Is Parliament the Sole Road to Socialism?

[p042] IS PARLIAMENT THE SOLE ROAD TO SOCIALISM ? These observations are not brought forward to derogate electoral activities or diminish the role of Parliament, but only to see them in the proper historical setting and right- ful place in the development of Labour’s struggles. It is. not excluded that the movement for socialism can be carried far through the gates of Parliament and be “legalised” to a considerable degree thereby. Such is. Mr. Bevan’s hope for his dynamic Parliamentarism. But where will the dynamism for such a Big Push by Parliament come from? It would have to come from outside Parliament, from the readiness of the working people to support Parliament’s measures and defend them by all means against the inevitable opposition and ob- structions of the capitalists and their agents. Thus the real force of a dynamic Parliament would not be drawn from itself, that is, from the several hundred M.P.s com- posing it, nor from any traditions, but from the active vigilance of the mobilised masses. Indeed, this is the best means of ensuring a rapid and peaceful transfer of power because the stronger and better prepared the working class is to defend its revolution, the more likely are the forces of reaction to retreat and the more easily can they be defeated. The difference between Mr. Bevan and the classic Marxists is not that the latter misunderstood or minimised the functions of Parliament in general or in British politics. in particular. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky all recognised that democratic traditions and parliamentary institutions can under certain conditions play a consider- able role and would be liable to do so especially in Great Britain. But unlike Mr. Bevan, they did not put Parliament on a pedestal as the height of political achievement, or view it as the be-all and end-all of the ways and means for the conquest of power and the passage to Socialism. They did not make an idol of Parliament. They approached it: as one of the key political institutions created and main- tained under capitalist democracy which must be utilised. 40

[p043] by the working class for the protection of its welfare and the promotion of its aims. But it was no more than one of the tools for this purpose, and other tasks arising in the class struggle would in their opinion require the use and the devising of different tools for their execution. Mr. Bevan has a less realistic and more worshipful attitude toward Parliament. He proclaims that it has become the only door through which the Socialist revolu- tion in Britain must pass. Certainly the experience of the past does not warrant so categorical an assertion. The contest between capital and labour has often revolved around Parliament. But on other no less crucial occasions it has unfolded outside of Parliament and without its aid or even attention. Parliament convenes only at stated intervals; the contention of the classes continues the year round. Not one of the social forces in the country waits for Parliament to convene to ask its permission before entering the field of action. Even in session, Parliament has the habit of neglecting the most vital issues and pressing demands, particularly if they emanate from the working class. Must the workers then wait patiently until Parliament deigns to notice their needs ? They never have, and we venture to predict, they never will. Especially where Parliament becomes weak, unstable and uncertain, the classes, anxious to find a solu- tion for their pressing problems, incline to resort to other modes of action. They know that Parliament revolves around the class struggle and is amenable to social pres- sures, rather than that the class struggle revolves around Parliament, as Mr. Bevan implies.