A Road-Map to Socialism.

**johnobrow** Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:23 pm

I'd appreciate it if we could keep this just in this forum for now and not spread it about too much. Thanks. Feedback and criticism more than welcome.

What is the job of a Socialist on erepublik? Different parties have answered this question in different ways in different places. Is it to gain power through parliamentary elections and to legislate Socialism into being? Or is it rather to ignore traditional politics altogether and to concentrate solely on the establishment and growth of worker communes?

Let us first investigate parliamentary route to eSocialism. A Socialist party that adopts this method commits itself to the conquest of political power, for the establishment of a Socialist government whose business it will be to abolish capitalism and bring about Socialism. Judge for yourself if such a thing is possible. In the first place, Socialists themselves admit that the possessing classes will not give up their wealth and privileges without a bitter fight. The question one must answer then is if the thing is at all practical?

Suppose that the Socialists could some day secure that majority. Will they then be able to change capitalism to Socialism? Just stop and consider: the plutocrats, the bourgeoisie, and all the other forces that benefit by capitalism; would they just sit quietly and permit the changing of the country in such a manner as to deprive them of their wealth and privileges? Can you believe that?

The Socialist must realise this very well. It would take a monumental political upheaval to achieve, as such that can hardly be of the Socialist's own creation in most countries. Even if such an event could be manufactured it would certainly not be done within the confounds of parliament. It would take some form of socio-economic revolution.

What then is the use of playing the parliamentary game if one cannot easily legislate socialism into existence without the contradiction of a revolution? Some then may claim that they mean to use politics only for the purpose of propaganda. There was some reason in the concept of preaching Socialism from the platform of parliament and in educating the people from it. So these Socialists favour political activity and take part in elections in order to have an opportunity to advocate Socialism.

It may seem a harmless thing, but it has proved the undoing of Socialism in both erepublik and real life. Because nothing is truer than that the means you use to attain your object soon themselves become your object. So money, for example, which is only a means to existence, has itself become the aim of our lives. Similarly with government. The 'elder' chosen by the primitive community to attend to some village business becomes the master, the ruler. Just so it happens with the Socialists.

Little by little they change their attitude. Instead of electioneering being merely an educational method, it gradually becomes their only aim to secure political office, to get elected to legislative bodies and other government positions. The change naturally leads the Socialists to tone down their revolutionary ardor; it compels them to soften their criticism of capitalism and government in order to avoid persecution and secure more votes. Up until the main stress of Socialist propaganda in the eUK has not laid any more on the educational value of politics but on the actual election of Socialists to office.

These Socialist parties do not speak of revolution. They claim that when they get a majority in Congress or Parliament they will legislate Socialism into being: they will legally and peacefully abolish capitalism. In other words, they are reformers who want to change things by law. Let us see, then, how this is to be done.

In some countries now have Socialist governments, in others the Socialist parties have a majority; in others again Socialists occupy the highest positions in the State, such as cabinet offices, even those of Prime Ministers. But what have they accomplished for the workers? Why have we not seen more benefits?

'These men who rose to power on the backs of labor and then betrayed the workers are scoundrels,' I hear you say in just indignation. True, but that is not all. There is a deep reason for this constant and regular betrayal, a greater and more significant cause for this almost universal phenomenon. Socialists are not essentially different from other men. They are human, just as you and I. And no man turns scoundrel or traitor over night.

It is power which corrupts. The consciousness that you possess power is itself the worst poison that corrodes the finest metal of man. The filth and contamination of politics everywhere sufficiently prove that. Moreover, even with the best intentions Socialists in legislative bodies or in government positions find themselves entirely powerless to accomplish anything of a socialistic nature, anything of benefit to the workers. For politics is not a means to better the conditions of labor. It never was and never can be.

The demoralization and vitiation take place little by little, so gradually that one hardly notices it himself. Just visualize for a moment the condition of a Socialist elected to Congress, for instance. He is all alone, as against several hundred men of other political parties. He senses their opposition to his radical ideas, and he finds himself in a strange and unfriendly atmosphere. But he is there and he must participate in the business that is being transacted. Most of that business - the bills brought in, the laws proposed - is entirely foreign to him. It has no bearing whatever on the things the Socialist believes in, no connection with the interests of the working voters who elected him. It is just the routine of legislation. It is only when a bill of some bearing upon labour or on the industrial and economic situation comes up, that our Socialist can take part in the proceedings. He does, and he is ignored or laughed at for his impractical ideas on the matter. For they are indeed impractical. Even at best, when the proposed law is not specially designed to grant new privileges to monopoly, it deals with matters involved in capitalist business, with some commercial treaty or agreement between one government and another. But he, the Socialist, was elected on a Socialist ticket, and it is his business to abolish the capitalistic government, to do away with the system of commerce and profit altogether, so how can he speak 'practically' on the submitted bills? Of course he becomes a butt of ridicule to his colleagues, and soon he begins to see how stupid and useless his presence is in the halls of legislation. As a rule the Socialist remains in his position, and every day he is compelled to realise more and more what a senseless role he is playing. He comes to feel that he must find some way to take a serious part in the work, express sound opinions in the discussions and become a real factor in the proceedings. This is imperative in order to preserve his own dignity, to compel the respect of his colleagues, and also to show to his constituents that they did not elect a mere dummy.

So he begins to acquaint himself with the routine. He studies the bills which come up for consideration, and he tries to explain the proposed legislation from the Socialist standpoint, as he is in duty bound to do. He dwells on the suffering of the workers and the crimes of wage slavery; he informs his colleagues that capitalism is an evil, that the rich must be abolished and the whole system done away with. The politicians mock and joke, and the assembly goes over to the business in hand.

Our Socialist perceives that he is regarded as a laughing stock, as indeed he is. His colleagues are getting tired of his 'hot air', and he finds more and more difficulty in securing attention to his views. He is painfully aware of being a solitary and unheeded voice in the wilderness of political machinations.

He appeals to the voters to elect more comrades to the legislative bodies. A lone Socialist cannot accomplish anything, he tells them. Months pass, and at last the Socialist Party succeeds in having a number of its members elected. Each of them goes through the same experience as their first colleague, but now they quickly come to the conclusion that preaching Socialist doctrines to the politicians is worse than useless. They decide to participate in the legislation. They must show that they are not just 'spouting revolution' but that they are practical men, statesmen, that they are doing something for their constituency, looking after its interests.

In this manner the situation compels them to take a 'practical' pert in the proceedings, to 'talk lousiness,' to fall in line with the matters actually dealt with in the legislative body. Full well they know that these things have no relation to Socialism or to the abolition of capitalism. On the contrary, all this law-making and political mummery only strengthens the hold of the masters upon the people; worse, it misleads the workers into believing that the legislatures may do something for them and deludes them with the false hope that they may get results by politics. In this way it keeps them looking to the law and government to 'change things,' to 'improve' their condition.

So the machinery of government carries on its work, the masters remain secure in their position, and the workers are held off with promises of 'action' by their representatives in the legislative bodies, by new laws that are to give them 'relief'.

The Socialist parties have succeeded in electing many of their members to various legislative and government positions. The elected Socialists have themselves become part and parcel of the political machinery. They have come to feel that it is no use waiting for the Socialist revolution to abolish capitalism. It is more practical to work for some 'betterment', to try to get a Socialist majority in the government. For when they have a majority they will need no revolution, they say.

Slowly, by degrees, the Socialist change has taken place. With growing success in elections and securing political power they turn more conservative and content with existing conditions. Removed from the life and suffering of the working class, living in the atmosphere of the bourgeoisie, of affluence and influence, they have become what they call 'practical.' Seeing at first hand the political machinery at work, knowing its debauchery and corruption, they have realized that there is no hope for Socialism in that swamp of deceit, bribery, and corruption. But few, very few Socialists find the courage to enlighten the workers about the hopelessness of politics to aid the cause of labour. Such a confession would mean the end of their political career, with its emoluments and advantages. So the great majority of them are content to keep their own counsel and let well enough alone. Power and position have gradually stifled their conscience, and they have not the strength and honesty to swim against the current.

That is what has become of Socialism, which had once been the hope of the oppressed of the world. The Socialist parties have joined hands with the bourgeoisie and the enemies of labor. They have become the strongest bulwark of capitalism, pretending to the masses that they are fighting for their interests, while in reality they have made common cause with the exploiters.

The war has clearly demonstrated the bankruptcy of Socialism. The Socialist parties, whose motto was 'Workers of the world, unite!' sent the toilers to ruin each other. From having been bitter enemies of militarism and war they became defenders of 'their' land, urging the workers to don the soldiers' uniform and attack their fellow workers in North America.

It was a most terrible betrayal not only of Socialism but of the whole working class, of humanity itself. Socialism, whose purpose it was to educate the world to the evils of capitalism, to the murderous character of patriotism, to the brutality and uselessness of war; Socialism, which was the champion of man's rights, of liberty and justice, the hope and promise of a better day, miserably turned into a defender of the government and the masters, became the handmaiden of the militarists and jingo nationalists. The former Communists not only became Social Democrats but then also became 'social patriots.'

This did not happen because of mere treachery, however. To take that view would be to miss the main point and misunderstand its warning lesson. Treachery it was indeed, both in its nature and effect, and the results of that treachery have bankrupted Socialism, disillusioned the many that earnestly believed in it, and filled the world with black reaction. But it was not only treachery, not treachery of the ordinary kind. The real cause lies much deeper.

We are what we eat, a great thinker said. That is, the life we lead, the environment we live in, the thoughts we think, and the deeds we do - all subtly fashion our character and make us what we are.

The Socialists' long political activity and cooperation with bourgeois parties gradually turned their thoughts and mental habits from Socialist ways of thinking. Little by little they forgot that the purpose of Socialism was to educate the masses, to make them see through the game of capitalism, to teach them that government is their enemy, that they are duped by ideas designed to perpetuate the superstitions and wrongs on which present-day society is built. In short, they forgot that Socialism was to be the Messiah who would drive darkness out of the minds and eyes of men, lift them from the slough of ignorance and materialism, and rouse their natural idealism, the striving for justice and brotherhood, toward liberty and light.

They forgot it. They had to forget in order to be 'practical,' to 'accomplish' something, to become successful politicians. You cannot dive into a swamp and remain clean. They had to forget it, because their object had become to 'get results', to win elections, to secure power. They knew that they could not have success in politics by telling the people the whole truth about conditions- for the truth not only antagonizes the government, it also offends the prejudices of the masses. These it is necessary to educate, and that is a slow and difficult process. But the political game demands success, quick results. The Socialists had to be careful not to come in too great conflict with the powers that be; they could not afford to lose time in educating the people.

It therefore became their main object to win votes. To achieve that they had to trim their sails. They had to lop off, little by little, those parts of Socialism which might result in persecution by the authorities in disfavor from the capitalists, or which would keep bigoted elements from joining their ranks. They had to compromise.

They knew that capitalism cannot be abolished without a bitter struggle, but they decided to tell the people that they could bring about Socialism by legislation, by law, and that all that is necessary is to put enough Socialists in the government. The Socialists, are the staunchest upholders of 'the State' and its best defenders; that far from being opposed to 'law and order', they are its truest friends; that they are, indeed, the only ones who sincerely believe in government, except that the government must be socialistic; that is, that they, the Socialists, are to make the laws and run the government.

Those compromises and the repudiation of the real aims of Socialism paid rather well. The Socialists gained political strength at the sacrifice of ideals. But that 'strength' has in the long run spelled weakness and ruin. There is nothing more corrupting than compromise. One step in that direction calls for another, makes it necessary and compelling, and soon it swamps you with the force of a rolling snowball become a landslide.

One by one those features of Socialism which were really significant, educational, and liberating were sacrificed in behalf of politics, to secure more favorable public opinion, lessen persecution, and accomplish 'something practical'; that is, to get more Socialists elected to office. In this process, which has been going on since V1, the Socialist parties acquired a membership that numbered many. Indeed the PCP was the largest in the entire eUK. But these members were not socialistic at all; they were party followers who had no conception of the real spirit and meaning of Socialism; men and women steeped in old prejudices and capitalistic views; bourgeois-minded people, narrow nationalists, believers in the domination of man by man, in the State and its institutions of oppression and exploitation, in the necessity of defending 'their' government and country, in patriotism and militarism.

Is it any wonder, then, that when the Great War broke out Socialists in the eUK, ePortugal and eIndonesia, with few exceptions, took up arms to 'defend the fatherland', the fatherland of their rulers and masters?

It was inevitable that the policy of political, parliamentary activity should lead to such results. For in truth so-called political 'action' is, so far as the cause of the workers and of true progress is concerned, worse than inaction. The very essence of politics is corruption, sail-trimming, the sacrifice of your ideals and integrity for success. Bitter are the fruits of that 'success' for the masses and for every decent man and woman the world over.

The result has been the entire bankruptcy of the Socialist parties, in the disillusionment of the masses, and have brought about a reaction which now dominates the entire world and holds labour by the throat with an iron grip.

Can you still honestly believe then that Socialism is to be found in parliament? Of course not. Socialism cannot be achieved through such a manner. So what then is the answer?

The answer comrade lies in the communes. It is only these establishments that can liberate the workers from the bosses, from the capitalists and their exploiters. The job of the Socialist is to ensure the establishment and large scale growth of these communes and to actively create Socialism, not try to convince those that have pledged their allegiance to capitalism in parliament.

So what of parliament? What is the Socialist to do concerning government? The ultimate goal may well be political power, but it is only to be desired once Socialism already exists, for it's preservation not it's creation. In the meantime it is very important that Socialists should still run for parliament, but their aims in doing so should be clearly outlined and as follows. They must simply act as a brake on reactionary and capitalist reforms. There must be no step back. The Socialist MP must be an obstacle. He cannot hope to achieve much more, and indeed trying to do so would be his downfall.

Parliament can be used as a platform from which to educate the masses. This is a good and the right thing to do. The main concern though must be that of the growth and domination of the communes. It is there that Socialism will be found. Parliament must never become the priority of the Socialists.

Strength through Unity. Unity through Organisation.

Johnobrow Dadds
Party President of the People's Communist Party.

**MachtGeil** Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:24 pm

Your text is quite impressive and i think youre right
through the spreading of the communes in the economy of all states socialism will destroy the capitalist society of unequality
in my country it is still a long way to go but we will not fail until the whole world is liberated
to victory comrades!

Patches O'Hoolihan Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:09 pm

A very interesting read! I have only recently begun taking part in the revolutionary movement and am not very knowledgeable on the history of our movement. Maybe you and some other comrades could write a comprehensiveish history some day to help educate younger comrades such as myself.

It is indeed distressing to hear of the betrayals of the workers movement by petit-bourgeious opportunists. We need to have some kind of mechanism for subordinating our elected representatives to the rank and file democratic control of the revolutionary organizations, and certainly any vote for imperialist war should be grounds for immediate explusions. If there are still party members who voted this way about they should be purged as soon as possible.

Is it all bad though? Have there been any successes in preventing wars, raising the minimum wage, taxing the rich, etc.? What are your thoughts on the eRussian revolution?

It seems like the best approach is a combination of political and economic methods (and someday military methods as well), with a zero tolerance policy for anything smacking of opportunism and careerism.

Maksim Chuikov Mon Mar 15, 2010 11:31 pm

Excellent, read. I will make a more thorough reply after school, but I must admit I saw a lot of Phoenix Quinn's analysis of classes in eRepublik (which can be found here: https://theinternationale.forum.st/learning-f8/analysis-of-classes-in-erepublik-t128.htm). We need more philosophical texts like this written o/