Letter: Cheap Imports, Monetary Reform and Socialism (1942)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a further letter from the Duke of Bedford in reply to the observations published in our November issue.

Wigtownshire,

November 25th, 1941.

Sir,

I do not quite know why you assumed that my letter which you published in your November issue was an attempt to solve the contradictions of Capitalism. I was not dealing with either Socialism or Capitalism or the conflict between the two, but was calling attention to certain important facts relating to foreign trade and the relation of income to employment in a labour-destroying age.

When I spoke of the “true” purpose of industry, I meant the correct purpose under a sensible system. We are both agreed, though perhaps for somewhat different reasons, that the existing system is not sensible.

I agree that a “close association of work with the right to receive an income” is at present a characteristic of the working class, but seeing that the working class is an extremely important and numerous class, it stands to reason that any financial arrangement which does, or does not, provide them with adequate incomes is a matter which should receive the attention of any practical social reformer. As I have already pointed out, I was not in my letter “defending” Capitalism, but you are surely contradicting yourself when you first attack me for advocating a reform of the monetary system, which you refer to contemptuously as “currency juggling,” and then go on to say that if the reform I advocated were adopted, it would wreck the wages system through which the propertied classes were able to live on the backs of the wealth producers.

It is perfectly true that monetary reform such as I advocate would strengthen immensely the power of the weekly-wage earner to insist on receiving fair conditions of work and an adequate income. Speaking, however, from a very extensive experience of work for monetary reform and the controversy to which it gives rise, I do not find that the ordinary Capitalist opposes it because of the independence which he fears it would give to the weekly-wage earner. I do not say that this attitude of mind never exists, but it is decidedly rare and it is usually confined to the financier, or the controller of some great monopoly. The ordinary Capitalist, once he can be induced to give any serious thought to the matter at all, rid himself of the complex that he cannot understand finance, and see that he is not being invited to support inflation, usually rather welcomes a proposal which, as he sees it, will give him a better market for his goods, and at the same time, enable him to avoid trouble with labour disputes by making it possible for him to pay good wages to his workpeople. Rightly or wrongly he does not anticipate that workers will immediately go on to demand the control of the whole industry and equal shares in its profits.

Yours very truly,

Bedford..

Reply.

The essential difference between the Socialist attitude and that of our correspondent is shown in his statement: “I was not dealing with either Socialism or Capitalism, or the conflict between the two, but was calling attention to certain important facts relating to foreign trade and the relation of income to employment in a labour-destroying age.” Our correspondent’s proposals were that “cheap imports” should be allowed and that “new money” should be “created” and given to the unemployed. What he overlooks is that these are proposals to accept capitalism while modifying it in what he regards as a practical and beneficial way. They are not and cannot be proposals which will have any meaning under Socialism. Socialism is essentially international. Goods will be produced where it is convenient to produce them and transported elsewhere to be consumed, but there cannot be any question of sale, barter, etc. These are capitalist conceptions and cannot be Socialist ones. Indeed, our correspondent in his first letter (November Socialist Standard) writes saying that under his conception of a “rational system” “the foreigner is able to send us a large quantity of goods in return for a comparatively small quantity of our own.” What is this but the existing capitalist cut-throat system? How is it any more rational?

Regarding monetary reform, since under Socialism there can be no need for any monetary system, monetary reforms can only be reforms of capitalism.

Without going into the question of inflation except to say that we do not accept our correspondent’s view, it is necessary to point out another fundamental divergence of attitude. We said that if the penalty of semi-starvation were to be removed, the workers would be in a position to wreck the wages system. Our correspondent’s reply is that his proposal would enable the wage-earner “to insist on receiving fair conditions of work and an adequate income,” but that there is little evidence that the ordinary capitalist opposes this, though the financier or monopolist may do so. It all turns, of course, on the word “fair.” Our correspondent regards it as “fair” that the propertied class should continue to receive incomes derived from their ownership, though presumably he is prepared to see these incomes reduced.

The Socialist case is that the only rational system for the future of the human race is one based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution which necessarily involves the elimination of all property incomes, whether in the form of rent, interest or profit. On this issue all sections of the propertied class have a common attitude—one of opposition.

Editorial Committee.