THE BALLOT AND SOCIALISM
An open
letter to all Members of the World Socialist Party
(We print below the substance of a
dispute in which the W.S.P. Has been engaged for some time on the
question of the ballot. Some aspects of the issues involved are, we
believe, the subject of the referendum, and any decisions arrived at
are of course the domestic concern of the W.S.P. Nevertherless there
are matters and opinions involved in this controversy which go beyond
the W.S.P. Controversy and members of the S.P.G.B. As well as members
of the W.S.P. And the companion parties are unlikely to resist the
stimulus of argument. It can be taken for granted however, that were
principles or general propositions are questioned, they will be
argued on merits, and not in relation to the dispute in the W.S.P.
Incidentally, though it may come as a surprise to some who regard the
S.P.G.B. As “formalised” or “rigid”. “FORUM” has been
started on the assumption that no proposition is sacred and may be
challenged.
Here follows an open letter from a group of members of the W.S.P. And a reply by Comrade Cantor of the W.S.P. – Editors)
Here follows an open letter from a group of members of the W.S.P. And a reply by Comrade Cantor of the W.S.P. – Editors)
Dear Comrades,
At the 1951 Conference of our party,
held in Detroit, the question of the party's stand on the ballot was
discussed at some lengths and the following "compromise"
statement was drawn up for presentation to the membership in the
coming referendum:
Under capitalism where the State
machinery is in the hands of the capitalist class, the ballot can be
used for the purpose of measuring the developing socialist
consciousness of the working class. When this consciousness reaches a
majority stage, the ballot can become the revolutionary weapon for
the introduction of socialism.
If at the time the socialist majority
is obtained, material conditions preclude the use of the ballot, then
the majority will use whatever other means are at hand to introduce
socialism.
If this statement is voted in as the
party position on the ballot, the W.S.P. will be adopting a stand
contrary to the one which it and its companion parties have had
since the S.P.G.B. was first
organised. These members who refuse
to accept the party position that the
ballot will be, not that it can (possibly) be the weapon of
emancipation must answer the following question:
What other method than the ballot can a
socialist majority use to show itself and the population as a whole
that it is a majority to begin with? And Jlflw, other than by means
of the ballot can it make its demands and wishes known?—unless
these members actually reject the thesis that socialism must be
brought about by a class-conscious majority.
The position of the companion parties
on the question of the ballot has been set forth on numerous
occasions in the S.P.G.B. pamphlets and in-, articles in the S.S. and
W.S. over the years. To quote a few references :
This political machinery must be
captured by the workers organizing themselves into a political party,
having for its object the overthrow of the present social system and
the establishment of a system of society based upon common ownership
of the means of living. Thus organized they must wrest control of the
political machinery from the ruling class by means of the ballot, and
having achieved this control, must use it to strip the capitalist
class of their possessions, and consequently of their privileges.
The vote is to be the weapon. Let us
inquire, therefore, what is the real nature of the vote. (pp. 41 and
42 Socialism—Library No. 9.)
In a leaflet issued by the S.P. of C.
entitled THE VALUE OF THE VOTE, reprinted from The Western Socialist
for Feb., 1937, the following statements are made:
We contend that class society can be
eliminated and Socialism introduced, when a majority of the workers,
making use of the modern weapon placed in their hands in all
bourgeois democracies —The Franchise.—take political power away
from the capitalist class for the purpose of so doing.
and again:
and again:
We accept the use of the franchise
as the proper method because, in the ultimate analysis, it appears to
be the only sane, feasible road to working class emancipation. We
realize with sorrow the slowness of the pace, and would gladly
discard our weapon in favour of anything that would get us to our
goal sooner. But, alas, these better ways are not in evidence. We
must therefore continue to educate and organize as before,
understanding that when the expression at the polls attains a
satisfactory status both the workers and capitalists " will know
what to do ". Their collective reactions to this social stimulus
will mark the end of the old order, and the beginning of the
new.
The workers will take possession of
political power, and their opponents will either concede the victory
or take the consequences.
In The Western Socialist for December,
1947, an article by J. A. McDonald entitled WORKERS AND THE VOTE sums
up as follows:
" Given a working class that
understands the nature of Capitalism and Socialism, and the
revolutionary action that is essential to change one into the other,
we need have no fear concerning the weapon of emancipation—the
vote."
In all our literature there is but one
instance where there is any equivocation on our position on the
ballot. This is in a leaflet entitled: " Introducing the
W.S.P.", which is being distributed. This article, written by
comrade Cantor, appeared originally in the W.S. for Nov.-Dec, 1949,
minus the equivocating statement. " However, as a minority
party, the World Socialist Party does not, nor should not, lay down
the exact steps by which the majority, once it becomes socialist,
will introduce socialism," which was ruled out by the unanimous
decision of the editorial committee when the article first came up
for review. At a subsequent meeting of the NAC in Detroit, the
statement was reinserted by that body without appeal to the
membership and the article was ordered drawn up in leaflet form.
There will be a referendum on this item
also. We urge the membership to vote against the distribution of a
leaflet which contains a statement that implies a luke warm position
on the efficacy of the ballot as the revolutionary weapon.
We can sum up our stand on the question
of the ballot as follows:
We advocate the use of the ballot as
the means by which the working class will emancipate itself and the
rest of mankind from class society. We have examined and found
unacceptable such means as armed insurrection, general strike,
workers' councils and spontaneous, un-organized mass action.
Until such time as we are shown how a
conscious majority of socialists can make itself known and wrest
control of the state from the capitalist class in any other way than
through the ballot, we refuse to waste our energies upon idle
conjecture.
We, therefore; urge our fellow-workers
to join with us in a political party that is organized for the sole
purpose of abolishing the wages system by means of the only weapon
that is at our disposal—the franchise.
Group of Boston Comrades W.S.P.
— COMRADE CANTOR'S REPLY — I.
The Open Letter issued by a group of
Boston comrades has succeeded in doing one thing: it has elevated to
a principle question whether or not socialism will come about through
the ballot. The Open Letter categorically states that socialism will
come about in one way only, through the ballot. If this position is
adopted, then the line of demarcation between socialists and
non-socialists will be the belief or non-belief in the ultimate
efficacy of the ballot, and those who believe it may result from some
other action by the conscious majority are repudiators of majority
action, advocates of violence—in short, hold principles a socialist
should not hold. Another reason for the unten-ability of the Open
Letter position is that it violates the materialistic approach to
history. Before even the material conditions—those of a conscious
majority—are at hand, the Open Letter advocates know them in
advance.
For this reason we cannot take
seriously the charge that we, the supporters of the 1951 conference
position do not believe in the action of the conscious majority.
Rather it is the opposite. Were the material conditions at the time
the conscious majority comes about to be such, as to obviate the
ballot (and by the ballot we do not mean a vote, but the ballot as
existing under the present economic system),
and were the majority to utilize some
other method, then it would be the Open Letter advocates who would be
rejecting the majority. They would say to the majority: See here, my
good majority; you are not carrying out this revolution as some
twenty-five or fifty or a hundred years ago we stated you had to
carry it out. It is necessary to reject your methods, and use the
ballot as the only weapon of emancipation.
No, it is these comrades who hold the
1951 conference position who are permitting the socialist revolution
to be carried out by the conscious majority, and it is the Open
Letter position which would have the majority reject itself.
II.
If indeed the socialist revolution must
wait upon the development of a conscious majority, and the World
Socialist Party contains only a relatively few members of the working
class, why should the method of obtaining socialism —the ballot or
not the ballot—-become of such importance at this stage? Are not
those who uphold the 1951 conference position just as dogmatic as the
Open Letter supporters in demanding today that their position be
favoured as against the other? To answer this in the affirmative is
to misunderstand the position of 1951 conference. We state the
possibilities of the ballot as a weapon of emancipation, but we do
not close the door to other possibilities, depending on the
development of material conditions. Thus, those who believe it will
be the ballot are acceptable in the Party under our position. The
Open Letter declares the ballot to be the only weapon of
emancipation. Those who are of the opinion that history may dictate
other methods to the conscious majority would be excluded from the
Party under this position.
As badly split as the socialist
movement has been in this country and in
many cases the schisms have resulted
from this constant attempt—such as executed by the Open Letter in
this instance—to narrow it down further, we should not make it more
and more difficult to become a socialist by drawing closer and closer
the lines of defining one.
We have our principles. We recognise
the necessity of majority action, that the political state must be
overcome, that the change must be a revolutionary one without any
transition periods. Beyond this at this particular stage we cannot
go. The growth of the movement itself will be a change in the
material conditions, and new circumstances will alter the case. But
the Open Letter position does not permit the growth of a movement of
any sort, because it immediately excludes socialists. This is the
importance of this ballot issue, that it stands in the way—as
similar dogmatic positions have stood in the way on other
occasions—of the uniting of the socialists into one organization.
It will not solve the problem to quote
from S.P.G.B. pamphlets or articles which have appeared in the
Western Socialist. These articles contain no analysis, and do not
deal specifically with the conditions in the United States. They are
mere ukase-like statements or outright rejections containing "
must be ", and " must ", and the " workers will
", and the " vote is to be the weapon ", etc. The
question we are dealing with here cannot be settled that easily. As a
matter of fact, we shall demonstrate the lack of analysis on the part
of the Open Letter advocates and their insistence on sheer dogma in
the following section.
(We have taken out section 3 with the
exception of one paragraph. Section 3 deals mainly with the
peculiarities of the American Constitution and the deficiencies of
the American balloting arrangements. As this section stands alone in
its subject matter and the rest of the matter deals with general
propositions it seemed the logical thing to arrange the two parts in
this manner. Section three will appear next month. The one paragraph
from section three we publish follows immediately and precedes
section 4.—Editors.)
Of course, the above arguments do not
apply to Great Britain where a Parliamentary system permits a change
in government over night, so to speak, and where there is no
Constitution to be protected and defended. The workers are better
able in England to effect a revolutionary change through Parliament
than the workers in the U.S. through Congress. However, the same
arguments used in this paper—that if the State, remaining in the
hands of the ruling class minority physically prevents
the majority from taking over, then the
majority would have to decide on other action to assert itself—these
arguments prevail not only in England but in any country in the
world.
IV.
Socialists are continually pointing to
history, and stating that we must learn the lessons which history has
handed down. Can any deduction be drawn from such a study to indicate
the precise manner in which the socialist revolution will be carried
out, whether by the ballot, a congressional majority, or some other
method? It is our contention that there has never been a successful
socialist revolution, and therefore we havffi nothing to guide us.
Even if there had' been, the material conditions would be-so changed,
as to necessitate a change in our attitudes.
Successful bourgeois revolutions have,,
however, taken place, in the past. They were revolutions carried out
by the leadership of a minority, fought by the majority, and
.culminating in the victory of a new minority ruling class, with the
latest form of exploitation over the majority. These bourgeois
revolutions taught us what the socialist revolution must not be—a
minority movement in the interests of minority, and what it must be—a
movement of the conscious; majority in the interests of the
majority.-
These are the only premises history has
set forth for the socialist revolution, and they are general
premises. History has given us nothing of details as to whether the
ballot can, may or must be the way to bring about socialism.
One thing we do know, ?nd that is as
long as capitalism exists, the State will exist, and this state with
all its forces will be employed to defend the interests of the ruling
class. Thus, one might say that the minority cannot forever stand in
the path of the majority, but what is there to guarantee that the
socialists can have the opportunity In become the majority as long as
the State exists? We have nothing on which to base our answer. In
Germany and Italy, where social-democratic movements did not threaten
the complete abolition of capitalism—but only its reform—the
state acted swiftly and established a police dictatorship. In the
United States, the most powerful capitalist nation in the world, and
in which the brutality of the police in strikes has little parallel
throughout the world, movements are already under way to outlaw "
subversive " groups from the ballot. What use would the
socialists be able to make of the ballot if they are not allowed even
to appear on it? Our opponents might reply that nothing can stand in
the way of a growing socialist movement, but how, from their
viewpoint, is this growth to be recorded without the ballot? How will
the socialist minority be able to get on the ballot? By demanding "
civil rights"? The capitalists who control the State will see to
it that these rights are not asserted.
If an outright dictatorship such as
existed in Germany and Italy—and now exists in Russia—were to
come about in the United States, the socialists, according to
advocates of the Open Letter, would have to conduct a struggle for
the ballot. Assume by some manner or another they force the
dictatorship to place the socialists on the ballot—this is just for
argument's sake because it can't happen this way—and then the
socialists achieve a majority. The armed forces are still in control
of the capitalist class. The socialists state: we have the majority,
and demand the unconditional surrender of the capitalist class. The
latter refuses to surrender. Then of what avail is the ballot? Our
opponents will say that along with a developing socialist majority
will come a sympathetic response from the armed forces. How do we
know this? How do we know the forces may not be balanced?
The position adopted at the 1951
conference does not have to answer the foregoing in a dogmatic
fashion, and herein lies its strength. This position states that the
socialists will utilize the ballot to measure the socialist
consciousness of the working class, but it does not bind itself (or
the majority, which it cannot bind anyway, in spite of the Open
Letter attempts to do so) by the ballot, so that if the ballot is
denied to the majority, or if the ballot does not reflect the wishes
of the majority, or if the minority blocks the majority in spite of a
majority ballot, then the majority " will know what to do ".
The Open Letter states that "
until such a time as we are shown how a conscious
majority of socialists can
make itself known and wrest control of
the State from the capitalist class in any-other way than through the
ballot, we refuse to waste our energies upon idle conjecture."
But the question we would like to ask is, How can the.Open Letter
comrades show that the ballot will be the method of wresting control
of the State from the capitalist class? Would they issue a
certificate of guarantee to every one who joins the World Socialist
Party that it will be the ballot, and nothing but the ballot? Is it
not just as much idle conjecture on the part of the Open Letter, as
it is on ours? Of course, we may be proved wrong, and we openly admit
we may be proved wrong, because no one can predict the future in a
society as complicated as. ours. But the Open Letter refuses to admit
it may be wrong. It knows, without equivocation, beyond a
per-adventure of doubt that events are going to take place as they
predict them. This is dogma at its highest point.
The Open Letter quotes that part of
the I.W.S.P. pamphlet on the ballot which states, " However, as
a minority party, the World Socialist Party does not, nor should not,
lay down the exact steps by which the majority once it becomes'
socialist, will introduce socialism." Yet il fails to. quote the
preceding statement thai " the World Socialist Party holds
that the ballot
presents the nmsl practical and
possible way for the winkers to obtain political power." No
doubt this was an over-Ight. In any I'ase we wish to point out that
neither the 1951 conference position, inn that of the I.W.S.P.
pamphlet rejects the ballot, as the Open Letter would seem to imply.
What else is there to advocate today but the ballot? With the
socialists as few as they are in the United States today, advocacy of
ins- method lo achieve socialism is I"-" I i all} mc.miugli
.:,, as the socialists are not in a position to do anything about
this advocacy. Perhaps by the time they are a majority, they will
have to advocate some other method.
One might say in opposition that the
World Socialist Party, as a political party with the aim of capturing
the State, must inform the workers how it is going to accomplish its
political objective. But can the World Socialist Party guarantee that
it will be the party which will carry out the socialist revolution
without committing itself to a leadership ideology? How can the World
Socialist Party assure the workers that the conditions at the time a
majority is obtained will be identical with those prevailing today?
Of course, it cannot guarantee any of the two.
The 1951 conference -position does not
advocate violence. There is no specific virtue in the use of
violence, nothing to commend it as a way to socialism. But history
has taught that the violence always arises from the other side, from
the side in power, and that the workers are forced to defend
themselves physically.
Our position declares in advance that
the majority will not be thwarted. If a majority sentiment exists for
socialism, and the existing legalistic balloting system stands in the
way, then the majority will be compelled to find another way to carry
out its objective.
As socialists we must first of all
advocate a revolutionary change in society. The method must be that
of a conscious majority. The Open Letter comrades shy away from this
.point, because they make the ballot or not the ballot the principle
question, and not the revolutionary action of the conscious majority.
Such a position as this can easily lead to the World Socialist Party
taking an anti-revolutionary attitude, that is, opposing a conscious
majority engaged in revolutionary activity—we will not say what
type specifically—because it is not employing the existing ballot
machinery.
A socialist party must be supple. Never
swaying from its main objective, it must nevertheless be prepared to
alter its attitudes with each new change of material conditons. This
is our approach, and on this ground we take our stand.
