Doubts and Difficulties: Why Every Other Party is Hostile to the S.P.G.B.
Jan. 7th, 1907.
To the Executive of the S.P.G.B.
Whilst thanking you for the courtesy with which your contributor dealt with my “Doubts and Difficulties” in the December issue, I beg leave to put one or two more points. In the first place allow me to say that when I stated that I accepted your Declaration of Principles as a sound basis of waging the class struggle, I did not accept that portion of it which, it now appears, declares war on other Socialists,—because they are not of your party ; but because it was hostile, as I then understood it, to the two capitalist parties. Truly the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Fabian Society are political parties; but they are avowed Socialist Parties. The Liberal and Tory Parties are not. You must admit that when they take on themselves the title of “Socialist,” they all have one end in view, viz., the common ownership of all the forces requisite for man’s necessity. But the capitalist parties never advocate such measures. That to me is where the whole difference lies. The quarrel between Socialists appears to me as ridiculous as the sham-fighting between Liberal and Tory. There is no difference between their interests ; and where is the difference of interest with Socialists ? There can only be a difference of tactics. Therefore if you cannot conscientiously help other Socialist parties why not cease to hamper the little good they may be doing ; and instead, use the time, space and energy in fighting the capitalists, and exposing their alluring promises, etc. It would at least keep the issue clearer.
My respondent does not think I am justified in saying that you should recognise everybody and everything making for Socialism. I did not say that. The next sentence is thus : “We fully recognise that every action of every party, person, or economic force is making for Socialism.” Then, how can you say you do not ? Now, I said, “assist everyone aiming at . . Socialism . . irrespective of party or religion, etc.” “Economicus” then asks, ”How are we to recognise them ?” Why by respect and toleration, if not help.
My replier owes his conversion to Herbert Spencer and asks how is he to be recognised, and his types. Well, I suggest you should recognise him by advising others to read his works also, pointing out that he was only a learned philosopher, not an infallible god ; for if one intelligent man can be brought to the light that way, why not others ? Tell the people to read all sides ; the truth never suffers, and the more sure the result. Intelligent Socialists are not made by reading socialistic literature alone, but by thinking broadly on all subjects.
You say you do not attack Socialists of the S.D.F. because they are such. But, where there is a meeting, your party, instead of keeping quiet and hearing if the speaker is unscientific, get up in deliberate opposition, as though he were a fraud, while he may be a more able speaker, temporally, than your own suppoiiter. One of the crowd hears both speakers, and can’t for the life of him make out what the two parties exist for, much less what the quarrel is.
But I must not intrude on your generosity for space. There are many points I should have, liked to have contested in the reply, but I refrain. But I put this to you : would it be wise for me to leave my trade society, and start another on my own account, because I did not get satisfaction for my endeavours, great or small ? Would it not be better to remain inside, and by persistent propaganda in the branch, monthly report, or workshop, try to secure a majority of those who think as I do, and thereby alter the government of it ?
That is how I look at the action of your party ; to say nothing of the split that has occurred, as I foreshadowed in my previous letter. Verily, to accomplish Socialism—make Socialists. For Socialism, to be successful, must be directed by intelligence ; but the bulk of the people are ignorant, and to place ignorance in power would be to establish a system more terrible and tyrannical than the present. Therefore, however much you may disagree with what you term palliatives, such as feeding the children before “educating” them, healthier dwellings, municipal buildings, shorter hours, increase of wages, etc., bear in mind that most of them are economic advances ; and only by this means will the people gradually become intellectually, morally, and physically fit to wield the power they will possess, safely, securely and permanently. It will take a long time, but slowly and surely the race will be run.
Yours very fraternally,
FREDK. W. TOD.
92. Duckett Road, Harringay.
The break down of the feudal system of wealth production was necessitated by the growth within it of a new system of production under which the worker was divorced from his means of production. The new society evolved from the old and worked at first harmoniously with it, but a time eame when the forces of the new industrial system were hindered by, and became antagonistic to, the powers of the old. An inevitable struggle ensued and, inevitably, the old society had to go.
The new mode of production brought in its train an entire revolution in the conceptions of mankind arising from entirely fresh conditions of wealth production. The development of this society, with its introduction of machine produced wealth, its dependence of the worker upon the owner of the machine, its placing political power in the hands of the machine-owning or capitalist class, has gone with the development of the antagonisms latent within it. Machine owner against wage worker, profit against wages, capitalist class against working-class interest—these oppositions. made necessary the growth of a working-class political party fighting against the ruling powers controlling the administration. of the nation.
Such a political party of the workers made necessary by the oppositions of class must have as an objective the capturing the political machine. But to what purpose ? So as to so administer the affairs of the community that every man should be ranked among the workers and that the production of wealth and its distribution should be socially controlled in the interest and for the welfare of the whole people.
Such a party must be a Socialist party. Further, it must be a working-class party. Only the working class can work out working-class emancipation. The past history of class warfare shows that political power is wrested by each successive class in the social strata which then absorbs within itself the former ruling class and refuses to share its power with the class below. Only one class now remains the working class—and it, too, must finally wrest power from the hands of the capitalist class and thereby absorbing that class, secure the abolition of all class. This strife for dominion can end only when classes have ceased to be.
The class strife, of which I have just spoken, must be mainly political, but alongside the political struggle must go pari passu the economic organisation of the working class. On such field of the struggle they must be prepared. The class strife manifests itself in a struggle on the political plane which involves the building up of a political organisation prepared to capture all the powers of government.
Being a class struggle nothing can be hoped for from either of the capitalist political parties. Hence any alliance or agreement with them must necessarily hinder the emancipation of the working class and confuse the class issue. Whether such an alliance or agreement is entered into in local or in national politics the end to be gained, even if gained, must remain of less importance than the keeping a clear class issue before the working class.
We have therefore to recognise (1) a class strife, manifesting itself in (2) a politico-economic struggle for power on the part of the workers, necessitating (3) a Socialist Parliamentary political party fighting for Socialism and for all that Socialism implies. This fight must be without hope of aid from the other political parties whose interests harmonise with the maintenance of the present class society. We have also to recognise the impossibility of securing the palliation of the present capitalist society, except at the hands of a Socialist Party Government. When you have a Socialist Party Government in power you will find that they do not mean to allow the capitalist regime to exist sufficiently long to need palliation. They will rear a new society rather than patch up an old ; revolutionise and not reform.
Any political party, then, call it by whatsoever name you will, which has a palliative programme is a party which seeks the assistance of a political party of capitalist texture. They can only carry any palliative measure on their programme by the aid of the capitalist government. To have such a hope says little for their understanding of the class war. Such a programme is the first step towards alliances and agreements, and we cannot, therefore, experience much surprise when we find that every political party other than The Socialist Party of Great Britain has entered into such alliances and agreements. Such parties are a danger to the Socialist movement in this country and must be opposed and exposed.
It is of no avail asking why we could not have remained in this or the other party with a view to rectifying their errors. We have made every possible effort in that direction but have signally failed. We know that there are many earnest, self-sacrificing Socialists in those parties among the rank and file, but so long as they support their present parties their Socialism is of little utility to the furtherance of Socialism in this country.
Again we criticise the actions of those parties and of the members of those parties in detail—and apart from their erroneous basic principles—whenever we find them inconsistent with Socialism. We criticise, not so much from any expectation that they will act differently, but, so that our readers may clearly understand the course of conduct these parties pursue.
My critic, Mr. Tod, thinks that we should recognise men like Spencer by advising people to read his books, and parties like the S.D.F., I.L.P., Fabian Society, and Labour Party by toleration if not by help. We have no objection to people reading Spencer’s “Synthetic Philosophy” or even the organs of these organisations. I do not see, however, why we should advise them to do so. The party of reaction is sufficiently strong without our aiding it by giving such advice. In giving the readers of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD advice as to books to study we shall be governed by what we consider best for Socialism and by no other motive whatsoever.
But toleration if not help ! Toleration of compromise !!! Of the denial of the class war !!! Surely not. The difference between The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the parties which Mr. Tod takes under his wing is not merely difference in tactics, but is a difference in the underlying principles upon which those tactics are based. As an example I may again point out that our principles determine that we are the only political party in Great Britain which has from its inception rejected a palliative programme.
It is not that we are opposed to such desirable objects as the free feeding of children, or the free feeding, housing, clothing, &c. of adults. It is that we are firmly convinced that nothing which can materially benefit the working class will ever be given by the one and only capitalist political party. If there were two capitalist political parties we might—but I trust not.
For there is but one capitalist political party—the Liberal-Tory Party. They are like unto a wedded couple. Bound in the ties of holy matrimony their essential interests are the same. Like all married couples they have their petty differences. Seek, however, to gain an influence over either, or to side with either, or to obtain an advantage detrimental to either, and we soon learn to “beware the redding stroke,” for they twain are of one flesh.
I may conclude my remarks arising from Mr. Tod’s letter with the following quotation from Wilhelm Liebknecht:
”On the ground of the class struggle we are invincible; if we leave it we are lost, because we are no longer Socialists. The strength and the power of Socialism rests in the fact that we are leading a class struggle ; that the labouring class is exploited and oppressed by the capitalist class, and that within capitalist society effectual reforms, which will put an end to class government and class exploitation, are impossible.
“We cannot traffic in our principles, we can make no compromise, no agreement with the ruling system. We must break with the ruling system and fight it to a finish. It must fall that Socialism may arise, and we certainly cannot expect from the ruling class that it will give to itself and its domination the death blow. The International Working Men’s Association accordingly preached that ‘the emancipation of the labouring class must be the work of the labourers themselves.’ ”
Thus by these words of wisdom we are justified.
ECONOMICUS