Three Early Articles
by Maurice Spector (1916)
Socialist Influence on Social Progress
by Maurice Spector
Canadian Forward, November 11, 1916
About election time when the politicians are
clamoring for the vote of the free and enlightened citizen who in spite of
his amazing privileges, such as the permission to sell his labour power
when there is a demand for it, to travel freely if he has the means, to
starve unhindered if done quietly and decently, to go to war when called
upon by the masters of the state, still feels disquieted over sundry
matters; about this time, we repeat, the free and much “lightened” citizen
beings to seek ways and means of bettering the condition of the country.
Being somewhat of a social reformer, philanthropist and independent all in
one, he had voted alternately for the great political parties Tweedledum
and Tweedledee, always in the hope that the party that had just been “out”
would be a much sadder and wiser party when it would be returned to power.
But it must sorrowfully be admitted that our enlightened citizen had
always been regularly and monotonously disappointed but not disillusioned.
Whenever it was suggested, however, that he should give his vote to the
Socialist, he would observe with profound political sagacity that there
were two objections to such a policy. In the first place, no matter how
comprehensive the Socialist platform be, it is yet extreme and ignores the
fact that human nature changes but slowly if it changes at all; secondly,
the need for just and efficient administration and legislation is
immediate. Thus a vote for the Socialist is a vote wasted, as in most
cases it is improbable that he will be elected. So vote instead for the
good and honest candidate of Tweedledum or Tweedledee—who stands a more
certain chance of being elected, and who will thus be enabled to secure
good legislation earlier.
Such an attitude, incredibly short-sighted and
stupid tho’ it be, is undoubtedly present among great numbers of otherwise
intelligent people. So after heartily condemning the stupidity of their
reasoning, let us calmly enquire whether the facts of the case really
warrant the assertion that a vote for a Socialist is ever wasted—granting
even that the Socialist is unsuccessful in his efforts at election. We
shall, in this present article, only deal with this matter and leave the
question of extremeness and human nature for a second occasion.
A great part of this attitude towards the Socialist
party is caused by the knowledge of the strength of the older existing
political parties. These parties, which may have stood for something vital
in the past, which may have (satisfied) certain political and social
demands a long time back, having by reason of the progress of history with
its involved changes in political and social life, lost their once vital
significance, act no longer as anything but a burden in the way of modern
movements grappling with the problems of modern society. These historical
parties have retained their power only by means of that strong and often
lamentable influence—tradition, combined with a limited amount of
adaptability to changed times. Families have inherited their policies as
they have inherited their property and religion. Entrenched in political
privilege, the Republicans and Democrats of the United States, the
Liberals and Conservatives of Canada, tho’ having origins due to far
difference causes that are at work at present, still govern the country
and hinder social progress.
But, it may be objected, the generalization that
the older political parties are so much “live lumber,” is too wide.
Behold, for instance, the apparently distinct line of cleavage between the
Liberal and Conservative parties in Britain. The Liberals are pushing
forward radical and reform legislation, whereas the Tories are the
embodiment of cautious re-actionism. The question for us here is whether
the Liberals became so liberal because of their own desires, or whether
there was some outside force which threateningly compelled them to follow
the course they have.
Whoever has studied the origins of the British
political parties knows that they never were conceived in the idea of
democracy in the question of the rights of the people. The Whigs and the
Tories originated over a division as to which of two rival royal dynasties
should be supported. Soon each party had a set of traditions and a line of
policy peculiar to itself. Gradually certain social classes identified
themselves with one or the other party—the land-owning classes with the
Tories, the mercantile classes with the Whigs. The plans and policies of
each party were dictated by the most prominent family group or “compacts”
in the party. In the main the British proletariat was as yet uneducated,
class-unconscious, and received its ideology from one or the other of the
ruling classes. Thus its influence was almost nil.
With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, not
only did the structure of the world of industry change, but the spirit of
the proletariat, too, underwent a profound reformation—under the pressure
of the merciless exploitation which was then prevalent, the proletariat
was aroused to a sense of its subjection and to the need of a
working-class solidarity. Then came a real expression of the historical
class-struggle—the organization of unions. The older political parties had
meanwhile been terrorized by this startling Renaissance of the demos
(it is amusing to read the doleful lamentations of the clergy over the
“increasing irreverence” of the workers, and the bitter denunciations of
the journalist henchmen of the governing classes); and began to seek for
the means to control or pacify this growing menace to their security.
But an even more important result of the new
conditions created by the Industrial Revolution, as the appearance and
development of modern Socialism with its clear-cut ways of criticism, its
keen and accurate analysis of capitalist society, and its definite
proposals of remedy. The Socialist propaganda found a fruitful soil among
the working class. The governing classes were thus faced with a perplexing
alternative—either they could ignore the spirit of proletariat
[proletarian] discontent and invite a catastrophe, or adopt a
conciliatory attitude, which would at least temporarily check the storm of
social protest. Neither by reason of their own intellectual enlightenment,
nor by reason of their love of abstract justice, nor by reason of their
Christian ethics, have the Liberal or Conservatives, the Republicans or
Democrats, ever passed radical social legislation—only through their fear
of what they term, the “Red Spectre,” through their fear of the success of
the Socialist appeal, through their fear of retaining nothing by ceding
nothing, have they introduced any reform. What has done most to alleviate
the lot of the working class, is not innate affability of the aristocratic
or middle classes, but the standing threat of a Socialist victory.
For this reason it does not always appear necessary
for the Socialist to emphasize the reformist part of his platform. He
knows that by steadfastly striving to realize the ultimate aims of
Socialism, he will compel the possessing classes in self-defence, to pass
social legislation, the demand for which would be ignored, if it came from
the good-hearted social reformer. A careful examination of the social
legislation of the last ten years will show still more clearly this
extraordinary potential influence which Socialist propaganda exercises on
social progress. The various Compensation Acts, Insurance Acts, old age
pension systems, which are the boast of German, British and French reform
legislators, have been proposed as palliatives on the Socialist platform
ever since the days of Ferdinand Lassalle. An interesting bit of history,
for example, is involved in the passing of the first workmen’s aid
legislation in Germany. During the brilliant period of Bismarck’s
triumphant blood and iron policy, the German proletariat steadily refused
to be led astray from the paths of domestic reform by the glittering
prizes of Imperialism. Under the leadership of Lassalle they organized
themselves into a class-conscious Socialist movement which threatened to
destroy the German aristocracy and bourgeoisie. Bismarck shrewdly divined
wherein lay the trouble, and hastened to weaken the springs of the
Socialist movement by himself passing a series of workmen’s protective
acts. He hoped by this drastic action to destroy once and for all the
raison d’etre of Socialism in Germany. That he failed is due to the
fact that he neutralized this political stroke by a blundering use of
force to aid in throttling the Socialist party. The latter means of attack
had, fortunately, just the opposite effect from that which Bismarck had
wished for.
The influence of Socialism is pervading all social
life and all intellectual life. When new parties are formed they looked to
the Socialist platform to give them the issues for a campaign (witnessed
the deceased Progressive Party in the United States). We have succeeded in
familiarizing the world with the concepts “class-struggle,”
“class-consciousness,” “social revolution,” and other phrases that sum up
our philosophy of history.
We are urging on society a practical realization of
ideals based on reality. We wage war against British “virtueism” and gushy
American “idealism” as much as against German militarism. Humanitarian
cults, Christian fraternities, social reform bodies, etc., can never
accomplish anything unless they are supported by the organized strength of
Socialist propaganda—with the organized strength of millions of workingmen
behind it.
Socialism has not had to wait till the day of
realization in toto in order to influence social progress. It has
been an active factor in modifying the course of history for a long time
without actually ever having been in power.
[ Top ] [
Next ]
Copyright South Branch Publishing. All
Rights Reserved.
www.socialisthistory.ca ▪
|
