Are Socialists Extremists? | Socialist Studies (original) (raw)
The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always stated that both the political means and the socialist objective have to be democratic. In other words, the political means and the political object are inseparable.
The SPGB is a democratically constituted political organisation; we believe that there should be the widest discussion and debate of competing political ideas even those which are mad, bad and dangerous to know. Not though that universities are bastions of free speech. Universities and student unions have aggressive policies of banning newspapers, books and lecturers from the campus. If socialists wanted to debate the BNP at a university, or even UKIP, it just would not happen.
We reject censorship as self-defeating. We argue that workers should not be treated like infants and have unpalatable ideas and beliefs hidden from them. Workers should make up their own minds when confronted with political ideas and act according to their own interest. Censorship occurs when those doing the censorship are unsure of their own political case. We are not unsure of our socialist position which we have defended for over one hundred years. We stand in line for no one.
So, what harm could a government do when pursuing socialists as “_extremists_”? Here are a number of options open to the capitalist State:
- Imprison members.
- Attempt to pull the web site.
- Stop publication of socialist literature
- Prevent socialists standing at elections.
- Prevent socialists holding meetings at schools, universities and in public buildings.
- Stop socialists from going on the TV, radio and being interviewed in newspapers.
Quite frankly a government would have a hard time to prevent socialist activity taking place. You cannot kill a revolutionary idea generated by the class struggle and material interests. In any case, for the capitalist State to use its legislation against socialists in this way would be counterproductive and harm their own false legitimacy.
And the technological advances in communication through social media and the internet has moved individuals away from total government control particularly from the various coercive departments of the State, notably the police and the secret service. Yes, of course, they desperately want this control back and are using acts of terrorism as a means to increase their power and influence, however, the genie is out of the bottle.
And perhaps it always has been the case that the agents of the State are not as powerful as they think they are despite the worry of the conspiracy theorists of an Orwellian dystopian future of all-pervasive electronic government control. After all, none of the security agencies in the West, despite the billions of pounds at their disposal, predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union and its Empire in 1989!
Take three examples which support the socialist argument that the State has absolute power to somehow prevent the dissemination of socialist ideas and the political action of socialists. First, there is Bismarck’s anti-socialist legislation, second, the passing of the 1918 Representation of the People’s Act and third the decline and fall of the East German secret police: the Stasi.
Bismarck’s anti-socialist law outlawed all Social-Democratic organisations (the name German socialists used at the time), all working-class organisations; all working class or socialist presses and ordered the confiscation of all socialist literature by the State. Social-Democrats and various other pro-working-class groups were arrested and deported. 900 workers were expelled from their homes; 1500 sentenced to various terms of imprisonment; 1300 publications were suspended and 332 worker organizations were forcibly dissolved. Nevertheless, the social democrats were still able to continue their political activity by adapting to circumstances and bypassing the State coercion used against them.
Under the 1918 Representation of the People Act, thousands of conscientious objectors, including SPGB members, were disenfranchised for five years. However, the Socialist Party of Great Britain still remained active and still produced the Socialist Standard. Socialists who had been conscientious objectors during the war still played an active political role in the political class struggle. The reason why the Party suspended all outdoor meetings in World War 1 was not only the near impossibility of escaping prosecution under the legal offence of “_spreading alarm and despondency_” but also the actions of the Courts in backing up illegal prosecutions. When mobs broke up legal meetings (often incited by newspapers) the police would ignore the action of the mob and charge the speakers with “_breach of the peace_” and the Courts upheld the account given by the police.
Then there is the example of the East German secret police: the Stasi. Between 1950 and 1989, the Stasi employed a total of 274,000 people. In 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 people full time along with 173,081 unofficial informants and it still was unable to prevent the collapse of the Government, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the integration of East German capitalism with West German capitalism. It should be noted that the trade unions, because of their backing, were in a somewhat different position.
While the socialist movement has little support among the workers there is little to do but accept or seek to evade restrictions imposed by the authorities. As the numbers increase the situation will be correspondingly altered, either because (like the trade unions) socialists shall be better able to resist, or at some stage socialist delegates will be elected by socialists to Parliament. Socialist propaganda should always stress that socialism and democracy are inseparable; that there is no way of establishing a world economic system based on socialist principles, except through the democratic action of a socialist majority; and the capture of the machinery of government.
So, are socialists extremists? If it means rejecting the bogus claim that capitalism is “_democratic_”, then, yes. And if it means to argue the State has little or no interest in “_individual liberty_” and instead pursues the interest of the capitalist class against the working-class majority, then yes. And, if by extremist it means to take political action to help create a socialist majority necessary to replace capitalism with socialism; then it is guilty as charged.
First, though, look at those making the accusation of “_extremism_” against us! Look at the self-satisfied faces of the world leaders and their representatives who attended a “_solidarity_” march in January 2015 following the terrorist attacks in Paris. And just consider the violent and destructive policy in the Middle East and elsewhere on behalf of the interest of their respective capitalist class. Who is then the extremist?