[ONE] The Divide
The socialist world, though, whether it is Marxist, Social-Democratic, or Anarchist, is completely broken. Whether it’s due to infighting, age-old rivalries, or genuine reasons for an ongoing debate, the fact that the left can’t “get its act together” is one of the primary reasons for i) the widespread popularity of the Conservative Party and ii) the inter-ideological acceptance of Capitalism. Thirty years ago, one would not have dreamt to have seen an Capitalist Labour Party: the great figures — Tony Benn, Barbara Castle, Michael Foot, Anuerin Bevan — would never have allowed it! Now, because the left-wing cannot (or will not) accept the spectrum of beliefs, reformist or revolutionary, religious or atheist, small-c conservative or radical, we see ourselves marginalized in politics. This needs to be remedied for the left-wing to be “healed”.
Marx himself called religion “the opiate of the masses”. This was not so much a criticism of a belief in a deity, but criticizing the acceptance of one belief system over another because you are told that it is right by “superiors”, criticizing blind faith and unwavering conviction without justification. Marx’s entire worldview was purely “scientific”, thus is seems correct he is one of the fathers of social sciences. But what any scientist must accept is to change one’s perceptions as soon as the evidence changes. Marx and Engels presented Communism as a divergence from the Christian socialism and Utopian socialism being practiced in Europe at the time. Where the two embryonic forms of socialism were correct is in the idea of egalitarianism. Where they were wrong was their unmoving faith in being able to smash Capitalism through Capitalism. Ironically, where Marxism is wrong is its unmoving faith in being able to smash Capitalism purely through revolution. As the twentieth century raged on through Communist revolutions, the Arms Race, and two world wars, the left-wing split itself into two camps: reformist and revolutionary, vehemently hating each other as much they collectively hate Capitalism. It is this unwavering faith in either reformism or revolutionism that has turned socialism away from being something purely ideological and into something politically religious. The Socialist Workers Party will quote Marx and Trotsky as if they are Christians quoting Jesus, the Blairite faction of the Labour Party will stick true to “Things Can Only Get Better” as if it’s the 10 Commandments; this deontological, natural moral law-esque approach to politics is what is currently keeping the left-wing in the past, drowning itself in rhetoric, and where it will be condemned to stay.
The far-left these days is purely intellectual. It is a hypothetical, something theorized on paper but unlikely to reawaken with any true force. With the Labour Party in its current situation, it’s sadly likely that reformist socialism will also meet this fate. The longer that the left-wing stays divided, the more likely it is to meet obscurity. This is not to silence those who would like Marxism or those who would like Social-Democracy, but to keep the workers movement a level playing field, where policy and philosophy is debated, but not kept exclusive and factionist. There are enough “Communist” parties in this country, we don’t need any more! Nor do we need those on the right of Labour silencing those on the left.
What is needed, then, to awaken the left, is not to accept either revolutionism or reformism as concrete. For the paramount question that most socialists seem to ask themselves is “reform or revolution?” The actual answer to that is: “we don’t know”. In the same way that chemists don’t know exactly what an electron is or how it works, in the same way that a poet can never write a perfect piece of verse, in the same way a philosopher can never know what “good” means — a socialist can never know what the perfect ideology is. A political philosopher or a sociologist may be able to make a pretty good hypothesis (based on socioeconomic relations of the time) as to what would be a more likely way to build socialism upon, but it is unjustified to think that we can just guess. And yet it is the cause for most divides within the movement! Why did, pre-New Labour, groups such as the Communist Party and the SWP still exist? It was not because of Labour’s pro-market stances (they didn’t exist then) which may be justified leaving Labour now, but they existed because of Labour being anti-revolution. Why didn’t the Labour Party give the Communist Party affiliation rights? Not because of anything particularly wrong with their policies, but because they are revolutionary! In principle, “Old” Labour and Communism are the same thing, once Capitalism has been gotten rid of. They are both “socialism”. The only major difference is the tricky-ground of revolution.
[TWO] Reform or Revolution?
A revolutionist would most habitually look to “The State and Revolution” written by Comrade Lenin to illustrate how revolution is an achievable aim. How marred their argument is by the fate of the Soviet Union! For although the Bolsheviks implemented a successful proletarian revolution, the actions of the Soviet government after 1924 should be considered abhorrent not only by anti-communists and Social-Democrats, but by Marxists and Anarchists as well. The tenure of Joseph Stalin has done nothing for the Communist movement but prove that the dictatorship of the proletariat can be taken away by full Communism, but also by bureaucracy and fascism (or state socialism). The marketization (the market being the state) of the dictatorship has been the recurrent failures of revolutionary socialist states: China, Vietnam, Cuba… all of these countries have again become the whore of the markets — whether they hide that market behind the Communist Party or they have collapsed — either way, Leninist revolution is not perfect. Paired with Stalin’s concept of “Socialism in One Country”, one must be forced to accept failure ideologically.
Reformist socialism has a much cleaner slate. Because it can work with capitalism, it means that it can achieve its ends whilst not severing ties with the great powers of the world. This would seem “weak” by many revolutionists (and I would consider it so too) but there are some redeemable features. The NHS and the Welfare State, both created by the Labour Party in their greatest tenure of ’45-’51, is not only an achievement for the Labour Party but can achievement for socialism. Although the nationalizations have later been privatized by the Conservatives (as they still are doing), for a short period, the Labour Party nearly was the reason for implementing Marxism — if in “socialist state” theories if not revolutionary ideology. This has been replicated on a much greater scale in Norway, where their economy is so socialist that they are effectively one step away from being a fully-fledged dictatorship of the proletariat. Norway itself is one of the richest countries in the world, with one of the smallest pay gaps, greatest life expectancies, an extremely free press — and these are not the attributes of the Capitalist market (which has been all but marginalized) but the Socialist state, which has always been accepted by the people, and has always been representative of the people. Norway is Marxism without revolutionism. It is possible, but as Britain ourselves has shown, it is not always possible.
What this proves, then, is that different roads to Socialism do and can work. As the tenure of Lenin showed (and even the early years of Mao) that you can implement Socialism from revolution; but its failure was in authoritarian leaders (such as Stalin and the later years of Mao) where people are oppressed by the state acting as a “proletarian-elected bourgeoisie”. On the other hand, reformism has seen great change in the Scandinavian countries, and most countries across the world for a short period, but we need to ensure that it is sustainable. These observations alone must be sufficient to accept that the road to socialism is not concrete. And the fact that it is not concrete must also be sufficient to mend the broken gaps that are so potent within the workers movement. What we socialists must be open to is the concept of “pragmatic socialism”.
[THREE] Pragmatic Socialism
The infighting evident within the socialist movement is purely tactical. All socialists want the same end: a classless, egalitarian society, based on common ownership of property and each worker receiving the true fruits of his or her labour. All socialists accept that these aims can never be truly fulfilled (or fulfilled at all) but Capitalism, and so we must have a post-commodity economy based around the guiding principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. Getting to that situation is the product of infighting. This is why leftists should keep their factions (Social-Democracy, Libertarian Socialism, Marxism, Anarchism, et al) but always have in the back of their minds “Socialist Pragmatism”. The principles of this unifying philosophy are threefold:
- Rationalism
- Radicalism
- Egalitarianism
Rationalism is the philosophical cornerstone of Socialist Pragmatism. Rationalism is the acceptance that we don’t know whether reformism or revolutionism will bring about socialism, and even though we may have our personal preferences as is what is more likely to bring it about, it is unjustified to accept that as a standalone concept; as society changes, strategy must also. The socialist movement should not be many little groupings of Marxists, trade unionists, Labour Party members etc, but a fluid coexistence defined by direct democracy and a regularly changing opinion. The principles of socialism and the movement should be static, but as Capitalism changes, Socialism must too. For although the class divide is static, although wage labour always exists, and although power is inherently vested in the bourgeoisie, how this power is executed always changes. Dependency on market fluctuations to perpetuate the system means that ideological Capitalism always changes, whether that ideology is laissez-faire, Keynesian, or neoliberal. The dependency on smashing Capitalism means that ideological Socialism must always change, even reluctancy towards more right-leaning socialism must sometimes be accepted. Practice and reason must always come before ideology, people must always come before opinion
Radicalism is the political objectives that socialists should adhere to. This is closely tied into rationalism with the acceptance of changing Capitalism; socialists must be happily open to change. It is right that we keep our principles of equality, freedom, democracy, common ownership, et al. but the methods we use to attain these standards must change as the social contracts between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie change. This is not in the sense of “changing” socialism to capitalism, like Blair did, for that is not socialism, but are decades-old plans for “mass revolution” really that relevant today? If there is to be a revolution — it must be with modern ideas; if there is not to be a revolution — it must be because of modern reasoning, based on our current existence, and not on assumptions from past régimes.
Egalitarianism is the level playing field that socialists must conduct their ideological debates under. This could also be expressed as “equality of ideology”. The farthest left-wing leftist ideologies and the farthest right-wing leftist ideologies work in polar opposites, and this is reflected in their mutual hatred for one another. Disagreements are normal, they should exist, there should be debate, but they must not be the reason to impair the movement — or an irrational excuse to cast aside certain philosophical ideas. For us to call our movement truly democratic, we must be truly democratic, we must accept all socialist ideas: whether they are Social-Democratic, Marxist, or Anarchist. To profess equality of the people but not equality of the ideas themselves is irrational. Inequality within the workers movement should not, and must not, be evident.
[FOUR] Pragmatic Socialism and the Labour Party
If then, we are to have a truly pragmatic group of policies within the Labour Party, we must ensure that there is the highest level of democracy within the Party itself. Many socialist parties, right from the Bolshevik Party in Imperial Russia through to our own Labour Party have found struggles with inter-party democracy, purely because socialists are prone to factionalism and only a very loose consensus, generally held together by a strong leadership-élite. However, there tends to be two main trends in controlling factional dissidence: i) democratic centralism in revolutionary parties; and ii) social-democratic dominance in reformist parties, with farther-left socialism in the fringes. Both trends are inadequate and alienate a certain number of comrades. The guiding principle of all socialism is “unity in numbers” and this must be reflected in both policy and practice.
Democratic centralism works around the idea that the members of a political party have freedom to discuss policy and direction, but once a majority vote has been called, all members are expected to uphold the decision. Lenin himself called it “freedom of discussion, unity of action”. In some sense, this was his solution to silence dissidence in the party; if everyone can unite behind policy because it is recognized as democratic, we can create consensus. If only it was so simple! Because different people have different conceptions of what defines “democratic” there was always going to be a divide. Lenin and the Bolsheviks saw democracy as freedom of discussion before a decision, and unity under this after the decision. The Mensheviks, though, and this is really the cause of the divide between them rather than anything truly ideological, saw this as only half-democratic. They justified that party discipline must be looser otherwise it is undemocratic. Even if the party has voted on an issue, why can members not change their minds? Or why can members not demonstrate their dissatisfaction to try and improve policy? This “half-democracy” (as we shall call it) has lead to one of the greatest monstrosities of modern history: the Stalinist purges. Half-democracy is comparable to non-democracy; any truly democratic party would not be able to justify this.
The Labour Party itself has participated, perhaps unknowingly, in democratic centralism. The purging of Militant Tendency is one of the darkest moments in Labour Party history, where public popularity came before the loyalty of members, and simplistic silencing came before rational debate. Otherwise, the Labour Party has acted just as any other reformist party has, by ignoring its farther left counterparts and focusing on the social-democratic (which it is able to reinforce by electing a nearly entirely social-democratic group of MPs). This is just as undemocratic, since the conscious ignoring of truly socialist groups has led to the disillusionment of many trade union members, much of the general public calling the party “not a true workers party”, and the ideological imperialism of the Blair-Brown period. It is plainly obvious, then, that we must find a practical way to ignite free discussion, but always ensure unity.
One of the most democratic and equality-enforcing pieces of party legislation that Labour has passed is the All-Women Lists. What they have enabled is for many women who would have otherwise not have been able to enter the House to do so, and thus make the Parliamentary Labour Party much more representative of the general public. What the Parliamentary Labour Party is not, though, is representative of the Labour Party itself, which encompasses a large spectrum of opinion, not just the bourgeois social-democracy evident in our elected officials. There is a need to reform this. What All-Women Shortlists did in 1997 was revitalize the PLP by having a greater male:female ratio than had ever been seen in the Commons. Can we not in 2015 also revitalize the PLP with ideological equality? Is the PLP not doing its donors and party members a disservice by not representing then? Shouldn’t the PLP have a mixture of Purple, Blue, and Red Labour; representative of all factions of the party, not just one? With the implementation of ideological democracy within the PLP you allow both the consensus of official party policy along with lively debate from all facets of the party. Through this, Pragmatic Socialism becomes the de facto entire direction of the vanguard. One could not imagine a Tory Party without One Nation-ers, Thatcherites, Eurosceptics, and Libertarians; why should we imagine a Labour Party without socialists, social-democrats, and Marxists?
Therefore, I have only one policy of any worth to bring forward to the Labour Party, a policy that is concurrently democratic, socialistic, and efficient. And that is to allow all party members a vote on all policy. By taking power away from the NEC and other such committees we allow power to be taken away also from the bureaucrats, away from the career politicians, and the PLP leaders, and give policy and party political guidance back to the grassroots masses. If direct democracy is going to be inefficient to implement across a country, for all citizens, then we must increase it across the party. This is a demonstration of pragmatic socialism. It allows room for debate, and doesn’t silence the grassroots, who are just as loyal to the party as those who agree with the élite. And I’m sure it would prove that Labour Party members are in fact much more socialist, much more dynamic, much more radical, than Ed “cuddly, snuggly capitalism” Miliband would like us to think. If a party is not democratic, then what is the worth in it being a party?
