The belief that the capitalists will resist by armed force

It has been argued in the past, and it is still argued by some people today, that the British capitalist class will oppose the establishment of socialism by armed force.

The argument takes the form that historically, the ruling class in power in every country have always acted in this way, when faced with revolution, and therefore the capitalist class are bound to act similarly, in face of the change to Socialism.

Fallacious generalisations

The above argument is untenable because it mistakenly assumes that in the past the ruling class in every country have always resorted to armed force and will do so again the future. In fact, events have taken a different course in different countries. In the establishment of capitalism in place of feudalism, there were several countries, including Britain, in which there was no armed struggle comparable for example with the capitalist revolutions in France and Russia.

So while a violent transition to Socialism can claim to have parallels in history so can a peaceful transition to Socialism.

To get to know what is likely to happen in any country it is necessary to study the history of that country, the course taken in power struggles and the political institutions set up.

Karl Marx has something to say about this in his condemnation of those French so-called “Marxists” who thought that the Materialist Conception of History established a unified pattern for all countries and therefore treated the M.C.H. “as an excuse for not studying history”. About this, Marx said that if that was Marxism “All I know is that I am not a Marxist” (see Engels’ letter to Conrad Schmidt 5^th August 1890).

In his very informative 1892 Introduction to Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, Engels showed the very different course of the early history of capitalism in England from what it was in France.

The relatively peaceful transfer of power from the feudal aristocracy to the capitalists in Britain.

In the 19^th century, as shown in Engels’ Introduction to Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, the unusual situation existed in Britain that while the economic system was capitalism, the government was in the hands of the feudal aristocracy with the willing consent of the capitalist class. It was not until the end of the 19^th century that the first capitalist entered a cabinet position. The capitalists did not take steps to end this state of affairs until 1911, when they drastically curbed the powers of the unelected House of Lords. Before then, many of the governments had their Prime Minister in the House of Lords, and the Lords could in effect nullify Bills of the elected House of Commons.

The power of the Lords extended so far that they controlled the army and navy, all the officers of which were nominees of the aristocracy. As the wits of the time remarked; a Lord had four sons; one to inherit the property, one to pray for it, one to legislate in its interests and the other to fight for it. This again was with the willing consent of the capitalist class many of whom tried to marry their daughters into the aristocracy and, via Country Life, ape its mannerisms.

Since 1911 the House of Lords can only delay Bills of the House of Commons and cannot interfere at all with money bills. Recently, Tony Blair has passed legislation curtailing hereditary peers from sitting in the Lords in as great a number than they used to. The Hereditary Peers now resemble their French counterparts; titled but politically ineffective.

In short, despite the Civil War in the 1640’s the transfer of power from the aristocracy to the capitalist class was wholly peaceful; not a shot was fired, and all the “battles” were verbal conflicts on the floor of the House of Lords and House of Commons.

America, Britain and Holland as examples from Marx of possible peaceful transition.

Marx had always appreciated the supreme influence of Parliament and its relevance to the supremacy of the working class and a peaceful transition to Socialism.

In an article in the New York Tribune, August 25^th, 1852, Marx wrote;

The carrying of universal suffrage in England would, therefore, be a far more Socialistic measure than anything which has been honoured with that name on the continent. Its inevitable result here is political supremacy of the working class (seeSocialist Standard March 1930).

And in a speech in Amsterdam, on 8^th September 1872, after the Hague Conference of the International Workingman’s Association had adjourned, Marx touched on the question of violence, and said:

We do not deny that there exist countries like America, England, and, if I knew your institutions better, I would add Holland, where the workers may be able to attain their ends by peaceful means (Quoted in Fontana edition of “Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy of Marx and Engels”, Edited by L. S. Feuer, page 38).

But Engels also gave a somewhat different account of Marx’s view. In his 1886 Preface to the English edition of Marx’s Capital volume 1, Engels erroneously believed that capitalism had entered “a permanent and chronic depression”. As a consequence, Engels thought that the unemployed would dramatically increase in numbers to such a point that they would “take their own fate in their own hands” (p. 17 Moscow edition). At such a moment, Engels mused:

“the voice ought to be heard of a man whose whole theory is the result of a lifelong study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful means”.

However, Engels was quick to add:

“He (Marx) certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a “pro-slavery rebellion”, to this peaceful and legal revolution” (ibid p. 17).

Engels on the violent and peaceful transition to Socialism.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels noted that some capitalists would support the revolutionary transition from capitalism to Socialism. They wrote:-

“Just as…at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole”.

Two “bourgeois ideologists” who had “raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole” were in fact Marx and Engels themselves.

However, Engels, unlike Marx, held definitely that the transition to Socialism would be violent almost right up to the end of his life when he finally abandoned his views and set out a peaceful strategy in the Introduction to Marx’s The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850 which he wrote in March 1895 just months before he died. Engels had taken part in the revolution of 1848 and kept himself abreast of military tactics just in case they were needed again in the future. He even joined the Cheshire Hunt, to keep his Calvary horse skills up to date.

First, though, it is necessary to look at the conditions which Engels assumed would exist at the time of revolution and would lead to violence.

He was in fact assuming a premature attempt by the German Social Democratic Party to gain power, and that this would necessitate the use of “terror” by the SDP against its opponents.

In a letter to Bebel dated 24^th October 1891 Engels dealt with a report that he had prophesised the early coming to power of the German SDP.

Engels commented as follows:-

“There is a slight error there somewhere. All I said was that we might come to power by 1898…If on the other hand, a war brings us to power prematurely, the technicians will be our chief enemies; they will deceive and betray us wherever they can and we shall have to use terror against them but shall be cheated all the same”.

It will be seen that Engels was counting on an early conquest of power by the German SDP yet taking for granted that a large and important part of the German working class would still be the “chief enemies” of Socialism.

In the Introduction to The Class Struggles in France Engels made a serious assessment of the political reality as it faced workers in the advanced capitalist countries of the world and had this to say:

“The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions, carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of the unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for with body and soul. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work that we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair…Every where the German example of utilising the suffrage, of winning all posts accessible to us, has been imitated; everywhere the unprepared launching of attack has been relegated to the background…”(p. 25 Moscow edition).

What, of course, Engels did not grasp, was that those workers voting for the social democratic parties of Europe were not necessary socialists, and that the parties themselves including most of their leaders would support their respective nations at the out break of war in 1914. It was only the Socialist Party of Great Britain who was in a position to put a Socialist case against the war in 1914. This was because we insisted of having no leaders, we only ever let committed Socialist join the Party and we only ever wanted votes from workers who rejected capitalism and wanted to establish Socialism.

High improbability of armed resistance by capitalists in Britain.

It is as certain as any forecast can be that the British capitalists will not stage armed resistance to Socialism. The same is true of some other countries. There may be countries where armed resistance cannot be entirely ruled out, it all depends on the history, political institutions and other factors in each country. That is why socialists have always insisted that a class-conscious socialist majority must first capture the machinery of government before capitalism is transformed into socialism.

In Britain all the factors point to no armed resistance.

There is no tradition in the past two centuries of armed resistance. The point has already been made that there was the transfer of power from feudal lords to the capitalists by peaceful means.

There is no record of capitalists in Parliament threatening armed resistance. While at present all MPs support capitalism, the number of MPs who are landlords or capitalists is not a very large minority of the total number. The armed forces, the universities, the government officials and MP’s themselves are largely drawn from the working class. Many MPs when they lose their seat go onto the dole.

To mount armed resistance those capitalists who looked to armed force would have to obtain control of modern armaments, tanks, artillery, fighter planes and bombers etc., and become trained in their use. How could they do this in face of the fact that at that stage the great majority of workers would be convinced and understand the case for Socialism? It is obvious that the workers in factories, and transport etc would make it impossible for capitalists to get control of modern armaments or would move them about the country. Against the armed forces of the nation in the control of the Socialist majority an attempted armed resistance by the capitalists would be futile.

There would be no question of Socialists trying to gain control where large numbers of workers were still opposed to Socialism as when assumed by Engels in his idea of the premature seizure of power.

In conclusion, Marx and Engels took it for granted that those capitalists “who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending the historical movement as a whole” would support the transition to Socialism. It can be expected that these will be more numerous than was assumed in 1848 by Marx and Engels. With rising Socialist consciousness, many more capitalists would become fully aware of the inherent failure of capitalism to meet the needs of the population. British capitalists and their agents have also had long experience of contact with members of the working class and of conflicting ideas, in the continuous relations with trade unions, and in Parliament; unlike the pre-capitalist situation when the feudal landowners were isolated from the as yet underdeveloped wage and salary earning class.

It can be said that the British capitalist class have neither the will nor the means to put up armed resistance to a socialist majority wanting to establish Socialism after first capturing political power.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________