Socialism and Democracy
By R. A. SCOTT-JANLES.
PaorEsson Less" has not done very much in this book* to clear up our conception of what the word democracy means. He has not attempted to deal with certain problems of civilization thrust upon us by the fact that Russia in the name of the masses has set up a form of " democracy " which strikes many of us as undemocratic, and that Fascism has resorted to a theory which appears, to deny the virtue of democracy. He has not attempted to resolve the doubts of those who have asked whether government by the people is possible, and whether statecraft is menaced by the efforts of rulers to flatter and cajole the more ignorant sort of mind, or how our exceedingly complex civilization is to survive if directed by men whose skill lies in winning votes.
. But these are questions, he might possibly say, which are only asked because we think in terms of "capitalist democracy." That is the name which he gives to the system set up in Britain early in the nineteenth century, Which reached the zenith of its success in the Victorian age, and is now challenged by Socialism. It was the system under which power was transferred from the landed aristocracy to the wealthy commercial classes, "political equality" being conferred on the masses by the right to vote, but without "economic equality." Parliamentary government is represented as having been a polite compromise in which Tories and Liberals agreed to differ about inessentials, being Wholly at one in their defence of the rights- and economic sovereignty of the propertied class. This fiction of democracy satisfied the people because the country was growing richer and property could afford to pay the price of improving the lot of the masses. The admission is worth noting. The political power which the masses had achieved under "capitalist democracy" was worth this much, that they had to be given some of the pickings ; and a little later, at the turn of the century, when their demands were pitched higher, they had to be granted social services ; income tax was increased ; death duties were imposed—the older parties "tacitly abandoned laissez-faire for the social service state in order to evade discussion of the central issue of economic power." Does it not follow from the argument that during the period of parliamentary democracy the masses pro- gressively improved their economic position, and that the older parties, so far from " evading " the issue, actually yielded some of the economic power of the few to the many ?
This is important, for the whole trend of Professor Laski's argument goes to show that there is not likely to be al transition from the state of "capitalist democracy" to true democracy, achieved by degrees, but that we are heading for a clash, that is likely to take place through revolution and possible violence. He has shown that up to now the parliamentary system "has been successful in the difficult task of enabling the outworks of the capitalist system to be surrendered to its opponents ; it has at no point solved the central problem of the inner citadel's surrender." But now, he suggests, it has reached the parting of the ways when no "graceful compromise" will serve. It has been faced
with the dilemma that at the very moment •
" ivhen' its productive processes were at their maximum power It could not solve the problem of distributite justice ; to 'maintain itself it had to lower the standard of life just when democratic expectation looked to its dramatic expansion proportionately in the increase in productive power."
So the attention of the people is no longer diverted by sham
Democracy in Crisis. By Harold J. Laski. (Allen and Unwin. 75. 6d.) Parliamentary contests, and it passionately concentrated on "obtaining possession of the sources of productive power." " We notice here two assumptions. First, that capitalist Power is not merely one which is frequently abused (as we all admit), but that it is exclusively possessed by the class- conscious few. And, secondly, that pure democracy (undefined) possesses some secret for solving the intricate economic world-problem of distribution which is unknown i to " capitalist democracy." Professor Laski imagines an England divided into two camps : on the one side Conservatives, Liberals and half-hearted Socialists bent on preserving their economic privileges, bluffing the people with political compromises and doles, on the other side the People, awakening to the issue, and determined to seize the fortress. Ile has an ex- tremely interesting chapter in which he discusses the possi- bilities of what may happen when Labour, in this mood, returns with an irresistible majority at the polls, determined, not on half-measures, but on carrying out the whole Socialist programme. Would the Conservatives surrender ? Would the Army obey ? Would the reactionaries in the country be organised to resist ? Would the King be called upon to exercise his prerogatives ? "We have to acknowledge the grim fact that, at the parting of the ways, men in the possession of actual sovereignty choose to fight rather than to abdicate."
In these very suggestive pages Professor Laski examines the possibilities of a revolutionary transformation of Par- liamentary government, and of possible violence in achieving it. But all through the book we feel that in tracing the
approach of the struggle between " capitalist democracy" and democracy proper he is really concerned with the conflict between Capitalism and Socialism, and that neither of these systems, as such, contains a solution of the problem of democracy. The crisis which he is discussing is a very inter. eating one, that of the conflict between two methods of directing economic power ; but it is not the crisis of democracy. Supposing we solved the problem, under the present system or any other, of the wilful abuse of economic power, we still should not have ensured the wise use of such power, nor even its use, wisely or unwisely, in accordance with the real will of The people. The true crisis in democracy consists in the necessity of discovering a way of enabling the masses, unskilled in the art of government, to express their will intelligently in accordance with their own interests. The difficulty of solving this problem has led to the desperate reaction of Fascism in Italy and the bluff of Conununist dictatorship in Russia ; and the democratic failures which have been responsible for these dictatorships have led despairing critics to say that democracy has been tried and found wanting. I had hoped that Professor Laski was going to show us how it might be achieved under Socialism. Capitalism, or some other system. But he has only shown us that perhaps Socialism may be achieved—and that is another matter. If the power of private capital were abolished and the full programme of Socialism realized, it would still remain to solve the unsettled problems of representative government' —how to ensure the existence of a strong executive, wise, wholly disinterested, intent only on securing the true progress of the community, and a legislature equally fitted to deal with the complex requirements of our age—both of them responsive to the will of the nation without being subservient to its caprice. No investigation of this—the critical issue of democracy—will be complete until we have considered to what extent the neglected essential of democracy is the "education of our masters:"
Previous page
