William Morris, Lenin and the ex-SWP

[ALB]

A comrade recently gave me a couple of issues of RS21, a new glossy magazine published by one of the fragments of those who left the SWP a year or so ago. One of the articles was titled "Lenin: Yes! Leninism: No!" Normally I wouldn't have read through such an article but as this was by Ian Birchall, who I was in college with, I did. I was surprised by the concluding paragraph:

Quote:

Our first task is much more basic, to rebuild the revolutionary left in a difficult period. So I shall end with a quote, not from Lenin, but from William Morris (who had a lot more in common with Lenin than admirers of his wallpaper might imagine): “We believe then, that it should be our special aim to make Socialists.”

But didn't Lenin say that, left to themselves, the working class could only acquire a trade union consciousness and why the SWP (of which Birchall was a long-standing central committee member) always denounced our policy of "making socialists" as "abstract propagandism," way above the intellectual capacity of workers?

Tony Cliff would perhaps have called this "the Turn to the SPGB". Still, better late than never. Not that Morris did have all that much in common with Lenin (only making "socialism" a lower stage of "communism").

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…our policy of "making socialists" …

I know what you're getting at here, ALB, and in some sense I obviously agree with it.But the actual phrase 'making socialists' could be interpreted as workers being passively shaped by their 'makers'.I think that it's important to stress the developmental nature of this 'making', as a self-development of workers with the help of other workers. Perhaps an emphasis on a two-stage nature of the process would help.That is, the worker must become critical of 'what exists' in their lives because they can see that so much more is possible (but this is a 'negative' thinking phase of doubting); but to develop into a 'socialist' then the worker must become influenced by other already-socialist workers. Without this second 'positive' phase of options being presented for their selection as answers to their doubts, then the doubts could just as easily develop in the direction of nationalism, for example.So, the potential to be a socialist must already exist, and all we socialists do is help to further develop a tendency that already exists in the 'doubtful' worker: that is, their critical thought based upon doubt of what exists, and their wish to also help other workers develop.Perhaps you should refer to "…our policy of "developing socialists"…".This shows better our view that continuing 'self-development' of us all as workers is our aim, not 'making' something of our own finished design.This also makes plain that we socialists can't make the first phase happen, the 'negative' phase of coming to doubt what exists. That's the initial critical step of each worker for themselves.Some comrades have already referred to 'collecting socialists', and I think that this is preferable to 'making', but I prefer the process-ness of 'developing', because 'collecting' suggests the final product is already complete, and a finality or fixity, and it clearly isn't. We can always develop ourselves.

[ALB]

Of course. "Make Socialists" is a simplification. I used it because it is a term William Morris frequently used, as in the "Statement of Principles of the Hammersmith Socialist Society" from which Birchall was quoting and which Morris drew up in 1890 after leaving the Socialist League because it had been taken over by bomb-throwing anarchists.It is an eloquent statement of the case for socialism in the sense we mean it, still worth reading today. Here's the paragraph in full that Birchall was quoting from:

Quote:

We believe then, that it should be our special aim to make Socialists, by putting before people, and especially the working-classes, the elementary truths of Socialism; since we feel sure, in the first place, that in spite of the stir in the ranks of labour, there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is, or have had opportunities of arguing on the subject with those who have at least begun to understand it; and, in the second place, we are no less sure that before any definite Socialist action can be attempted, it must be backed up by a great body of intelligent opinion – the opinion of a great mass of people who are already Socialists, people who know what they want, and are prepared to accept the responsibilities of self-government, which must form a part of their claims.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course. "Make Socialists" is a simplification. I used it because it is a term William Morris frequently used…

Yeah, I recognise that, but what I'm saying is that given the events of the 20th century (2nd International, 1917, Leninism, Stalin, all the other 'socialist states' including the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea) which Morris didn't live through, it's as well to adapt Morris' term 'make' (which suggests Uncle Joe and Pol Pot to many) to 'help develop' or somesuch.

ALB wrote:

William Morris wrote:

…in spite of the stir in the ranks of labour, there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is…

I think that this is as true now, as it was then, and was throughout the 20th century. 'Labour stirring' will not lead to socialism. All the activity and practice in the world will not lead to socialism, unless the 'stirring, struggling, activity and practice' is consciously aimed at producing socialism.Fighting for wage rises is not class consciousness. That will not 'develop' or 'make' socialists.Only when workers have already come to doubt the 'wage system' and have been offered an alternative by socialists, will any fighting be conscious. Practice does not lead to theory.Contrary to what some comrades have argued on other threads, I agree with Morris and some other comrades that 'there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is'.And I blame socialists since Marx for not making the message easier to understand, not the many workers who've been confronted with all sorts of nonsense called 'socialism', and, after taking a glance, have wisely chosen to avoid it.

[ALB]

Here's another statement by Morris of what he meant. From an article in Commonweal on 19 November 1890 entitled "Where Are We Now":

Quote:

My readers will understand that in saying this I am speaking for those who are complete Socialists – or let us call them Communists. I say for us to make Socialists is the business at present, and at present I do not think we can have any other useful business. Those who are not really Socialists – who are Trades' Unionists, disturbance-breeders, or what not – will do what they are impelled to do, and we cannot help it. At the worst there will be some good in what they do; but we need not and cannot heartily work with them, when we know that their methods are beside the right way.Our business, I repeat, is the making of Socialists, i.e., convincing people that Socialism is good for them and is possible. When we have enough people of that way of thinking, they will find out what action is necessary for putting their principles in practice. Until we have that mass of opinion, action for a general change that will benefit the whole people is impossible. Have we that body of opinion of any thing like it? Surely not. If we look outside that glamour, that charmed atmosphere of party warfare in which we necessarily move, we shall see this clearly: that though there are a great many who believe it possible to compel their masters by some means or another to behave better to them, and though they are prepared to compel them (by so-called peaceful means, strikes and the like), all but a very small minority are not prepared to do without masters. They do not believe in their own capacity to undertake the management of affairs, and to be responsible for their life in this world. When they are so prepared, then Socialism will be realised; but nothing can push it on a day in advance of that time.Therefore, I say, make Socialists. We Socialists can do nothing else that is useful, and preaching and teaching is not out of date for that purpose; but rather for those who, like myself, do not believe in State Socialism, it is the only rational means of attaining to the New Order of Things.

As you say, the situation is (unfortunately) much the same today. It can also be seen why we in the SPGB like Morris.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Morris wrote:

… all but a very small minority are not prepared to do without masters. They do not believe in their own capacity to undertake the management of affairs, and to be responsible for their life in this world.

I can't help but reading 'elite scientists' as also included in Morris' 'masters'.[don't answer that point, ALB, it's a poor, even insensitive, joke]

ALB wrote:

As you say, the situation is (unfortunately) much the same today. It can also be seen why we in the SPGB like Morris.

Yeah, what little I know of Morris (not much beyond what you've written today and in the past here), he seems pretty solid.But, like Marx, he can be criticised for being too optimistic about workers' self-development. This is also by far the weakest part of the arguments that I make too, but a weakness that other socialists can't exploit in polemics, without sounding like Leninists.Of course, the Leninists themselves don't have that disadvantage, when arguing with me, and so can stress the role of a party which has a 'special consciousness' denied to the dumb workers.To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

 To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.

Could well be due to social conditioning promoting a dependency culture on Leaders?

[jondwhite]

If Morris has developed more socialists and the league was democratic, then couldn't he have taken back the Socialist League from the anarchists.

[ALB]

Yes, a pity he couldn't. His opponents in the Socialist League really were bomb-throwers as this article from the October 1911 Socialist Standard recorded:

Quote:

In the flourishing days of Anarchism in England, when they had captured the "Socialist League," after William Morris, Eleanor Marx and others had left it in disgust., the Anarchists used its organ, the "Commonweal," to push its reactionary propaganda. Thus D. J. Nichol, the editor, wrote of a Trafalgar Square meeting : "Some people condemned the throwing of the bomb at Chicago ; for my part I think it would have been well in London if a man had been found courageous enough to hurl death and destruction among the ruffians who attacked a peaceful meeting." (Nov. 11, 1891)In the next issue they eulogised the Tennessee escaped prisoners who carried on open pillage in these terms : "You have shown the workers of America—aye, and of the world—how to free themselves, not at the ballot-box but with the rifle, the torch, and the dynamite bomb." It commended the Anarchist, Ravachol, who murdered and robbed an old man and was guillotined, in the following words : "Thus finished another stage in the career of a man who has shaken capitalism to its foundations and shown the workers an example worthy of emulation. We are anxiously awaiting the advent of some English Ravachols." (July 2, 1892.)Many other examples could be quoted but one more must, suffice. "We say that individual acts have always been a success. The man who strangled Watrin [a French mine-owner whose men were on strike], Pini, who robbed the banks, have opened more eyes than all the pamphlet writers in a century. Our aims can only be attained by accumulated individual actions against property and the men who hold it." (Dec. 19, 1891).When the Anarchist "movement" was less feeble its votaries carried out its teachings. In 1893 August Vaillant, the French Anarchist, threw a bomb into the French Parliament from the public gallery. Over 60 people were wounded and he was guillotined. In 1894 Martial Bourdin blew himself to atoms while fixing a bomb near the Royal Observatory, in. Greenwich Park. In the same year a Deptford "comrade," Rolla Richards, got 7 years for blowing up several South London Post offices, Emile Henry, too, threw a bomb from the balcony of the Paris Cafe Terminus, and 2 persons were killed arid 21 injured.The foregoing demonstrate that Anarchism is hostile to working class organisation. While it advocates individual violence, it paves the way for the armed forces of the State to intervene and crush it.

No wonder Morris felt he had to distance himself from these nutters.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

 To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.

Could well be due to social conditioning promoting a dependency culture on Leaders?

That's part of the 'ruling class ideas', of course, Brian.But I think it has as much, if not more, to do with lack of confidence. If one gets rid of 'leaders', one has to 'do things for oneself'. It's not enough to be simply critical of 'masters', one has to have experience of 'leading' oneself.Of course, this 'building of confidence' and giving 'experience of leadership' should be part and parcel of joining a socialist party. But the Leninist parties do the exact opposite: they teach initially critical workers (who've rejected capitalism and joined their party) to be subservient, again, to party, central committees, full-timers, cadre… oh yes, and 'matter'.The culture of any workers' party should be to encourage workers to criticise the party itself. If the party is of any use at all to workers, it will be able to deal with any criticisms, and by persuasion keep the party together. Workers running their own branches, without 'full-timer' interference, meetings that criticise the party's own publications, lead by the newest members (where the old hands are kept under the leash of the elected chair), and open and encouraged 'factional' activity, amongst many other techniques, would help to develop the self-confidence of party members.I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Unlike comrades like YMS who blame workers for not choosing 'socialism', I blame socialists for not developing workers whenever they take an interest. Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of workers have been through the Trotskyist parties, in the UK alone. Don't all socialist parties end up ejecting (either formally or by culture) those workers who are critical, those who won't 'toe the party line'?In my experience, counting myself and every other worker I've known who's ever been a member of a 'socialist' party, they've left, not because of 'dependency culture', but because they've realised that the 'socialism' espoused by these parties is a load of nonsense.I'd like to end this post on a comradely note, Brian.But I can't. I put 'materialism' at the top of the philosophical list for these shennanigans. That's always the excuse for knowing better than workers do themselves. 'Material conditions' or 'matter'. After all, one can't criticise 'matter', can one? And that's the start of the rot. From the head down.IMO most party 'leaders' are as thick as pigshit.Can't get less 'dependency culture on Leaders' than that, can we? Morris would have agreed with me, of course.

[SocialistPunk]

Brian wrote:

LBird wrote:

 To me, Morris is far more a 'Marxist' than any Leninist. But that doesn't help in determining why workers have been so reluctant 'to do without masters'.

Could well be due to social conditioning promoting a dependency culture on Leaders?

Reminds me of a conversation going on elsewhere.Like most things in this world the answer is rarely simple. Social conditioning, fear of change, lack of self confidence, all play a part.

[alanjjohnstone]

The Leninists stole Marx from us, now they again try to steal Morris (a continuous campaign over the decades). Shame it isn't if we can't beat them, join them…rather than if we can't beat them, make them join us!

[ALB]

For the SWP take on William Morris (and a criticism of it) see this book review (scroll down to the second one):http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2008/no-1250-october-2008/book-reviews

[jondwhite]

ALB wrote:

Yes, a pity he couldn't. His opponents in the Socialist League really were bomb-throwers as this article from the October 1911 Socialist Standard recorded: … No wonder Morris felt he had to distance himself from these nutters.

Agreed. Morris formed Hammersmith Socialist Society after the League, what stopped bomb-throwing anarchists taking over that. Just because it was too small to be worth it?

[ALB]

Article from our archives on the Hammersmith Socialist Society here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2003/no-1190-october-2003/william-morris-and-hammersmith-socialist-societyAnyway the Socialist League and its paper Commonweal continued under anarchist control for a few years afterwards.

[Author]

Posts