Should We Fight for Democracy?
How often have we had to deal with the accusation that we do not change our policy to suit the needs of the moment? There has always been some burning topic, some pressing problem, which our opponents have told us demands immediate attention and for which we should abandon our insistence on Socialist propaganda for the time being.
The abolition of the House of Lords, unemployed agitation, the abolition of the Means Test, all have had their turn and have faded out to give place to fresh “immediate problems.” Surely, the fact that these “immediate problems” still remain unsolved should have convinced our opponents that we state the truth when we say that only Socialism can provide the solution to the strife and trouble of the world to-day ?
Experience seems to be a slow teacher, for, so far from having learnt, our opponents seem to have forgotten even those elementary lessons which capitalism taught with so much brutality and severity during the slaughter years of 1914-1918.
1914—and To-Day
The slogans which lured millions of British, French, and other workers on the Allies’ side, to their doom, were: “Save poor little Belgium,” “Smash Kaiserism,” “Make the world safe for democracy.”
On the opposite side men were marching to the motto: “Destroy Russian barbarism,” “Down with Perfidious Albion!” etc. To-day, when the reverberations of these slogans and the sound of the guns which gave them practical effect have hardly ceased, we are told that once again democracy is in danger and some political parties assure us it may be necessary to defend what they are pleased to call “our liberties” with our lives.
“Aggression” or “Defence”
One of the main arguments advanced to-day is that the world is divided into two sets of countries, one composed of those nations who are quite satisfied with what they possess and harbour no designs of “aggression,” and the others, the “have-nots,” the dissatisfied, who aim to steal territories wherever they can.
Quite apart from the fact that this theory ignores completely the means whereby some nations became “haves” and others “have nots,” there is, from the Socialist point of view, a more fundamental error. It lies in the assumption that nations are homogeneous communities composed of people who all have a share in the country of their birth and habitation. This, of course, is not true. Countries and their resources, whether big or small, with or without colonial possessions, do not belong to the people as a whole; they are the property of a small section, a wealthy minority. The bulk of the people in all countries are without property in the real sense of the word, and they depend upon the wealthy class to give them work or doles in order to live. This simple, elementary fact would appear to be unknown to all excepting Socialists, and consequently left out of account in all their speculations. Once accept the Socialist analysis of the capitalist world and its division into property-owners and property-less, the phrases “aggression” and “defence” can have a meaning only to those who own property. For it is clear, then, that the loss or gain of territory cannot affect those people who do not own it.
What, then, is left in the argument of the recruiting agents—and, remember, their ranks now include even those erstwhile rabid opponents of British Imperialism, the Communists—that in countries like Britain and France, a freedom of expression is allowed, the rights of people to express their political opinions by means of speech and vote, and that this freedom would be at stake were this country, for instance, involved in a war with Germany, a country where democracy has been crushed, free speech abolished, and voting has become a farce.
Do Socialists Value Democracy
It is necessary here to define our attitude towards the differences that exist between the “Democracies” and the Fascist countries, differences we have never denied but to which we have always applied a Socialist perspective. This Party knows the value of free speech. It appreciates fully the advantages and utility of the vote. In principle and practice we have always shown our appreciation of these “rights,” won, let it be understood, only as a consequence of working-class struggle against a ruling class that approaches these questions, not from the point of view of an abstract principle of human rights, but mainly on the grounds of expediency.
In the past we have consistently defended free speech and the vote against people many of whom pose to-day as the foremost champions of democracy. But we deny that the interests of democracy anywhere can be defended or promoted by a war; in fact, we deny that the question of democracy can ever be the real issue over which a war will be fought.
Why Wars are Fought
As we have explained, the divisions of the world’s population is into those who own it and those who merely exist on it, by permission of the owners; an explanation that cuts rights across national boundaries. When it is further understood that political power, the power that controls the armed forces, is in the hands of the owning class or those who represent their interests, the issue becomes crystal clear.
For it is obvious that a class which in every country cares nothing for the people whom it exploits, and keeps them in poverty-stricken oppression, will only use its armed forces, upon which it lavishes so much wealth, when its interests (i.e., property) are threatened. Until then, capitalist politicians may declare their abhorrence of the methods used in “ less civilised ” countries, but the capitalists they represent will continue to deal indiscriminately with the objects of their horror.
So the United States has sent Germany thousands of tons of aerial bombs, Russia has supplied Germany with ferro-manganese, an indispensable war material, and France sends thousands of tons of iron ore to Germany.
The latter, by way of returning the compliment, presumably, in turn, has supplied China with considerable quantities of arms.
In Capitalist Peace or War, Profit is Paramount
Many people seriously believe that if Britain were defeated by Germany in a war, Hitler would impose Fascism on this country, presumably by a military occupation. They show little understanding of how Fascist movements came into existence, nor of the mass-backing necessary to help them to power. Political oppression cannot be imposed upon a people against their will; and military occupation, even if it were practical or intended, which is very doubtful, could not have the effect of making Britain a Fascist country. On the other hand, those who argue that Germany’s defeat would result in the downfall of Hitler cannot be certain that his downfall would not be followed eventually by another dictatorship. Remember the downfall of the Kaiser!
One thing is certain. The moment war breaks out democracy will be abolished in all countries participating, and we would, in effect, be defending one Dictatorship against another.
Limitations of Capitalist Democracy
The above only shows the fallacy of treating the advantages of free speech and the vote as an end in themselves, instead of understanding the position of the workers under capitalism and using the weapons of democracy for the purpose of overthrowing the class and system which make a mockery of the words “Freedom” and “Democracy.” Of what value is free speech if we do not utilise it to make workers conscious of their interests—what benefit the vote if the workers are content to use it only to vote one capitalist government out and another in? That way is certain to discredit the democratic method, to disillusion workers who expect their problems solved under capitalism. For poverty cannot be talked away by “Capitalist Democracy”—it can only be removed by Socialism.
S.R.