has never been in the business to win popularity contests and jump on any old band-wagon for the sake of recruitment and membership numbers. Many of the political organisations that did have disappeared, leaving behind no lasting legacy. Events have only confirmed the Socialist Party's case that understanding is a necessary condition for socialism, not desperation and despair. There is no other path to socialism than by the education of the workers in socialism. Shortcuts have proved to be dead-ends. History has actually proved that until the knowledge and experience of the working class are equal to the task of revolution there can be no liberation of labour.

The Socialist Party cannot control whether or not workers become socialists. What we can provide, and what we have continuously provided, is a theory of revolution which, if it had been taken up by workers, would have prevented incalculable misery to millions. Over its many years of existence, the Socialist Party has developed a body of knowledge which has been consistently accurate in its political and economic predictions. For example, in 1917, the Bolsheviks were convinced that they were setting society in Russia on a course of change towards socialism. The Party argued that socialism was not being established in Russia. What followed was the horrendous misery of the Civil War and later Stalin's gulags. We warned against sections of workers try to stage the revolution or implement socialism when the rest of the working class wasn't prepared. What comes to mind is the situation in Germany in 1919 when groups of workers supported the Spartacus group while the majority of the working class still supported the Social Democratic Party. The uprising was put down brutally and the working class was divided. Our fellow-workers will only be prepared when they accept the need to capture political power and only THEN can the implementation of socialism based on majority support begin. Otherwise, you may have a situation where a minority may push the majority into a situation it is not prepared for and the results could be disastrous. In regard to gradualism and reformism when the 1945 Labour Party government was elected with the objective of establishing a "socialist" Britain, the Socialist Party insisted that there would be no new social order. In fact, that Labour Government steered capitalism in Britain through the post-war crisis, enabling it to be massively expanded in the boom years of the 1950s.

Our advocacy is not abstract: we relate to the real experiences of workers today, constantly making clear that socialism is the immediately practical solution to workers' so-called "short-term interests". The Socialist Party is well aware that revolution will not "simply" be the result of our educational efforts. Our appeal to workers is upon the basis of class interest and our appeal will be successful because the class struggle generates class consciousness in workers. The growth of socialist consciousness and organisation will allow workers to prosecute the class struggle more effectively. We, socialists, are members of the working class spreading socialist ideas amongst our fellow workers. We are part of the process of the emergence of socialist consciousness.

The idea of choosing between "abstract campaigning" and "doing something now" is as false a choice as choosing between theory and practice. We must have some theory linking the capitalist present and the socialist future. Some theory yes, but not just any theory. This theory must be based both on the class struggle as the motor of social change and on an understanding of the economics of capitalism and the limits it places on what can be done within the framework of the capitalist system. As socialists we are engaged in a necessarily contradictory struggle: on the one hand, we propose the abolition of the wages system as an immediately practical alternative, but on the other, we recognise the need of workers to fight the wages struggle within capitalism. But, as socialists, our main energies must be directed towards the former objective. We could endeavour to remove this distinction between the trade union struggle within capitalism and the socialist struggle against capitalism by adopting the ideas propounded by De Leon, who at one time advocated that socialists should form their own "revolutionary unions" but their failure is a very important case-study of the danger of imagining those capitalist institutions such as trade unions can be easily converted (or substituted) into socialist bodies. They demonstrate that capitalism cannot be transcended from within.

It is very probable that as more socialists come into the movement groups of them will have involvements in all kinds of areas of the class struggle, ranging from picket-lines to anti-racist groups to community action projects. However involved individual members may or may not be in what is going on outside the Socialist Party, we certainly need to be aware that workers are doing things which, often unknowingly, are contributing to the evolution of class consciousness. Not everything has to have the stamp of approval of or organisation for it to be contributory to the evolution of ideas which precedes revolution. The Socialist Party tries to guard against appearing to be the sole agent of the socialist transformation. Our main task is to find better ways of expressing our message to as many workers as possible, to evolve a strategy so that we use our resources well and to retain our confidence in the face of the immense frustration and pessimism which socialists often encounter. We , Socialist Party members, can envisage a socialist movement growing in the future alongside many other working class organisational forms including trade unions, neighbourhood assemblies workplace committees.

However, it is important to acknowledge, a socialist party has the advantage because its interest and actions do not revolve around this or that section of the working class, but of the working class as a whole. And it functions as the instrument to "take hold of the state machine", to seize the levers of government. Workers councils do not nor cannot do that. They can set themselves up as a dual power to the government or State, but the State still has the control of bureaucracy, army, police force, all forces of oppression. What has to be captured is the State itself to dismantle all this "bureaucratic-military machine". The State already exists as a class institution, the representative of the capitalist class. It exists as a creation that "administers" capitalism and thus a Socialist party must come to the fore which challenges the capitalist class in the political arena in order to seize this administration, "lop off its worst parts" and be provided with the institutions already in place to implement socialism. This is where workers councils, if they are established, could now come into play.

The advantage of a socialist party is that it is the interest of the whole class and does not, in the process, disenfranchise anyone. The working class needs a political organisation, not one segmented on the basis of how industry is set up under capitalism. An organisation of Socialists is needed. As it grows then the dynamic of the class struggle changes and goes off into new directions. We cannot see a council system now, or an industrial union system like the IWW advocates providing the same. The latter organisational forms are determined themselves by capitalist industry and are not necessarily the ideal forms for socialist construction. Both they and Workers councils disenfranchise those sectors of the population not organised into industrial unions or councils.

One cannot talk with workers unless one is WITH them. It is not enough to be one OF them.   In the Communist Manifesto in regard minorities and majorities. "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

"Pushes forward" i think is the key phrase. Marx and Engels didn't say lead forward.