Left-wing illusions

Reading Fenner Brockway’s “Inside the Left” (Allen & Unwin, 15s.), we recall that the word “Left” acquired its political significance during the time of the great French Revolution. Those sitting to the left of the Chairman of the Convention were distinguished by their radicalism—the more to the left, the more extreme the views; whereas those delegates sitting to the right were marked by their more moderate outlook, the extreme right being composed of the out-and-out reactionaries. If it be further remembered that the French Revolution serves as the classical example of revolutions of the bourgeois, or capitalist, type, then it must be agreed that the title selected by the author is not inappropriate. His political outlook was, and remains, that of a utopian-radical representing the “left” of capitalist politics.

Since it is the habit of such widely differing personalities as Herr Hitler and M. Stalin to profess themselves socialists, it is, of course, not at all surprising that Fenner Brockway should also stake his claim. It is perhaps unfortunate that nowhere in the book under review does the author explicitly state what he means by Socialism; consequently our criticism must, in the main, be inferential. The final chapter of the book, which in some ways is the most important, seeks to summarise the political evolution of the author. And with the best will in the world, it is difficult to discover any result more important than that, whereas at one time the author hoped that his political objective (he calls it Socialism; in reality, he means State Capitalism) could be achieved by peaceful methods, he now considers the employment of violence to be necessary. Already, in an earlier chapter, Brockway indicates “his developing revolutionary view.” On page 240 he writes: “It was Nazi challenge to the democratic institutions of Germany, and the retreat of the powerful Social Democratic and Communist Parties before it, which compelled my reconsideration. During 1931 I had been in Germany and I was profoundly impressed by what I saw and heard ” (Did he, we wonder, happen to notice how, in August, 1931, the “powerful Communist Party” united with the Nazis and the Stahlhelm in support of a referendum, the object of which was to remove the “powerful Social Democratic Party” from its dominant position in the Prussian State Diet? And did he notice how the “powerful Social Democratic Party” gave its support to the most undemocratic emergency legislation by Dr. Bruening, the then Chancellor of the Reich?) To continue, the author goes on to say: “I realised that the Parliamentary Revolutionism of Clifford Allen was not enough, because in a decisive crisis Reaction would suppress Parliament. I began to see that in the last resort the workers would have to depend on their strength in a direct struggle with the capitalist class.” Further on, he observes that: “Socialists were living in a fool’s paradise if they thought that a majority in Parliament would be enough. Socialist legislation would meet with resistance from the aristocratic, plutocratic, financial and capitalist classes generally.” This is given as an example of the author’s “developing revolutionary views” which, significantly, “reflected a turning point in I.L.P. thought.”

Now, in spite of all that has been written and said to the contrary, Parliament, especially in a developed country, mirrors with a fair degree of accuracy the hopes, wishes and desires of the electorate. And if Parliament—or any genuinely representative institution—acting in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the electorate, could be promptly suppressed by a ruling class whose displeasure it may have incurred, then let us state quite frankly that the prospect for Socialism would be black indeed. Fortunately for the working class, the matter is not quite so simple as that. In developed capitalist society, where at least the passive support of the working people has to be assured if society is to function at all, the ruling class is absolutely precluded from arbitrarily imposing its will on an unwilling populace. Germany is no exception to this, and whatever illusions Fenner Brockway, or for that matter anyone else, may have on this matter, we may be quite certain that they are not shared by those political realists who at the moment lord it over the German people. Goebbels’ propaganda agency is not an expensive toy to amuse Goebbels; its function is to ceaselessly present the political and economic aspirations of the German ruling class in a form acceptable to the mass of the German people. In spite of all popular ideas to the contrary, the master minds in Germany, no less than master minds elsewhere, know perfectly well that they cannot sit on bayonets alone. And the most cursory acquaintance with German propaganda is enough to convince anyone that no pains are spared in attempting to persuade the German people that the policy of the German Government is in their (the people’s) interest. That the Nazis are where they are, that they have been able to do what they have done, is primarily due to the indifference to democracy and the political incapacity of significant numbers of German workers, not to sinister designs of the ruling class. If Fenner Brockway really believes in the power of the ruling section of society to behave, when it so suits them, in an entirely arbitrary fashion and without reference to the wishes of the majority of the people, it would appear to us that he is wasting his time in addressing his propaganda to the working class. Clearly, it is the ruling class whose conversion he should seek. We know that it is only in relation to Parliament that the ruling class receives omnipotence at Brockway’s hands. Outside Parliament the workers are endowed with mysterious and unspecified powers which they cannot exercise inside Parliament. In reality the position is this: if it were impossible for a Socialist working class to gain power and use it through Parliament, there is nothing more certain than that it cannot and never will gain it without.

What does Brockway mean when he says “that in the last resort the workers would have to depend on their strength in a direct struggle with the capitalist class”? Surely it is not unfair to conclude that he envisages reliance on armed struggle instead of parliamentary methods—our late Communist friend, the “heavy civil war.” But in reality, of course, Brockway, in common with all those who talk in this strain, means something entirely different. It is not “direct struggle with the capitalist class” he has in mind, but struggle with other members of the working class who are content to remain the dupes of a ruling class already in existence, rather than become the catspaws of a rival group aspiring to power. When a majority of the working class understand, and therefore want Socialism, we shall get it—not before. It may be improbable that all members of the working class will comprehend socialist ideas in a uniform manner; nevertheless, given a majority of the working class as socialist, it is extremely difficult to imagine a situation where any significant minority of the workers would remain so unaffected by socialist ideas that it would be willing to spill its blood for reaction. Is it not far more reasonable to suggest that even the mere existence of a significant minority, never mind a majority, of the population, acting and organised in support of a real socialist movement would exercise an influence throughout the whole of society that would compel any ruling class to think twice before it acted in a manner grossly inimical to working class interests ?

It is not the question of violence that divides the revolutionary from the reformist. Reformism, that is attempts to modify the exploitative relations characteristic of capitalism, still remains reformism no matter how violent the means embraced to that end; and revolutionary activity, that is, activity directed to the termination of capitalist exploitation once and for all, still remains revolutionary even though conducted by the methods allowed by the capitalist state. The immediate task with which socialists are faced is to popularise socialist ideas and understanding with the aim of developing a political party strong enough to effect working class emancipation. As long as conditions permit, we shall pursue this course undeviatingly, but should subsequent developments unhappily render socialist propaganda illegal, we shall certainly do what we can, but let no one imagine for a moment that theatrical and heroic declarations before the event are in any sense a guarantee of effective action after it. The unpalatable, but nevertheless inescapable fact is that in modern society the suppression of those democratic facilities to which all politically conscious workers quite rightly attribute enormous importance, can only occur because of the approval or indifference of the masses. A working class which allows its political life generally to be determined for it by an absolutist government—no matter what that government may call itself nor what its alleged motives may be—is certainly not the kind of working class to provide a background favourable to socialist propaganda. Socialism will not be the work of a working class prepared to accept tutelage from any quarter; it can only be the work of one that is self-reliant, critical, and politically informed. From this it should be obvious that if freedom of speech, of the press and of association is suppressed, there is precious little that socialists can do about it until developments—notably the corruption which is an inevitable by-product of dictatorship—produce the desire and the determination in the working class to regain the right to openly discuss and consider political affairs. To think otherwise is not only to fool oneself, but to fool others as well.

“The establishment of a revolutionary socialist party can be attempted, in two ways. A few theoreticians can lay down a water-tight programme and invite those who agree with it to join . . . Or a party which has its roots in the working class movement can evolve, grow, to the revolutionary position by thought applied to experience, by learning its lessons from mistakes, by discussions, by the study of the history of the movement in other countries, and by a sincere and constant effort to find the right way. The second has been the way of the I.L.P. Since 1932 the Party has been the crucible of the change from reformism to revolutionism. Into that crucible every idea, every tactic, has been thrown and worked itself out; it has been a microcosm of all the conflicts of theory and practice which have stirred so deeply the world movement.” Fenner Brockway is, of course, quite wrong. There are not two ways to establish a socialist party (a socialist party, is by definition a revolutionary party; Brockway, who, of course, believes in the existence of a kind of “socialism” which is either “reformist” or “revolutionary” or a mixture of both, simply displays his confusion on this matter), but one way and one way only. And that is for members of the working class who understand what capitalism is, and therefore what to do about it, to define in unambiguous terms the object for which they strive and the principles for which they solicit support. The object and principles of such a party will not be the free invention of very clever people, but they will be socialist in character and therefore based primarily on critical and realist analysis of capitalist society, and consequently intimately related to reality. Finally—and this is a point which, in spite of its almost overwhelming simplicity, Brockway and his kind will never appreciate—since Socialism is the aim of a socialist party, only those who understand and want Socialism will be asked for their support.

We can, however, agree that the I.L.P. is a crucible into which every tactic, etc., has been thrown. Unkind critics might prefer to call it a political rag-bag rather than a crucible; but this much can be said of the I.L.P.: there is hardly a single nostrum, palliative or form of political quackery that the I.L.P. has not advocated at some time or the other. Even now, its members speak with a medley of voices (revolutionary flexibility!), and of some of them it can be quite seriously said, that so blinded are they by loyalties of a personal character, that if to-morrow the I.L.P. advocated Yogi as a remedy for social problems, they would do their best to conform. In the ’20’s the I.L.P. advocated a “Living Wage” policy; in the ’30’s it had got as far as demanding “Socialism in our Time.” But so much progress has been made by this truly remarkable Party that to-day, in the ’40’s, it imperiously demands “Socialism Now!” Just like that! The mere fact that there happen to be a few odd million people who so far have shown no obvious enthusiasm for even the peculiar kind of “socialism” peddled by the I.L.P., but whose wishes nevertheless have to be taken into account, does not unduly perturb the “revolutionary strategists” in charge of this wonder-working outfit. After all, there always remains the “revolutionary situation” of which all good Bolsheviks dream!

It would be unfair to conclude without paying tribute to the author’s undoubted sincerity of feeling. From the socialist standpoint, it is not his intentions that are in doubt, but his understandings. In the struggle for Socialism, however, the same can be said as of other aspects of life: “the way to hell, etc.”

A. M.

(Socialist Standard, June 1943)