The Myth of the 'Labor' Party
The Bernsteinian Fallacy
As of the modern day, many parties that claim themselves to be ‘labour’ parties fill parliaments. However, it must be mentioned how these parties are fallacious in name. They do not speak for the proletariat. The very concept of socialism through reform fails due to the inherent nature of the bourgeouis democracy.
“But Bernstein, proposing to change the sea of capitalist bitterness into a sea of socialist sweetness, by progressively pouring into it bottles of social reformist lemonade, presents an idea that is merely more insipid but no less fantastic.”
— Rosa Luxemburg
As spoken by Luxemburg in this quote, you cannot simply overwhelm the capitalist force of the bourgeousie by gradual reform and ‘watering down’ of a bourgeouis democratic system. You must strike at the heart and dismantle it with haste. If it is not removed by a glorious proletarian revolution, the capitalist class will certainly find a way to strike compromise between the capitalist and socialist ideal, and thereby never resolve the final goal of socialism. What we end up with is a watery definition of socialism which can only offer welfare and labor protection. They cannot however, hand over the means of production to the people and don’t at the very least reduce the role of the owner to a simple administrator.
“Trade unions cannot suppress the law of wages. Under the most favourable circumstances, the best they can do is to impose on capitalist exploitation the “normal” limit of the moment. They have not, however, the power to suppress exploitation itself, not even gradually.”
— Rosa Luxemburg
The Australian ‘Labor’ Party
Comrades, when we hear the term ‘Labor Party’, we think immediately that this party must be servicing the workers, that it is wishing to entitle us proletarians to our means of production. However, these ‘labor parties’ deny us socialism. They fail to achieve a resolution that is impied in the name of a labor party. A labour party should entitle proletarians to their labor. Otherwise what is it? It is yet but another bourgeouis-liberal party or reformist lemonade, trying to water down a sea of bourgeouis bitterness with yet a few bottles of sweetness.
The Australian Labor Party is a perfect example of this. This party claims itself as a labor party. In fact, the leader even calls himself a democratic socialist. Yet, after 3 years, all he has done is try his best to improve welfare and put forward a failed referendum. In fact, this failed publicity stunt has put Australia years back on the path to socialism.
“My priority is constitutional recognition. I can’t imagine going forward ... that we should be having another referendum on the republic before that occurs,”
— Anthony Albanese
We cannot simply wait on the trade unions or these ‘labor parties’ to give us our means of production. This makes it abundantly clear that a ‘democratic reform’ within a bourgeouis democracy is simply not possible. As in order for any party to achieve a majority in a parliament in these systems, they must resort to publicity stunts rather than real change. In order to achieve real change, more than a vote is needed.
Revolution and Democracy are not Mutually Exclusive
While democracy is an inherent part of a socialist state, we must still remember that this state will be established by revolution. We must also remember that Revolution and Democracy are NOT mutually exclusive. Many western left-communists, ultra-leftists, and especially reformists, have argued that a revolution equals a dictatorship of the Vanguard, similar to that of the Soviet Union. However, blindly opposing the Revolution is pure idealism. It is simply not possible to dye the bourgeouis sea with elections.
Heed this example. Communist party dilutes bourgeouis democracy sea by 10%. They do it again, and again, and again, over however many terms in office. However, because it is a percentile that this party is diluting, the amount they dilute slowly decreases. They might start by taking ten percent off. But next term, they will only take off nine, and the next, only 8.1%. This continues until the progress stalls and the bourgeouis democracy still stands as a pilar. The people will simply call this party ineffective and drift further right, abandoning all hope of socialism.
Why does revolution not equal an vanguard dictatorship you may ask? The answer is quite simple. Revolution does not have to be led by any one comrade. It may be a collective mass strike of the proletariat, ensuring a collective victory rather than the opportunist seizure of power by the vanguard. So really, comrades, it is plain and simple. Share in the revolution and you will share in the power. Do not rely your seizure of the means of production on others.
“from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
— Karl Marx
Sources
Reform or Revolution, Rosa Luxemburg (1899)
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Karl Marx (1875)
Interview with Anthony Albanese, Piers Morgan (2023)