WHAT'S WRONG WITH USING PARLIAMENT?: The Cases For And Against The Revolutionary Use Of Parliament

Alan Woodward in Black Flag Issue 233, Mid 2011

Review: We use it as a dung market

What's wrong with using parliament: The cases for and against the revolutionary use of Parliament.
£1
22pp.
by the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
Introduction by Stair.

The title of this review is taken from William Morris's marvellous News From Nowhere, where the fictitious post-revolutionary citizens found an appropriate use for the Houses of Parliament.

The Socialist Party argues that it is possible for the great majority of people in all countries to vote for, and achieve, a majority the world over that will proceed to initiate international "socialism."

Exactly how the great majority will vote for socialism unless the ruling class internationally and conveniently provides a universal general election on the same day is not explained. Nor is it shown how "socialism" will be defined. The present procedure will apparently be maintained.

It dismisses those critics who say that where any assembly anywhere in the world has even mildly challenged the power of the international capitalist class it has been destroyed by force, by quoting the case of Allende in Chile in 1973.

A short paragraph concludes that Allende was not a socialist according to SPGB definitions and that the military took over three years to organise and execute their plans. That's it then!

Those who are not convinced by this powerful argument might even go so far as to list many other examples of socialist parliaments being squashed by the real rulers - capitalists - and their allies (the military, fascists or whoever).

• Germany 1933 where the Communists and Social Democratic (Labour) parties had a potential majority; Hitler put paid to that.
• Spain 1936, where an elected Republican government was ousted by a fascist mutiny organised by General Franco

... and so on. Of course the SPGB would argue that neither groups here, or the many workers revolts like Hungary 1956, had signed their Declaration of Principles, 1904, thus justifying SPGB neutrality in all these cases.

But seriously for a moment, the SPGB as a party has in the past provided some service to the actors for freedom.

Along with council communists and anarchists, they did classify soviet Russia as state capitalist very early on. And they exposed the Leninist/Stalinist hysteria about the final capitalist crisis and collapse in the 1930s.

However that was all in the past and the present decline of the party and its World Socialist companion parties shows no sign of a successful campaign to persuade people to resort to the ballot box.

They [i.e. "other people" - my addition] keep on engaging in "diversions" like striking and occupying workplaces, and setting up councils and suchlike ...

One mystery remains about the `Small Party of Good Boys'. What do they do with their vast financial income that neither keeps the UK banking system going nor invests in capitalist type institutes?

One thing is certain, it does not go to people fighting for socialism outside the parameters of the Holy Script or Principles.

The funding of the SPGB is not covered by either of the following texts, the unofficial and the semi-official versions.

Two books give some idea of the SPGB historically.

The Monument is largely a personal account, lots of narrative and anecdotes of workers doing things [Barltrop].

A general but abstract volume The Socialist Party of Great Britain [Perrin] examines policy but excludes actions by the members as such.

An account of perhaps the last member to contribute to workers' organisation, bus driver Frank Snelling, is in Radical Aristocrats [Fuller]. Snelling was London chair of the rank and file body opposing autocratic trade union leader Ernest Bevin around 1936. Some SPGB members were quite constructive.

This booklet has been reviewed twice - in the SP's journal Socialist Standard in September, sympathetically, and in the breakaway Libertarian Communist journal no.11, much more critically.

You may need to consult these.

The SPGB has a well-situated shop and centre in Clapham with an excellent library.

They are always willing to talk about things, but beyond that? Socialist Standard has a residual value for its book reviews.

In the mind of this reviewer, the SPGB is located slap bang in the middle of the Marxist vanguard groups whose characteristics it shares - authoritarian structure, party chauvinism and so on. What else can be said about this eccentric body?

• SPGB, 52 Clapham High Street, London  SW4 7UN, UK

Responses:

Submitted by Stair to Black Flag on 9th September, 2011

Dear Editors,

Good to see that you gave the recent SPGB pamphlet "What's Wrong With Using Parliament?" a review in your last edition.

My take on the review as one individual in the SPGB...

Firstly the review starts off with a piece that says "Introduction by Stair". No idea how the reviewer got this idea, all SPGB pamphlets are put out in the name of the Party and are not individually authored as a matter of principle. Maybe there was some confusion because I introduced the pamphlet at a talk in Housmans in November last year.

It seems ironic that the review should start with a romantic nod in the direction of William Morris when one of the things that Morris is well known for was his passion for "making Socialists", something the SPGB rightly or wrongly is often simplistically ridiculed for, despite the further argument that it could be that many members may feel that Socialists actually "make themselves". But then again if I am to elaborate further on this point it would mean that I would be talking about the nature of revolutionary consciousness and that's going off the subject... a bit.

In essence though Morris's socialist "propagandising" was about making sure that there was a strong body of socialists who had a good understanding of the workings of capitalism and a clear understanding of the components of a society in contrast to it. He happened to call this socialism, as does the SPGB and it rested on the belief that there needed to be a mass of opinion in favour of it. Incidentally, I'm only positioning Morris in all this because that's how the article starts, News from Nowhere doesn't particularly send me into a quiver of ecstasy.

As for the reviewer trying to explain that it's not shown how "socialism" will be defined I would suggest that he reads the back cover where it says a "classless, wageless, moneyless, stateless society based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of life". What more does he want? And if he does want more there's plenty of it and he wouldn't have to look far!!

Let's be clear though on one thing, if people do start to believe in the possibility of a future society beyond the market and the state then to some, including myself, it is a sensible option to cover all bases and rob any ounce of legitimacy that the capitalist class (including leftist would be managers with their own statist dreams) will try to bestow upon themselves. Or does the reviewer have some cuddly idea of the left and is therefore blinded to the fact that these potential future managers of our own oppression also have to not be allowed to fill a space which would exist if no one thought it sensible to neutralize the effects a state as a state would have if left alone?

So... maybe if we should learn anything from history it is that capitalists and leftist generals alike love, or at least will take full advantage of a vacuum, and that vacuum becomes pretty nasty when they may also have the command of the forces of the state. We can't necessarily know how things will turn out if a large percentage of the world's population become enthused by "that future society" but isn't it a knee jerk reaction to ignore all bases rather than consider that at present as in the past it's often the fact that the machinery of government is vested in the hands of the state that we are able to be repressed, shot and massacred to keep hold of their order by weapons greater than we would ever be likely to muster if we were to arm ourselves. The icing on the cake is that we don't allow them that privilege and that we would be in parliament as rebels.

Is being a rebel in parliament flawed then? If so, why? We can all pick and choose our favourite quotes from folks from the past, one of mine is probably one from Alexander Berkman where he says that "Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas and as long as these are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present-day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism. Progress consists of abolishing what man has outlived and substituting in its place a more suitable environment." In other words the big holding power that capitalism in more "developed" countries has over many is in peoples' heads in that the majority believe that there is no alternative or/and that they are "free" and living in a "democratic" society.

And yes, I have read what he wrote about "socialism" and using parliament but despite various valid points about what I would term "pseudo-socialists" it doesn't really answer that initial question I've posed in relation to the SPGB's position unless one is able to relate it to the "problem" of the "corrupting effects of politics". If that's the case then anarchists also wouldn't be able to trust their own mandated recallable delegates for that's what we propose as well when we seek the platform of parliament to further articulate that desire for a society free from capital and the state. And ultimately capture those powers that could be used against us. Hey, maybe we'd even want to send guns to comrades across the world who didn't have the luxury of being able to call the "democratic" state's bluff.

So... what else is up for ridicule in this review? To quote from the review "The Socialist Party argues that it is possible for the great majority of people in all countries to vote for, and achieve..." Does it? The SPGB does advocate the use of the vote in those countries that offer that facility though, is that such a big problem? When I come to London from Norwich I use the motorway. I don't think about how I might better go there via the coast using a dingy in the sea. Ironically it is in the countries that "appear" to have a semblance of democracy that seem to be the most stable in capitalist terms for the reasons stated by Berkman above so if that's the case what's wrong with using the platform offered by parliament to call their bluff?

Of course the SPGB doesn't have a blueprint for how a future society may come about but isn't it wise to minimise as many risks and therefore violence that States which, left alone have at their disposal via their own "delegates", resources and the subterfuge that could more easily be played out against the development of a new society.

If the state is not important then why are so many anarchists concerned about the BNP getting hold of it then?

"Allende was not a socialist according to SPGB definitions", yes that's right, he was a statist who believed in nationalisation policies, was a president and had no critique of the fundamentals of how world society operates, the wages system, buying and selling. But why was that said? It would be equally facile to say that "Murray Rothbard isn't an anarchist by most anarchist's definitions". Or maybe that's the problem that the reviewer has, that the SPGB likes to have definitions so that it is more able to articulate what it wants and what it doesn't want. Many people who define themselves as anarchists think that to have principles are a good thing too don't they?

To further articulate on the case of "Allende" and beyond, all the more reason to have a principled organisation/Party in the belly of each and every nation state that is able to concentrate its energies and provide encouragement to others who want to undermine the very ideas and support that will, until we become a worldwide force for communism allow any nation state, in that case America to support its own vested interests to dominate another in the interest of capital. Are we not able to say that State Capitalist illusions are just as harmful to the development of a socialist consciousness?

How does the reviewer see it then? Should we all give up because it's always going to be in the hands of the nasty lizard men?

Surely only a fool could think that ideas that challenged the status quo would not be happening or don't happen in any process that has as its aim the revolutionary transformation of society? So of course that would mean that a future vision as a realisable possibility would increasingly gain ground by being articulated in workplaces, the community, shops, pubs, in the arts and culture in general. As that future society was gaining ground as a tangible possibility then of course the conversation, discussion and plans will I would have thought be increasingly enthused about how best to organise and adapt in all areas to meet society's needs.

Or, should we go down the route of fetishising every struggle going. That struggle that according to many on the left is alone going to magically transform our consciousness into hardened revolutionaries. If the struggle alone is supposed to incrementally revolutionise us all then what's the excuse for so many workers who've gone through a lot of struggle, the miners, construction workers, the list goes on... not reaching radical conclusions but very reactionary ones. See here: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-seddon-the-bnp-is-mining-a-rich-seam-in-our-former-coalfields-1635920.html

It's one of the most important reasons for an organisation like the SPGB to exist. It spends its time focusing on what it sees as the root cause of society's problems rather than tinker around with the edges (symptoms).

That's why as a Party we think it important not to spend endless amounts of time campaigning against the inevitable aspects of what capitalism will have to throw at us. "No to CCTV" anyone? When many workers living in estates will quite logically be crying out for it when the little "peace" they have is marred by the anti-social behaviour of their potential comrades.

Back to the review... Germany in 1933, Spain in 1936 and then Hungary in 1956 get thrown into the equation. Why? What it proves is the importance of undermining ALL the ideology of the ruling/capitalist class the world over and that if we don't do this isolated countries or pockets of "progressiveness" stand little chance of hanging on to that "progressiveness". If the review was only conceived as an insult "fest" I would suggest that even many anarchists recognised that there was a dilemma to be faced vis-a-vis their participation in government in Spain. Again, history isn't made in a vacuum and to quote the Situationsts "Those who only make half a revolution dig their own graves."

After a slight pause for a compliment about the SPGB being of service to "the actors of freedom" along with the council communists and anarchists in relation to the deeming of Russia to be state capitalist early on and the Party's analysis of various collapse theories of capitalism it's swiftly back to the insults...

Anyone would think from reading the review that ALL we do is campaign to persuade people to resort to the ballot box and that the fact that people aren't voting for themselves, IE socialism is some indication that it's all a hopeless failure. Are there swathes of people who are viably putting anarchism or council communism as a serious proposition then? Haven't seen it where I live. The conception that the reviewer has of the Party supposedly thinking that strikes are a "diversion" is a complete red herring too. What fairy tale was that whisked up from? Strikes are an inevitable part of the class war that workers can sometimes utilise to defend, improve their working conditions or rates of pay. Shock horror, SPGB members will be involved in these as workers! What's wrong with the Party thinking that all these things don't necessarily lead to revolution then? If that was the case with all the struggles on the economic front that the working class is forced to engage in every day since it came into existence we should already be there in the reviewer's [for want of a better explanation] "councilist utopia" then shouldn't we?

Fuck this rosy view of the working class. It doesn't accord with reality. Most workplaces in the developed world are not one big "comradely experience" although I believe that most people are pretty decent despite the competitive environments they find themselves in. In the UK for example it's the "Service Sector" that accounts for 73% of the UK's GDP. Have you worked in it? I wonder if the reviewer is able to see what I see? Low pay, poorly unionised, competitive and non-stop "target" driven bullshit for many. Hierarchies built in all over the place where managers most likely believe they've got a better deal than other workers who they often view as their subordinates and where often workers in return have respect or/and fear of the "higher ups" and in many cases the view is that to improve one's position is done not as a class but as as a rat in the "rat race" up the ladder. The effect being that the higher up the worker goes the more they are forced to compromise and conform and get those beneath them to do the same. Try openly putting across revolutionary ideas in most workplaces like this (and many are like this) and you will be seen as "different" by your fellow workers who generally have very reactionary ideas in their heads. Oh, and back to hierarchies, there's also the problem of all the informal ones that are there as well as the real ones. Ever seen The Office? It's a brilliant example of this kind of behaviour. Once the bosses get an idea that there may be a "real revolutionary" in their midst, one that can't easily be compromised that is, then they'll soon "come up" with a "plausible" reason to get rid of them.

Has the reviewer also looked at the figures for part time work, temporary contracts and self employment that also pose severe problems with various "down tools" scenarios on top of the above? And what about the unemployed, those dependent on benefits, the retired or those dependent on partners or parents who may well go along with the way things are? Those pushing papers around in the world of academia or those working out how to push product onto the "consumer"? What clout do they or will they have if just tied down to a concept of revolution as a purely economic struggle?

Then we come to another snide put down oft repeated, the "Small Party of Good Boys" jibe, most likely conjured up by some wisecracking prick who had then and would have now no idea of the various individuals who happen to agree on certain basics that make up the organisation. Maybe the wisecrackers should also wise up to the fact that there are women in the organisation too who don't play a subordinate role to the "boys". Is this stupid epithet used as some kind of competition as to supposedly "prove" some non-conservative credential? Too bad if it disappoints that rebellion needs to have a brain to get anywhere.

And why the jibe and fascination about the "vast financial income" the Party supposedly has. If members of a stamp club joined it because they wanted to be a part of and promote philately it would be rather irrelevant if some outsider started informing them that they should give their money to Hugo Chavez because he's a better coin collector wouldn't it?

What was probably most offensive about this review though is the final paragraph where the reviewer sites the SPGB "slap bang in the middle of the Marxist vanguard groups whose characteristics it shares - authoritarian structure, party chauvinism and so on". Funnily enough one of the reasons I joined the Party was because I didn't like the personality defacto dominated politics that often crept into groups that deemed themselves to be "anarchist", with little or no structure to get the "personalities" to come down from their privileged positions and often in my view "strange un-anarchist concepts". I actually felt that the Party was actually more "anarchist" than the anarchists if it can be understood that an important part of my "anarchism" was that I believed it was allowing for the widest conception of democracy sensible/possible to suit the needs of society. I haven't changed that opinion despite the fact that in an organisation one is always likely to find some comrades/members more irritating than others, but hey, they could say that about me couldn't they? The SPGB even had the strength to expel members who had put years into the socialist cause but decided to go against Conference decisions and in effect subvert the Party's own democratic process. Not to belittle the sadness that this would have had as a result. A democratic structure that is accountable and can always be adapted and changed by the membership to suit is not a "Monument" I might add.

There's much room for argument and improvement and maybe few would dispute that but then again all the Socialist Party is is a tool to be used by those who happen to agree with its analysis, think that organising democratically is more important than seeing yourself as bigger than the society that you want to inhabit and think it important to have a voice for the possibility of a future that is so often buried.

Ultimately, what socialist conscious workers decide to do will be for them to decide. If they decide that parliament is an irrelevance then they will ignore it. On the other hand if they see that to ignore it could be dangerous and also has potential then they could well make use of that potential.

What else can be said for the "eccentric" review?

Yours for Socialism,
(and I'd even go as far as circling the middle letter in socialism)
Stair

Stair in Black Flag Issue 234 Late 2011 (October) [Edited from the above because of an 800 word maximum reply allowance]

Dear Editors,

 Good to see that you gave the recent SPGB pamphlet What's Wrong With Using Parliament? a review in your last edition.

 My take on the review as one individual in the SPGB. 

It seems ironic that the review should start with a romantic nod in the direction of William Morris when one of the things that Morris is well known for was his passion for "making Socialists", something the SPGB rightly or wrongly is often simplistically ridiculed for.

In essence Morris's socialist "propagandising" was about making sure that there was a strong body of socialists who had a good understanding of the workings of capitalism and a clear understanding of the components of a society in contrast to it. He happened to call this socialism, as does the SPGB and it rested on the belief that there needed to be a mass of opinion in favour of it as a classless, stateless, moneyless society.

If people start to believe in the possibility of a future society beyond the market and the state then it seems to me that it  is a sensible option to cover all bases and rob any ounce of legitimacy that the capitalist class (including leftist would-be managers with their own statist dreams) will try to bestow upon themselves. The icing on the cake is that we don't allow them that privilege and that we would be in parliament as rebels. Of course this implies a mass of anti-capitalist opinion outside parliament of which those elected would be the mandated delegates.

 We can all pick and choose our favourite quotes from folks from the past, one of mine is from Alexander Berkman where he says that

"Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas and as long as these are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present-day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism."

In other words, the big holding power that capitalism in more "developed" countries has over many is in peoples' heads in that the majority believe that there is no alternative or/and that they are "free" and living in a "democratic" society.

Any  process that has as its aim the revolutionary transformation of society has to have a future vision as a realisable possibility. This has to increasingly gain ground by being articulated in workplaces, the community, shops, pubs, in the arts and culture in general. As that future society gains ground as a tangible possibility then the conversation, discussion and plans will be increasingly enthused about how best to organise and adapt in all areas to meet society's needs. Ironically it is in the countries that appear to have a semblance of democracy that seem to be the most stable in capitalist terms for the reasons stated by Berkman above. So if that's the case what's wrong with using the platform offered by parliament to call their bluff?

The SPGB doesn't have a blueprint for how a future society may come about but isn't it wise to minimise as many risks and therefore violence that States which, if left at the disposal of those who currently control it via their own "delegates", could more easily be deployed against the development of a new society? What was probably most offensive about the review is the final paragraph where the reviewer sites the SPGB "slap bang in the middle of the Marxist vanguard groups whose characteristics it shares - authoritarian structure, party chauvinism and so on". One of the reasons I joined the SPGB was because I didn't like the de facto personality-dominated politics that often crept into groups that deemed themselves to be "anarchist", with little or no structure to get the "personalities" to come down from their privileged positions. I felt that the SPGB was actually more "anarchist" than the anarchists if it can be understood that an important part of my "anarchism" was that I believed this meant allowing for the widest conception of democracy sensible/possible to suit the needs of society.

Ultimately, what socialist conscious workers decide to do will be for them to decide. If they decide that parliament is an irrelevance then they will ignore it. On the other hand if they see that to ignore it could be dangerous and also has potential then they will make use of that potential. I'd originally written a much larger response that was too long to print for the magazine but will be made available. Much else can be said in response to the "eccentric" review.

Yours for Socialism,
(and I'd even go as far as circling the middle letter in socialism)
Stair  Stair in the Socialist Standard Vol. 107 No. 1287, November 2011 What is wrong with using parliament? The anarchist paper Black Flag recently reviewed our pamphlet on this under the title “We use it as a Dung Market”. We reply.

It seems ironic that the review should start with a romantic nod in the direction of William Morris when one of the things that Morris is well known for was his passion for "making Socialists", something that the Socialist Party is rightly or wrongly often simplistically ridiculed for.

In essence, Morris's socialist "propagandising" was about making sure that there was a strong body of socialists who had a good understanding of the workings of capitalism and a clear understanding of the components of a society in contrast to it. He happened to call this socialism, as we do, and it rested on the view that there needed to be a mass of opinion in favour of it as a classless, stateless, moneyless society.

If people start to believe in the possibility of a future society beyond the market and the state then it seems sensible that they should cover all bases and rob any ounce of legitimacy that the capitalist class (including leftist would-be managers with their own statist dreams) will try to bestow upon themselves. The icing on the cake is that we don't allow them that privilege and that we should go into parliament as rebels. Of course this implies a mass of anti-capitalist opinion outside parliament of which those elected would be the mandated delegates.

The anarcho-communist Alexander Berkman once pointed out that:
‘Our social institutions are founded on certain ideas and as long as these are generally believed, the institutions built on them are safe. Government remains strong because people think political authority and legal compulsion necessary. Capitalism will continue as long as such an economic system is considered adequate and just. The weakening of the ideas which support the evil and oppressive present-day conditions means the ultimate breakdown of government and capitalism.’

In other words, the big holding power that capitalism in more "developed" countries has over many is in people's heads in that the majority believe that there is no alternative or/and that they are "free" and living in a "democratic" society. It is precisely in the countries that have a semblance of democracy that seem to be the most stable in capitalist terms, for the reasons stated by Berkman above. So if that's the case, what's wrong with using the platform offered by parliament to call their bluff about being democratic?

The common objection to this raised by anarchists is the "corrupting effects of politics". If that's a problem then anarchists wouldn't be able to trust their own mandated recallable delegates either, since such delegates is what we propose when we seek the platform of parliament to further articulate that desire for a society free from capital and the state and ultimately capture those powers that could be used against us. And if who controls the state is not important then why are so many anarchists concerned about the BNP getting hold of it?

The Socialist Party doesn't have a blueprint for how a future society may come about but isn't it wise to minimise as much as possible the risk of violence that states which, if left at the disposal of those who currently control them via their own "delegates", could more easily deploy against the development of a new society?

Any process that has as its aim the revolutionary transformation of society has to have a future vision as a realisable possibility. This has to increasingly gain ground by being articulated in workplaces, the community, shops, pubs, in the arts and culture in general. As that future society gains ground as a tangible possibility then the conversation, discussion and plans will be increasingly enthused about how best to organise and adapt in all areas to meet society's needs.

What’s the best way to help this process? Should we go down the route of fetishising every struggle going as, according to many on the left, struggle in itself is going to magically transform the consciousness of those involved into hardened revolutionaries? But if struggle alone is supposed to incrementally revolutionise us all then what's the reason why so many workers who've gone through a lot of struggle, the miners, construction workers and others, have not reached radical conclusions but sometimes very reactionary ones such as “British jobs for British workers”?

To focus on explaining the root cause of society's problems rather than tinker around with the edges (symptoms) is one of the most important reasons for an organisation like the Socialist Party to exist. That's why we think it important not to spend endless amounts of time campaigning as a party to try to deal with the inevitable aspects of what capitalism throws at us as workers.

Anyone would think from reading the review that all our members do is campaign to persuade people to resort to the ballot box .The conception that the review has of the Socialist Party supposedly thinking that strikes are a "diversion" is a complete red herring. What fairy tale was that whisked up from? Strikes are an inevitable part of the class war that workers can sometimes utilise to defend or improve their working conditions or rates of pay. Our members are involved in these as workers. What's wrong thinking that all these things don't necessarily lead to revolution? Surely if they did then, with all the struggles on the economic front that the working class is forced to engage in every day since it came into existence, we should already be there in the review's (for want of a better term) "councillist utopia"?

This rosy view of the working class doesn't accord with reality. Most workplaces in the developed world are not one big "comradely experience" although most people are pretty decent despite the competitive environments they find themselves in. In the UK for example it's the "Service Sector" that accounts for 73 per cent of GDP. I have worked in it and wonder why the reviewer has not been able to see what I see. Low pay, poorly unionised, competitive and non-stop, target-driven bullshit for many. Hierarchies built-in all over the place, where managers believe they've got a better deal than other workers who they generally view as their subordinates, and where often in return the other workers have respect or/and fear of the "higher ups". In many cases the view is that the way to improve one's position is done not as a class but as a rat in the rat race up the ladder. The effect is that the higher up the worker goes, the more they are forced to compromise and conform and get those beneath them to do the same.

Try openly putting across revolutionary or even militant ideas in workplaces like this (and many typically are) and you will be seen as "different" by your fellow workers who generally have very reactionary ideas in their heads. There's also the problem of all the informal hierarchies that are there as well as the real ones. Ever seen The Office? It's a brilliant example of this kind of behaviour. Once the bosses get an idea that there may be a "real revolutionary" in their midst, one that can't easily be compromised that is, then they'll soon "come up" with a "plausible" reason to get rid of them.

In addition, the figures for part-time work, temporary contracts and self-employment pose severe problems with the various "down tools" scenarios. And what about the unemployed, those on benefits, the retired or those dependent on partners or parents who may well go along with the way things are?

Those pushing papers around in the world of academia or those working out how to push some product onto the "consumer"? What clout do they or will they have if just tied down to a concept of revolution as a purely economic struggle?

What was probably most offensive about the review is the final paragraph where the reviewer sites the Socialist Party "slap bang in the middle of the Marxist vanguard groups whose characteristics it shares – authoritarian structure, party chauvinism and so on". One of the reasons I joined the Socialist Party was because I didn't like the de facto personality-dominated politics that often crept into groups that deemed themselves to be "anarchist", with little or no structure to get the "personalities" to come down from their privileged positions. In this respect at least, I felt that the Socialist Party was actually more "anarchist" than the anarchists! An important part of my "anarchism" meant allowing for the widest conception of democracy possible to suit the needs of society.
 
The Socialist Party is merely a tool to be used by those who want socialism and who think that organising democratically is more important than seeing yourself as bigger than the society that you want to inhabit and think it important to have a voice for the possibility of a future that is so often buried.

Ultimately, what socialist conscious workers decide to do will be for them to decide. If they decide that parliament is an irrelevance then they will ignore it. On the other hand, if they see that to ignore it could be dangerous and also that it has potential, then they will make use of that potential.
STAIR