Jack London

 On the labour Party.

Jack London is "an International Revolutionary Socialist." So are we. He "stands square on the fact of the class war, and the consequent exploitation of the working-class." So do we.
He also "holds firmly to the materialistic conception of history." We are with him there too. But he doesn't believe in the methods of the Australian Labour party, and appears to consider them as diametrically opposed to Revolutionary Socialism. And as we are up against him on that point, the statement of his views has set us wondering whether we are right or he is right.
That either one or the other is labouring under a serious misconception is obvious. And as it seems somewhat important to know which, the following, comments on Jack London's criticisms, as contained in an interview published in Melbourne "Socialist," are offered with the object of defining the situation and helping to a conclusion on the matter.
It may be well to begin with the acknowledgment that Jack London has earned the right to be listened to. He is a Socialist who has achieved what is known as "success in life" without modifying his Socialism to suit his improved conditions. He has not toned down the aggressive Red of the Flag to an agreeable rose-pink.
His kind are not numerous. The author of "The War of the Classes" is one of the few who contrive to rise superior to their economic surroundings, and prove by the exceptional character of their case the tremendous moulding power of environment.
What Jack London says must therefore be heard with respect. When, however, he speaks of Revolutionary Socialism as something irreconcileable with the Socialism of the Labour party, we are bound to enter an emphatic dissent.
The Socialism of the Labour party is revolutionary. All Socialism is revolutionary. The use of the word as a descriptive adjective is entirely superfluous. A Socialism that is not revolutionary is unthinkable.
Unless employed to indicate belief in a catastrophic method of bringing Socialism to pass, the word is simply a waste of wind. In what sense it is meant by those who have it forever in their mouths, and who use it to differentiate themselves from all others who profess Socialism, we are unable to make out.
They can't mean that they are for a revolution by violence, for they have no arms, and they do not drill.
If it is merely a conquest of political power they are after, then they are not nearly so revolutionary as the Labour Party, which is storming the electorates everywhere, while they hold back and sulk in their tents like Achilles.
If it is the organising of the working-class for victory in the class war that the word "revolutionary" connotes, then again the Labour party is more revolutionary than they are, for it is forming the workers into unions, calling them together under the banner of class interest—and teaching them how, by class unity and purpose, to achieve the Co-operative Commonwealth.
Perhaps what we are to understand by the word; "revolutionary" is antagonism to palliative measures ; perhaps they mean that when the necessary majority is behind them they will use the political power thus obtained to institute Socialism at one swoop.
If so, we have no hesitation in saying that again the Labour party's methods are more truly revolutionary, more truly warlike, for it moves into action at once, and by the winning of detached victories, and the capture of position after position, it approaches to the final triumph armed with experience, with a public mind accustomed to Socialism in practice, and with trained veterans to give vital form to the work, which the revolution has accomplisht.
Also— and here again the Labour Party is more revolutionary than the "revolutionaries"—it is likely that Capitalism will be brought to an end more quickly in this way.
Jack London is of a different opinion. He says the labour party is "trying to prevent Capitalism from ripening, trying to head off a logical action." And he goes on :
"Capitalism should be permitted to ripen; a newer system can only grow out of the decay of the older. I am not an advocate for palliatives. Your Labour legislation seems to me to have headed off and retarded that development which implies the growth of a revolutionary spirit in order to effect a revolutionary purpose. You can't create a 'complete change,' or establish a new social order, until the economic processes bring things to a head. Why, your phenomenal advance, as it is described—heralded throughout the world—has already almost reached the inescapable climax of collapse. You are static. That's what happens when you try to prevent a process."
Does this mean that the "Revolutionary" Socialist would do nothing to alleviate the cruel conditions of the workers ? Does it mean that he would let women and children go on suffering in the toils of Capitalism, and decline to raise a finger to help them by legislation ? Does it mean that he would not have old age pensions, or workers' compensation, or restraining factory laws, or anti-sweating enactments of any kind?
We have no wish to misrepresent, or to strain the sense of words, but if that is not the correct interpretation of what Jack London says, then he has not said what he means, or there is need for a revolution in the English language.
And if it is a correct interpretation, then Jack London and his fellow "revolutionaries" are not only opposed to the Labour party, but to every Socialist party of consequence in Europe, and to the teaching of the greatest Socialist writers, from Karl Marx to Kautsky.
The programme of the Social Democratic Federation of Great Britain includes palliatives— demands for labour legislation, for the eight-hour day, for the public ownership of gas, water, etc., for the nationalisation of trusts.
The programmes of the French, Belgian and Austrian, Socialist parties also demand those palliatives which our "revolutionary" friends condemn as "preventing the ripening of capitalism."
The German, Social Democratic party goes strongly for measures purely palliative, in this respect following the lead of the "Communist Manifesto" of Marx and Engels.
The methods of the Australian Labour party, be it noted, are in complete harmony with the methods laid down in that famous document, the most educative and inspiring ever issued in the Socialist Cause.
Here is an illuminating extract from it :
The proletariate will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariate organised as the ruling class and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
"BY DEGREES" ! What say the "revolutionaries" to that? And what say they to this, which follows on the above :
Of course in the beginning this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeoisie production; by means of measures therefore which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, to the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
In that passage is an entire statement of the Labour party's position, and its complete justification. It may be summed up in a phrase—the accomplishment of revolutionary ends by evolutionary means.
Even in details, such as the plank, "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State," and the demand for the establishment of a "National Bank," the "Communist Manifesto" is anticipatory of Labour party methods.
And it was certainly not the intention, it certainly has not been the effect, of the "Communist Manifesto" to "prevent capitalism from ripening" to its ruin.
The evil results of the economic process can be mitigated without in the least hindering the development of the process. That is what our "revolutionary" critics have got to learn. The class war on which they take their stand, as we do also, must go on, but that is all the more reason why we should welcome the ambulance brigade, and the hospitals, and laws to govern the conduct of the belligerents, and other palliative measures assuaging the horrors of war.
When they point out the danger of parliamentary Labour parties becoming so absorbed in the pursuit of palliatives as to lose sight of the objective, we are with them.
When they subject backsliding Labour politicians to critical castigation we are with them. But to denounce palliative measures per se because of the undue prominence given to them by mistaken or designing men, or because of defects inherent in all such legislation, is unscientific to the verge of foolishness.
We are, we repeat, aware of no great Socialist party that repudiates the palliation of evils pending their eradication. We are aware of no great Socialist party that refuses to attain Socialism by gradual approaches, and insists upon standing still until it can get there with a rush and a leap.
How natural is the evolutionary method of bringing about the required change is indicated by the form of speech which Jack London uses in stating his case. "Capitalism," he says, "should be permitted to ripen ; a newer system can only grow out of the decay of the older."
It will be at once seen by the intelligent reader why we have italicised the word "grow." Growth implies a gradual transformation ; so gradual in fact as to be imperceptible. So that in the very act of arguing against the evolutionary method Jack London proves it !
Let the "revolutionaries" tell us precisely what they mean by the designation. Let them say in what sense they are revolutionary that other Socialists are not.
The "Worker," for its part, is revolutionary in any way that will best serve the cause. If the day ever comes when bullets are needed to back up ballots, we shall be there with our little gun. If on the other hand, Capitalism will permit us to achieve the Revolution bit by bit, a little to-day, and some more to-morrow, and will allow us to quietly overturn its system and dispossess it, we shall be glad to leave the gun at home, and call ourselves piecemeal if not peaceful revolutionists.
But at present what we are most concerned about is the creation of the socialistic environment without which Socialism is impossible.
Capitalism will ripen to decay by the extension of the State's functions as capitalist, by the taking over of industries, and the gradual but persistent encroaching of the State upon the domain now occupied by private employers. And these are a the measures we are after all we know how.
In this purpose we are fortified with the support of Engels and other Socialist thinkers. "While the capitalistic method of production more and more converts the great majority of the population into proletarians," says Marx's great collaborator, "it is creating the power which is compelled, on pain of perishing, to achieve this revolution. While it more and more forces the great socialised means of production to be converted into State property, it is itself pointing the path for this revolution's achievement."
The conversion of the great socialised means of production into State property by gradual methods (the "more, and more" of Engels) is essentially the Labour party's policy. It is in this way that Capitalism will ripen, that Socialism will grow from its decay, and that the Revolution will be achieved.
That, at any rate is what the Labour party means by the Revolution. The "revolutionaries," so far as we can make any sort of order out of their chaotic utterances, object to the very process by which the Revolution is to be consummated !
There must be no palliatives, no restraining legislation, no extension of the functions of the State. Does it come to this, then, that their "revolutionary" creed is only the old discarded doctrine of the Liberals in a new dress— "Laissez faire,"—let be, do nothing?
Does it mean that they have given their adherence to the theory of increasing misery?
Bebel, the German Socialist leader, speaking against this now exploded fallacy in 1901, quoted Marx against it.
"Marx," he said, "took the view that by organisation the working-class can counteract the depressing tendencies of capital, and if by the strength of their organisation they succeeded in inciting the State to take such steps— (which Jack London and the "revolutionaries" say they must on no account do!)— then it was not merely a great moral advance, but the victory of a new principle."
So that in opposing palliatives, and advocating that Capitalism should be left free to develop itself, our self-styled "revolutionaries" are in opposition to Karl Marx, August Bebel, and the greatest Socialist parties of the world.
They seek to arrogate to themselves the grand name of "revolutionary," and squeeze a profit out of it. It is a form of monopoly and exploitation we are by no means disposed to allow.

Worker (Brisbane, Qld. : 1890 - 1955), Saturday 20 February 1909, page 4