Ought We To Join United Front Campaigns?
(A correspondent, Mr. C. Ford, Hackney, sends the following criticism, of a statement in the December issue headed “Another Anti-War Committee—Why the S.P.G.B. will not join in.” For convenience the paragraphs of his letter have been numbered.—Ed. Comm.)
(1) The unreasoning attitude of the S.P.G.B. towards co-operation upon specific issues with ther parties and individuals who believe themselves to be Socialists (though this is denied by the S.P.) is in no way better shown than in the S.P.’s latest retreat from the real world into their sectarian corner.
However much they respect the uncompromising theoretical stand taken by the S.P.G.B., genuine Socialists—who are, nevertheless, so misguided as to refrain from joining the S.P.G.B.—cannot but be dismayed by the policy this party adopts towards agitation upon questions of topical significance.
(2) The recent anti-fascist demonstrations in the East End are an important example of the way in which popular opinion, by being focused upon particular issues, can begin to understand the need for full Socialism rather than what the S.P. correctly describes as “state capitalism.” What was the reaction of the S.P.G.B. towards this opportunity to create a united opposition to fascism and thereby do something to overcome the natural repugnance on the part of the public towards the manifest disunity between Socialist and what the S.P. might describe as semi-Socialist parties?
(3) The viewpoint of the S.P.G.B. can be summarized thus: “We are not interested in a united stand against fascism. We are concerned with—and only with—the propagation of Socialism. Such parties as Common Wealth and R.C.P. in combining to combat fascism are merely serving to distract the working classes from their true interests. Members of such non-Socialist parties, then; will be allowed to state in ‘opposition‘ case from, our -platform. But we would really much prefer to hear the fascist point of view so that our speakers can reveal its inherent irrationality.”
What was the outcome? Why, supported by increasing infirmity of purpose on the part of the Labour Government, and disunity among the Left, the fascists continue to spread their doctrines for which progagation a new slump will surely provide the stimulus.
(4) A similar policy is adopted by the S.P.G.B. towards the present war danger. It retires to its backroom debating clubs, and chants “We want Socialism !” This party entirely evades posing the question: “How much chance of Socialism after another war?” The Executive Committee’s statement in the December SOCIALIST STANDARD replies to an invitation, to form a non-Communist opposition to the war threat, “We are not prepared to ally ourselves with our political opponents.” This will be a suitable epitaph for the S.P.G.B.
(5) Listen to Engels, writing to Mme. Vischnevetzki in 1888, referring to the sectarian approach of German “Marxists.” “That great national movement, no matter what its first form, is the real starting point of American working-class development; if the Germans join it, in order to help it or to hasten its development in the right direction, they may do a deal of good and play a decisive part in it; if they stand aloof, they will dwindle down into a dogmatic sect, and will be brushed aside as people who do not understand their own principles.” (My italics. C.F.)
In another letter to the same woman in January, 1887, Engels writes: “Had we from 1864 to 1873 insisted on working together only with those who openly adopted our programme, where should we be today?”
(6) The S.P. statement lists the factors leading to war : competition for foreign markets ; trade routes ; strategic points and sources of raw materials. Of course, few Socialists would quarrel with this analysis. But it may be suggested that the presence of Socialist and Communist minorities in capitalist countries will be a vital factor in deciding whether these countries will be able to wage war successfully. In other words, public support for, or acquiescence in war, the subjective factor, is of importance in causing war.
(7) The statement continues by asserting that the I.L.P, and Common Wealth are not Socialist parties, but merely advocate “reform of capitalism.” It is to be doubted whether most capitalists would look upon themselves as being “reformed” if, as is suggested by these two parties, they were to be expropriated and compensated not on a “willing seller—willing buyer” basis hut on a much less lavish basis (I.L P.) or be given no compensation at all after the first £1,000 (C.W.).
(8) Then in a most un-Marxian manner the statement goes on to jibe at the Anarchists for daring to deny the need for control by central government. How dare they, indeed, poach upon the preserve of the S.P. and urge such a perfectionist solution to be attained at some unspecified and indeterminable future date!
(9) The statement concludes with another un-Marxian assertion. Of the proposed Anti-War Campaign it says : “It will be like the scores of earlier attempts on the same lines—they flourish in peace and disintegrate when war comes. “Why? Because, as Marx clearly saw, it cannot be expected that such attempts will succeed until the masses are converted to Socialism. If the Socialist Parties were not strong enough to prevent war, how can it be expected, they will be able effectively to oppose it when once it is afoot?
(10) The point that the S.P.G.B. always fails to see is that in the process of agitating against war and against capitalism, such a campaign could also agitate for Socialism—even the perfect arid final form of Socialism such as is so consistently propagated by the S.P.G.B. No doubt you would reply to this as the Executive Committee does: “The S.P.G.B. unites with Socialists to achieve Socialism.” This should, of course, read, “The S.P.G.B. unites with Socialists inside the S.P.G.B.,” for when have they co-operated with Socialists who happen to be outside it?
(11) Come off it, S.P.G.B. ! While you righteously repeat your shibboleths about non-cooperation, “civilisation” as we know it may be disintegrating. After a new World War even the first instalments of a feeble Fabianism will be postponed for decades. A Socialist’s duty today is to attempt to prevent war, while at the same time continuing his advocacy of Socialism. May be if war comes Socialists will not be allowed to urge the alternative to capitalism. Maybe the S.P.G.B. and those Socialists whose time-scale is a little different from that party, but who agree to its policy as an ultimate objective, will both be prevented from public agitation. Maybe, too, the mass of the people will be even less ready than they now are to listen to us.
C. FORD. Hackney, E.8.
It will help readers to understand the points at issue if we briefly explain the incident about which this letter is written. The London Division of the I.L.P. invited the S.P.G.B. to join an Anti-War Committee which is to consist of the I.L.P., Common Wealth, the Peace Pledge Union, the Anarchist Federation “and/or any other body with the exception of the Communist Party.” In refusing to join the Committee we gave our reasons and said, among other things, that the S.P.G.B. is not prepared to ally itself with its political opponents for any purpose. Our correspondent now tells us that we ought to be willing to co-operate with “parties and individuals who believe themselves to be Socialists,” because they are, he says, “genuine Socialists” even if this is denied by the S.P.G.B.
Unfortunately nowhere in his lengthy letter does he define what he means by “genuine Socialists” and we shall show that he does not know himself.
There is no magic quality about the word “Socialism” and no means of preventing people from attaching the name to all sorts of contradictory things. If all that you know about parties or individuals is that they “believe themselves to be Socialists” you know absolutely nothing ; except perhaps that it shows there is a certain credit belonging to the name and they want to claim a share of it for themselves.
Some co-operators claim that their “dividend” trading organisations are Socialism. The Labour Party, I.L.P. and Common Wealth claim that nationalisation or State capitalism is Socialism, as also do the Communists provided that it takes place in Russia or one of its satellite countries. Hitler and Mussolini both used the political trickery of claiming that they stood for “true Socialism,” and we may yet see the Liberals and Tories vying to catch working class votes in the same way.
It is therefore useless to judge parties by which label they wear. What is it then that distinguishes the S.P.G.B. and its companion parties overseas from the other parties that wear the label “Socialism”? We hold that the only solution to the social problem is to abolish capitalism and set up in its place a social system based upon common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution, involving as that does the abolition of the wages system, property incomes, and the production of goods for sale. We hold, too, that, this object can only be achieved when a Socialist majority democratically gains control of the machinery of government for that purpose.
Now if other organisations come into the field and claim that the problem can be solved by working for a different objective, or that the same objective can he attained by different means, it should be of the first importance to them and to us that the conflicting principles should be thrashed out in order to decide which party is correct and deserving of working class support. If we are right these other parties are wrong and if the term “Socialist,” as defined above, correctly describes the S.P.G.B. then it cannot be applied to them.
This brings us to our correspondent, who advances a different and logically absurd proposition. He concedes that the S.P.G.B. are genuine Socialists but also wants to apply the term to an unspecified list of other organisations that have other aims and other methods that are incompatible with ours. As he starts illogically if is not surprising that the further he goes in his argument the deeper he falls into confusion.
He “proves” to his own satisfaction, though not to ours, that the S.P.G.B. ought to co-operate with all parties that “believe themselves to be Socialists.” Now the largest party that “believes itself to be Socialist ” is the Labour Party, and the next largest is the Communist Party. Yet he asks us to join a Committee that does not include the Labour Party and which expressly bars the Communist Party ! So it appears that not only does our correspondent fail to convince us, he fails to convince himself. In paragraph 4 of his letter he describes this Committee as a “non-Communist opposition to the war threat” and he thinks we ought to join; but in paragraph 6 he has changed his mind and decides after all that the prevention of war needs the Communists as well.
But this is not the end of his mental confusion, In paragraphs 1 and 4 he wants us to join the Anti-War Committee sponsored by the I.L.P., and in paragraph 2 he says we ought to have helped “to create a united opposition to fascism.” This is muddle extraordinary. First he “proved” that we ought to co-operate with the Communists by joining a Committee that bars the Communists. Now he “proves” that we ought to co-operate with those who believe themselves to be Socialists when what he had to prove was that we ought to co-operate with those who do not believe themselves to be Socialists. What he has overlooked is that the I.L.P.’s Anti-War Committee includes both the Peace Pledge Union, which is a “non-party” body open to Liberals and Tories, and the Anarchists who oppose Socialism, misrepresent it and deride it. Likewise the “united opposition” to fascism in the East End included Liberals and Tories as, of course, it was bound to do if it was to justify its claim to being a united front. It is worth noting too that prominent among the opponents of fascism, who denounced it because it means dictatorship and the suppression of all opposition parties, are the Communists who support dictatorship and the suppression of all opposition parties.
In paragraph 3 he next proceeds to destroy his whole case for anti-fascist propaganda by admitting that the kind of non-Socialist propaganda he wants to carry on will be helpless against the effects of another slump. Unwittingly he thereby shows how sound is the position of the S.P.G.B. Slumps are a necessary product of capitalism and nothing but the abolition of capitalism will prevent them.
In paragraph five he seeks to support his argument by quoting what Engels thought some 60 years ago, but it does not occur to him to ask whether Engels’ views turned out to be correct, Engels thought that if those who had an understanding of Socialism joined up with non-Socialist workers’ organisations these non-Socialist movements would soon gain the necessary understanding. In a letter dated 3rd June, 1886, he wrote that “after a few false starts they [the American workers] will get into the right track soon enough.” (“The Correspondence of Marx and Engels,” Martin Lawrence, 1934, p.448.) The same year and to the same correspondent he wrote “a million or two of working-men’s votes next November for a bona fide working-men’s party is worth infinitely more at present than a hundred thousand votes for a doctrinally perfect platform.” (P.454.)
What has happened to Engels’ optimistic and mistaken hopes? Where, even now, is the bona fide American workingmen’s party that can get one or two million votes, notwithstanding the fact that the electorate is about five times as big as in 1886? Engels was wrong; a hundred thousand votes for Socialism then, or even now, would have been of infinitely more value than millions of votes for the reform of capitalism.
Our correspondent’s second quotation from Engels (referring to the German Social Democrats), proves to be a similar broken reed. In 1887 Engels thought that that movement proved his case; subsequent events, coming to a head in 1914 and after the first world war, proved on the contrary that the German Socialist Democratic Party was built on rotten foundations and when put to the test failed completely to justify the hopes placed in it. The only party in this country that was not surprised when the rottenness of the German S.D.P. was exposed was the S.P.G.B. All of what our correspondent would call the other “genuine Socialists” were taken in by the German Party, for they were built on the same rotten foundations themselves. When they looked at the German S.D.P. it was like looking into a mirror and what they saw they naturally thought was good.
In paragraph six our correspondent bases his hopes on the anti-war efforts of Communists. We deny that the Communists are anti-war except in the vague sense that everybody dislikes war. Their history shows that whenever and wherever it has been the policy of the Russian Government to support war the Communists have faithfully toed the line. If our correspondent questions this we ask him for evidence that Communists are at the present moment opposing the several wars that the Russian Government supports.
In paragraph seven he comes to the defence of the I.L.P. and Common Wealth, organisations that he holds to be “genuine Socialists.” True both these parties proclaim their belief in “genuine Socialism ” but as what they mean by Socialism is “state capitalism ‘ that gets us nowhere. In the S.S. for October, 1947, we showed by quotation from Common Wealth publications that their aim is state capitalism though they call it Socialism, As for the I.L.P. a recent issue of their journal, Socialist Leader (30/10/48), contains an article supporting nationalisation or state capitalism in the steel industry. The writer advocates nationalisation on the farcical ground that whereas the Tories would let profits rise and then “we shall have another slump,” if the Labour Government nationalises steel and also limits profits this will prevent another slump. So one of our correspondent’s parties of “genuine Socialists” cherishes the absurd belief that capitalist slumps can be prevented provided capitalism is dosed with the limitation of profits.
The Socialist Leader writer does make the admission that nationalisation is not “socialisation” but as he goes on to explain that if the nationalised industry is “decentralised” instead of being “centralised ” that, will be “socialisation,” it is obvious that for him “socialisation” merely means decentralised state capitalism and does not mean Socialism.
Much is made by our correspondent of the point that the I.L.P. and Common Wealth want nationalisation not with generous compensation but with “less lavish” or restricted compensation. This is entirely irrelevant even if the Labour Government favoured it. State capitalism is still capitalism whether the capitalists are compensated or not, compensated much or little. Russia, which started out by confiscating and by wiping out the bondholders, is now demonstrating all the evils of state capitalism, including building up a new bond-holding system. Neither the I.L.P. nor Common Wealth nor’ our correspondent has grasped the fact that Socialism involves the abolition of the wages system and of production for the market.
If in spite of this he still thinks they are Socialists let him produce some evidence. Alternatively since Mr. Truman, has just announced his programme of higher wages and higher taxation of profits and promises to prevent the next slump (not to mention the introduction of small doses of nationalisation) does he not think that “genuine Socialists” ought to co-operate with Mr. Truman, as indeed many of these queer fish did at the recent election?
The next paragraph (number eight) needs little comment. Having read our charge that the Anarchists deny “the need for the control of the machinery of goverment,” i.e. the control of it by the working class as a necessary step to abolishing capitalism, our correspondent blandly changes the “of” into “by” and accuses us of jibing at the Anarchists “for daring to deny the need for control by central government.”
In paragraph nine we are taken back to the anti-war campaign, third version. The first was an anti-war campaign free for all except the Communists; the second brought the Communists in; now the third eliminates all except “the Socialist Parties”.
In this paragraph our correspondent misses the point of our statement that anti-war movements disintegrate when war comes. They invariably disintegrate because when the war comes most of the anti-war crusaders support it. In order to be politically effective the small pacifist groups (i.e. those who say they will not support any war) seek support among the much larger numbers of people who believe that it is possible to keep capitalism but at the same time stop capitalism’s wars by signing Peace Letters and conducting good-will propaganda. When they see they have failed they no longer have any reason to keep up the anti-war campaign.
In paragraph ten we are asked when the S.P.G.B. ever co-operates with Socialists “who happen to be outside it.” To this we reply firstly that the S.P.G.B. co-operates with its companion parties overseas, and secondly that, as regards this country, Socialists do not just “happen” to be outside the S.P.G.B. The question therefore needs to be reversed, and individuals who agree with the S.P.G.B. should ask themselves why they do not co-operate with us inside the S.P.G.B.
But probably, when our correspondent refers to “Socialists” who happen to be outside the S.P.G.B., what he really means is individuals who “believe themselves to be Socialists” but who reject the S.P.G.B.’s aims or methods and have deliberately chosen to put themselves inside political parties that oppose the S.P.G.B. We dealt with them near the beginning of this reply.
There is, it is true, another group of individuals, those who say that they agree with the S.P.G.B. but who join opposing parties because they hold that they can influence those parties and thus speed up the work of making Socialists. If any of these individuals (i.e. individuals who do not wish to co-operate with us inside the S.P.G.B.) ask us to co-operate with them we are entitled to point out that it is not with them as individuals that the co-operation would take place but with the harmful organisations to which they belong. We note their contention that they are moulding these organisations and guiding them in a Socialist direction but we are not impressed since there is not the slightest evidence of it. It looks to us like a man held in the jaws of a man-eating tiger who tells us he has the situation under control and asks us to come in; or, to change the metaphor, Jonah may have thought that he was digesting the whale but it wasn’t so. The best thing that can happen to such individuals is that they get spewed out like Jonah.
In his last paragraph our correspondent rehashes many of his earlier misconceptions. Having admitted that capitalism is the cause of modern war he again asks us to co-operate with the supporters of capitalism to stop it! Among the horrors of war he lists the laughable one that it will postpone for decades “even the first instalments of a feeble Fabianism.” We do not want any instalments of Fabianism, though as it happens we already suffer from large instalments perpetrated by the Labour Government. Among other things it is these Fabians who are speeding the cut-throat export drive which is the usual prelude to the armed conflict and who are fastening conscription on us to prepare for war.
The world is full of non-Socialists busily engaged in anti-war and anti-fascist campaigns. If their activities could gain their object the problems would have been solved long ago, they are certainly not held back by lack of numbers. But the only solution is the achievement of Socialism and this really is held back because there are so few Socialists. And how does our correspondent propose to tackle this problem of too many non-Socialists and too few Socialists? Common sense would suggest the wisdom of trying to win over non-Socialists to Socialism. Then there would be fewer reformists and more Socialists, and Socialism would be so much nearer. Not so our correspondent. Such is the mental muddle into which reformism has got him that he actually believes he is being “practical” when he proposes precisely the opposite. Instead of wanting to help the Socialists to become stronger he wants the Socialists to weaken their effort for Socialism and spend time and energy with the reformists spreading more confusion. If those whom our correspondent believes to be “genuine Socialists” want to help Socialism their first step should be to stop calling themselves Socialists. If they labelled themelves correctly as people trying to patch up capitalism and make it work the Socialists’ task of explaining Socialism would be vastly eased.
ED. COMM.