4th November; 1973 TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND THE PARTY Dear Comrades, In view of the accusations by Comrades D'Arcy and Baldwin that I am a reformist, and particularly in view of the current position on the E.C., I think it would be appropriate to state my own general position in regard to this matter. The Party's attitude to reformism and reforms is central to our political position. This attitude stems from Marxial political economy. Our attitude to reforms and reformism is rooted in and is an application of the Marxian analysis of Capitalist economics and the nature of political power in class society. Our method then in arriving at our position is through the labour theory of value and the Marxian theory of the state. We show that the material condition of the working class is given hy the productive relations of Capitalism, This material condition is circumscribed by economic laws which are not merely a product of Capitalism, but are inseparable from its nature. Under Capitalism the working class must secure its material standards within the limitations of the class ownership of the means of production, and the production of commodities for -sale on the market with a view to profit. Within this system, the value of labour is, over a period, marginally negotiable (T.U. action). The ceiling on wages is determined by a range of factors, but most importantly in the negotiating situation by the Capitalist's expectation of profit. Whilst individual Capitalists may be biased against it, the Capitalist class is not opposed in principle to workers enjoying high material standards. In all the circumstances of the class struggle, both classes pursue their own interests against a background of competition and the struggle for markets, control of trade routes and resources, continued capital accumulation, strikes and other industrial, action, the trade cycle, and the general anarchy of Capitalist production. We understand that what becomes materially available under Capitalism, that is, the social product, is given not. by political processes but hy economic processes within the framework and-limitations of the relations and motives of Capitalist production. It therefore follows that attempts to Improve overall working class standards through reformist political action within Capitalism are futile and irrelevant. The State is, to some extent, involved in the distribution of the social product. Government legislation to do with family allowances, old age pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits etc., must be understood as being part of the distribution of that portion of the social product which goes to the working class as a whole. (The distribution of poverty.) The Capitalist class introduce and maintain these schemes through government for the purpose of stabilising and augmenting the general pattern of exploitative relationships. From our point of view, I would suggest as a general definition of reformism "The legislative process through which Capitalism adjusts itself from one situation to another, mainly as economic policy," Reformism inevitably then, involves an endorsement of Capitalist relationships, and in principle we are-, opposed to it. It can he argued that not all reforms come under the general definition of economic policy. It would be difficult to show, for example, that legislation affecting censorship of literature and the theatre, reforms to do with, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, etc., have any bearing on class interests in the production and distribution of wealth. Accordingly, I would argue that we are not concerned with them as political issues. In describing the general economic limitations within which wealth becomes available on the Capitalist market, we are at the same time describing the forces which prevent Capitalism from operating in the interests of the whole community. In reaction to these conditions, various protest movements and reformist organisations become active in the hope that either as pressure groups or political parties, they can improve the material conditions of life. We have ruled out the idea that such organisations can lead to a greater availability of wealth under Capitalism, Whether or not such organisations can achieve a redistribution of the social product more in favour of the working class is again extremely doubtful, Bearing in mind that overwhelmingly the division of wealth is decided at the point of production, where such organisations play no part, this leaves the scope of their activities to that part of the social product distributed by the State, Whilst it could be argued that a highly organised and militant Claimants' Union might temporarily increase the amount of national assistance benefits, with the fiscal device of inflation, and because the government controls the general level of these benefits, such gains that might be achieved as the result of a highly organised and militant campaign, could be quickly negated by the government with the simplest of measures. Workers would then have to face the fact' that a great deal of effort and energy would have achieved nothing. So far as I know, there are no members at the present time arguing that the Party should participate in reformist issues. This has been argued in the past, and it is worth re-stating some of the grounds, apart-from the dictates of principle, why it would be impractical for the Party to combine two different types of activity. The arguments against blurring the edges of the Party's autonomy by participating in reformist-issues are overwhelming (1) This would not succeed in being more influential, (2)Would erode the clarity of our revolutionary argument. (3)Would attract the wrong support, (4) Would confuse our analytical methods. (5) Would, hy implication, commit us to an endorsement of Capitalist relationships, and we would eventually be totally absorbed by reformist politics within Capitalism. It is evident that any involvement of the Party in reformist activity would be a totally irrelevant diversion from principled revolutionary political action, aimed at abolishing capitalist productive relations. It is likely that from time to tine, members under the pressure of some individual circumstance, might find themselves involved in an organisation outside the Party and concerned with a particular issue. In the event of .some objection, the Party would have to decide whether •or not,such activities were compatible with membership. The main criterion in making this decision should be whether or not there is any political embarrassment to our own organisation, or whether it conflicts with Clause 7 of the Declaration of [Principles. Our action is based on a Marxian analysis which draws a distinct line between two mutually incompatible social relations of production, that of class ownership and common ownership. This is not a static view of society. Class struggle is not a static confrontation. It is the dynamic of history. Class struggle pervades all human relationships. In our own time, class struggle is the conflicting pressure of capital and labour on the social product against a background of the spread of Capitalism, continued technical development and accompanying changes in ideas and institutions. Discontent is produced by the contradiction between social production and private ownership. We assume that at some stage the pressure of social demands will make this contradiction intolerable and. thus give Socialism its political role. Nobody, I think, would argue that certain lines of progress are not being made. I would cite the weakening of social authoritarianism and a greater human dignity in social relationships, but to attribute these developments specifically to the activities of reformist groups is again doubtful. This is worth looking at more closely, and my bias in the matter would-be that changes in the climate of social consciousness have resulted from general economic developments within Capitalism. Whilst it may be possible to point to changes in ideas and institutions which result from developments within Capitalism, and which may be conducive to the establishment of Socialism, nevertheless the material reality of production remains entirely capitalist in nature. On balance, social history does not show that capitalism has unwillingly absorbed reform. On the contrary, Capitalism generates reform in its own interests. Reform is part of the normal pattern of social administration, its function being to stabilise Capitalism. Reform is the practical development of Capitalism mainly as economic policy. I do not want to imply an argument which discounts social consciousness and sees the correlation between economic necessity and political policy as being entirely mechanical. This view would ultimately rule out the possibility of Socialism, I take it that social consciousness is one of the limiting factors in the determination of political policy. My essential point is that social reform is the political process through which Capitalism continues its own economic development, and that since governments and the state is the political expression of Capitalist ownership, social reform will preserve and augment that class interest. Our Marxian analysis of Capitalism and the formulation of our revolutionary principles brings us into opposition to reformist political parties and precludes any association with reformist campaigns. Principle requires that we operate as a quite separate political party concerned exclusively with the Socialist object,, At the same time, as a Party, we are concerned with the interests of the working class, arguing that working class interests can only be served in politics by revolutionary Socialism. I want to show that this position has led to two different political attitudes which are manifest in our propaganda and forms the basis of the present division within the Party. It is useful to describe these two different attitudes as revolutionary socialism and sectarian socialism. I am not suggesting that the Party is divided rigidly into two clearly identifiable camps, but that there exists two currents of attitude and activity to which individual members subscribe in greater or lesser degree. In distinguishing sectarian socialists from revolutionary socialists, I am outlining categories into which relatively few members would neatly fit. I am arguing that these categories are sufficiently useful ...to help. ..clarify the allegations made against me that I am a reformist. Revolutionary socialism is dynamic in that it uses Marxism as a continuing method of social analysis. It sees class struggle, the labour theory of value, the materialist conception of history, as the basic assumptions from which it assesses the continued development of Capitalism. Revolutionary Socialists are concerned with the development of Socialist propaganda which shows Socialism as a constructive and practical solution to the problems of Capitalism which constantly develop as further expressions of its inherent class contradictions. Revolutionary Socialists are concerned with our most difficult problem of propaganda which can be stated as a question. How does the Party overcome the problem of at once maintaining the separate integrity of our principled position, and at the same time be seen to be identified with the interests of the working class, at a time when most working class actions, and here I include industrial actions, are self defeating and sometimes disastrous? By its nature, Capitalism cannot work in, the interests of the whole community. As a result of this, Capitalism constantly throws up social protest and reformist campaigns for various changes. Equality is the end product of class struggle, and whilst protest movements and reformist campaigns do not prosecute the class struggle in a conscious way, nevertheless, they are produced hy class society. Here is the common link between the relevance of Socialism and the discontent inevitably produced by Capitalist society. The revolutionary Socialist's task is to show, by analysis and persuasive argument, that whatever ostensible form protest may take, the real problem is Capitalism. Revolutionary Socialism clarifies discontent, equips it with Socialist consciousness, and directs it on a course of practical and effective political action. This is the revolutionary Socialist involvement with the politics of the day. I want to emphasise and draw particular attention to the need for analysis and persuasive argument. Our attitude of principled opposition must always be explained in a manner conducive to the understanding of our argument to communicate, manner of argument must be consistent with the content of the argument. A platform manner which is insulting and antagonistic, regardless of the actual sense of the argument, will convey the impression of an insulting and antagonistic organisation. We can do much to bridge the gulf of understanding and principle that exists between ourselves and other organisations by careful consideration of manner of argument and by showing that all protest is ultimately protest against Capitalism and is therefore embraced by the Socialist case. Revolutionary activity is actually the beginning of Socialist social organisation within the heart of Capitalist society. To the sectarian Socialist, political opposition has degenerated into a formula for negative antagonism to the world at large. The hostility clause of the D of P is taken by the sectarian Socialist to justify attitudes of facile antagonism. In fact, Clause 7 lays down hostility in the mutual incompatibility of ideas and objects between us and other parties, which is brought out and explained not by an insulting manner, but by a full explanation of differences of principle. The sectarian Socialist has latched on to the Party as a means of expressing general opposition as an end in itself. In practice, the sectarian Socialist is exclusively preoccupied with opposition and fights against the positive practicalities of revolutionary Socialism, and against revolutionary Socialists as individuals. I hold that sectarian Socialists are a barrier to the progress of Socialism, that they inhibit the development of our case, and the success of our propaganda. The argument in the Party over reforms is essentially an argument between revolutionary Socialists and sectarian Socialists. This argument is concerned with two fundamentally different applications of the attitude of opposition. To the sectarian Socialist, political opposition is a negative refuge which is defended with repellent hostility. To the revolutionary Socialist, political opposition is a basis for positive action. In line with the Party's object of building Socialist consciousness, the revolutionary Socialist seeks to expand the Socialist argument and to increase its influence through every method of propaganda, putting propaganda over in a manner which is most conducive to its being understood and accepted. It is in the light of these two different attitudes that the controversy on the E.C. can be most fully understood. During the first six months of this year, 5 E.C. members, together with other members, were subject to a mounting barrage of unsubstantiated charges. These were not formal complaints, but regular verbal attacks. Over the six weeks prior to the 8th May, not one E.C. meeting passed when these verbal attacks were not made. On the 8th May, D'Arcy and Baldwin expressed their attitudes in an amendment which was lost - "That some members of the E.C. disagree with the Party case and wish to support such reformist organisations as Women's Liberation Movement". Since these allegations were now in print in E.C. Minutes, a more serious situation had arisen, and subsequently, on the 5th June, the E.C. passed the following resolutions- "That in view of the persistent allegations made by Comrades D'Arcy and Baldwin that some members of the E.C. are reformists, who do not accept the Party case, and who should be out of the Party and in view of the clear danger that the effectiveness of the E.C. and other Socialist activities may be impaired if these allegations are not dealt with, this E.C. asks Comrades D'Arcy and Baldwin either to withdraw these allegations in writing, or to provide written evidence to substantiate these allegations, so that the E.C., if necessary, can take appropriate action.'" On the 10th July, the E.C. received a reply from Comrades D'Arcy and Baldwin which set out to provide evidence in support of their various charges. This has been circulated to the Party. I put it to the Party that this reply is transparently a contrived argument which D'Arcy and Baldwin have had to "cook up" after being pressed by the E.C. to provide evidence. Taken as a whole, "Towards One World - 1969" maintained an uncompromising stand on the need to apply Marxist method and to exclusively advocate Socialism, and to this end concerned itself with problems of propaganda. It is significant that they are disturbed by this kind of discussion. They have taken a number of quotes out of context and strung them together to suit their own purpose, without seeming to be in the least aware that this is a dishonest method of argument. Members will recognise that the mention of dues is the use of a smear in place of an argument. D'Arcy and Baldwin allege that my position is that "We should not attack those who do not attack us". This is pure invention, but what is again significant is their preoccupation with the need to attack. Concerning the Edinburgh draft on student grants, they say I was "in favour of this circular being distributed in its existing form". Again, it must be said that they know that this was just not true. I was in favour of charges, and I actually altered the text. I also moved the resolution deprecating the distribution of the leaflet without approval. (See 16th meeting of the E.C. 24th April) The only "evidence" that D'Arcy and Baldwin have produced in their circular to the Party is of their own lack of integrity of argument. They invent "evidence", and distort arguments and events at will, without the slightest regard for the interests of Socialism as distinct from their own destructive campaigns. The simplest way to show that this is the case is to refer to the actual record of E.C. business in E.C. minutes. I now come to that part of D'Arcy and Baldwin's letter to do with the actions the E.C. took in regard to Women's Lib. They have argued that because I noted against the resolution expressing the opinion that membership of Women's Lib was incompatible with membership of the Party, I am a reformist. My stand in relation to Women's Lib was not a negative one but a proposal for positive Socialist action. I would draw members' attention to the E.C. Minutes of the 15th meeting dated 17th. April. Under the item "Comrade Ballard - Women's Lib", the E.C. was beginning to move against a member of the Party in relation to Women's Lib. This move was to do with business carried over from the previous E.C. and also concerned "Brighton Line". I was opposed to the general attacks made by D'Arcy and Baldwin on "Brighton Line" and my position, as D'Arcy and Baldwin well know, was as follows. That the E.C. should not begin to move-against members until it had before it a properly organised argument on paper. I argued that as with other organisations in the past, the E.C. should precede its action with a formal investigation of Women's Lib. The amendment concerning Comrade Ballard was carried 5-4 and my resolution calling for an investigation of Women's Lib was lost 4 - 4. Members will note that the 15th meeting adjourned very late - at 11.05 p.m. My resolution came up at about 10.40 p.m., when some E.C. members had left, and was lost on even voting. In the circumstances, I felt that this resolution did not receive proper E.C. consideration. Coming to the Minutes of the 21st E.C. meeting (5th June), in relation to a letter from Edinburgh Branch, D'Arcy moved an amendment that "the E.C. is of the opinion that membership of Women's Lib organisations is incompatible with membership of the Party." I voted against this amendment because, as I had already stated, the E.C. did not yet have before it an organised case as a basis for action. The E.C. could refer to one article in the S.S., which by itself was inadequate. Apart from this, Comrade D'Arcy produced at the E.C. table two or three quotes from Women's Lib journals, but nothing in writing. His verbal analysis was, to say the least, crude and superficial, and left the important questions unanswered, some of which were as follows :- Is Women's Lib a political party under the terms of Clause 7 of the Declaration of Principles? As an organisation, does it compete with the S.P.G.B. for the capture of political power? If it does not,in what sense does Women's Lib operate as a political organisation? If Women's Lib demands certain reforms such as equal pay, abortion on demand, 24 hour day nurseries, etc., in what way would these reforms benefit, damage or make no difference to working class interests? To what extent is Women's Lib used as a front organisation for various left-wing political parties such as Communists and International Socialists? What kind of social theories, if any, does Women's Lib put forward, and in what way do they conflict with Party theories? Does Women's Lib express any significant development of social consciousness? If D'Arcy and Baldwin were really in any doubt about my attitude on the relationship of the Party to Women's Lib, they were both present at the 25th meeting on 3rd July, when 1 moved - "Further to the E.C.'s resolution of the 5th June regarding Women's Lib, a committee of three members be asked to establish in greater detail the historical and present political significance of Women's Lib from the Party point of view" This resolution not only accepted the resolution of 5th June making membership of Women's Lib incompatible with the Party, bat by its wording was intended to be an explicit extension of it, I would have preferred the E.C. investigation of Women's Lib before the resolution making mutual membership incompatible. This would have been a more logical procedures we would have had a more coherent systematic argument on paper to support our action and to augment our propaganda. In any of the events in which we might want to reply to outside enquiries, answer Branches, such as Edinburgh Branch, or move against members, the Party practice of investigating other organisations was to my mind still the best procedure. D'Arcy and Baldwin were present on the E.C. when I stated these views. Granted that they understand plain English and established Party practice, it was certain that they had full comprehension of my stated attitude. In view of this, it is equally certain that when they assert that I wanted Party support of Women's Lib, this is a conscious distortion of the facts. So far as I was concerned, our attitude of opposition to Women's Lib was now not on the basis of D'Arcy and Baldwin's sectarianism, but on a more scientific Socialist basis, since it was now being linked with a Marxist analysis of these organisations. The E.C. came to the view that this was necessary. The opposition of D'Arcy and Baldwin to Women's Lib did not exemplify Marxist method. Their approach contributes nothing outside their sectarian need to dissociate from the world at large. I am opposed to their dogmatic attitude because they are a threat to the theoretical methods of revolutionary Socialism. The Party, because it exists on the basis of heightened political consciousness, not only must demand this from the working class, but must itself constantly exercise a Marxist analysis of society. This is the way a Socialist Party protects the integrity of its existence, by putting into practice first of all continued social analysis, then applying the results of this analysis in various forms of propaganda. Marxism is not a formula for instant opposition to society, catering for those in whom hostility is more a personal need than a political principle. What D'Arcy and Baldwin have been attacking on this year's E.C. have been attempts to maintain the application of Marxist methods and a high standard of propaganda. Their attempts to disrupt this would lead, if successful, to an impoverishment of the Party case. They would reduce the Party's argument to a facile hostility to Capitalism, linked to a vague concept of a different world, which would have as much practical conviction and serve the same sectarian function as the case of the Jehovah Witnesses. In fact, their own statement on reforms as summarised in their circular could belong quite properly to the literature of the Jehovah Witnesses. D'Arcy and Baldwin have both persistently charged that Cox and myself do not accept the Party's case on reforms and should be outside the Party. Yet it was Cox and myself who moved the resolution which was agreed hy the E.C. (see 22nd Meeting, 13th June) and which altered D'Arcy's article for the July Socialist Standard to make its statement on reforms clearer and more in line with the stand of scientific Socialism. Members will note from E.C. minutes that D'Arcy wanted to commit the Party to the view that "the welfare of the working class under Capitalism is not our concern." The resolution, moved by myself and Cox and agreed by the E.C. was as follows : "The. welfare of the working class under Capitalism is not our concern" is better expressed "reformist schemes designed to improve the lot of workers under Capitalism can never express Socialist political activity in the class struggle, or have any prospect of achieving a Socialist revolution, and it is a waste of workers' time and energy to attempt to improve Capitalism by means of reforms which obscure the class struggle." This resolution altered D'Arcy's draft article to bring it in line with the Party attitude. He was quite willing to allow our wording to be printed in the Socialist Standard over his signature, which it was. I supported the E.C. statement on reforms in reply to Bolton Branch. Again, it must be said that D'Arcy and Baldwin had full knowledge of these facts. Therefore, their determination to go on asserting that I am a reformist has been adopted quite irresponsibly, knowing it to be untrue. The Party could never take up D'Arcy and Baldwin's attitude to reforms. No doubt they themselves will want to elaborate on their own attitudes, but their own summary of their views as expressed in their circular "We will have nothing to do with reforms good or bad. We do not support good reforms or oppose bad reforms", would lead, if adopted, to the withdrawal of the Party from serious practical politics. Their attitude is a threat to the Party and hostile to our working methods, because it retreats from a day to day Socialist engagement with the workings of Capitalism. We oppose Capitalism, not dogmatically in terms of highly generalised assertions and attitudes of facile hostility. The danger of this kind of propaganda is that it wins support from those who are attracted to hostility itself rather than the detailed Marxist analysis of Capitalism which supports our general attitude of political opposition. This is the sectarian threat to the Party that D'Arcy and Baldwin represent. The kind of Party that would result from thar unchallenged influence would be a party that provides a sectarian formula for hostility and withdrawal. A Party of this kind would be ultimately in support of Capitalist society. Such a Party would tend to stabilise Capitalism by providing a negative refuge for the politically frustrated and destroying the positive practicability of Socialism. It is not coincidental that for years Baldwin has used the outdoor platform of Socialism as a vehicle for expressing his personal hostility to the world at large. Do we really hold that the working class is indiscriminately "scum" or "napalm lovers", or any of the other insults that Baldwin has hurled at audiences in Hyde Park in the name of revolutionary Socialism? And what of D'Arcy, what does he really want? On this year's E.C., he has opposed every attempt to develop the Party's propaganda literature. Opposition to the pamphlet on Ireland; opposition to the leaflet on trade unions; opposition to discussion material on Capitalism in Russia; opposition to an analysis of Women's Lib; opposition to the pamphlet on Human Nature; opposition to electoral activity, because he disagrees with rule. I find that Comrade D'Arcy in particular exerts a sterile and vindictive influence in relation to the development of the Party as a propaganda organisation. Apart from this, both D'Arcy and Baldwin, through wilful misrepresentation and the distortion of events, have created disruption in the Party and doubt throughout the movement about the Socialist integrity of the Executive Committee. D'Arcy and Baldwin have both been repeatedly invited to withdraw their allegations so that this matter night be dropped. This is what I would have preferred, and I have done more than enough, not only on this E.C. but as part of the Party's propaganda effort, to dispel any thought that anybody may ever have had that I am a reformist. The position is that they still maintain their allegations in spite of the overwhelming factual evidence that I have cited to the contrary. I trust that members will deprecate their senseless and destructive campaign. P. Lawrence
