The Socialist Party has always had a lively internal
intellectual life, though ‘internal’ is not quite the right word
since, although the debates have been confined to Party
members, they have taken place in public. All our meetings,
including even those of our executive committee are open to
the public; so that anybody is entitled to listen in to these
debates and to have access to the written record of them.
We reproduce here three debates as recorded in the
reports of the proceedings of annual conference: one from
1946 on the transition period; one from 1969 on the nature
of the Russian ruling class; and one from 1990 on socialists
and political democracy. We could have chosen other
interesting debates – on trade unions, on violence, on
reforms – but the three we have chosen will have to suffice
to illustrate democracy in action within the Socialist Party.
The Party’s attitude to the transition
period (1946)
A Manchester delegate said that the views expressed
by party members on this matter ought to be
conditional, and that it was wrong to hold hard and fast
views. Some thought that capitalism would go on under
normal conditions with an ever-increasing number of
workers supporting socialism and then taking over. It
was quite possible that when the workers did take over
things would not be easy and comfortable. No definite
answer could be given to those who wanted to know
precisely what was going to take place, because the
conditions that would exist at the time could not be
known now.
A member of the Editorial Committee said
that there could be no useful discussion unless the
delegates took account of the position the Party has
always taken, what Manchester disagreed with in this,
and what suggestions they could make. An article in the
January Socialist Standard on the subject had not put the
view that there would be an abrupt transition without
giving an explanation. The change would be abrupt in the
sense that one day the workers would be without
control of the machinery of government for socialism
and the next day with it. The general view outside the
party was that the transition period was something
prior to the establishment of socialism. This was the
Labour Party attitude, and they held that the transition
period was actually taking place now. It was difficult to
satisfy outside workers on the question of what would
be done after the capture of governmental power, but
party speakers did not usually have any difficulty over
the subject. As a number of members were probably not
familiar with past party discussion and statements in the
Socialist Standard on the subject, it might be as well for
Manchester branch to discuss the Socialist Standard
article referred to and circulate a memorandum to
branches if they disagreed with it.
A SW London delegate said that there would be
no transitional period, but economic changes resulting
from the emancipation of the working class.
A non-delegate said that the phrase ‘transitional
period’ should not be used, the period would be one of
reconstruction on a socialist basis.
Leeds delegate raised the question of the
possibility of workers in one country gaining power with
workers in other countries lagging behind.
A West Ham delegate said that socialists elected
in a majority to Parliament could not continue the
wages system. When there was a majority of socialists in
one country there would be large minorities in the
others.
Glasgow claimed that development all over the
world was more or less similar and example in one
country would act as a spur abroad.
An Ealing delegate stated that it was now
necessary to conceive of socialism taking place at a time
of world depression and shortage, and that it was no
longer possible to tell enquirers that there was always
plenty and that there was no need for anyone to go
without what they needed.
A Glasgow delegate said that even if socialism was
established immediately after a war, the agricultural
resources would be largely untapped and production
and distribution would be the least of our troubles.
A non-delegate from Manchester thought that
the party attitude on the question was not clearly
stated. The January Socialist Standard said that we agreed
with Marx and Engels on the subject. If so we must also
agree with the transitional period described in The
Critique of the Gotha Programme. There could be no basis
for the claim that there would be no dictatorship of the
proletariat. The problems of the workers were not the
same all over the world. There was an unequal economic
development and the next economic crisis would leave
one set of workers less well off than the others. The
political level of the American working class was lower
than that of the British. Our propagandists were not
dealing adequately with the
question on the platform.
A Bloomsbury delegate claimed that after the
capture of power there would be a number of problems
to solve. There might be a period of greed and it might
be necessary for the State to issue orders for a time.
SW London delegate said that the word
‘transition’ had been confused with ‘transformation’. The
State would not exist to coerce. Exploitation was
common to every capitalist country and in the course of
time this would produce a similar reaction.
A non-delegate said that the whole question was
not one of party policy as had been urged, although it
was a matter of interesting speculation and discussion.
Party policy was aimed at capturing the machinery of
government for socialism, and once this had taken place
the task of the Socialist Party was finished. The job of
reconstructing society on its new basis would then
devolve on the workers. The discussion on the uneven
development of capitalism failed to take into account
the international character of the socialist movement.
We already had the beginnings of this and in the future
the working class would act internationally although
restricted by capitalist national barriers. The varying
levels of understanding of the workers of different
countries was considerably exaggerated.
A Marylebone delegate asked for more debates
of this kind. These problems were not as easy as they
seemed. Our object was as much economic as political.
We did not exist just for the purpose of capturing
political power, but we were a political party because
class struggles were political. It had been said that no
principle was involved, but party speakers were saying
A Bloomsbury delegate claimed that after the
capture of power there would be a number of problems
to solve. There might be a period of greed and it might
be necessary for the State to issue orders for a time.
SW London delegate said that the word
‘transition’ had been confused with ‘transformation’. The
State would not exist to coerce. Exploitation was
common to every capitalist country and in the course of
time this would produce a similar reaction.
A non-delegate said that the whole question was
not one of party policy as had been urged, although it
was a matter of interesting speculation and discussion.
Party policy was aimed at capturing the machinery of
government for socialism, and once this had taken place
the task of the Socialist Party was finished. The job of
reconstructing society on its new basis would then
devolve on the workers. The discussion on the uneven
development of capitalism failed to take into account
the international character of the socialist movement.
We already had the beginnings of this and in the future
the working class would act internationally although
restricted by capitalist national barriers. The varying
levels of understanding of the workers of different
countries was considerably exaggerated.
A Marylebone delegate asked for more debates
of this kind. These problems were not as easy as they
seemed. Our object was as much economic as political.
We did not exist just for the purpose of capturing
political power, but we were a political party because
class struggles were political. It had been said that no
principle was involved, but party speakers were saying
that there would be no
transitional period and claiming
it to be the party position.
A member of the Editorial Committee said
that while Manchester had emphasised that the
transition period was after the workers had taken
power, other contributors had dwelt largely on the
difficulties of getting political power. It was obvious that
the statements made in the Socialist Standard over a
number of years were not known to all contributors.
Our view was that it was a waste of time to worry
about what was going to happen after power had been
obtained. When dealing with the “Dictatorship of the
Proletariat” as put forward by Marx we referred to
Engels’ preface to The Civil War in France.
A West Ham delegate pointed out that the
capitalist class was becoming more and more
international in character.
A non-delegate suggested that the unequal rate of
national capitalist development was offset by the equal
it to be the party position.
A member of the Editorial Committee said
that while Manchester had emphasised that the
transition period was after the workers had taken
power, other contributors had dwelt largely on the
difficulties of getting political power. It was obvious that
the statements made in the Socialist Standard over a
number of years were not known to all contributors.
Our view was that it was a waste of time to worry
about what was going to happen after power had been
obtained. When dealing with the “Dictatorship of the
Proletariat” as put forward by Marx we referred to
Engels’ preface to The Civil War in France.
A West Ham delegate pointed out that the
capitalist class was becoming more and more
international in character.
A non-delegate suggested that the unequal rate of
national capitalist development was offset by the equal
rate at which socialist ideas
gained acceptance. When
other parties referred to ‘transition’ they meant merely
a change in capitalism itself and not the change from
capitalism to socialism.
A Camberwell delegate said that if there was a
depression when socialism was established there would
have to be readjustments to deal with it.
A second member of the Editorial Committee
said that it had never been suggested that the change
from capitalism to socialism would be a smooth one, but
that intelligent workers would know how to deal with
the problems of distribution, etc. Even to-day the
working class did all the necessary work of society.
A Manchester delegate in winding-up said that it
appeared that the party position was that there was no
‘transition period’. Some members took an oversimplified
view of every problem and this made our
propaganda seem unconvincing. He could not agree that
there would be a change over-night in society. The
development of capitalism would lead to greater crises.
The nature of the Russian ruling class
(1969)
Resolution: “This Conference recognises that the
ruling class in state capitalist Russia stands in the same
relationship to the means of production as does the
ruling class in any other capitalist country (viz. it has a
monopoly of those means of production and extracts
surplus value from the working class) and is therefore a
capitalist class.”
Comrade Crump (Manchester) said the issue here
was not whether or not Russia was state capitalist – all
members agreed on that – but is the ruling class in
Russia a capitalist class. His Branch felt that the way the
Party tended to speak about the Russian ruling class
reflected a weakness in our theory of ‘state capitalism’
and ‘social class’: it seemed that we were not prepared
to face up to calling the ruling class in Russia capitalist.
Those who were against this had argued that ‘capitalist’
has come to have a more or less definite meaning in
socialist discussion over the years – those who were
direct employers or investors in shares or government
bonds. But this was not necessarily so. The capitalist
class were those who monopolised the means of
production and accumulated capital. It was irrelevant
that the Russian rulers may have led Spartan lives. They
were a capitalist class, even though they were not direct
employers, because they monopolised the means of
production and accumulated capital.
Comrade Hardy urged the Conference to go slow
on the Manchester resolution that seemed to say that in
Russia the top political and managerial people were the
capitalist class because they were the rulers. Marx held
that a capitalist was a person who owned enough
money and commodities to have a business employing
hired labour. There were various types of capitalist – the
small working capitalist, the larger one carrying out
purely capitalist functions, shareholders in joint stock
companies, state bondholders, directors. All these made
up the capitalist class. Manchester’s view was at variance
with that put forward by Engels in Socialism Utopian and
Scientific on the evolution of state capitalism. Engels held
that when the state took over industry the capitalists
would be forced out of control in favour of salaried
employees. He took this to be the end of capitalism, but
he was wrong on this.
Private enterprise and investment in Russia were not
unimportant and Russian factory managers were
themselves involved in it. Millar estimated in 1963 that
about a quarter of all industrial (i. e., non-agricultural)
investment in Russia went through private or nonofficial
channels.Manchester Branch had suggested that
bondholding in Russia was disappearing. It was true that
the old forced loans had gone but they had been
replaced by savings bonds.
other parties referred to ‘transition’ they meant merely
a change in capitalism itself and not the change from
capitalism to socialism.
A Camberwell delegate said that if there was a
depression when socialism was established there would
have to be readjustments to deal with it.
A second member of the Editorial Committee
said that it had never been suggested that the change
from capitalism to socialism would be a smooth one, but
that intelligent workers would know how to deal with
the problems of distribution, etc. Even to-day the
working class did all the necessary work of society.
A Manchester delegate in winding-up said that it
appeared that the party position was that there was no
‘transition period’. Some members took an oversimplified
view of every problem and this made our
propaganda seem unconvincing. He could not agree that
there would be a change over-night in society. The
development of capitalism would lead to greater crises.
The nature of the Russian ruling class
(1969)
Resolution: “This Conference recognises that the
ruling class in state capitalist Russia stands in the same
relationship to the means of production as does the
ruling class in any other capitalist country (viz. it has a
monopoly of those means of production and extracts
surplus value from the working class) and is therefore a
capitalist class.”
Comrade Crump (Manchester) said the issue here
was not whether or not Russia was state capitalist – all
members agreed on that – but is the ruling class in
Russia a capitalist class. His Branch felt that the way the
Party tended to speak about the Russian ruling class
reflected a weakness in our theory of ‘state capitalism’
and ‘social class’: it seemed that we were not prepared
to face up to calling the ruling class in Russia capitalist.
Those who were against this had argued that ‘capitalist’
has come to have a more or less definite meaning in
socialist discussion over the years – those who were
direct employers or investors in shares or government
bonds. But this was not necessarily so. The capitalist
class were those who monopolised the means of
production and accumulated capital. It was irrelevant
that the Russian rulers may have led Spartan lives. They
were a capitalist class, even though they were not direct
employers, because they monopolised the means of
production and accumulated capital.
Comrade Hardy urged the Conference to go slow
on the Manchester resolution that seemed to say that in
Russia the top political and managerial people were the
capitalist class because they were the rulers. Marx held
that a capitalist was a person who owned enough
money and commodities to have a business employing
hired labour. There were various types of capitalist – the
small working capitalist, the larger one carrying out
purely capitalist functions, shareholders in joint stock
companies, state bondholders, directors. All these made
up the capitalist class. Manchester’s view was at variance
with that put forward by Engels in Socialism Utopian and
Scientific on the evolution of state capitalism. Engels held
that when the state took over industry the capitalists
would be forced out of control in favour of salaried
employees. He took this to be the end of capitalism, but
he was wrong on this.
Private enterprise and investment in Russia were not
unimportant and Russian factory managers were
themselves involved in it. Millar estimated in 1963 that
about a quarter of all industrial (i. e., non-agricultural)
investment in Russia went through private or nonofficial
channels.Manchester Branch had suggested that
bondholding in Russia was disappearing. It was true that
the old forced loans had gone but they had been
replaced by savings bonds.
continued next column
The Russian government had
been very successful in building up private savings in this
way and paid 3 per cent tax free.
Engels had argued that the capitalist class being
thrown out of both joint stock companies and state
enterprises in favour of salaried employees meant the
capitalists never were entirely replaced and have come
back in increasing numbers. One reason for this has
been the effect of inflation of workers’ incomes. In
order to combat this they have enrolled some as
directors for the big salaries, pension funds, golden
handshakes etc, and other perks. It was not true that in
Britain the typical director was a salaried employee: he
was a wealthy capitalist. What was the ambition of
salaried people in Britain and Russia? To become wealthy
capitalists in their own right. They had not only the
ambition but also the opportunities. This applied to
politicians and even trade union leaders as well. It is
certain that in Russia, in addition to the one quarter of
private capitalism, managers and Party officials were
using the set-up to make money on the side. Russia was
going through great changes. The question was in what
direction? He would suggest tentatively towards the
mixed state/private set-up – as in Britain.
Comrade Zucconi said that, as Djilas had pointed
out in his The New Class, the Russian ruling class had a
different background to that in America or Britain. In
1917 most of the capitalists left Russia so that the
Bolsheviks had to develop state capitalism, raising some
of the capital through state bonds. It was not correct to
say that only those who owned industry or employed
labour were capitalists. The bureaucrats in Russia were
privileged in that they could use their control of capital
to channel surplus value in their own interests. In this
there was no difference between them and Paul Getty.
In Russia there was a class enjoying the fruits of the
labour of the Russian workers. A capitalist was a
capitalist whether he got his surplus value from direct
ownership or political control.
Comrade Knight said the top managerial strata
were a significant part of the capitalist class in Russia.
They had a vested interest in exploiting the workers and
accumulating capital, not for themselves but also for the
state.
Comrade D’Arcy said the resolution was
premature. The Party had always avoided saying there
was a capitalist class in Russia. We asked not who got
the surplus value but where did it come from. It was
confusing to say that the bureaucracy were the ruling
class because of their nepotism and money-making
sidelines. They may be becoming capitalists, but it was
wrong to speak as if this had already happened. In Russia
the monopoly of the social capital was exercised not by
private individuals but by the state. Private enterprise
was still illegal in Russia and so could not be carried on
properly. The capitalist class had not yet emerged. All we
could speak of was an embryonic capitalist class which
at some later stage would plunder the state industries.
Bureaucracy would break down into private wealthy
individuals.
Comrade Baldwin: Engels had pointed out in his
Origin of the Family that the state was not only an
instrument of class oppression but also that with the
development of industry it tended to become the ideal
personification of the capitalist class. In Russia in the
absence of private capitalists the state had taken over
their function. This was why we spoke of state capitalism
there.
Comrade Buick said there were private capitalists
in Russia but were they the ruling class? They were not
and we might need a new name to describe those who
exploited the workers through political control. The
Party had already accepted that a class could own
collectively and a chapter in our pamphlet Russia 1917-
1967 explains how this was so in Russia. In Russia the
individuals who made up this class got an income not as
direct employers or as bondholders but from the
bloated salaries, perks, bonuses, etc that went with their
jobs.
Comrade Cook: This was the old argument of
where you draw the line between ownership and
control. The bureaucrats were using their control to
become owners. When control was legalised it then
became ownership. The question was would what was
now illegal in Russia become legalised so that the
bureaucrats turned their control into ownership. The
situation was fluid.
Comrade Young quoted Tony Cliff about Trotsky’s
mistake in equating state ownership with socialism
which prevented him realising the state capitalist nature
of Russia. The ‘official persons’ in Russia were a capitalist
class eating up surplus value.
Comrade Lawrence said it was not a question of
the size of a person’s income or of whether capital was
in private or state form. We should look at the historical
background of the capitalist class in Russia. Clearly
those who monopolised the means of production and
accumulated capital were the Russian capitalist class. It
had been argued that development in Russia would
make capitalism there more like that in Britain. But
there was no reason why it should. Capitalism in Russia
had a different historical background. The state had
always dominated and control had always been
centralised there. Whereas in Britain the rising
bourgeoisie had broken the power of the autocratic
state. This had never happened in Russia. Thus we would
expect the state to play a dominant role in the
development of capitalism there.
The resolution was carried 30-3, with 10 abstentions.
Political democracy (1990)
Resolution: “This Conference re-affirms the stand
taken in the September [actually October] 1939 Socialist
Socialist Standard June 2004 45
Standard and repeated in the September 1989 Socialist
Standard that the Socialist Party of Great Britain
wholeheartedly supports the efforts of workers
everywhere to secure democratic rights against the
powers of suppression. Whilst we avoid any association
with parties or political groups seeking to adminster
capitalism we emphasise that freedom of movement and
expression, the freedom to organise in trade unions, to
organise politically and to participate in elections, are of
great importance to all workers and are vital to the
success of the socialist movement.”
P. Lawrence (SW London), opening, said that
democracy does affect us both as workers and as
socialists. The existence of political democracy was
important because (i) it allowed workers to pursue
their material interests within capitalism, as through
trade unions; (ii) with the absence of political tyranny
people were free from arbitrary arrest; and (iii) it was
absolutely crucial for the establishment of socialism.
Our attitude towards actions to establish democracy
was the same as our attitude towards trade union
action: support when it was on sound lines, i. e. not
involving nationalism, racism or support for other
political parties. This had always been the Party position
and should now be formalised.
J. Krause (Camden): his branch wholeheartedly
opposed the resolution. The 1939 Manifesto which was
referred to was not about workers securing democratic
rights but about the futility of war as a way of defending
them. The resolution gave the impression that we had a
two-stage theory: that workers in countries without
democracy should struggle first for democracy and then
for socialism, instead of struggling directly for socialism.
The Socialist Standard talked of workers winning a
victory on the streets of Rumania, but democracy there
was vital to the success of capitalism not socialism.
Though some form of democratic action was needed to
get socialism, the existence of political democracy was
not: workers had organised to establish trade unions
without democracy first existing, so they could do the
same for socialism.
T. D’Arcy (NW London): his branch was also
opposed. SW London had distorted the October (not
September) 1939 Socialist Standard. Our position was
that we opposed all other parties, not just that we
should “avoid any association” with them as the
resolution put it. What was happening in East Europe
was detrimental to the interests of the workers as it
was leading to the consolidation of capitalism. We were
in favour of democracy but only as a way to socialism,
not for its own sake.
C. Slapper (Islington): the position taken by the
NW London delegate was disgraceful and unbelievable:
was he saying that what existed in East Europe was
better than what now exists there? We wanted
democracy because we wanted workers to enjoy its
benefits and we were in favour of pluralism, i. e.
competing political ideas and parties. It was sad and
pitiful to see that some members were not inspired by
the events of the last few months. Dictatorships had
fallen, the Berlin Wall had come down, political prisoners
had been released, and workers were rightly celebrating
this.
C. Pinel (Manchester): we were here discussing
freely at our Conference because workers in Britain had
democratic rights. We needed these to propagate
socialist ideas, and so should support the struggle of
workers who didn’t have them to get them.
J. D’Arcy (Camden): The resolution made us have
two policies, one for workers in Britain, who we told to
struggle for socialism, and one for workers abroad, to
whom we said “go and get democracy”. As a change in a
country’s constitution democracy was a reform and
socialists should not get involved in reform struggles
even if other workers did. It wasn’t true that you
couldn’t carry out socialist propaganda unless certain
formal democratic rights existed. Nothing had happened
in East Europe. We had always told workers not to
confront the forces of the state on the streets and didn’t
support struggles for constitutional reform.
J. Bradley (Enfield and Haringey): even if
individuals could carry out isolated acts of socialist
propaganda in a dictatorship, a socialist party could not
exist in such conditions as a socialist party could only
function as an open democratic organisation. In so far as
a socialist party was a necessary instrument for
establishing socialism, so too was the existence of
democracy.
V. Vanni (Glasgow): this debate had confirmed that
some members actually believed that “anything that
happens that isn’t socialism wasn’t worth happening”.
The idea that you could carry on socialist propaganda in
an authoritarian dictatorship just as easily as you could
in a political democracy was absurd. Comrade D’Arcy
had said that the workers in East Europe were stupid to
have gone out onto the streets but this was ridiculous
since, if you hadn’t got democracy, what else could you
do to get it?
D. Gluck (non-delegate): he had recently asked
for help from comrades to go from Hamburg where he
lived to Leipzig in East Germany to carry out some
socialist propaganda, but this wouldn’t have been
possible before, so obviously the coming of democracy
to East Europe was an advantage. OK, it wasn’t socialism
but it wasn’t really realistic to say you could go straight
from dictatorship to socialism; you had to have
democracy first.
F. Simpkins (SW London), winding up, said it was
inconceivable that socialists should not make a valuejudgement
about democracy. Democracy was better
than dictatorship. We couldn’t be indifferent to this issue
just as we couldn’t be indifferent to the release of
political prisoners when dictatorships were
overthrown. It was ridiculous to suggest that democracy
was something that came automatically under capitalism
without any struggle. The establishment of democracy
involved workers struggling and we should welcome
such measures brought about by workers’ struggles.
The resolution was carried 102-35