Socialism through the ballot box?

Many detractors of the socialist case criticise Marx and Engels and their early followers as being advocates of violent revolution and are wont to cite statements they made in support of this claim. And it is not uncommon for these same critics to claim that socialist/communists (the words means the same) of today still hold out for violent insurrection as a means to an end. Whilst it may be true that the first communist revolutionaries did advocate violent overthrow of the then existing order, it has to be remembered that it was at a time when they were barred from the ballot box, when they saw violence as the only tool of change, before the Reform Acts of 1867 and 1884 and which enfranchised many workers.*

With the 1867 Act Marx and his associates began to see a chink in the armour of the master class. The franchise was being widened and they knew it would widen more and, as the capitalist class ruled via their executive in parliament, it was possible for revolution to be brought about peacefully and democratically and via the ballot box.

Thus, Resolution IX of the London Conference of the International in September 1871, headed Political Action of the Working Class stated:

“Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

“That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes…”

In 1880, in the Introduction to the Programme of the French Workers’ Party, Marx wrote:

Considering,

That the emancipation of the productive class is that of all human beings without distinction of sex or race;

That the producers can be free only when they are in possession of the means of production;

That there are only two forms under which the means of production can belong to them

The individual form which has never existed in a general state and which is increasingly eliminated by industrial progress;

The collective form the material and intellectual elements of which are constituted by the very development of capitalist society;

Considering,

That this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party;

That such an organization must be pursued by all the means the proletariat has at its disposal including universal suffrage which will thus be transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation.

In insisting that the working class had to constitute itself into a political party “, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes”, Marx not only infuriated the anarchists, alienated himself from those who hankered after the spilled blood of the master class, he was stating quite clearly that capitalism could only be defeated in the political arena and on the battlefield of ideas.

Whilst the capitalist class derive some power from their ownership and control of the means for producing and distributing wealth, their real power lies in their control over the machinery of state. This power is derived by the mandate the voters give them at election time, voters who can seen no fault in the existing system and will readily support whichever bunch of brigands can hoodwink them the best, via promises and pledges at election time, convincing the workers that they can best run the capitalist system.

Our detractors faced now with the argument that it is possible for the workers to create a mass party capable of challenging the master class in the arena in which they have hitherto been so successful, and taking over the machinery of state, counter that faced with an impending defeat at the polls, they (the masters) would suspend the democratic process and establish a dictatorship. The democratic process, which the workers are ready to use to oust the master class, can now be declared obsolete by bunch of gangsters in high office!

The problem here is that our detractors fail to realise that a mass party, about to take power, would assume that a worldwide socialist consciousness already existed and, moreover, that there had been a change in the general mindset of parliament, with socialist delegates already having been elected. It would assume that the big clashes had already been won by the workers on the battlefield of ideas. The character of government across the world would already have changed as a result of these victories, so there would be no chance of a suspension of democratic procedures, the establishment of a dictatorship or a coup on behalf of those wishing to maintain the profit system.

The majority of governments around the world today rule by the consent of the governed as previously mentioned. And they rule, in truth, because the majority of workers have that false consciousness that prevents them seeing what is in their real interests, not least because of the propaganda churned out daily by the state, the media (press, TV, radio etc), by the education system and via religious institutions. A growing socialist consciousness assumes that in all of these areas the workers have at last begun to reject the lies, the false promises, the state’s version of history, the belief in supernatural beings, the concept of leadership. A growing class consciousness suggests here is a majority that will no longer be bribed with reforms, although it can be imagined that many news ones will have been introduced to win the workers back over to the capitalist cause.

If by some act of desperation and stupidity there was an attempt to suspend democratic procedures and install a dictatorship by force of arms, one would imagine that this class conscious majority would not tolerate it one second. The workers would have no option but to resort to violent methods to defend their interests. But having said this, even this act of desperation on behalf of the master class would be counterproductive, revealing to the last doubters of the socialist case, the true nature of the beast that has exploited their class for so long, revealing that they hold the wishes of the workers in utter contempt and are more than prepared to suspend workers’ hard fought rights and maintain power at gun point.

Socialists, though doubtful such a scenario would be enacted by the capitalist class, would be the first to defend the hard won gains of the workers against any violent backlash by the defenders of capitalism, though quickly restoring the democratic apparatus as soon as the threat had vanished. Make no mistake, socialists, whilst defenders of the parliamentary road to socialism and hateful of violence for political ends, are not died in the wool pacifists. If the master class wanted to fight it out bloodily, we are more than ready to accommodate them.

All said, genuine socialists insist the revolution will be bloodless and brought about by a class conscious majority, aware of exactly what socialism means, and via the ballot box.

* The 1884 Act and the 1885 Redistribution Act tripled the electorate, giving the vote to most agricultural labourers. By this time, voting was becoming a right rather than the property of the privileged. However, women were not granted voting rights until the Act of 1918, which enfranchised all men over 21 and women over thirty. This last bit of discrimination was eliminated 10 years later (in 1928) by the Equal Franchise Act

THE TAZE OF THINGS TO COME

Here we are less that two weeks after Privacy International announced that Britain was an “endemic surveillance society” and we have today’s Independent on Sunday reporting with a front page headline: “Prisoners to be chipped like dogs”. Welcome to the police state Britain!

In a bid to enforce home curfews on the more errant members of our society and to create more space in Britain’s overcrowded jails, ministers have come up with plans to implant "machine-readable" microchips beneath the skin of thousands of offenders as part of an expansion of the electronic tagging scheme.

The system is already in place for dogs and cats, cattle, cars and airport luggage, for instance, so it was really only a matter of time before someone came up with the bright idea of using ‘spychips’ on humans.

Says one senior minister: "We have wanted to take advantage of this technology for several years, because it seems a sensible solution to the problems we are facing in this area. "We have looked at it and gone back to it and worried about the practicalities and the ethics, but when you look at the challenges facing the criminal justice system, it's time has come.”

So much then for the battle cry of the Labour Party when it came to power: “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.” The latest move is tantamount to admitting Labour policies have failed, that crime cannot be controlled within the context of capitalism and that class inequality will forever throw up a “criminal element”.

The Independent observes:

"The Government has been forced to review sentencing policy amid serious overcrowding in the nation's jails, after the prison population soared from 60,000 in 1997 to 80,000 today. The crisis meant the number of prisoners held in police cells rose 13-fold last year, with police stations housing offenders more than 60,000 times in 2007, up from 4,617 the previous year. The UK has the highest prison population per capita in western Europe, and the Government is planning for an extra 20,000 places at a cost of £3.8bn – including three gigantic new "superjails" – in the next six years.

“More than 17,000 individuals, including criminals and suspects released on bail, are subject to electronic monitoring at any one time, under curfews requiring them to stay at home up to 12 hours a day. But official figures reveal that almost 2,000 offenders a year escape monitoring by tampering with ankle tags or tearing them off. Curfew breaches rose from 11,435 in 2005 to 43,843 in 2006 – up 283 per cent. The monitoring system, which relies on mobile-phone technology, can fail if the network crashes.”

The idea now is for offenders to have tags, consisting of a toughened glass capsule holding a computer chip, injected into the back of the arm with a hypodermic needle

It goes without saying that human rights campaigners would be the first to expostulate. Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti commented: "If the Home Office doesn't understand why implanting a chip in someone is worse than an ankle bracelet, they don't need a human-rights lawyer; they need a common-sense bypass.

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said: "This is the sort of daft idea that comes up from the department every now and then, but tagging people in the same way we tag our pets cannot be the way ahead. Treating people like pieces of meat does not seem to represent an improvement in the system to me."

One company plans deeper implants that could vibrate, electroshock the implantee, broadcast a message, or serve as a microphone to transmit conversations. What is being proposed then in some quarters, and its not long before we find Gordon Brown and co contemplating the idea, is the tazering of offenders from outer space. Step outside the confines of your curfew area and ZAP! With the government keen to have us all carrying biometric ID cards, just how many years before each and every one of us is carrying a vein deep implant, with defenders of the idea regurgitating the old line: “if you’re doing nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about”?

Within a minute the authorities could have the names of every person at a political rally or demonstration. Any aggro and ZZZAP, and in come the meat wagons to cart away the twitching bodies!

I’m not alone in thinking this. Consumer privacy expert Liz McIntyre said: "Some folks might foolishly discount all of these downsides and futuristic nightmares since the tagging is proposed for criminals like rapists and murderers. The rest of us could be next."

Marx on Crime

In Part 3 of his Economic Manuscripts of 1861-63, Marx noted just how productive the criminal is, just how many jobs his career creates:

“A philosopher produces ideas, a poet poems, a clergyman sermons, a professor compendia and so on. A criminal produces crimes. If we take a closer look at the connection between this latter branch of production and society as a whole, we shall rid ourselves of many prejudices. The criminal produces not only crimes but also criminal law, and with this also the professor who gives lectures on criminal law and in addition to this the inevitable compendium in which this same professor throws his lectures onto the general market as “commodities”… The criminal moreover produces the whole of the police and of criminal justice, constables, judges, hangmen, juries, etc. ; and all these different lines of business, which form just as many categories of the social division of labour, develop different capacities of the human mind, create new needs and new ways of satisfying them. Torture alone has given rise to the most ingenious mechanical inventions, and employed many honourable craftsmen in the production of its instruments…”

“…Thus he [the criminal] gives a stimulus to the productive forces. While crime takes a part of the redundant population off the labour market and thus reduces competition among the labourers — up to a certain point preventing wages from falling below the minimum — the struggle against crime absorbs another part of this population. Thus the criminal comes in as one of those natural “counterweights” which bring about a correct balance and open up a whole perspective of “useful” occupations. The effects of the criminal on the development of productive power can be shown in detail. Would locks ever have reached their present degree of excellence had there been no thieves? Would the making of bank-notes have reached its present perfection had there been no forgers? Would the microscope have found its way into the sphere of ordinary commerce (see Babbage) but for trading frauds? Does not practical chemistry owe just as much to the adulteration of commodities and the efforts to show it up as to the honest zeal for production? Crime, through its ever new methods of attack on property, constantly calls into being new methods of defence, and so is as productive as strikes for the invention of machines.”

“The earliest, crudest, and least fruitful form of this rebellion was that of crime. The working-man lived in poverty and want, and saw that others were better off than he. It was not clear to his mind why he, who did more for society than the rich idler, should be the one to suffer under these conditions. Want conquered his inherited respect for the sacredness of property, and he stole.”

We can add to Marx’s list the many advances in policing and criminal detection since 1863 and which Marx could never have envisaged: forensic science, the training of police dogs, the 3 million plus security cameras in Britain today, biometric ID cards, security marking pens, burglar alarms, tasers, tagging and spychips. The list is endless. Moreover, the criminal justice system – from prison personnel and police officers to security guards and lawyers, judges and magistrates involves many times the numbers than when Marx was writing.

At the time of writing the latest figures for the number of police officers and sergeants, special constables, traffic police and PCSOs is 184,119 (figures courtesy of a written question from the Jarrow MP Stephen Hepburn on 7th January.

Add to this every person employed in the law enforcement game, all the workers in factories producing security equipment, whether it be uniforms and handcuffs for the police or security cameras and locks and keys, and all the workers employed to maintain the same and you’re looking at a ginormous workforce centred on the crime industry. And Blair wants to get “tough on crime”. Imagine the mountain of unemployed if, by some miracle, crime within capitalist society were to vanish overnight!! Seems to me capitalism very much needs criminality. If anything it provides the master class with a perfect pretext to hone their surveillance techniques on the rest us and thus maintain their hegemony .