The Soviet State, we have seen, was set up as an organization of the whole working population of the country, for the purpose of pursuing their common interests, and for improving their own conditions at the expense of the employing class. The Soviet State has always had the structure of a workers’ organization.
But does anyone ever suggest that a “party system” is necessary to democracy in an organization of the working people for a common purpose? Has anyone ever criticized trade unions as being undemocratic on the grounds that there is no system of political parties within them? And the same question may be asked concerning the myriads of other democratic organizations that exist in the capitalist world to-day, from trade unions to the businessmen’s West End clubs, from the League of Nations Union to table-tennis societies. In all these organizations the officers are elected by the members to carry out the will of the members. These organizations may differ in the degree of their democracy, but nobody attacks them as undemocratic because, at their elections of officers, rival parties do not put up rival candidates.
The essential fact about democratic organizations is this: in every organisation of people for pursuing a common purpose there is no question of a system of parties being associated with democracy. Elections of officers take place on their merits, just as, in the U.S.S.R., the election of delegates to the Soviets has always taken place. When, on the other hand, we find that there is some form of a “party system” in operation, as occurs only in the parliamentary State, we find that, instead of elections being held in order to return the best representatives, they take place in order to return one or another party with a majority, in order to carry our a particular type of policy. But these conflicting policies can only exist with any degree of continuity on the basis of continuous conflicts of interest among the population. And these continuous conflicts can only be based on rival—as opposed to common—interests among the people themselves.
If we look back at the historical development of the British Parliament we find that it arose as a means, not for uniting the community in a common interest, but for reconciling conflicting interests. In its origin Parliament was an institution in which the conflicting interests of the two classes, landowners and industrialists, were reconciled. The Tory Party in its early days was the direct instrument of the landowners, the Whig Party—of the capitalists. Each party, at elections, tried to include within its program sufficient promises to win a majority of the electorate, in order to be returned to office and to pursue a policy consistent with the interests of the class which it represented.
As time went on, the landlords of Britain became increasingly fused with the industrialists. The landlords went into business, and the business men acquired land by purchase or marriage. The landlord and capitalist classes in Britain became fused into one; and the development of Whig and Tory Parties into Liberal and Conservative reflected this uniting of the two classes. The two parties now began to represent rival factions in the one ruling class of the country.
But such a system, in which the political parties represented conflicting tendencies within one class, only continued for the very short historical period when the power of the landowner-capitalists was uncontested. Soon the working class forced its way into politics, and a new alignment began to develop a Conservative-Liberal Coalition against Labour. To-day the property-owning class in Britain is almost completely united behind a single political party—the so-called “National” Coalition. As far as the employers are concerned, we have the operation, with only a small minority of dissentients, of the principle “One class, one party.” The Labour Movement, in so far as it does not also realize this principle, is unable to put forward an effective challenge to the ruling “National” Government of the employers, so that we see that the Party system is closely bound up with the existence of classes in society and their conflicting interests.
It is completely misleading to refer to a “party system” as in any way typical of democratic institutions. The “party system” is a very particular form of democracy, of an exceptional character, which has arisen only in the parliamentary State as a means by which conflicting classes could reconcile their differences without resort to arms. As we have seen from examples of working-class organizations and peaceful clubs of business men, when a society exists for pursuing the common aims of its members there is no place within it for a “party system.”
But the Soviet State was set up by the people of Russia for pursuing their common interests. The system of election, adopted from the very start, was that of discussing each candidate, his merits and shortcomings, with a view to deciding whether he was suitable to represent the electors on the public authorities of the country. Would this delegate be the best representative of the electors? Would he be the best equipped of them to see that their instructions were carried out on the Soviet to which he was elected? Clearly, where elections took the form of sending delegates to the public authorities, with instructions as to the policy they were to pursue, there was no longer any place for “parties” presenting opposing programs to the people.
So a “party system” became out of place in the Soviet State, just as a “party system” is quite out of place in a working-class organization in any capitalist country at the present time.
Other questions are sometimes raised in this connection: Surely in the U.S.S.R. everyone does not agree? Surely there must be discussion on various questions ? Certainly there is disagreement and there is discussion. And, as most foreign observers are bound to admit, there is, if anything, too much discussion, rather than too little, from the standpoint of efficient execution. But disagreement and discussion are no basis for the formation of political parties unless there are groups of people, with certain continuous common interests, who are ready to unite together for a continuous period on a number of basic issues.
For example, to take recent legislation in the U.S.S.R., many people did not approve of the law prohibiting abortion; many had amendments to propose to the draft of the new Constitution; many may not have approved of the model statutes for the collective farms; and many may not have liked the reduction of interest on State loans from 8 and 7 to 4 and 3 percent overnight! But an opposition political party could hardly have been organized out of these individuals, because there was no definite group of citizens affected by all these issues in the same way. There is no reason why the same person that disliked certain clauses in the abortion law should have opposed any of the other measures. There is no reason why the person who disliked the reduction in rates of interest should also have been a strong supporter of legal abortion. There is no reason why a person who did not like the model statutes for the collective farm should have opposed the new Constitution of the Soviet State. In this way, since there exist no longer permanently conflicting group interests in the Soviet State, where all are working for the general improvement in the living conditions of the whole community, there can be no basis for a political “party system” such as exists in the parliamentary State in a class society.
But say; there is one recruiting-ground for an “opposition party.” There are still people—disgruntled individuals; ex-employers or Tsarist officials; deposed leaders from the working-class movement itself; people who are constitutionally “counter-suggestible” and for whom Soviet psychologists have not yet evolved a cure; people with personal grievances against certain Government officials; people who oppose every measure of the Soviet Government, not on its merits, but because it is a measure passed by the Government; and others like them—who may be “against the Government,” though having no alternative positive program to propose. Such types of citizens exist in the Soviet Union to-day. It is only they who have anything in common that would bring them together continually as a permanent opposition party.
But such elements are well known to the working-class movement, and to every democratic organization throughout the world. They are the people who, in every democratic organization, do not command respect, and therefore resort to every form of obstruction in order to draw attention to themselves or to avenge themselves for being ignored. Is the Soviet State to encourage such people to form a political party, to carry on purely negative propaganda on every issue, attacking each measure of the Government, not on its merits, but on principle? The people of the U.S.S.R. do not want such a party, and they support the Government in seeing that such disruptive organizations shall not come into existence.
For what would the effect of such a party be under existing conditions in the U.S.S.R.? It would be a resort of every remnant of opposition to the working-class movement of the Soviet Union. Ex-employers and ex-opponents of the system, agents of foreign Powers and people who were under their influence—all the social undesirables would flock round such an organization in order to discredit the Soviet Government and to impede the progress which it is making. Thus, an “opposition party” would be the means by which all that is hostile to the Soviet system would find expression and a means of organizing itself. This is a procedure which the people of the U.S.S.R., with the exception of the types already mentioned, are unanimous in preventing.
We come to the conclusion that in the Soviet Union to-day a party system would be as incongruous as a party system within, say, a British trade union. In a community or an organization where the members have common interests there is no place for a party system. In so far as, in the British trade unions, something approaching party disputes has developed, this is a weakness of the movement, and not its strength. Anything approaching conflicting parties in the trade unions can only arise as a result of serious conflicts within the working class. Not much investigation is necessary to discover that such disputes invariably centre round one question: Shall the trade unions be fighting organizations against the employers or not? The faction that answers “No” to this question can be looked upon as an employers’ “party” within the trade unions, the existence of which causes the trade unions to be less effective as a democratic organization of the workers against the employers. Really effective trade unionism would include no employers’ “party,” and would be united on the basis of militant struggle.
But the case against the existence of a “party system” is not necessarily a justification for the continued existence of a single political party. Therefore we must now consider further the role of the single party in the U.S.S.R. to-day, and whether its existence is consistent with democracy or not.
Let us imagine that at some future date, in Britain, a Labour Party was returned to power, pledged to a radical program of change in the interests of the hand-and-brain workers of Britain, who amount to over 90 percent of the population of the country. Suppose that, to meet the opposition of the property-owners, emergency measures had to be taken, which received the support of the vast majority of the people of the country, who organized strikes and demonstrations of support. Suppose that the property-owners then organized armed opposition, and that the people took up arms on behalf of their own Government. Suppose that, in the course of the struggle, all that was best in the other political organizations of the country came over to the support of the Government, as representing the will of the democracy of Britain. And suppose that what remained of other political organizations, representing the interests of private property at all costs, supported the taking up of arms against the State. In such conditions would not the prestige of the party in power grow? Would not the people, as they fought for the Government of this party which represented their interests, come to the conclusion that this party, which represented them against the attacks of the property-owners, should never again go out of office?
Suppose, moreover, that this party of the working-people, finding itself in a position in which it was called upon to lead its supporters, not only by appealing to them at elections, but in organizing their struggle against the counter-attack of the employers in every locality and in every factory, decided only to admit as members those who played an active part in its work, and abolished such offices as that of “subscribing member.” Suppose, too, that in order to prevent careerists creeping into its ranks, it started to hold public cleansings, in which all workers would report on the actions and speeches of the party members, with a view to eliminating all that did not loyally represent the working people: would not the introduction of such features strengthen this one party, so that the people would become determined to improve its personnel more and more, but never to let this party, as such, be put out of office again?
It is by regarding the question of a single party in this light—as a possible line of future development in our own country—that I think the question can be most clearly seen in its correct perspective. We can see that in certain conditions, the people might democratically support a “one-party” system. They would do this in conditions similar to the experience of the Russian Revolution, when a serious conflict occurred between the people and their party on the one hand and the property-owners on the other, and when the party of the people in such circumstances led their struggle for democratic rights against the attempts of property to suppress them. A party that led the people in such a struggle would gain enormously in prestige. When, at the victorious conclusion of the struggle, a situation arose in which this one party now combined all the most active fighters for the liberty of the people, is it likely that the people would ask that the other parties, the parties of their enemies, should once more be given an opportunity to rule? Is it likely that the people would want the political organizations that had taken up arms against them to be again afforded legal rights as soon as they had been defeated in the military struggle? Obviously the reverse is the case. At the end of such a struggle the people would not ask that the other parties be allowed to operate again, but, on the contrary, they would do everything to strengthen the one party that had shown itself to be their leader in the struggle. The people would choose in the future to have a one-party system, since now the one party would be the only one that they could absolutely trust.
But might they not ask that this party be disbanded, and that a system without any political party be introduced? Here, I think, the answer is in the negative. For, in the course of the struggle, the party would have established itself, not as a parliamentary party of the old type, but as the organized leadership of the people. And it is as such, not as a parliamentary organization, that they would want it to continue to exist. Lenin, writing in 1920, made the following illuminating comment on the position of the party after the workers have established a system of real democracy:
“Classes remain, and will remain for years, everywhere after the proletarian conquest of power. Perhaps in England, where there is no peasantry, the period will be shorter, but even there the small proprietors, holders of property, exist. . . . The dictatorship of the proletariat is a resolute persistent struggle, sanguinary and bloodless, violent and peaceful, military and economic, educational and administrative, against the forces and traditions of the old society. . . . Without an iron party, hardened in fight, without a party possessing the confidence of all that is honest in the given class, without a party capable of observing the disposition of the masses and of influencing it successfully, to conduct such a struggle is impossible. . . . Whoever in the least weakens the iron discipline of the party of the proletariat (especially during its dictatorship) aids in reality the bourgeoisie against the proletariat” (Left-Wing Communism).
In the view of Lenin, the party, as the organized leadership of the mass of the people, must not be disbanded after the seizure of power, but, on the contrary, must be strengthened, in order to ensure that the real democracy achieved should not again be overthrown by the armed forces of the property-owners. And in dealing with this one party Lenin stresses the essential need for discipline in a period of historic struggle between the working people on the one hand and the owners of property on the other. In the next chapter we shall discuss this question of discipline further, for it is the greatest of errors to assume, as is sometimes done, that democracy and discipline are mutually exclusive terms. Actually, the only effective democracy of the people must be a disciplined democracy, for “democracy” of the people without discipline is sheer anarchy, and no anarchy has ever been able to preserve its independence against the opposition of an organized enemy.
And now, in conclusion, a few words must be said about one more problem. Criticism is often raised that in the U.S.S.R. to-day the ruling party consists of only about 2 million members out of a total population of 170 million. It is maintained that this organization is so small that its domination in the State cannot be anything but undemocratic. First, as a matter of information, it is worth pointing out that not only are there 2 million members of the Communist Party in the U.S.S.R., but an additional 5 or 6 million members of the Communist Youth, from which the best representatives later join the Party. However, this is a minor point, and the actual criticism can be faced even if we take the critic’s minimum figure of 2 million Party members in the U.S.S.R.
Two facts must be borne in mind about the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. First, it is a party of active workers; there are no “paying members” who do no work. Every member is an active member. Secondly, as stressed by Lenin, the Party must not be allowed to grow too rapidly, for that would mean deterioration in quality, and deterioration in the quality of a body which forms the “organized leadership” of the community would have disastrous results. Finally, in order to appreciate the size of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. in comparison with the political parties of Britain we must have our facts clear, and not misrepresent them.
The individual membership of the Labour Party in Britain to-day amounts to between 300,000 and 400,000. But it would probably not be going too far to estimate that less than one in 20 of these are active members. So that the proportion of the Labour Party membership which is strictly comparable to the membership of the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R.—all of which is active—is about 5 percent. The membership of the British Labour Party that is active in doing the party’s work among the people of Britain can be put at about 15,000 or 20,000. This is about one in every 3,200 of population at the minimum, and at the most about one in every 2,400 of the population. And yet, if a Labour Government were returned to power, I cannot imagine anyone complaining that the party did not represent the people “because it is so small.” Yet, as compared with the U.S.S.R., a ruling party that comprised only one person in every 2,000 or 3,000 of the population would be regarded as a very small party. For the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R. includes 2 million members—one in every 85 citizens! So, while the Labour Party in Britain may boast of its size, and claim one active worker for every 2,000 or 3,000 of the people, in the U.S.S.R. the Communist Party is criticized as being unrepresentative because one in every 85 citizens is an active member!
But the argument does not finish here. For, if it is true that the Labour Party in Britain can claim one in every 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants as its active members, the other political parties certainly each have less active members than the Labour Party. Therefore, taking all the political parties in Britain together their combined active membership cannot amount to more than one in every 1,000 of the population. So that, taking the whole of our parliamentary system, the political parties that are the only organizations putting up candidates at elections comprise about one active member for every thousand of the people of the country. Dictatorship by a small minority? Yes, indeed, whereas in the U.S.S.R. the Communist Party claims one in every 85 of the population, and can thus claim to be comparatively representative!
Lastly, let me again remind you of the Party Cleansing in the U.S.S.R., by which the ordinary citizen exercises control over the membership of his Party. What control have we poor British citizens over the one thousandth of our population that makes itself active in politics? If I do not like the type of people who become politicians in this country, I have no opportunity of seeing that others take their place. We have no cleansing of our political parties at public meetings to ensure that they shall only represent the very best elements of the people! No wonder, then, that in disgust many British citizens never exercise their right to vote at all, disliking all the politicians who are thrust at them by the one-thousandth of the population organized as active members of our great political parties!
No; the criticism that the Communist Party of the U.S.S.R, is too small to represent the people is nonsense. It is the greatest political party in any country of the world. It is also the greatest in proportion to population. It is greater in proportion to the total population that it represents than all the active members of political parties in Britain put together. And it is subject to democratic control by the people themselves in the institution of the Party Cleansing. It is not incomprehensible that such an organization commands the respect of the whole population, and that Soviet democrats demand that this form of leadership shall be preserved, and that rival organizations aiming at disuniting the people shall not be permitted.