Raise the Red Flag, Not the Saltire

IT DISNAE MATTER

Scotland is gearing up for the question that it will put to the Scottish people in a few months time. The SNP seek to be masters in its own house. The SNP seek to make maximum use of the state to foster the development of the Scottish capitalist class. As the various politicians whip up jingoism  to save their collapsing profit system, workers should not be fooled by sugar-coated patriotism used by the bosses to pull their chestnuts out of the fire. Workers should never turn away from the advocacy of, and the fight for, socialism. For many months now, a debate has been going on within a number of left-wing organizations in Scotland. What programme will succeed in winning over  Scottish workers to socialism? What strategy and tactics will ensure victory for socialism? The economic crisis is more and more devastating in its effects on workers. The reactionary forces are on the rise on all fronts. Yet the socialist alternative remains very much a fringe phenomenon within the workers movement and emphasis placed instead upon Scotland’s  separatism. The Socialist Party proposes spoiling your ballot in the referendum. Spoiling your ballot means refusing to support the aspiring Scottish capitalist class and it means rejecting the status quo. It shows our determination to affirm an independent working class position that refuses to line up behind either of the two capitalist camps. Our alternative is to continue the battle for socialism .

In a few months the people of Scotland will be voting in the referendum. Many have been anxiously awaiting the referendum, particularly whow this is the first time in a few hundred years the Scottish people will have the opportunity to express their will on their political future. But is the referendum truly the historic moment so emotionally claimed. The question being put is to to choose one state over another. A YES vote is an vote anti-worker vote and objectively  means condoning the SNP policies To re-organise capitalism and re-distribute Scotland’s wealth  in favour of part of its ruling class, which is after their share. The SNP would use its power to  to continue to subsidise native capitalists to the tune of millions. It would use its exclusive power to make laws to repress workers. In an independent Scotland, the SNP would ask us to further tighten our belts in the interests of the “nation,” i.e. to profit the domestic economy. In an independent Scotland, exploitation will still exist, as before, and will intensify. Yet many workers and progressive people are still drawn towards a YES vote, despite that it would be “business as usual.”  Voting for the NO option is acting as an apologist for the current system.

Various left-nationalists hope to persuade the working class that Scottish independence would be a step towards socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The independence of Scotland would not mean a step forward towards socialism. It would be a step backwards. lf the Yes side wins, Scotland will not be independent. What the Socialist Party want is real independence. What we want is freedom from capitalist domination. Nationalists should stop pretending that sovereignty would be a step towards independence.

The nationalists are working overtime to convince Scottish workers not to demand too much. Thus the working class would be sacrificing its struggle for socialism, which is the only way to do away all forms of oppression and  exploitation, in return for a few meagre changes, for crumbs. The left wing Yes strategy of independence first and socialism later is utopian and suicidal that pushes the workers into support for the Scottish bosses. In other words, the working class must first follow the nationalist employers and fight at their side, until one day, in the undetermined future it will develop its own  autonomy. How much longer will so-called leftists keep on telling the  workers’ movement that is it is still too premature to act on its own. An independent working class position can and does, in fact, exist right now. It is a plague on both your houses, Yes or No. It is no support for any pro-Unionists and no alliance with any separatists.

In the fight for socialism one thing is certain that the success of that struggle depends on achieving the greatest possible unity of the working class. Promoting independence does exactly the opposite. Instead of uniting the Scottish working class against the capitalist, it divides them from the rest of the working class. It delays socialist revolution and unites the Scottish  people with the Scottish capitalists. It is utterly ridiculous to argue that the working class ought to divide itself into two different countries in order to accomplish this unity. They cloak their position in “Marxist” garb and pose as fierce opponents to the SNP. They say that the struggle for independence is the principal class struggle for Scottish workers, claiming this will bring them to socialism. For all the fine talk about “capitalist exploitation” it amounts to nothing but hollow words. Their attacks against the SNP are only for show as their performance can’t hide what’s at the bottom of their position – it’s  support, albeit critical, for the SNP.

Supporting Scottish independence in the name of socialism is a monumental hoax. To advance toward revolution, the working class must develop its consciousness of being a class with common interests radically opposed to those of the capitalist class. The “real” independence pushed by the nationalists is shown up for what it really is, a mirage and an illusion intended to attract Scottish workers and tie them to the interests of the national bourgeoisie. By subordinating  the class struggle for socialism to the nationalist struggle, they help keep capitalism alive.

These “national socialists” are not at all interested in destroying the capitalist system – far from it. They want to make it more efficient, all to the profit of the “national” capitalists and their well fed bureaucrats in the  public administration, council halls and universities. Nationalisation and state planning carried out by a Scottish sovereign state still in the hands of the bosses’ class!   Socialism is not a question of nationalisation but means bigger profits for the “national” parasites. Waging immediate struggles alone is not enough to bring about victories which last. We view that those struggles must be fought clearly within the framework of a conscious struggle to overthrow the entire capitalist system. Capitalism can be transformed more effectively to the extent that we properly understand the specific conditions.

Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the crisis austerity measures imposed by the capitalists. Those groups who dress up as socialists in order to push nationalism in the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists who are busily trying to fulfill their ambition to join the ranks of world capital. The left nationalists would have us believe that the demands of the Scottish people can only be met through independence. Thus, they claim, the task is to transform bourgeois independence into a socialist independence. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class and reactionary policies. Independence then socialism option is nothing but a dead-end road. It doesn’t bring us closer to socialism, only farther away from it. It maintains and reinforces the divisions within the working class – a real boon for the different sectors of the ruling class which do their best to keep us divided. Furthermore, it pushes narrow nationalism and in so doing, strengthens the SNP. And one thing is sure, we’re not going to get any closer to socialism by building up the SNP, a party that represents the interests of Scotland’s capitalists. This is pure and simple class collaboration while posing as combative, radical “left-wingers”. By isolating Scotland in a separate struggle against international capital they split the international working class before their common enemy. Separation is no stepping stone to socialism, despite what these phony “Marxist” theoreticians may say.

Some nationalists argue that the main enemy of Scottish  workers inside the country is the English ruling class. According to this theory, Scots have little to fear from our native capitalists, because they’re not part of the main enemy. But the truth of the matter is that Scottish  capitalists have been an integral part of the British  bourgeoisie ever since the Union, when the old Scottish  ruling class sold out the rights of the Scottish  people to benefit from the markets created by the soon-to-be  British Empire. Capitalists who are natives of Scotland, be they big or small, are not any less a part of the British bourgeoisie than English capitalists. Support for independence can only chain workers to the local employers and hold back the struggle for socialism. With full control of a separateScottish state, the Scottish  section of our worst enemy will have added instruments to force Scottish workers to “tighten their belts in the interests of the nation.” The Yes camp is an alliance of thieves who want to increase their part of the profits –  at the expense of the workers.
 Many say, “Wouldn’t it be a positive step on the road to socialism to gain independence for Scotland?” “Even though we know the Scot Nats is not a party for the workers couldn’t we support it in a ’critical’ way and give it our vote?” Isn’t theSNP at least more progressive than the Labour Party?” As socialists we must take a clear stand on these questions. We must answer the questions being raised in the working class from a Marxist perspective. The only way socialists can make their decision is if it in the interests of the working class. Does the separation of Scotland promote the best interests of the workers  in its struggle for socialism? We say that the answer is no. That to support separation is to support narrow nationalism and that the main problem for the working class is not national oppression but capitalist exploitation . The working class of all nations has one common and main enemy: the bourgeoisie. To struggle for independence would not bring those in Scotland any closer to getting rid of capitalist oppression and exploitation. Instead it would divide the working class against its main enemy; it would weaken the struggle for socialism all across the land; it would hold back and retard our struggle.  Unity is necessary to make revolution. This is why we say that nationalism is not in the interests of the working class. The SNP is a pro-capitalist party basically no different from the Tories or Labour.  We cannot give such a party any kind of support whatsoever, critical or uncritical, total or partial. The SNP in Holyrood has always defended capitalism. The only correct course to follow in the coming referendum is to denounce all the parties involved, to give our support to none of their solutions whether it be the “sovereignity” offered by Salmond  or the Union status quo. The working class has nothing to gain from a Yes or No which only serve to deceive and to mislead.

Independence is not in the interests of the working class. The task of workers is to attack the root of their problems. Our goal is socialism, a new social order based on common ownership of our resources and industry, cooperation, production for use and genuine democracy. Only socialism can turn the boundless potential of our class and resources to the creation of a world free from tyranny, greed, poverty and exploitation. Capitalism has failed, and so have efforts to reform it. That failure puts a campaign for the socialist alternative on the immediate agenda. The referendum question of national independence is not an important question for Scottish workers. As for workers in the rest of Britain and the world, the basic question is capitalist exploitation and the fight for socialism. Class solidarity is the necessary antidote to the nationalist poison. National  chauvinism  is a barrier to our unity in the struggle for socialism, an obstacle we must overcome.

We gain nothing from changing the government in power, from throwing out one old set of thieves and voting in a new set of bandits. It’s not the government, the First Minister becoming a Prime Minister that we must change but the capitalist system itself. The referendum is being used  to mystify the people, to cover up the really important political questions and to attempt to impose on us their false solutions.  We say participate in the struggle to build a real working class party, a mass socialist Marxist party. We say that at this time the struggle we must take up is not for independence but the struggle for the social revolution to liberate us from the chains of capitalist exploitation. The working class has every interest in building the class unity that is indispensable in overthrowing capitalism.  Socialism will put an end to this system based on exploitation, injustice and inequalities once and for all. The Socialist Party’s alternative to a Yes or No is to defend an independent position from the two pro-capitalist options in the referendum in the common interest of all workers. 

Food For Thought

Crime and society – on March 27th. Federal Justice Minister, Peter Mackay, announced a grant of $500,000 for a three year plan to reintegrate youths who have been in Prison in Toronto. He further stated that the 'For Youth Initiative Plan' was making a real difference, but like the war on drugs, the war on crime will continue as long as a system of deep inequalities exists. John Ayers.

Too Poor To Live

Age discrimination may be preventing older people from having access to vital surgery, a report suggests. The Royal College of Surgeons and Age UK looked at surgery rates for six common procedures for English over-65s. It found a wide variation in access to treatment depending on where people lived and a "worrying" difference between the over 65s and over 75s.  'People with breast cancer who were aged over 65 faced the biggest variation depending on where they live - with a 37-fold difference in the rate of breast tissue removal. In terms of the difference between age groups, there was a 34% drop in gall bladder operations and a 16.5% drop in breast tissue removal between the over 65s and over 75s. This came despite the fact the need for the treatment increases with age.' (BBC News, 3 July) Needless to say this discrimination does not apply to the elderly who can afford private treatment. Rd

Child Poverty

The fall in British unemployment figures has been heralded by supporters of capitalism, but this is not the solution to the poverty of the working class as these figures show. 'But now two-thirds of children in poverty are from households where at least one parent is in work, compared to only two-fifths in 1996. Over the longer term increases in working age benefits are being capped at 1 per cent and earnings growth has been weak - lower than CPI inflation in almost every month for the past 6 years. The IFS has estimated that by 2020 child poverty will increase back to levels seen at the turn of the century, largely driven by the decision to switch to CPI uprating of benefits (which in the long run will mean that benefit income is expected to grow more slowly than earnings and low income families, dependent on benefits will fall behind).' (Independent, 1 July) By the year 2020 child poverty will be the same as 20 years previously. Hardly a cause for celebration is it? RD

The Comforts of Socialism

Socialism is a free society; a society without rulers and ruled, leaders and led, masters and slaves. Within the factory rigid dictatorship, where the dead machine rules living labour, where the man or  woman is transformed into a cog of the machine, where labour becomes wage-slavery. Outside the factory there exists economic chaos and the wild forces of the market of which we can be only the victim.

The present economic relations breed the capitalist class and the working class, with opposing interests. Inasmuch as our ideas rationalise our interests, the ideas of the ruling, capitalist class will be along the line of preserving their property and their right to exploit labourers, while the working class will follow their interests and go along the path of solving the contradictions by removing their causes. The capitalists and their agents in the seats of government are blinded by their self interest, by the profits which they make as beneficiaries of the present system. The workers, on the other hand, having nothing to lose, are free to see that the present society must evolve into a new one; they see that nothing can free society from its convulsions save the change in the mode of production from a capitalist one, of private ownership of the means of production, to a socialist one, where the means of production are socialised and classes are no more.

As the working class fights against its worsening position it comes to the realisation that the only way out is for labour to take what it has produced for itself. To take over the means of production, the mines, mills and factories and run them for their own benefit. Then we will have production for use and not for profit. Then we will end both despotism in the factory and anarchy in the market. Then society will allocate its resources and labour power according to a social plan that will benefit all. The interest of the workers is diametrically opposed to the interest of the capitalist exploiters who, controlling the government and it agencies, strive to keep the workers down. The capitalists, blinded by their interests, want to keep the old relations of exploitation.

 The working class has acquired a natural understanding of a cooperative economic system. Workers cooperate with other workers all day long in collective production. To the worker it presents no problem to see how the various industries and branches of production could work as a team for the most efficient production all around, and thereby pour out such a mass of products that there would be plenty for everyone concerned. That is the obvious thing to do with modern machinery and technology. This working class understanding of rational economics exists as a firm feeling that modern industry is suited to cooperative production at high efficiency with abundant output assured, and that there is no good reason why such efficient production could not start right now. The difficult thing to understand is the irrational fact that all production can be stopped, and that the millions of mankind can be taken away from their work and forced to halt production, merely because under capitalist ownership the whole of society has to stand still except when it can add to the accumulated riches of a tiny class of capitalists.

What is responsible for the disparity between the steady abundance the workers could produce, and the uncertain pittance that they get? Under capitalist ownership, the capitalists make profits by keeping as much as they can, and paying out as little in wages as they must. They pay the workers the smallest wage they can bargain them down to. On the average, that amounts to a wage which is just enough to get along on, the smallest amount a worker can afford to work for. Even, for a large part of the workers, it amounts to not enough to raise a family or maintain their own health. And this is the case even in the most prosperous capitalist country. Thus, it is the very system of capitalist ownership and wage labour which sets this ceiling on the standard of living. This same system prevents production of abundance. To force the workers to work for low wages the capitalists need a permanent group of unemployed workers as a threat. Every worker must know that there is a man out of a job that the boss can put in his place if he demands higher wages. This ever-existent unemployed group under capitalism Marx named the industrial reserve army.

Capitalist employers are in business and must be, to make money for themselves, and not to make goods for society. They can afford to start production only when they can sell their goods and end up richer than they started. If production will not increase their wealth they don’t permit any production. It is better to close down and keep what they have, rather than spend money producing what they cannot sell. For sales to increase their wealth they need a market; but they can’t get richer by passing out their own money to make the market for their own goods. They wouldn’t be ahead a penny. Therefore, they have nothing to gain by paying any wages above the least that they can bargain the workers down to. The more they have to pay the workers, the less is left for profits. As long as capitalism remains capitalism, surplus capital will never be used for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses, for this would mean a decrease in profits for the capitalists.

If the capitalists merely hoarded their profits, the system would run into a crisis at once because all this vast buying power would be withdrawn from the market. To keep the system running the capitalists must be able to keep their profits and spend them too. They do that by spending their increased money-capital for capital equipment, additional machines and factories. Thus their accumulation of wealth can really grow, and only such growth can avoid a crisis for the system. Yet capital investments through the building of new factories is possible only as new markets are found for the increased output. The growth of the home market is soon used up; and the capitalists must look outside, to yet undeveloped countries as fields for growth. Once there is no profitable use for capital at home, it will be used to increase profits by exporting the capital abroad, to backward countries.

The workers know what full production can accomplish, they know that the fetters on production must be removed, and they are searching for the program that will do it. The working class as a whole is voicing this demand, a demand which cannot be satisfied except by socialism, because only socialism can take the capitalist fetters off production.

 A capitalist owns a factory for making, let us say, clothing. He also owns, or can borrow from the bank, some funds to buy raw material, such as cloth and thread, and to hire workers. He owns the necessary machinery and money for production, therefore he gives the orders to run, or to shut down and lay off the workers. The capitalist estimates how much clothing he can sell at a good price and orders production of that much. His money is tied up in the commodities that have been produced until he sells them and gets his money back, plus a profit. The central point here is that profit comes from production and is collected in the sale of commodities. The connection with production may be hidden by one or many steps in between. For instance, if this manufacturer borrows some bank funds the bank seems to draw interest from “loaning money” rather than production, but in reality, the bank’s interest comes from the factory’s production and sales, just the same.

The capitalist ties up his money in production, and he must sell the commodities at a good price or suffer a loss. Therefore, if he sees no market for the commodities he is wiser to shut down the factory and keep his money instead of risking it. Of course if he shuts down the workers go without jobs and society goes without clothing, but that’s the system. Under capitalism clothing factories are run by capitalists for increase of capital, and not by society for clothes.

Thus any single capitalist can allow the wheels to turn in his factory only when production will increase his capital. This also is true for the capitalist class as a whole; production is possible only when it will increase the total capital wealth. Capitalism cannot run on an even level; it must expand or perish. If the clothing factory owner has made a profit, his money-capital has grown. But a mere growth of a hoard of idle money, without growth of the plant which it can serve, is not a growth of real wealth. Nothing irks a capitalist more than idle money, bringing no return. Moreover, if he and his fellow capitalists should try to pile up idle money, instead of buying commodities with it, their hoarding would discourage the production of commodities, since they could not be sold, and this would bring on a crisis in the economic system.

The solution, of course, is for the capitalists to invest their money-capital in real capital equipment, that is, buy more machinery and build more factories. Thus their real wealth would grow, their money would be invested to bring a profit, it would be buying commodities, machinery and building materials, and thus keeping the economic system in a healthy state. This solution has this catch to it. There has to be a growing market to buy the additional commodities that the additional factories would produce. Otherwise the new factories would prove a losing investment. To maintain capitalism this growth must go on forever. When the capitalists can’t find new markets they can’t invest by buying machines for new factories. Their failure to buy throws workers out of jobs, workers who were part of their old market, and the further drop in their old market thus builds up into a crisis. The capitalists must have the very special condition of always finding new markets or they can’t even keep their old markets. Again it becomes clear that capitalism must expand or perish.

The problem of the capitalists is to keep finding a steady supply of new investment opportunities for their capital. Not employment for workers, but “employment” for capital is their need. The aim is to stabilise capitalism, not to give jobs to workers. Still, one might say that if they want to save capitalism by providing plenty of good jobs, we don’t have to object just because the offer comes from the bosses. But when we dig into the economics of this program it turns out to be a plan for full “employment” of capital, not of workers. Under capitalism, this must necessarily be the case.

The working class has a long history of militant class struggle against the capitalist system. The courageous struggles of the workers have played a major role in the international workers’ movement. The working class has produced countless heroes of the world proletariat. The fight to build and defend the trade unions has been an essential part of the history of working class struggle. The trade unions are the broadest and most basic organisation of the working class and have served as centers for organizing the class as a whole. We build the unions and defend them from the capitalist assaults, for they are indispensable weapons of the class struggle. Workers have learned the necessity to unite against the capitalists. Employers have recognised the strength of the organised resistance of the working class and tries to destroy the trade unions.

 The bosses and the workers are locked in constant battle for their survival. Failing to bring out clearly that the capitalists are driven by the laws that govern their system, we contributed to the illusion that capitalists can re-order their priorities to meet the needs of the people. Capital chases after the highest rate of profit, as surely as iron is drawn to a magnet - this is a law beyond anyone’s will, even the capitalists’, and it will continue in force so long as society is ruled by capital.

 The capitalists have attacked with every weapon at their command. They have battered down our wages to destitution levels. They have cast many of us on to the scrap-heap of unemployment. They call upon us to agree to their power for another five years, in order that they may cover the further degradations they have in store with the appearance of our consent.We want an end of class tyranny so don’t vote for capitalism, despite the label on the particular political party. They all stand upon the backs of the workers, and differ on only over their share of the plunder. We must stand together against them. The only struggle for us is the struggle of the workers against their exploiters.

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” The two parts of this phrase are inseparable. “From each according to his abilities,” means: work has now ceased to be an obligation, and society has no further use for any compulsion. Only those unable to will refuse to work. Working “according to their ability” – that is, in accord with their physical and mental capability, without any harm to themselves – the members of the community will, thanks to highly developed technology and production methods can sufficiently fill up the stores of society so that society can generously endow each and all “according to their needs,” without humiliating control. This assumes abundance and equality.

The first task of socialism is to guarantee the comforts of life to all. A socialist society as Marx envisages it is a society beyond scarcity. There exists a perversion of Marx’s description of socialist society that says “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” where workers are still paid wages for their labour power, and more particularly by piecework. Their labour is forced from them on penalty of deprivation, just as under capitalism. One of the most basic principles of Marxism is that the working class are the makers of history and that correct ideas arise from and in turn serve the struggle of the people. 

Tory Party Backers

The Conservative Party are well aware that in a period of economic difficulties it is not a good idea to advertise the immense wealth of their backers, so when they had a fund-raising dinner they made certain that no champagne would be served. 'There may not have been vintage Krug, but there was plenty of money, with guests worth a collective £10bn-plus. The leaked seating plan reveals an extraordinary coming together of British and foreign wealth - a who's who at the upper echelons of Cameroonian power. There were Greek shipping magnates, hedge-fund managers, cash and carry barons, investment bankers, and Russian tycoons.' (Guardian, 1 July) Perhaps to illustrate that it was not a completely frugal affair though David Cameron sat at a table with Howard Shore, the multimillionaire banker and Tory donor whose firm, Shore Capital, sponsored the event. RD

Beauty And Wonder? Who Cares?

With polar ice disappearing rapidly, the Amazon jungle being destroyed by mining and logging we now have a new planet-destroying development of capitalism. 'Many of the Caribbean's coral reefs could vanish in the next 20 years, according to a report published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Data from more than 35,000 surveys suggests that habitats have declined by more than 50% since the 1970s. The report's authors believe that over-fishing and disease is mainly to blame.' (BBC News, 2 July) Carl Gustaf Lundin, director of IUCN's Global Marine and Polar Programme, said the findings were alarming. "Tourism is one of the biggest industries, and the health of the reef is essential to the well-being of many of the people living there. And of course they are immensely beautiful and wonderful places as well." What Mr Lundin does not seem to realise is that beauty and wonder mean nothing when it comes to the profit motive of capitalism. RD

The Revolutionary Vote (3/3)

A spoiled vote is not a wasted vote 

In these days of elections versus coups many participate by supporting the lesser evil. In elections and referenda we advocate the spoiled ballot paper. SOYMB’s attention has belatedly been drawn to a 2006 Guardian book review of Seeing by José Saramago by Ursula Le Guin, famed author of the anarchist science-fiction classic the Dispossessed.

“The story begins with those ordinary citizens, who not so long ago regained their sight and their tranquil day-to-day lives, doing something that seems quite unconnected with vision or lack of it. It is voting day, and 83% of them, after not going to the polls at all in the morning, go in the late afternoon and cast a blank ballot...Turning in a blank ballot is a signal unfamiliar to most Britons and Americans, who aren't yet used to living under a government that has made voting meaningless. In a functioning democracy, one can consider not voting a lazy protest liable to play into the hands of the party in power (as when low Labour turn-out allowed Margaret Thatcher's re-elections, and Democratic apathy secured both elections of George W Bush). It comes hard to me to admit that a vote is not in itself an act of power, and I was at first blind to the point Saramago's non-voting voters are making. I began to see it at last, when the minister of defence announces that what the country is facing is terrorism.”

Do the trappings of democracy really guarantee a truly democratic way of life? Do they ensure rule by the people? Socialists argue that the answer to these questions is a resounding "No!" and that real democracy involves far more. It is true that the vote, together with other hard-won rights such as the rights of assembly, political organisation and freedom of speech, are most important. At the same time we must recognise that genuine democracy is more than these freedoms and the right to vote. Whilst ‘one person one vote’ is an essential ingredient of democratic society, democracy implies much more than the simple right to periodically choose between representative of political parties. We are not under any illusion about the nature of democracy inside capitalism. Can the act of electing a government result in a democratic society? To govern is to direct, control and to rule with authority. Operating as the state this is what governments do. But to say that democracy is merely the act of electing a government to rule over us cannot be correct because democracy should include all people in deciding how we live and what we do as a community. Democracy means the absence of privilege, making our decisions from a position of equality. Democracy means that we should live in a completely open society with unrestricted access to the information relevant to social issues. It means that we should have the powers to act on our decisions, because without such powers decisions are useless

Ordinary working people are targeted with propaganda and public relations exercises to induce acceptance of things that are contrary to our interests. The effectiveness of this propaganda is illustrated by the widening gap between people’s preferences and government policy which often result in the quiet acceptance of unpopular austerity cuts in social spending. It is hardly surprising that working people become increasingly disillusioned with "democracy" and politics and register their frustration by declining participation in elections. We start to believe that if our vote is so ineffective in changing things there can be little point in casting it. We become exactly what our master class wants us to be, obedient and silent.

 The necessity of capturing the machinery of government including the armed forces is the fundamental thing. The method, though important, is secondary to this. The ballot box is a tactic.Workers should not turn their back on the electoral system as such. The electoral system can be used to effect the revolutionary act of abolishing capitalism by signalling that a majority of ordinary people fully understand and want to effect that change. Critics fail to appreciate the different content of the term "parliamentary" as applied to orthodox parties and to those who advocated using the ballot to capture the State.

The World Socialist Movement indeed hold it essential that the transformation to a new society be started by formal democratic methods—that is, by persuasion and the secret ballot. For there is no other way of ascertaining accurately the views of the population. The result of a properly conducted ballot will make it clear, in the event of an overwhelming socialist vote, to any minority that they are the minority and that any attempt to oppose the desires of the majority by violence would be futile. The formal establishment of the socialist majority's control of the state avoids the possibility of effective use of its forces against the revolutionary movement. An attempt to establish a socialist society by ignoring the democratic process gives any recalcitrant minority, the excuse for possibly violent anti-socialist action justified by the.claim that the alleged majority did not in fact exist or that the assumed majority was not likely to be a consistent or decisive one. Ultimately, force is on the side of the numerical superiority ofordinary working people and will make their demands unstoppable

Despite its shortcomings, elections to a parliament based on universal suffrage are still the best method available for workers to express a majority desire for socialism. The ruling class who monopolise the ownership of wealth do so through their control of parliament by capitalist parties elected by workers. Control of parliament by representatives of a conscious revolutionary movement will enable the bureaucratic-military apparatus to be dismantled and the oppressive forces of the state to be neutralised, so that Socialism may be introduced with the least possible violence and disruption. Representatives elected by workers to parliament have continually compromised to the needs of capitalism, but then so have representatives on the industrial field. The institution is not here at fault; it is just that people's ideas have not yet developed beyond belief in leaders and dependence on a political elite. 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. The vote will merely be the legitimate stamp which will allow for the dismantling of the repressive apparatus of the state, heralding the end of bourgeois democracy and the establishment of real democracy. It is the Achilles heel of capitalism which makes a non-violent revolution possible. Using the vote workers will neutralise the state and its repressive forces.

The Socialist Party adopted the policy of trying to gain control of the machinery of government through the ballot box by campaigning on an exclusively socialist programme without seeking support on a policy of reforms; while supporting parliamentary action they refused to advocate reforms. This has remained its policy to this day. Mandating delegates, voting on resolutions and membership ballots are democratic practices for ensuring that the members of an organisation control that organisation – and as such key procedures in any organisation genuinely seeking socialism. Socialism can only be a fully democratic society in which everybody will have an equal say in the ways things are run. This means that it can only come about democratically, both in the sense of being the expressed will of the working class and in the sense of the working class being organised democratically – without leaders, but with mandated delegates – to achieve it. The socialist movement must stand firmly by democracy, by the methods of socialist education and political organisation, and the method of gaining control of the machinery of government and the armed forces through the vote where possible and only with the backing of a majority of convinced socialists.

 The Socialist Party has never held that a merely formal majority at the polls will give the workers power to achieve socialism. We have always emphasised that such a majority must be educated in the essentials of socialist principles. The Socialist Party does not propose to form a government and so does not call for people to "vote us into office". Socialist candidates stand as recallable mandated delegates at elections to act as little more than messenger boys and girls sent to formally take over and dismantle the State, not as leaders or would-be government ministers.

There is a view of some of our critics that envisages only a minority-led revolution, with an active minority leading a mass of merely discontented but not socialist-minded workers. Even if such a revolution were to succeed it would not, and could not, lead to socialism . They are not thinking, as we are, in terms of a majoritarian revolution, one involving the active and democratic participation of a majority of the population. Even if such a revolution were to succeed it would not, and could not, lead to socialism. For socialists in the WSM, democracy is not an optional extra or simply a means to an end. It is part of our end. Unless a majority of industrial and white collar workers want socialism and organise themselves without leaders to get it then socialism is impossible. On the other hand, if they do want it, nothing can stop them getting it, not even a hypothetical abolition of political democracy by a recalcitrant capitalist government. No government can continue to govern in the face of active opposition from those they govern. 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. Even if a pro-capitalist minority somewhere 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. But we doubt that it will come to that.

Democracy is not just a set of rules or a parliament; it is a process, a process that must be fought for. The struggle for democracy is the struggle for socialism.It is the struggle for an idea, a belief that we can run our own lives, that we have a right to a say in how society is run, for a belief that the responsibility for democracy lies not upon the politicians or their bureaucrats, but upon ourselves. We want democracy to extend to all spheres of social life. For us that’s what socialism is – the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life by the whole community. But genuine democracy will not be achieved by relying on economists or other supposed experts to design it.

William Morris wrote about democracy in a passage he explains the mechanism of democracy :
“Said I ‘So you settle these differences, great and small, by the will of the majority, I suppose?’
‘Certainly,’ said he; ‘How else could we settle them? You see in matters which are merely personal which do not affect the welfare of the community – how a man shall dress, what he shall eat and drink, what he shall write and read, and so forth – there can be no difference of opinion, and everybody does as he pleases. But when the matter is of interest to the whole community, and the doing or not doing something affects everybody, the majority must have their way . . . in a society of men who are free and equal – the apparent majority is the real majority, and the others, as I have hinted before, know too well to obstruct from mere pigheadedness; especially as they have had plenty of opportunity of putting forward their side of the question.’ ”

Socialism and democracy are complementary; more than complementary – indivisible. In the sense that a democratic society can only result from free, conscious choice, it is a by-product of freedom. But in both a social and a political context freedom can only exist as a by-product of democracy. Whichever way round it is will not matter, when it is thriving in that community yet to be established, where though it still rains, we still quarrel and new problems confront us every day – we have learned to accept that, just occasionally, we may be wrong but rejoice in the fact that tomorrow we retain the incontrovertible right to be wrong again. Democracy can not be left to mature on its own like a good wine but needs to breathe out of the bottle, kept fresh by continual practice. Socialism will involve people making decisions about their own lives and those of families, friends and neighbours. This will not just be the trappings of democracy but the real thing - people deciding about and running their own lives, within a system of equality and fellowship.

The World Socialist Movement does not intend playing into the hands of the global ruling class and their political mouth-pieces. We don't intend making it easy for them to treat world socialism as an "undemocratic" threat. Where it is available to workers we take the viewpoint that capitalist democracy can and should be used. But not in order to chase the ever diminishing returns of reforming capitalism. Instead we see democracy as a critically important instrument available to class-conscious workers for making a genuine social revolution. And in the process of making a revolution the really interesting work can start of course: that of reinventing a democracy fit for society on a world-wide human scale. A democracy that is free from patronage, power games and the profit motive.

Parliament
Parliament grew out of feudalism and after the capitalist revolution. It was founded on private property foundations. Its laws are the laws of private property. Nevertheless, the modifications that have taken place, the extension of the franchise and the growth of social legislation for the working-class are the reflection of the growing strength and power of the working-class. The greater the crisis of capitalism the more Parliament reflects the class struggle in its work, because more the capitalists attempt to use it as the means to regulate capitalist economy and  the more they are impeded by the increasing claims of the workers who feel the full force of the crisis. This is seen in the protests against austerity cuts, against the attacks on benefits, against the lowering of the standard of life, against the crushing burdens and the pauperisation of the workers.

The first moves towards control of parliament by means of elected representation emerged in England in the 17th century, as parliament attempted to expand its authority at the expense of the king. The electorate was limited to the small minority, who regarded it as imperative that they capture exclusive political power to pass laws that would safeguard their land and property interests from the "propertyless masses". Their purpose was to exclude ordinary people who might voice views dangerous to the propertied class or pass laws detrimental to their interests. The control exerted over parliament became a reflection of the property relations in society; a role that parliament has successfully fulfilled, largely unchallenged, to the present day. The capitalist class in to-day's world cannot supply the brains to carry on the business of government. They have to co-opt professional politicians from the class beneath them. That they are forced to requisition fresh blood from outside their class to fight against the working class. Industrial questions and disputes occupy an increasing amount of Parliamentary time. Working-class problems as they affect the capitalist, become more insistent and call for more attention from their representatives on the executive body. How to deal with the growing “unrest” is fast becoming the chief problem before Parliament. There is no pretence of giving the workers the vote because it is their right, or because it will benefit them. It is given merely because it means an improved form of government. Stability is the object to be attained. the capitalist class have been compelled to confer the franchise, and must continually extend it. The master class were compelled to give, although they made a virtue out of necessity and said they gave it because they loved the principles of democracy. But no matter how they got them, the workers have far more votes than their masters. With the knowledge of their slave-position and the courage to organise, these votes can be used as the means to their emancipation. The capitalist class cannot repudiate what they have established. The vote was given to secure their own domination; if they discard it they lose legitmacy and have no sanction to govern. Whilst parliamentary government still operates to protect property, the concessions and the elbow room that have been won in capitalist democracy are important and of value to working people. The realisation that genuine democracy cannot exist in capitalist society does not alter the fact that the elbow room already secured by struggle can be turned against our masters. The right to vote, for instance, can become a powerful instrument to end our servitude and to achieve genuine democracy and freedom. Working people with an understanding of socialism can utilise their vote to signify that the overwhelming majority demand change and to bring about social revolution. For while democracy cannot exist outside of socialism, socialism cannot be achieved without the overwhelming majority of working people demanding it.

The first moves towards control of parliament by means of elected representation emerged in England in the 17th century. The control exerted over parliament became a reflection of the property relations in society; a role that parliament has successfully fulfilled, largely unchallenged, to the present day. As capitalism emerged as the dominant social system, competition and the misery of working people intensified, so worker organisations struggled against laws that hampered their ability to defend themselves and improve their conditions. The ‘Anti-Combination Laws’ that made unions illegal were repealed in 1824, although it wasn’t until the depression of the 1870s and the Trade Union Act of 1871 that legal protection was granted to union funds. Later, peaceful picketing was allowed. Likewise, the struggle to achieve universal suffrage was slow, driven by overcrowding, excessive hours, child labour, dangerous working conditions and dire poverty. It took the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867 and 1884 to expand the franchise, but even by 1900 only 27 percent of the male population had the vote and it would take a further 30 years before full adult suffrage would be conceded to working people. This summary raises two important issues. The first is that whilst parliamentary government still operates to protect property, the concessions and the elbow room that have been won in capitalist democracy are important and of value to working people. Rights to organise politically, express dissension and combine in trade unions, for example, are valuable not only as a defence against capitalism, but from a socialist viewpoint are a platform from which socialist understanding can spread, while the right to vote the means by which socialism will be achieved. At the same time we must recognise that genuine democracy is more than these freedoms and the right to vote. Whilst ‘one person one vote’ is an essential ingredient of democratic society, democracy implies much more than the simple right to choose between representative of political parties every five years. The Chartist movement, in the 19th century, saw that gaining the right to vote was meaningless unless it could be used to effect "change". But today exercising our democratic right to vote for a conventional political party does not effect change. It amounts to little more than making a selection between rival representatives of power and class interest whose overarching function is to protect private property and make profits flow. It is representative government where all the representatives support obedience to the capitalist system.

What are the obstacles to the working  class exercising the power of government?

The first obstacle is working-class ignorance, which is used to vote capitalists and their agents into political supremacy. The second obstacle is the force which is used by the capitalists in control of Parliament to keep the workers in subjection. Socialists have no illusions about the democratic credentials of the politicians of the Left, the Right or the Centre. What the capitalist class, and the political parties that serve that class, call democracy is a contrived form of consensus in which the political parties conspire to ensure that the maximum number of people accept a system of law which guarantees a minority class in society the legal right to own and control the means of life of the great majority. To achieve and maintain that system of Law – and the Order that ensures the right of that minority to exploit and impoverish the majority – capitalism must have political control of the state machine. A vital part of the process that maintains the illusion of democratic choice is the power to confine political knowledge – and, thus, political options – to those parties whose policies are firmly rooted in an acceptance of capitalism.

Further Reading:
What's Wrong With Using Parliament?
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/20C/Parliament_update.html
Government or democracy
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/government_or_democracy.php

Recovery? What Recovery?

Research by Loughborough University on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation into the relationship between wages and the cost of living came up with figures that suggest that living costs have risen three times faster than wages. 'The report found that, since the start of the recession, energy bills have gone up by 45 per cent, public transport by 37 per cent, food by 28 per cent, rents by 30 per cent and childcare by 42 per cent.' (Times, 30 June) Politicians have the cheek to call this an economic recovery! RD

Conspicuous Consumption

There are many examples of how the owning class indulge themselves, but this report takes a a bit of beating. 'The world's most expensive yachts include the Eclipse, which at 162m boasts a leisure submarine, a 16m pool which can be transformed into a dance floor, and room for three helicopters. It is said to be owned by Roman Abramovich and valued at £740 million.' (Times, 30 June) The report goes on to list various other super-sized yacht including the Azzam which is 180m long. RD

The Revolutionary Vote (2/3)

The Power of the Ballot Box

“The irony of history turns everything topsy-turvy. We, the ‘revolutionists’, thrive better by the use of constitutional means than by unconstitutional and revolutionary methods. The parties of law and order, as they term themselves, are being destroyed by the constitutional implements which they themselves have fashioned.” - Engels

"...the more the proletariat matures towards its self-emancipation, the more does it constitute itself as a separate class and elect its own representatives in place of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It can and never will be that in the modern State. But that is sufficient. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage reaches its boiling point among the labourers, they as well as the capitalists will know what to do.” - Engels

Fewer and fewer people are bothering to vote in elections correctly realising that it will have little effect on their everyday lives. Attempts to reform capitalism have failed. Many activists accept that voting in elections are a waste of time? After all, as anarchists say,  if voting changed anything it would be illegal? Many militants argue against contesting elections on the grounds that this inevitably leads to it becoming reformist and that revolutionary politicians, whatever may have been their original intention, end up merely administering capitalism because “power corrupts” and have in the past, and in the present, and in the future, too, will  betray the working class. It is also claimed that that Parliament is not the real seat of power but a mere "talking-shop" charade. Certainly, political democracy under capitalism is not all that it is purported to be by many supporters of the system and it is severely limited, from the point of view of democratic theory, by the very nature of capitalism as an unequal, class-divided society. Certainly, "democracy" has become an ideology used to give capitalist rule a spurious legitimacy. But it is still sufficient to allow the working class to organise politically and economically without too much state interference and also, we would argue, to allow a future socialist majority to gain control of political power.

The vote is not a gift to the people from the ruling class out of the benevolence of their heart. It was fought for and ceded by the wealthy to the poor out of fear and so we don't advocate de facto disenfranchisement of the worker by promoting political abstention. The right to vote can become a powerful instrument to end our servitude and to achieve genuine democracy and freedom. Working people with an understanding of socialism can use their vote to signify that the overwhelming majority demand change and to bring about social revolution. The first object of a socialist organisation 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. What our capitalist opponents consequently do when the majority wish to prevail will determine our subsequent actions . If they accept defeat, well and good. If they choose not to accept the verdict of the majority which is given through the medium of their own institutions and contest that verdict by physical force, then the workers will respond in kind, with the legitimacy and the authority of a democratic mandate. 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 - not made so by capitalist rulers but developed and evolved over centuries and through struggles. The power over the means of life which the capitalist class has, is vested in its control of the political machinery.

 The institution of parliament is not at fault. It is just that people's ideas have not yet developed beyond belief in leaders and dependence on a political elite. Control of parliament by representatives of a conscious revolutionary movement will enable the bureaucratic-military apparatus to be dismantled and the oppressive forces of the state to be neutralised, so that Socialism may be introduced with the least possible violence and disruption. Parliament and local councils, to the extent that their functions are administrative and not governmental , can and will be used to co-ordinate the emergency immediate measures to transform society when Socialism is established. Far better, is it not, if only to minimise the risk of violence, to organise to win a majority in parliament, not to form a government, but to end capitalism and dismantle the state.

Ownership of the world's economic resources is certainly an economic factor, but that ownership, if challenged, will find its means of enforcement by and through the State political machine, which, as everybody should know, includes the armed forces. Of course, an elaborate legal machinery exists whereby claims on private property are settled among the capitalists themselves, but behind the judiciary and the legislature stands the means of enforcing the decrees. The political arm of capitalism rules the economic body of the system in the final analysis: which reveals the chief reason why the capitalist class concern themselves so much about political action; they realise that in this field their economic interest finds its ultimate, if not immediate, protection. Thus, the political organisation of the workers for socialist purposes is thrust upon us as a primary and imperative necessity.

The World Socialist Movement, in aiming for the control of the State, is a political party in the immediate sense. (No doubt, at the same time, the working class will also have organised itself, at the various places of work, in order to keep production going, but nothing can be done here until the machinery of coercion which is the state has been taken out of the hands of the capitalist class by political action). The workers' 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.

 Political democracy under capitalism is not all that it is purported to be by supporters of the system and it is severely limited, from the point of view of democratic theory, by the very nature of capitalism as an unequal, class-divided society. Certainly, "democracy" has become an ideology used to give capitalist rule a spurious legitimacy. But it is still sufficient to allow the working class to organise politically and economically without too much state interference and also, we would argue, to allow a future socialist majority to gain control of political power.

Capitalist democracy is one where the political agenda is dominated by trivial and often insignificant debate between political parties with the same class based convictions. Other exponents of capitalist democracy to keep democracy working in the interests of capital, public opinion must be moulded and manipulated to encourage obedience – to “manufacture consent” in Chomskyian parlance. Ordinary working people are to be targeted with propaganda and ‘public relations’ exercises to induce acceptance of things that are contrary to our interests. The effectiveness of this propaganda is illustrated by the widening gap between people’s preferences and government policy which often result in the quiet acceptance of, say, unpopular cuts in social spending or policies clearly incompatible with their interests.

It is hardly surprising that working people become increasingly disillusioned with ‘democracy’ and politics and register their frustration by declining participation in elections. We start to believe that if our vote is so ineffective in changing things there can be little point in casting it. We become exactly what our master class wants us to be, obedient and silent. It is quickly apparent that in capitalism freedom is an illusion because freedom cannot exist when the conditions for the exercise of free choice do not exist. In capitalist democracy freedom has become a commodity strictly limited to the amount that can be purchased by a given wage or salary. In the workplace our ‘work’ organised under a strict division of labour is often tedious and repetitive; we have become an appendage to a machine or computer in industry organised on a strictly ‘top-down’ chain of authority – more fitting to a tyranny. This is what freedom means under capitalism. Today, we must view with suspicion attempts to further restrict or limit our legal rights by carefully considering the motives that lie behind such moves. For we need to use these rights to organise and spread socialist understanding so a socialist majority can capture political power, end capitalism and establish socialism. Only then will we have genuine freedom and a genuine democracy.

Democracy under capitalism is reduced to people voting for competing groups of professional politicians, to giving the thumbs-up or the thumbs-down to the governing or opposition party . Political analysts call this the "elite theory of democracy" since under it, all that the people get to choose is which elite should exercise government power. This contrasts with the original theory of democracy which envisages popular participation in the running of affairs and which political analysts call "participatory democracy".

This is the sort of democracy socialists favour but we know it's never going to exist under capitalism. The most we will get under capitalism is the right to vote, under more-or-less fair conditions, for who shall control political power—a minimalist form of democracy but not to be dismissed for that since it at least provides a mechanism whereby a socialist majority could vote in socialist delegates instead of capitalist politicians.

The original Social Democratic parties had in addition to the “maximum” programme of socialism what they called a “minimum programme” of immediate reforms to capitalism. What happened is that they attracted votes on the basis of their miniumum, not their maximum, programme, i.e. reformist votes, and so became the prisoners of these voters. In parliament, and later in office, they found themselves with no freedom of action other than to compromise with capitalism. Had they been the mandated delegates of those who voted for them (rather than leaders) this could be expressed by saying that they had no mandate for socialism, only to try to reform capitalism. It was not a case of being corrupted by the mere fact of going into national parliaments but was due to the basis on which they went there and how this restricted what they could do. In short, it is not power as such that corrupts. It is power obtained on the basis of followers voting for leaders to implement reforms that, if you want to put it that way, “corrupts”.

Capitalist democracy is not a participatory democracy, which a genuine democracy has to be. In practice the people generally elect to central legislative assemblies and local councils professional politicians who they merely vote for and then let them get on with the job. In other words, the electors abdicate their responsibility to keep any eye on their representatives, giving them a free hand to do what the operation of capitalism demands. But that’s as much the fault of the electors as of their representatives, or rather it is a reflection of their low level of democratic consciousness. It cannot be blamed on the principle of representation as such. There is no reason in principle why, with a heightened democratic consciousness (such as would accompany the spread of socialist ideas), even representatives sent to state bodies could not be subject – while the state lasts – to democratic control by those who sent them there. The argument that anarchists sometimes raise against this is that “power corrupts”. But if power inevitability corrupts why does this not apply also in non-parliamentary elected bodies such as syndicalist union committees or workers councils?

Marx’s theory of socialist revolution is grounded on the fundamental principle that “The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself”. Marx held to this view throughout his political activity, and it distinguished his theory of social change from that of both those who appealed to the princes, governments and industrialists to change the world for the benefit of the working class (such as Robert Owen or Saint Simon) and of those who relied on the determined action of some enlightened minority of professional revolutionaries to liberate the working class (such as Blanqui and Weitling). Marx's conception of what a fully democratic system would be like seems to had been influenced by events in France. Here's how he described the Paris Commune of 1871 which he held up as an example of how the working class should exercise political power once they had won control of it:
"The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time..In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents."

The democratic organisation of all people as citizens of the world would need to operate through different scales of social co-operation. Locally, in town or country, we would be involved with our parish or neighbourhood. Even now, there are many thousands of men and women throughout the country who work voluntarily on parish and district councils and in town neighbourhoods for the benefit of their communities. But these efforts would be greatly enhanced by the freedoms of a society run entirely through voluntary co-operation. Such local organisation would be in the context of regional co-operation which could operate by adapting the structures of present national governments. Whilst some departments such as Inland Revenue and the Treasury, essential to the capitalist state, would be abolished, others like Agriculture and the Environment could be adapted to the needs of socialist society and could be part of regional councils and would assist in the work of implementing the decisions of regional populations. With the abolition of the market system, communities in socialism will not only be able to make free and democratic decisions about what needs to be done they will also be free to use their resources to achieve those aims. Communities will be free to decide democratically how best to use those resources. Small units could be run by regular meetings of all the workers. In the cases of large organisations these could be run by elected committees accountable to the people working in them. In this way, democratic practice would apply not just to the important policy decisions that would steer the main direction of development, it would extend to the day-to-day activities of the work place.

“I believe that the Socialists will certainly send members to Parliament when they are strong enough to do so; in itself I see no harm in that, so long as it is understood that they go there as rebels, and not as members of the governing body prepared to pass palliative measures to keep Society alive.” William Morris

The Revolutionary Vote (1/3)

The Ballot as a Weapon (Pt 1)

“Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers' candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled.” Karl Marx

“I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want, and get it.”  Eugene V. Debs

Introduction
Socialists want a revolution but one involving much more than a change of political control. We want a social revolution, a revolution in the basis of society, a sweeping, fundamental change in political and economical organisation. No-one can be exactly sure which form the revolutionary process will take but many socialists hold that the potential use of parliament as part of a revolutionary process may prove vitally important in neutralising the ruling class's hold on state power. It is the most effective way of abolishing the state and ushering in the revolutionary society.

 The vote is a potential class weapon, a potential "instrument of emancipation" as Marx put it. He and Engels always held that the bourgeois democratic republic was the best political framework for the development and triumph of the socialist movement. For Marx the key task of the working class was to win "the battle of democracy". This was to capture control of the political machinery of society for the majority so that production could be socialised. Then the coercive powers of the state could be dismantled as a consequence of the abolition of class society. Marx said that you cannot carry on socialism with capitalist governmental machinery; that you must transform the government of one class by another into the administration of social affairs; that between the capitalist society and socialist society lies a period of transformation during which one after another the political forms of to-day will disappear, but the worst features must be lopped off immediately the working class obtains supremacy in the state.

The vote is revolutionary when on the basis of class it organises labour against capital. Parliamentary action is revolutionary when on the floor of parliament it raises the call of the discontented; and when it reveals the capitalist system's impotence and powerlessness to satisfy the workers wants. The duty of a socialist party is to use parliament in order to complete the proletarian education and organisation, and to bring to a conclusion the revolution. Parliament, is to be valued not for the petty reforms obtainable through it, but because through the control of the machinery of government will the socialist majority be in a position to establish socialism.

 The working class is the key political class, whoever wins its support wins the day, hence why the factions of the capitalist party vie for working class votes. Socialists recognise parliament as an institution geared to the needs of capitalism, and therefore inappropriate as the vehicle for a fundamental transformation of society, but regard certain electoral practices as coinciding, to some extent, with the principles governing that transformation, adding the possibility of a peaceful transition. There need be no straight-forward, exclusive and exhaustive choice between constitutionalism and violent seizure of power. Certain elements within existing institutions may be valued, and action taken in conformity with them, while others may not. It serves to limit violence to the role of self-defence in the event of resistance when a clear majority for revolutionary change is apparent, rather than the use of violence as the primary means of change. Rights to organise politically, express dissension and combine in trade unions, for example, are valuable not only as a defence against capitalism, but from a socialist viewpoint are a platform from which socialist understanding can spread, while the right to vote can be the means by which socialism will be achieved. At the same time, we  recognise that genuine democracy is more than these freedoms.

If there were a working class committed to socialism the correct method of achieving political power would be to fight the general election on a revolutionary programme, without any reforms to attract support from non-socialists. In fact, the first stage in a socialist revolution is for the vast majority of the working class to use their votes as class weapons. This would represent the transfer of political power to the working class. We adopt this position not because we are fixated by legality, nor because we overlook the cynical two-faced double-dealing which the capitalists will no doubt resort to. We say, however, that a majority of socialist delegates voted into the national assembly or parliament would use political power to coordinate the measures needed to overthrow the capitalist system. Any minority which was inclined to waver would have second thoughts about taking on such a socialist majority which was in a position to wield the state power.

The capitalist class are the dominant class today because they control the State (machinery of government/political power). And they control the State because a majority of the population allow them to, by, apart from their everyday attitudes, voting for pro-capitalism parties at election times, so returning a pro-capitalism majority to Parliament, so ensuring that any government emerging from Parliament will be pro-capitalism. If the people are to establish socialism they must first take this control of the State (including the armed forces) out of the hands of the capitalist class, so that it can be used to uproot capitalism and usher in socialism. In countries where there exist more or less free elections to a central law-making body to which the executive, or government, is responsible, the working class can do this by sending a majority of mandated delegates to the elected, central legislative body. Just as today a pro-capitalism majority in Parliament reflects the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population wants or accepts capitalism, so a socialist majority in Parliament would reflect the fact that a majority outside Parliament wanted socialism. Socialists contesting elections should make no promises and offering no reforms except for using parliament as a tool for the abolition of capitalism .

The easiest and surest way for a socialist majority to gain control of political power in order to establish socialism is to use the existing electoral machinery to send a majority of mandated socialist delegates to the various parliaments of the world. This is why we advocate using Parliament; not to try to reform capitalism (the only way Parliaments have been used up till now), but for the single revolutionary purpose of abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism by converting the means of production and distribution into the common property of the whole of society. No doubt, at the same time, the working class will also have organised itself, at the various places of work, in order to keep production going, but nothing can be done here until the machinery of coercion which is the state has been taken out of the hands of the capitalist class by political action.

Democracy
Whilst ‘one person one vote’ is an essential ingredient of democratic society, democracy implies much more than the simple right to choose between representative of political parties every four or five years. The Chartist movement, in the 19th century, saw that gaining the right to vote was meaningless unless it could be used to effect change. But today exercising our democratic right to vote for a conventional political party does not effect change. Ordinary working people are to be targeted with propaganda and public relations exercises to induce acceptance of things that are contrary to our interests. The effectiveness of this propaganda is illustrated by the widening gap between people’s preferences and government policy which often result in the quiet acceptance of, say, unpopular cuts in social spending or policies clearly incompatible with their interests. It is hardly surprising that working people become increasingly disillusioned with "democracy" and politics and register their frustration by declining participation in elections. We start to believe that if our vote is so ineffective in changing things there can be little point in casting it. We become exactly what our master class wants us to be, obedient and docile.

In those countries that have elections, people are asked to select a new government through what is said to be a democratic process. It is true that the vote, together with those other hard-won rights such as the rights of assembly, political organisation and free expression, are most important. But can the act of electing a government result in a democratic society? To govern is to direct, control and to rule with authority. Operating as the state this is what governments do. But to say that democracy is merely the act of electing a government to rule over us cannot be right because democracy should include all people in deciding how we live and what we do as a community. Democracy means the absence of privilege, making our decisions from a position of equality. Democracy means that we should live in a completely open society with unrestricted access to the information relevant to social issues. It means that we should have the powers to act on our decisions, because without such powers decisions are useless.

Democracy is one of those words like freedom or justice that is constantly misused and prone to expedient adaptation. Many people would argue that Britain (or India) and by this, they mean the regular elections to parliament and local government, the freedom to organise political parties, a press which is not beholden to the government, and the rule of law. If people object to the policies of the government they can vote them out of office. If they oppose a specific action by the authorities, they can set up a protest group and hold demonstrations, without the fear of being carted off to prison for voicing their views. In this, comparisons are drawn with dictatorships, where elections may be non-existent or a sham, where independent parties and trade unions are outlawed, where the press just follow the government line, and arbitrary arrest and even torture are commonplace. Do the trappings of democracy really guarantee a truly democratic way of life? Do they ensure "rule by the people"? Socialists argue that the answer to these questions is a resounding "no!", and that real democracy - a social democracy, as it might be called - involves far more.

Under a capitalist system there is a built-in lack of democracy, which cannot be overturned or compensated for by holding elections or permitting protest groups. Our objections are far more basic than any potential constitutional changes to the electoral system. There are at least three reasons, then, why capitalist democracy does not mean that workers are in charge of their own lives.
(1) They are too poor to be able to do what they want to do, being limited by the size of their wage packets.
(2) They are at the beck and call of their employers in particular and of the capitalist class in general.
(3) And they are at the mercy of an economic system that goes its own sweet way without being subject to the control of those who suffer under it.

Electors worldwide haven't had the true experience of having had their voices heard, at any significant level in the various processes of so-called democracy. Rather than an expectation of involvement there is passivity, cynicism or the common mantra heard far and wide that governments don't listen to the people. Many so-called democracies tend to breed apathy for a variety of reasons. Decisions have long been made FOR the people, not BY the people, with  decisions made with no consultation process and 'leaders' believing they have been selected to take the reins and make all decisions on behalf of the voters and who take it for granted that once elected they decide on behalf of the electors. There is scant referral back to the populace in times of major decisions –  how to deal with the effects of a harsh economic downturn, where to cut public spending, or whether to go to war. Even mass demonstrations against unpopular decisions can leave the elected unmoved and intransigent. As a result there has long been a culture of complaint, a collective feeling of impotence with no expectation of being heard, or even seemingly listened to. Socialists are not under any illusion about the nature of democracy under capitalism.

For socialists the rule of government can never be democratic. Governments implement policies for which no one voted, or would vote for. No one voted to cut socia services for the old and the disabled. No one voted to close hospitals. People getting what they DID NOT vote for shows that capitalism is incompatible with democracy as an expression of “the people’s will”. This is not because there are no procedures in place for people to decide what they want, but because the way the capitalist economy works prevents some of these decisions being implemented. Governments work for a privileged section of society. They make the laws which protect the property rights of a minority who own and control natural resources, industry, manufacture and transport. These are the means of life on which we all depend but most of us have no say in how they are used. Behind Parliament governments operate in secret. They are part of the division of the world into rival capitalist states. With the back-up of their armed forces they pursue national capitalist interests. Though the politicians who run it may be elected, the state is the opposite of democracy. Production is owned and controlled by companies, some of them multinational corporations with massive economic power making the decisions on what should be produced for the markets for sale at a profit. Through corporate authority they decide how goods should be produced and the conditions in which work is done. Again, this is the opposite of democracy.

The realisation that genuine democracy cannot exist in capitalist society does not alter the fact that the elbow room already secured by struggle can be turned against our masters. The right to vote, for instance, can become a powerful instrument to end our servitude and to achieve genuine democracy and freedom. Working people with an understanding of socialism can utilise their vote to signify that the overwhelming majority demand change and to bring about social revolution. For while democracy cannot exist outside of socialism, socialism cannot be achieved without the overwhelming majority of working people demanding it. The capitalist form of democracy, though seriously flawed, has in fact no formal means of preventing sufficiently determined individuals representing a politically conscious majority from using the political system it has developed in order to overthrow it, operating in a different social framework from the one that currently exists, one that would be filled with the notion of participation and democratic accountability at all levels.

Politics
If you ask “What is a political party?” the likely reply is “A group of people who want to get elected”. If you then ask them why they think these people want to get elected, the charitable response will be “To do things for the country. To help other people”. If they’re less charitable, they’ll answer “To help themselves. They’re just out for what they can get”.

People have also noticed that whoever gets elected, nothing really changes. This is because politicians have no intention of changing anything. The capitalist system may be nominally democratic, but it relies upon working class compliance, passivity and lack of involvement in the process to carry out its worst and most illiberal functionings. It has been borne out by painful experience that for the most starry-eyed of us, politicians are not only unable to make good on promises but have actually carried out unwelcomed policies. Why should we believe that another party would be any more successful? The working class persist in choosing between different versions of the same discredited palliatives for capitalism’s problems. This is masochism.

The biggest myth – that which keeps people voting for political parties to run capitalism – is that it is indeed possible to "run" capitalism. Governments of the world govern by the myth of control. With no steering wheel, capitalism is never short of prospective "drivers" who will do and say anything for a chance to sit up front in the drivers seat. They persuade us that they can control market forces, but only until the next crisis, whereupon they blame market forces or immigrants, or both.

Crucial to the question of democracy is not just the ability to make decisions about what to do but also the powers of action to carry out those decisions. For many years, in many nations, capitalist politicians seeking office have promised to solve the problems of poverty, unemployment, homelessness, pollution, crime, the health service and many more. They have failed because in fact they seek to run a system driven by profit, which imposes severe economic limitations on what can he done and which as a result cannot be rationally controlled. This makes a mockery of the idea of democracy. Democracy is what the working-class needs, and this can be best achieved, not by compromise, but by struggling for socialism. Socialists to-day content ourselves with the means of struggle and victory which have served others and of which we will serve ourselves in our turn. If anything is particularly idiotic it is the divergence that has been made between the means, divided into legal and illegal, into pacific and violent, in order to admit the one and exclude the other. There is not, and there never will be, other than a single category of means, determined by circumstances: those which conduct to end pursued. And these means are always revolutionary when there is a question of a revolution to be accomplished.

Our position is that politicians, whatever their intentions, are actually retarding the development of the only organisation of the working class that can enter into effective conflict with the forces of capitalism. By association with capitalist representatives in both political and economic affairs they induce the idea (which capitalism does everything possible to foster) that the hostility does not exist. But until that fact is clearly understood there can be no material improvement in the workers' condition. It is unfortunate, of course, that the workers do not understand. It makes the task of those who are concerned with the overthrow of capitalism, and the emancipation of the working class from wage-slavery, very difficult. The results of their work seem so very slow a-coming. And some of them tire and drop out of the movement, and others curse the stupidity of the working class, while others again weary of the work, endeavour to secure some immediate consolation by pandering to the ignorance they once may have thought to dispel, and so simply increase the difficulties in the way. The point of the battle should be to put an end to the dirty job of running capitalism.

 Some socialists say that revolution has to be democratic, participative and structured. Where it is available to workers, socialists take the viewpoint that capitalist democracy can and should be used as a critically important instrument available to class-conscious workers for making a genuine and democratic revolution. And in the process of making a revolution starts with reinventing a democracy fit for society on a human scale. The fight for democracy world-wide is an essential part of the struggle for world socialism. After all, if workers are not able to fight for something as basic as the vote, they are unlikely to be able to work for the transformation of society from one based on production for profit to one based on production for human need. A democracy that is free from the patronage, the power games and the profit motive that currently, from Moscow to Mumbai, Washington to Chennai, abuses it. As socialists, we do not regard political democracy in itself as sufficient to emancipate humanity. But we do recognise that it provides by far the best conditions for the development of the socialist movement. it is the heartbeat of every activity of socialists.

Basically, there are only three ways of winning control of the State:
 (a) armed insurrection;
 (b) more or less peaceful mass demonstrations and strikes;
 (c) using the electoral system.

The early members of the World Socialist Movement adopted, in the light of then existing political conditions, for (c), but without ruling out (b) or even (a) should these conditions change (or in other parts of the world where conditions were different).

But this was never understood as simply putting an "X" on a ballot paper and letting the Socialist Party and its MPs establish socialism for workers. The assumption always was that there would be a "conscious" and active socialist majority outside Parliament, democratically organised both in a mass socialist political party and, at work, in labour union type organisations ready to keep production going during and immediately after the winning of political control. Having adopted policy (c), various other options follow. Obviously, if there's a Socialist candidate people who want Socialism are urged to vote for that candidate. But what if there's no Socialist candidate? Voting for any other candidate is against the principles. So what to do? The basic choice is between abstention and spoiling the ballot paper (by writing "Socialism" across it). The policy adopted and confirmed ever since was the latter, ie a sort of write-in vote for Socialism. One or two spoilers/blank voters can be ignored, tens of thousands or even millions could not be - especially if backed by a vocal movement explaining the situation. See the Argentinian example, for instance.


The first step towards taking over the means of production, therefore, must be to take over control of the state, and the easiest way to do this is via elections. But elections are merely a technique, a method. The most important precondition to taking political control out of the hands of the owning class is that the useful majority are no longer prepared to be ruled and exploited by a minority; they must withdraw their consent to capitalism and class rule-they must want and understand a socialist society of common ownership and democratic control.We need to organise politically, into a political party, a socialist party. We don't suffer from delusions of grandeur so we don't necessary claim that we are that party. What we are talking about is not a small educational and propagandist group such as ourselves, but a mass party that has yet to emerge. It is such a party that will take political control via the ballot box, but since it will in effect be the useful majority organised democratically and politically for socialism it is the useful majority, not the party as such as something separate from that majority, that carries out the socialist transformation of society.

They will neutralise the state and its repressive forces and as stated there is no question of forming a government , and then proceed to take over the means of production for which they will also have organised themselves at their places of work. This done, the repressive state is disbanded and its remaining administrative and service features, reorganised on a democratic basis, are merged with the organisations which the useful majority will have formed to take over and run production, to form the democratic administrative structure of the stateless society of common ownership that socialism will be.

This is perhaps a less romantic idea of the socialist revolution but a thousand times more realistic. Which is why we think this is the way it will happen. When the time comes the socialist majority will use the ballot box since it will be the obvious thing to do, and nobody will be able to prevent them or persuade them not to. At that time it will be the anti-electoralists who will be irrelevant. A real democracy is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of leadership. It is about all of us having a direct say in the decisions that affect us. Leadership means handing over the right to make those decisions to someone else. We have at our disposal today the very means, in the form of modern telecommunications, that could enable us to resuscitate the ancient model of Athenian democracy on a truly global level.

The working class unity can be made real through a socialist party if that party becomes, in fact as well as in name, the fighting force of the whole working-class movement. Its avowed aim the reorganisation of the economic and social life on the economic foundation of socialism. It must use not only the weapon of mass organisation on the industrial field, but the weapon of parliamentary democracy, won in the past by working class power. It must set itself, by using the machine of Parliament, by adapting it and changing it to serve new purposes, to win power so that it shall transfer into the hands of the exploited  the land and the industries. It must wage the class struggle if class domination is to end. A socialist and working-class movement fighting relentlessly for socialism and in that fight combating the day to day attacks of capitalism is the only way to defeat capitalism.

There is nothing inherently elitist about the electoral approach. It is how you use that approach that makes it elitist. The World Socialist Movement is not asking people to vote for them so they can solve the problems the electorate have to contend with but saying quite clearly that workers need to understand and support socialism themselves in order for it to come about. It cannot be imposed from above. Furthermore, we constantly makes the point to workers in elections that if they don’t understand or support socialism then they should not vote for the WSM. The WSM does not propose to come "into office", ie to form a government and so does not propose "to vote itself into office". Nor to we propose that other people should "vote us into office" either. What we do propose is that people should, amongst other things, use the vote in the course of the social revolution from capitalism to socialism; that they should, if you like, vote capitalism out of office. To do this they will need to stand recallable mandated delegates at elections but these will be just this: messenger boys and girls, not leaders or would-be government ministers, sent to formally take over and dismantle "the central State". The situation we envisage in which a majority vote in socialist delegates is one where the revolution, in respect of socialist ideas has already begun to accelerate. The vote is merely the legitimate stamp which will allow for the dismantling of the repressive apparatus of the States and the end of bourgeois democracy and the establishment of real democracy. It is the Achilles heel of capitalism and makes a non-violent revolution possible. What matters is a conscious socialist majority outside parliament, ready and organised to take over and run industry and society; electing a socialist majority in parliament is essentially just a reflection of this. It is not parliament that establishes socialism, but the socialist working-class majority outside parliament and they do this, not by their votes, but by their active participating beyond this in the transformation of society.

James Connolly explained:
"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."

It is the quality of the voters behind the vote that, in the revolutionary struggle, will be decisive.
Naive reformism, if you wish, but what are the alternative strategies which are in themselves not flawed?