Foot No Socialist
Socialist Organiser1982 1982-02-18Read it in the scan (PDF), scan page 12 →
Read from the scan by machine and not corrected: expect misread words, and now and then a caption or a line from a neighbouring story. For anything you quote, read the scan.
Scan page 12
I AM glad to see the recent articles by comrades Thomas, O'Mahony and Mellroy making clear our position on Parliament and democracy Michael Foot We have to make clear that Parliament is a form of the state which is related as are other forms, such as fascism or military dictatorship, to the system of capitalism.
Obviously this form represents a tremendous historical improvement on past forms, e.g. rule by Kings and Nobles) as does capitalist society over feudalism.
Similarly, within capitalism, parliamentary democracy gives more freedom than military dictatorship. Not least of the freedom it gives is the freedom to commence the work of replacing capitalism by We won't have the bourgeois state in a socialist society. And neither will we have Parliament.
Socialist society, controlled not by the capitalists but by the workers, will produce its own forms.
And of course there's the rub. Michael Foot is not really a socialist in the sense of wanting to create a socialist society, which obviously involves dismantling capitalist society.
He just wants to civilise things a little, although tragically there is no room to do so.
We should relate the arguments about Parliament and working class democracy more to the question of Clause IV. Also if the workers do take control, will capitalist parties pledged to the destruction of • socialism be allowed?
Yours fraternally, JOHNNY DHU Stockport