SOCIAL. REVOLUTION.

Grey River Argus, 16 May 1922, Page 3

SOCIAL. REVOLUTION.

(To the Editor). Sir, —The most important fact in modern history is the breakdoxvn of Capitalism. This fact which is pregnant with great possibilities explains tiro number of convulsive social upheavals which have recently syept the xvorld. As capitalism becomes more unstable, us it- becomes riven by the fangs of its own inherent contradictions, these upheavals arc destined to increase both in number and severity, ami must inevitably creat-c a. series of intense revolutionary situations. In this development, there exists the greatest possibility that a social revolution may take place in the immediate future. To-day no one viexvs the social revolution us some utopian phantasy, it is m»\x’ being forced upon us as the only solution to Hie great social problem which history has placed before us. Its rajud approach and the coming struggle for proletarian poxver as the first decisive step towards Communism have smm'xxlmte unsettled the sentimental sopists, xvho xvere alxvays ready to assert their belief in Communism as an ideal Now that history has imposed Hie task of obtaining Communism, to translate the social deal ’">1" the social realitv, our high minded friends, while not rejecting the ideal, are not anxious to participate in the relentless struggle insuperably bound up in the attaining- of Communism. Some of them protest against class strife, others dislike the iron hand of the proletarian dictatorship, and many of them object to tlie use of force. So deeply engrossed are these people with their ideal and substitute conception of Communism, that they never face the realities of the class struggle, the cruelties of Capitalism, and the economic needs of the desperate masses. They do not seem to understand that any attack upon the political and economic privileges of the propertied interests will be resisted with desperate savagery, and that these interests may plunge any country into civil war. ’I he idealists nre. thus able to pose as superior critics of the so-called “virulent and aggressive” tactics of the Communists; they seem shocked that those actively engaged in a hand to hand light, in the class struggle trenches, do not display that sweet brotherhood that their ideal conception of Communism led them to expect. The real trouble with the Utopians is that, while they are sincerely eager to reach the end of their journey they are not prepared to participate m the common, thankless, workaday struggle to prepare the necessary means to enable them to reach their objective. I’erhaps the Communist objection put forward by the sentimental Utopians against the realist Communists is the latter’s insistence on the need for so planning the revolutionary movement that it will be able to overcome the violence of the. reactionaries. To ob-jei-l to the organising of the might of th-e disciplined masses seems strange, inasmuch as many of the idealists have been compelled to observe quite recently a series of desperate bloody deeds which indicate that the propertied interests intend to defenil their social system by measures at once violent and ruthless. With the use of political society, which is based upon private property, force makes its appearance as the weapon of a ruling class. Within the Ohl Communistic clan system, force was only used against those outside the i-lan. with the rise of private property ami the rise of class difficulties and antagonisms, the organised political power of the dominant class —the State w:is utilised to preserve its class inf.erosts against foreign aggressors anc

against the subject, enslaved classes al home. Since the rise of political society and the State, force has always been the ultima ratio ol’ the ruling class, confronted xvith any demands that threatened its political and economical interests. Surrounding itself with a series of legal and political defences, these are violently defended during any social npheava* as ‘Maxv and order.’’ To criticise “law and order” becomes an attack uj>on the constiution xvhich, in turn, is raised to the level of something mure sacred than the holiest religion. Many of our modern parliamentary Labourites see in the history of the masses, from chaTtel slavery to the wage-system, a series of magnificent and glorious upxvard steps to wards freedom. In reality the modern average worker is exploited, relatively, upon a much greater scale, than xvas tin l average ancient slave. The socalled political advantages of the masses to-day, xvhich may be rendered inoperative at any moment of social crisis, have been gained at the expense of the comparative security whidh distinguishes the slave and the serf from the 4 ‘free” xvage worker. The slave was brought in direct contact with force; the serf xvas also kept doxvn by force; and xvas bull-dosed. The modern democratic wage worker is menaced by emergency acts etc., by the dope press; and when these fail, by Black Friday traitors and specialists, and the armed forces. In the history of political society, there have been several important revolutions. The lessons from these show that while history xvas on the side of the revolutionary elements, ‘victory only came to them because their organised force xvas superior to that of the defenders of the old social system. A study of these revolutions shows that revolutionary groups were always anxious to achieve their aims in a peaceful manner, in most cases the revolution had been actually accomplished, and the xvork of reconstruction •ommenced, xvhen the deposed interests hurled themselves upon the rvolutionaries and precipitated a, period of civil xvar. In England very fexx- of the revolutionaries imagined that it xvould be necessary to defend the revolution by executing ('harles L, ns the leader of a rebellion against the commonxvealth. This is admitted by all the historians. Likexvise in France, the most extreme Zealot, on behalf of the rex’olution, never dreamed for one moment that Louis xvould be guillotined as a plotter against it. It may be argued that no analogy can be drawn be txveen past revolutions and those which may come in the future. Many people, particularly of the pacifist school, arc under tin* impression that the political enfrancliisement of the xvorkers means that the coming social revolution, xvill be peaceful. Every Communist desires, most fervently, that th* 1 nexv social order may be established xvith the minimum of social friction. But our desires ami hopes do not settle historical problems! We have to reckon xvith the capitalist ini |>eria list s; ami their actions during the past few years give us no reason to assume Hint they intend xoluiitnrily ami jieacefully Io yield ii|) their political ami economic j>rix ilcg('s. Every scrap of evidence, unfortunately, points the other xvay. A nex\ r factor enters into the proletarian revolution, xvhich xvas not ]»resent in any of the earlier revolutions in his torv. All previous revolutions, xvith lie? exception of the Soviet revolution, xvere struggles betxveen projiertied class* s ox’er property relations. In the ( rone xvellian revolution, as in the French revolution (1789), xve see the political struggle engendered by tin* economic c-onllict betxveen the landed ami bourgeois form of property. But. in the coining proletarian revolution, the directing force of the struggle is an attom|»t on the part of the propertyless masses to end the jiropertied system! It is this definite character of the proletarian revolution that makes it almost certain that the propertied interests will fight xvith unprecedented ferocity. II is this aspect of the jiroletarian revolution that exjdains xvliy, for oxer four years, tin* power of xvorld imj»erialism was directed against Russia! Marx, viewing revolutions and xvith a great knowledge of history to guide him, contended that ‘‘force is the midxvife of every old society pregnant, xvith a nex\’ one.” Many sujwrlii'ial freaks and critics of Communists point to this statement by Marx as indicating that the proletarian revolution will be an orgy of violence. It should be noted, us Daniel de Leon took [tains to point out, that Marx does not sum up a revolution in the terms of force. The midxvife, force, only intervenes at the critical moment of birth. The develojnnent leading up to the birth, its' time ami place, are factors outside the control of the midwife. The critics of the Communists are vcr\’ jirone to confuse force xvith violence. No group in the Labour Aleve- ; nicnt is more relentlessly opposed Io deeds of violence than the Communist I‘artv. Every political organisation in the xvorld believes in force, force is that social jioxver derived from the organisation of individuals in such ti manner as to enable thm to cllect their will in society. 'l’he real force of a revolutionary movement depends upon the xvay in xvhich it is able to organise; great musses of determined workers in every jdane of social action, to set ujx nexv administrative organs to replace 'those of the old. regime. This is flic 'most important xvork of the revolution. •Side bv side xvith this e work, its general agitational xvork xvill be of such a character as to loosen the props of the bad old institutions. The culmiuation of these tasks xvill be reached al the moment of social crisis, xvhen the revolutionary movement seeks to relegate, to itself all political and industrial [•owcr. All this is peaceful xvork. As these peaceful aims are diivcted against capitalism and the pro-

pert idl system, and as tin 1 final <>b jective (if lhe rrx olut ion is 1u uproot the euonomiu and political poxver of the propertied interests, it xvould be sheer stupidity to expert the present ruling class to surrender voluntarily, knowing xvliat history teaches regarding the bitItrr conflict of past revolutionary periods; remenibrring the tigerish brutality of the imperialist force's against the Communists of Rumania, Hungary, I'nland, and noxv in Poland, seeing their policy at xvork in India, Egypt, and recently in Ireland, it xvould be xvorsr than criminal treachery to suggest that any revolutionary movement should go forward xvithout preparing itself for situations that history tells us are bounds to arise, and xvhich the propertied class is determined to enforce xvhen a revolutionary situation develops. It is xvhen the reactionaries leave the civilised plane and descend to the field of brute force, to smash tin* nexx" organs of social administration, it is at that critical moment that the organised might of the proletariat upholds the right of the revolutionary movement, to resist the machinations of its adversaries. To neglect to prepare- for such an emergency, to wait until “White Guards,” and “Black and Tans” are sxveeping over the movement, choking it in its oxvn blood, is the best and surest xvay Io invite inevitable disaster and bloody defeat. The projiertied classes 1 respect neither religious texts nor logical propositions. They are always moved to action to protect their interests. They hold Hit' xvorld by their jioxver, and they only respect power. Thus those xvho desire to see the social revolution carried out peacefully, ami all of us desire that, should see to it that the movement is prepared for every emergency by being able to comp 4 the jiropertied interests to behave themselves xvhen history beckons us forxvard to a nexv social system. — I am, etc., WM. P.