Letter from James Plant
to Cyril E. May, Socialist Party of Great Britain (Ashbourne Court)
Mr Cyril E. May
General Secretary, SPGB
71 Ashbourne Court
Woodside Park Road
London N12 8SI3
Dear Cyril:
Thank you for all the literature that you have sent me following my request
of 17 May. I have not yet had a chance to
read everything in Socialist Studies, but I have read a selection of
articles. My provisional judgement is, that like the
curate's egg, it is "good in parts". However, it is rather bad in parts
also. Very bad in parts.
One of the first things that I noticed was the description, in more than one
issue of your journal, of the Discussion
Bulletin of Grand Rapids, Michigan, as an anarchist publication. In fact,
started by expelled SLP members, it is a
socialist discussion publication. In its pages you will find contributions
from De Leonists and anti-De Leonists, from
"Petersenist" De Leonists like the De Leonist Society of Canada, from
council communists, from situationists, from
the occasional avowedly anti-socialist, like ex-SLP member and ex-employee
of the American SLP National Office,
Ken Ellis; indeed also from various anarchists and "libertarian socialists,"
but also from the Clapham based Socialist
Party and also from your organisation! In other words, a very broad based
discussion forum. Maybe you would not
class it as a socialist discussion forum, but it is definitely not
anarchist.
Next I was dismayed to see the untruths told about the Socialist Labor Party
of America in issue No.3 of Socialist
Studies. On page I I of issue No.3 it states: "...the American party
continued [with reforms or 'immediate demands'].
It had a list of 15 'Social Demandsand a further list of 6 'Political
Demands."' You then list some of these demands.
The fact is that you are quoting from the 1896 National Platform of the
American SLP! In 1896 Daniel De Leon,
Henry Kuhn, Lucien Sanial and others started a campaign to eradicate such
demands from the SLP programme and
for the adoption of a completely new, revolutionary socialist Platform. A
turning point was De Leon's 1896 address
Reform or Revolution. Let me quote a few passages from that address:
Reform means a change of externals; revolution - peaceful or bloody, the
peacefulness or bloodiness of it
cuts no figure whatever in the essence of the question - means a change from
within .... Whenever a change
leaves the internal mechanism untouched, we have reform; whenever the
internal mechanism is changed, we
have revolution .....
We socialists are not reformers; we are revolutionists. We socialists do not
propose to change forms. We care nothing for forms. We want a change of the
inside of the mechanism of society; let the form take care of itself We see
in England a crowned monarch, we see in Germany a sceptered emperor, we see
in this country an uncrowned president, and we fail to see any essential
difference between Germany, England or America. That being the case we are
sceptics as to forms. We are like grown children, in the sense that we like
to look at the inside of things and find out what is there....
The struggles that mark the movement of man have ever proceeded from the
material interests, not of individuals, but of classes. The class interests
on top, when rotten ripe for overthrow, succumbed, when they did succumb, to
nothing short of the class interests below.... Revolutions triumphed,
whenever they did triumph, by asserting themselves and marching straight
upon their goal. On the other hand, the fate bf Wat Tyler ever is the fate
of reform. The rebels, in this instance, were weak enough to be wheedled
into placing their movement in the hands of Richard H, who promised
"relief' - and brought it by marching the men to the gallows.
You will perceive the danger run by movements that - instead of accepting no
leadership except such as stands squarely upon their own demands - rest
content with and entrust themselves to "promises of relief " Revolution,
accordingly, stands on its own bottom, hence it cannot be overthrown; reform
leans upon others, hence its downfall is certain. Of all revolutionary
epochs the present draws sharpest the line between the conflicting class
interests. Hence, the organisation of the revolution of our generation must
be the most uncompromising of all that have appeared on the stage of
history. The programme of this revolution consists not in any one detail. It
demands the unconditional surrender of the capitalist system and its system
of wage slavery; the total extinction of class rule is its object. Nothing
short of that - whether as a first, a temporary, or any other sort of step -
can at this late date receive recognition in the camp of the modem
revolution....
The resulting struggle within the SLP culminated with the I Oth National
Convention in 1900, which removed all the Immediate demands or reform planks
from the SLP Programme! Ever since the American SLP has had but one demand:
the unconditional surrender of the capitalist class and the establishment of
socialism.
As an indication of the consistency of De Leon's and the SLPs position on
reforms let me quote a passage from pages 191-192 of De Leon's Flashlights
of the Amsterdam Congress:
With guile, or innocent purpose, the effort is often made to blur
"revolution" into "reform," and reform" into "revolution"; and,
with innocent purpose, or with guile, the attempt is not
infrequently made to stampede the argument into an acceptance of
the blur by holding up "cataclysm" as the only alternative.
Dismissing the "argument" of cataclysm as unbecoming, and the
"cataclysmic threat" for mere phrasebogey that it is, the point of
contact between "reform" and "revolution" - meaning by the latter
the Socialist Revolution - lies too far back here to merit
attention, They are "horses of different colour," or, dropping
slang, children of different parents. The line that separates
them is sharp. "Reform" infers a common ground between
contestants; "revolution" the absence of such ground. The two
terms are mutually repellent in social science. Socialism is
nothing if not revolution. There is no common ground between
contestants. With Socialism, on the one hand, and the system of
private ownership in natural and social opportunities, or class
rule, on the other, each stands on ground mutually abhorrent. The
two cannot deal, barter or log-roll. They can meet only to clash,
and for extermination.
I enclose for your information material from the SLP organ The People dated
June 2000, which gives details and background on the removal of reforms by
the SLP from its programme in 1900. In this material you will also find
details of the departure of the reformist elements from the SLP who merged
with Eugene V. Debs' Social Democratic Party to form the opportunist
"Socialist" Party of America. Also enclosed is an Editorial by De Leon from
the Daily People dated Aug 27, 1912, confirming the SLPs anti-reform stand.
Also in the photocopies that I am sending you is the text of the 1896
Platform that was replaced in 1900, and which you falsely imply in your
journal has always been, and still is, the SLP stance.
For the text of the introductory words of the SLP Platform you quote a book
published in 1907. The impression is given, even if not explicitly stated,
that this kind of cobblers is still in the SLP Platform. I believe that this
wording was still in the 1900 platform, I do not have a copy to check. In
the 1904 and 1908 Platforms the words "With the founders of the American
Republic" have been removed. In the 1912 and subsequent Platforms the entire
passage has been removed. If your article was not a deliberate attempt to
deceive (I am fully prepared to accept that it was not) then it indicates
very shoddy scholarship on the part of the author, a cavalier disregard for
accuracy and the verification of facts.
As additional evidence of your misrepresentation of the SLP position on
immediate demands and reforms I enclose three additional Editorials by De
Leon (August 1910, June 1911 and September 1912) that I have downloaded from
the SLP's Web Site.
I also enclose material from the December 2000 issue of The People giving
details of the struggle waged by the SLP against revisionism and opportunism
within the Second International, as this is germane to the attitude of the
Party to reformism and compromise. Also enclosed is a copy of Daniel De
Leon's Ten Canons ofthe Proletarian Revolution, which you can keep (it is
the concluding part of De Leon's Two Pages From Roman History, first
published on 1903. Maybe you will disagree with some things in this
pamphlet, but I hope that you will agree that it does not reflect a
reformist or "immediate demand" position on the part of the SLP. Moreover,
the lessons and philosophy of the Ten Canons has been among the central
guiding principles of the Socialist Labor Party of America to this day.
You also imply that the American SLP eschews political action and use of the
ballot. This is simply not true. The SLP has always held the position that
the class-conscious, socialist, working class should use the ballot and the
might of its industrial organisations in the revolutionary overthrow of
capitalism and the establishment of a socialist society. You, of course, can
take issue with this position and hold that the political ballot alone is
suffient to effectuate the transition from capitalism to socialism. Taking
note of one of the lessons that Karl Marx drew from the experience of the
Paris Commune, that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready
made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes," the SLP takes a
contrary view to yours. While you are entitled to hold a different
perspective to Marx and the SLP on this question, you cannot be justified in
distorting or misrepresenting the SLP stand by implying that the SLP does
not attach much importance or significance to political action and the
ballot.
Indeed, the break from the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) was over
this very question of the importance of political action. The IWW was
captured by anarchists and syndicalists who threw out the
political action clauses of the IWW programme. After the break from the IWW
some in the SLP, and
many supporters who were not party members, argued against De Leoifs
insistence that political action
and the ballot was of vital importance in the struggle for emancipation. A
collection of letters to The
People and De Leon's answers to them was reprinted as a pamphlet entitled As
To Politics. Therein he
argues trenchantly and with insistence that the use of the ballot is
fundamental to the program and tactics
of a revolutionary socialist party. I enclose a copy of As To Politics
(which you can keep) so that you can
judge the SLP position first hand. I would also like to quote a few words
from De Leons address given in
Minneapolis just two days after the Founding Convention of the IWW, and
subsequently published under
the title Socialist Reconstruction of Society:
De Leon insisted that the political movement was vital because it renders
the working class accessible to Socialist education and agitation. "It
affords the labour movement the opportunity to ventilate its purposes, its
aspirations and its methods, fi-ee, over an4l above board, in the moonday
light of the sun, whereas otherwise, its agitation would be consigned to the
circumscribed sphere of the rat-hole. " By presenting the issue of Socialism
on the political field "it places the movement in line with the spirit of
the age, which .... denies the power of 'conspiracy' in matters that not
only affect the masses, but which the masses must themselves be intelligent
actors..." "In short and in fine," said De Leon, "the political movement
bows to the methods of civilised discussion: it gives a chance to the
peaceful solution of the great question at issue."
Incidentally, in the Socialist Studies article, Issue No.3, page 11, you
draw attention to an article on the SLP in the Socialist Standard of
November 1930. Could you please supply me with a photocopy of this article?
Of course you are entitled to disagree with the programme, policy and
tactics of the Socialist Labor Party of America. I have done so very sharply
myself in the past when I have been of the view that they have made mistakes
or taken up an erroneous stand, and maybe I shall again in the future, but
my criticisms would relate to the here and now, or the recent past, not to
long since discontinued programmes and practices which bear no relationship
whatsoever to the SLP of the last 100 years or so!
Since the positive turning point of the year 1900, when all reform demands
were removed from the Party Programme, the SLP has nonetheless over time
made a number of mistakes and misjudgements (none of them relating to any
tendency towards reformism or a reluctance to take part in electoral
campaigns, etc), all of which should be analysed and criticised. Starting
around about the mid 1970's the SLP got to grips with most of its mistakes
and shortcomings of the proceeding years, openly admitting effors and
setting in motion steps to overcome shortcomings. Although considerable
progress has been made it must be said that, in my view, it has not been
completely successful in all its endeavours in this regard. However, I am of
the opinion that it has made sufficient positive steps in distancing itself
from, and correcting, major errors to warrant support, provided that support
is combined with constructive criticism, and also encouragement to those in
the Party who are striving to ensure that remaining shortcomings are
recognised, openly discussed and rectified.
There are real and genuine differences between your Party and the SLP. You
are entitled to highlight and get to grips with these differences. Analyse,
criticise, and combat things that you judge to be in error if you see fit.
But base any criticisms of, or opposition to the SLPs programme and practice
on its actual positions, tactics and conduct. Do not manufacture a straw
man, that is then easy to knock down, made up of data that is 100 years out
of date.
I did say that I found some good things in your journal. It was
good to see you bringing attention to three neglected classics:
The Origin Of The Family, Private Property And Ihe State,
Anti-Duhring (a marvelous book which is unfortunately out of print
at the moment in English, but it is available on CD-Rom and can
also be
downloaded from the intemet),
and also to Morgan's Ancient Society. (You state that it is hard
to get, but it can be ordered in a paperback edition from the
American SLP). You may be interested in the two articles that I
have photocopied from The People on Morgan's work that I enclose
with this letter. On the question of admiration for Lewis Henry
Morgan and his work your organisation. and the SLP have much in
common as you will see.
I look forward to your response to the above.
Yours for Socialism
Jim Plant
|
