Who are the Revolutionaries?

The phrase, revolutionary Socialism, to use a bookish term, is, strictly speaking, tautological, justification for its use occasionally is the necessity to distinguish between what we stand for and the mixture of reformist proposals which are labelled Socialism. The day will come when the term Socialism will be understood to involve revolution: it will not then be necessary to emphasise the fact that Socialism is revolutionary by using a term which places the emphasis on revolution : and what we now allow to be implied when we use the term Socialism will be understood and taken for granted. Until that happy state of things is here much of the time of the Socialist Party must be taken up in exposing the false ideas and unsoundness in the policies of those organisations which speak in the name of Socialism. Where the false ideas concern the policies of such organisations as, say, the Labour Party, or the I.L.P., it is not difficult to demonstrate that Nationalisation, or State Capitalism, in one form or another is the utmost that the reformist policies of those organisations would involve. If, however, the making of Socialists depended upon that simple demonstration of fact, then a grasp of the position of the Socialist Party would be much more general than it is. In truth, without in any way departing from the concrete position that those who support reforms and reformist organisations stamp themselves in effect as reformists and non-Socialists it is nevertheless correct to say that there are many people who are under no illusions about the limitations of these policies; and who escape from the logical accusation of reformism by defending themselves with the policy of “revolutionary reformism”; that is to say, a conception of reformism which holds that the advocacy of reforms is a means of establishing Socialism. Reforms are justified on the grounds of expediency; they are, it is claimed, the strategy of revolution. We will examine the claims of this kind of opposition to the Socialist Party, assuming as the basis of our examination that “revolutionary-reformists” understand what we stand for even whilst opposing us.

Socialism by Stealth
The “revolutionary reformist” position is found generally in Trotskyist and anti-Stalin Communist circles, and has penetrated the I.L.P. In a debate with the S.P.G.B. a member of the latter organisation expounded the view that reforms were a means to an end; that having obtained the workers’ support for reforms all that would then be needed would be the right leaders to lead them to Socialism. That such views are not the official policy of the I.L.P. need not deter us. The fact is they are representative views, and perhaps more popular outside the I.L.P. than in it. Certainly “revolutionary reforms” and “demands” have had a long vogue, alongside of other “revolutionary” nostrums, such as the “day today struggle,” particularly since the days of the Bolshevik revolution, out of the experiences of which event directly arose much of the “revolutionary” theorising of recent years.

Superficially the idea that workers can be led to Socialism seems plausible. Let us examine it at its starling point. Why is it proposed to engage in time and energy in order to organise the majority of “workers behind a reformist programme. The answer given by inference and direct statement is that a majority of the workers are incapable of reaching that Socialist understanding necessary for them to organise for Socialism. To quote an argument used by the l.L.P. representative referred to, “the workers cannot rise above a trade union consciousness.” Now this is what the position of the “revolutionary reformist” comes to. Workers who reject Socialism now because they are not capable of understanding it would, at some time in the future, allow the right leaders to lead them to it. Further, the workers would allow themselves to be led to Socialism after having rejected it in favour of reforms. Truly our revolutionary reformists are modern political miracle pedlars. Like Christians (and the return ot Jesus Christ), they promise that “Socialism will come like a thief in the night !” Examine the “trade union consciousness” illustration referred to above. It damns our opponent who used it; for it was used for nothing if not to show that these workers (who, be it remembered, have reached a fairly ripe stage of historical consciousness) are interested as trade unionists only in wages and conditions of work and not in Socialism, and that the workers generally could not rise above this level; that workers’ minds being dominated by the petty details and haggling over the wages system, they are incapable of understanding Society being organised without the wages system and all that it means. Yet our “revolutionar reformists” are going to lead workers whose lives and conceptions are bound up with the wages system to a system where there will be no wages. If it is their position that the workers could be led to something they do not understand, and therefore do not want, without resistance, they have to explain why it is that workers (with a “trade union consciousness”) tenaciously hang on to the wages system now and reject that to which at some time in the remote future they will, showing less than sheep-like qualities, allow themselves to be led. To be logical, the saviours who are going to lead unwilling workers to Socialism should hide the promise from them—or surely the fascinating little game would be spoiled. But they don’t—or at least the l.L.P. species don’t. For the I.L.P., with the support of its representative who debated with us, is proclaiming in all its present propaganda the urgent necessity for a Socialist Britain—Now ! Our “revolutionary reformists” like to get the best of both sides of the argument. When the Socialist argues that Socialism can only be brought about by the workers first understanding and wanting it “trade union consciousness” is presented as a hard core of resistance that will prevent such understanding. When, however, some person, or group of noble persons, arise to lead the workers out of bondage, that hard core of resistance takes on the qualities of the spineless jelly fish.

It would seem that the doctrines of “revolutionary reformism” find acceptance among those in the working class movement who are removed from the day to day struggles of the workers. Without some such assumption it is impossible to appreciate how such condescending and false conceptions of working class outlook could arise.

Where we Stand
We are revolutionaries because we are Socialists. We can only sustain our claim to either or both whilst we reject uncompromisingly all reformism of whatever variety. There is only one solution for workin« class problems, and that is in organising for Socialism alone. Any deviation from that fundamental aspect of our policy in favour of reformism would rob the Socialist Party of its Socialist and revolutionary character and bring it support from people not interested in Socialism but in reforms as an end in themselves. We leave it to others to join the scrap heap of well-meaning reformists which working class history has produced by such folly. Not for us the immediate demands of the day to day struggle as a basis for policy. Our policy always is Socialism now. Not for us the policy of ”self-determination for the colonial peoples,” blah, blah and blah; but a Socialist working class as the first and essential step for getting all social problems in their right perspective. “Self-determination” for the colonial peoples means the right of the colonial capitalists to exploit their workers freely and without the interference of the Imperialist overlords. Our message to the workers everywhere is—away with all exploitation. Socialism is the only hope for the workers. A change of masters offers no escape from their problems. Besides which, whilst the world remains capitalist the removal of one set of Imperialist overlords in favour of native capitalists might merely open the gates for another set of Imperialists to step in: witness the fate of the smaller nations in Europe and throughout the world during the past half-a-century. And it might be added had the time and energy of scores of English reformist organisations during that time been spent carrying the message of Socialism to the Irish workers, for example, instead of misleading them into the belief that British dominance was the cause of their troubles, the Irish worker might be less priest-ridden and less suspect of pro-fascism to-day.

We are Socialists and revolutionaries. Unlike the reformist I.L.P., we do not present the inane spectacle of blazing headlines for Socialism Now in our journal whilst at the same time asserting in debate that the workers can never rise to an understanding of what is involved, now or at any time. Nor do we aim to lead the workers. We leave that to those self-appointed leaders in the working class movement in the confidence that whilst the workers as a class retain a modest intelligence the sheep and asses who would follow such leaders would be few in number.

For ourselves, as workers, revolutionaries, and Socialists, we never lose confidence that the idea of Socialism which is taking shape in the working class mind will reach the point of understanding which will prove the workers capable of the self-conscious, organised and intelligent act of establishing Socialism.

H. W.