Skip to main content


There is not a single country where socialism has been realised, though over a century has passed since Marx and Engels made public the Communist Manifesto. Capitalism still remains.

 Capitalists are very cunning. They leave no stone un-turned to maintain their position. Here lies one of the major reasons why revolution does not break out. Our revolutionary goal shapes our policy in the daily struggle. We have to stand up and fight for the true interests of the working class as a whole, at every turn of the road. It is our duty to the working class to make such a fight. We would not be worthy of the proud name our party bears if we evaded such a fight on any pretext. The reason for this is that ours is the only party willing to fight for the immediate interests of the workers, and the only party standing for the solution of the labour problem by means of the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. All of the interests of the working class, immediately and ultimately, are indissolubly bound up with the revolution. 

We have set up the theory of the salvation of the workers through uncompromising struggle against their exploiters. Our fight is to organise workers together on the basis of the class struggle. Therefore, they must be enlightened as to our aims and plans. We are fighting for their minds and hearts. Do not forget that. We must adopt the point of view that our struggle is a struggle to develop the class consciousness of the workers and to win them over to the principle of the revolutionary struggle against capitalism.

Our party is a party of workers, a party of struggle against capitalism and all its works. We are not progressives, but revolutionists. The test of our work can never be made by formal victories, but by the development of class consciousness among workers, the degree of their organisation on that basis. Many difficulties will confront us in the task we have undertaken, but, with the assistance of the party, we will solve them all. We will win over people to the side of socialism; we will wrest the labour movement from the hands of the bourgeoisie and convert them into mighty instruments for the socialist revolution. There are plenty of things in the movement that tend to discourage socialists who are striving to build an organisation that can actually serve as the instrument of the workers in their fight for power. Poverty and misery give birth and sustenance to religion. Solace for an empty stomach is often found by the wretched in the adoration of an icon.

We working people want to raise our wages, cut our hours, make our jobs safer and less injurious to our health and less unpleasant places in which to earn our living. If we realise what an injury the capitalist system does to us, we want also to get rid of it. We can not do these things by ourselves. We can do them together. The expression "rank-and-file" to which we refer are made most often by addicts of the "leadership principle." Now the "leadership principle"—the idea that we should pick and follow leaders, and seek a cure for our troubles by changing leaders—is the direct opposite to the Socialist Party's idea of organisation. It is indeed curious that those who advocate this style of organisation should ever demand "rank-and-file control." How does it happen? The object of these various political cults of "follow-the-leader" is to obtain more followers for their various leaders. And since every time there is a new leader there are new cults, this results in a rather bewildering situation.

 Since their purpose is not to organise a working class to do something for itself, but to make sure that the leaders of one cult are followed rather than the leaders of another, they seek their following chiefly in already organised groups of workers. Sometimes they try to secure such a following by currying favour with the officials of these unions. That was and is the pet policy of the Leninists and Trotskyists sects who vary this strategy with that of "boring from within" to grab the official positions. 

When a group of self-appointed saviours try to grab the official positions they resort to the favourite tricks of the politicians. They must charge the elected officials with "betraying their mandates," "not living up to their promises," "ignoring the wishes of the rank and file." They must promise that if they are elected, the "rank-and-file" will rule through them. As a result we have the strange spectacle of "rank-and-file" committees waiting instructions from some leader before they can decide upon their next step. To get into the saddle, these would-be leaders must convince their potential victims that they are now being ridden, but that with them in the saddle, they will no longer be ridden. It will not serve their purpose to urge that those who are being ridden should get rid of rider, saddle and all. They must urge that only the riders be changed. 


Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

Things are changing

We want no condescending saviours to rule us from a judgment hall. The Socialist Party is a Marxian party. That is to say, we base our outlook on history and economics on the theoretical researches of Karl Marx. On the basis of Marxian economics, we have pointed out that there is no solution for booms and slumps as long as capitalism lasts. That booms and slumps are inevitable products of capitalism and will always be a part of it. We accept the fact that there is a class struggle in society—but that its solution lies in the hands of the workers to take political action for the establishment of socialism when they understood and want it. Consequently, we have put forward candidates in the parliamentary and local elections for the purpose of taking control out of the hands of our capitalist rulers in order to clear the way for the establishment of socialism. We hold that all people in the world, regardless of colour or nationality, are capable of understanding socialism and its implic…