The futility of
reformism
THE
TASK of achieving Socialism to many minds has come to be associated
with movements to make capitalism run smoothly by means of social and
political reforms. It is important to the socialist movement that the
two purposes should be kept quite distinct. Only convinced socialists
can work for Socialism; but reform movements attract conscious as well
as unknowing defenders of capitalism. Some of them are anxious only to
alleviate suffering, others support reforms as a method of making
capitalism more secure or more palatable.
It is not only the
workers who, through trade union action, endeavour to place certain
limits upon their exploitation by the capitalists; the State, which
today exists for the purpose of preserving capitalism, is also
compelled in the course of its activities to take such steps.
Thus
the landed interest, represented in the Tory Party, passed the early
Factory Acts; and the tradition developed that by supporting one
political party against the other the workers could gradually improve
their conditions. Whith the further development of industry, however,
the wealthy manufacturers bought land, and the landlords in turn began
to invest in industry, until today the division between them has
practically ceased to exist. In addition, certain of the manufacturers
discovered that the legal regulation of hours of labour and the
curtailment of so-called sweating could be made to hit their poorer and
less effectively equipped competitors more than themselves. Hence the
Liberal Party eventually took a special interest in pushing through the
type of measures which they had previensly opposed, and a considerable
section of the workers came to regard the Liberals as their friends.
Another
type of reform arose as a result of growing destitution. This
constituted a standing incentive to crime, and was a constant source of
expense to the public authorities and to the propertied class in whose
interests they function. With the decline of feudalism in this country,
in the reign of the Tudors, the ruling class cowed the destitute into
submission by savage repression, but as the peasants were driven off
the land in increasing numbers, the Poor Law had to be instituted to
provide maintenance for the destitute. It became a permanent
institution and right up to the outbreak of the second world war many
workers found it necessary to appeal to the Poor Law even when in work.
Coupled with the fact that the volume of Poor Law relief had reduced
some local authorities to near bankruptcy, this led to the demand by
various sections of the property-owning class that the central
government should assume part of the burden of paying for destitution.
So there developed unemployment and health insurance, old age pensions
and so on designed to relieve the pressure on local authorities and,
incidentally, to pacify the workers by removing the pauper stigma. Such
measures, organised on a national scale, spread the burden over the
entire capitalist class.
After the end of the second world war
this tendency towards a simplified and all-embracing scheme of social
security found its logical conclusion in the National Insurance Act of
1946, which provided for a comprehensive system of health and
unemployment insurance, as well as for retirement pensions. This Act
was taken over by the Labour Party as its own, though it was in fact
based upon a plan drawn up by the Liberal, Beveridge, and was agreed to
in principle by the wartime coalition government in 1943. The first
stage, the Family Allowances Act 1945, was a coalition government
measure. Indeed, whatever the political complexion of the party in
power it is certain that such measures would eventually have been put
on the statute book — for reasons of economy if for nothing else.
The
hollowness of the Labour Party's attitude of posing as the sole
champions of the so-called welfare state is most effectively exposed
when we read of much the same measures being put into operation in
other countries by governments without pretensions of being socialist.
The plain fact is that such social reforms are necessary for the
running of capitalism and are introduced by openly capitalist as well
as by Labour governments.
In times of economic setback, on the
other hand, when the government is under pressure to reduce its
spending, the existing reforms are obvious targets for economy. Labour
has always claimed that the Conservatives do this because they are
opposed to social reforms anyway; but capitalism has played a cruel
trick on the Labour Party. In the economic crisis which broke towards
the end of 1964 there was the spectacle of the Labour government
accusing the Tories of irresponsible extravagance and themselves
cutting back on government spending. Later the Labour government was
forced to bring back and increase prescription charges, abolish free
milk in secondary schools and reduce planned spending on house and
school building. In 1977, in the next depression, it was the Labour
govern¬ment which cut back expenditure on education and the
National
Health Service. An ironic reversal of supposed roles and one which
shows how all governments, no matter what their pretensions, are at the
mercy of capitalism's economic forces. Sometimes the Labour Party
brings in reforms; sometimes the Conservatives. Sometimes the
Conservatives cut back on reform spending; sometimes the Labour Party.
Reforms
in education, sanitation and housing are others for which Tory, Labour
and Liberal politicians have vied with each other to claim credit. Yet
it is clear that the schooling received by the children of most wage
and salary earners merely fits them for their role as workers. Improved
sanitation reduces the threat of epidemics which do not spare the
wealthy, while subsidised housing is intended to lessen the pressure by
workers for higher wages. These measures have the purpose of raising
the standard of efficiency of the workers, thus making them more
productive for their masters' benefit. The more astute and far-sighted
members of the ruling class have long realised this.
In order to
finance all these measures the State is obliged to levy increased
taxation upon those who alone can bear it, the property owners; nothing
is easier for Labour leaders and others to represent taxation as
'socialist' — an attempt to equalise incomes. The fact that the wealth
of the large capitalists survives the increased taxation, and that it
is only the small fry that get squeezed out, is ignored.
Official
statistics show that despite taxation the distribu¬tion of incomes
and
wealth remains as it must be under capitalism: concentrated in the
hands of a few. The few are rich through their monopoly of the means of
life and their returns on their investments as rent, interest and
profit; the workers get as wages and salaries little more than enough
to keep themselves and their families in efficient working order. State
action, such as tax reform and social security benefits, cannot alter
these basic inequalities of capitalism any more than they can solve the
problems in housing, health and education which arise for workers as a
result.
On 20 July 1946 the late Aneurin Bevan claimed in a
speech at Durham that: "when the next election occurs there will be no
housing problem in Great Britain for the British working class"
(Hansard, 14 July 1948, Col. 1202); and the Labour Party announced that
"destitution has been abolished" (Labour and the New Society, 1950,
page 5). Merely to recall these claims is to expose the futility of
reformism.
The Labour Party has always shown disdain for the
Socialist Party of Great Britain's insistence on first convincing the
workers of the need for Socialism, choosing instead to put forward
reforms in its electoral programmes in order to gain working class
support and thus obtain political power. 'The workers want something
now', we have always been told, the implication being that a workers'
party should imitate the openly capitalist parties and make promises of
reforms in order to catch votes. Such reasoning ignores the fact that a
party which rises to power on non-socialist votes can only administer
capitalism. The fate of successive Labour governments is proof of this.
Socialism
cannot be imposed upon the workers from above. It is a system which
requires their conscious recognition of its necessity. They cannot take
the far-reaching step of making the means of life common property
without being aware of what they are doing. A programme of reforms is
therefore useless to a socialist party even as a strategic move. The
failure of Labour governments the world over to make any appreciable
difference to the workers' conditions bears eloquent testimony to the
soundness of our claim that, so long as capitalism is accepted by the
workers as a necessity, it must be run in the interests cf the
capitalist class, and not of the workers.
Wherever we turn in
the world the plausible tales of th: reformers concerning the need of
'something now' merel serve to hide from the workers the fact that, in
spite of trade union and State action, their harassment and insecurity
grow greater rather than less, and must continue to do so with every
improvement in machinery, technique and the organisation of production.
The
Socialist Party will not barter its independence for promises of
reform. For no matter whether these promises are made sincerely or not,
we know that the immediate need of the working class is freedom from
exploitation, which can only be achieved through the establishment of
Socialism. The workers' interests under capitalism are opposed to those
of all sections of the capitalist class. Whether bankers or
industrialists, landlords or commercial magnates, all capitalists
participate in the fruits of exploitation.
For the party of the
working class, one course alone is open: unceasing hostility to aU
parties that lend their aid to the administration of the capitalist
social system and thus contribute, consciously or otherwise, to its
maintenance. Our object is its removal and replacement by Socialism. |
|
 |
|
