'Workers living like lords today'
Dear Editors,
Pieter Lawrence in his article "Capitalism is Obsolete" (August Socialist Standard) tells us that it would be foolish to deny that at one time the capitalist system was a progressive development of society.
But he does not tell us when it ceased to be a progressive development of society, that is, when it became obsolete.
For instance, does he believe that the capitalist system was obsolete at the time Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto, and. therefore, ripe for being replaced by a socialist system?
If so he must be extremely naive, because capitalism at that time was only in its early stages of progressive development.
And that was 148 years ago when Marx thought capitalism was no longer progressive, and advocated its overthrow.
But what was missing was his class-conscious proletariat to do that. Why? Because capitalistic economic conditions did not produce it, that's why.
And capitalism is still with us today without any class-conscious proletariat to overthrow it.
And the workers are living like lords today compared to the workers at Marx's time.
They have motor cars, bathrooms in their houses, TV, holidays with pay, income support if unemployed, a longer span of life than in the past, home helps, and many more goodies under capitalism.
So the workers do not think capitalism is obsolete, and they have no desire to get rid of it.
They never ever had, and probably they never ever will.
R. Smith,
Dundee
Reply:
Thank you for your letter, for which we feel the word complacent might well have been invented. You appear to agree that the emergence of capitalism was a progressive development of society. Though it was still based on exploitation, the escape from serfdom and other forms of feudal bondage brought greater freedoms for the producers. This included the ability to sell their labour in the labour markets, and within limits this gave workers more say in their conditions of life. This became stronger when eventually workers were able to form trade unions.
Then as capitalism developed workers were able to win the vote and other democratic rights. This was of vital importance because it became possible for workers to get control of the state and change society. None of this was possible under feudalism.
Also, capitalism is a more dynamic system because it brought about technical advance, communications of every kind and rapid development of the means of production. Through higher productivity it increased the amount of goods and services allowing workers to negotiate more for their own consumption. This is the source of the increased living standards to which you refer.
But you ignore the feet that goods and services are only produced by labour; when workers get more it is still only part of the extra wealth which they alone have produced. The rest is taken by the capitalists in line with their class role as economic parasites. Your letter also ignores the conditions of millions of families who suffer the insecurities, anxieties, problems and stress of life under the modern market system. You could ask one of the families which has been kicked out of their home under re-possession if they feel they are "living like lords”. None of this is necessary.
The increased powers of production which have been developed has widened the gap between what could be produced for needs and what is actually produced for profit under the money-grubbing, class-riven system of capitalism. It now operates as a barrier against the use of productive powers for the benefit of all people. This is one of the reasons why it is now an obsolete system.
You ask when did it become obsolete? Rather than argue about a precise date it would be more useful to say what the conditions for the establishment of socialism should be. Because wage workers are the only class with an interest in establishing socialism and because this must be democratic, it follows that they should be in the majority.
Applying this to Marx’s time, certainly workers were in the majority in England but it is doubtful, if they were in Europe as a whole, not in France or Germany and certainly not in the world. But that situation is long gone and now, overwhelmingly, the world's population is now dominated by capitalism.
Also, the powers of production should be sufficiently developed to provide a material basis for socialism. We now have available fantastic powers of production which are distorted by waste and militarism, and crippled by the artificial scarcities of the market.
In addition we have a worldwide administration and communications which at present serve a world divided by rival capitalist states. All the conditions are ripe for sweeping way capitalism and replacing it by a system organised solely for the benefit of all people.
You make the obvious point that we do not at present have a class-conscious working class to overthrow capitalism. This is disappointing but the arguments in favour of socialism do not relate to any such disappointments nor to any time factor. They should be judged solely from whether or not they represent a true analysis of working-class problems and whether they include a policy of change which could solve them.
Whilst we take little comfort from our few numbers there is no doubt that our arguments have been vindicated time and again throughout this century. We argue from a body of knowledge which has proven powers of prediction and which can say with accuracy what is possible and what is impossible through political action. Against all the unfortunate experiments with reformism, and all the time wasted through the support of pseudo-socialists and so-called revolutionaries of every kind, the one incontrovertible fact to emerge from this experience of discontent, struggle, failure and disillusion, is that nothing short of a world-wide change from capitalism to socialism can solve the problems of society.
Editors.
Calling the Pot black
Dear Editors,
John Bissett's article in the August Socialist Standard was excellent. There was a curious parallel between the Ceausescu and the Pol Pot dictatorships at the time they were being given Western aid and tacit approval. Not only did the Queen dub the Rumanian ruler, Sir Nicolai but the British press was encouraged to spell his country as Romania so as to emphasise its historic link with Rome. Similarly newspapers began to spell Cambodia as Kampuchea as a sop to Pol Pot. This policy was quietly dropped when the scale of the Khmer Rouge massacres became more widely known. However, the public abhorrence of the Pol Pot regime has been insidiously used by defenders of the oppressive system operating in Vietnam founded by Ho Chi Minh. These people are loud in their condemnation of the Khmer Rouge but have maintained a fifty-year long silence with regard to Ho’s initial task on behalf of his masters in the Kremlin. That was to murder the entire leadership of Indo-China's substantial Trotskyist movement in the interregnum between the collapse of the WWII Japanese occupation and the re-establishment of French colonial rule.
Later, when the French were finally defeated at Dien Bien Phu, the Vietcong began their slow but sure mastery over the independent states that came into being in the wake of France losing her South-East Asian territories. American intervention in the Indo-Chinese civil war certainly introduced a massive increase in the technology of destruction but there was little they could teach the Vietcong by way of the cruel and treacherous methods of guerrilla warfare in which they eventually proved victorious.
Rivalry between Vietnamese and Cambodian nationalism goes back a long way. But a bone of contention which has been little commented upon by Western specialists on Asian affairs is the way Pol Pot claimed that his savage treatment of the population under his control was laying down the pre-conditions for a moneyless Communist society with no private property whatsoever. In my opinion these claims must have been a major irritant in Leninist circles where to be reminded of what their original aim was supposed to be was very uncomfortable indeed. Stalin sent people to Siberia for less!
Eddie Grant,
London NW4
Not peas in a pod
Dear Editors,
I am very disappointed with Graham Taylor’s interpretation (August Letters) of my letter to the July issue.
Not once in my letter did I say that I supported the Newbury rallies, and I do not believe it is very comradely either to suggest that I might hold Trotskyite or SWP views.
I am a member of the Socialist Party because I sincerely believe in the abolition of the capitalist system. The other views I expressed in my letter are quite clear, that I think some Socialists appear to make a fetish out of not demonstrating or showing solidarity with other workers. Socialists are people, individuals, not so many peas out of the same pod.
Heather Ball,
Norwich
Hauling in the net
Dear Editors,
In "Capital hauls in the internet" (August 1996) The Scavenger seems to view the £2 million investment by BT and MCI in a new internet network as signalling the end of the "global mutual help" that the internet has encouraged. As socialists, we should indeed be questioning how far such new technology is being used in the interests of the working class. However, the arrival of a new network, however large and profit-orientated, does not exclude organisations such as ours from using the internet to our advantage, facilitating co-operation and the sharing of information. We are soon to expand our site on the World Wide Web which will represent us as a global movement. It is already possible for anyone with an internet connection to access information that we provide free of charge. While a majority of the world’s working class are denied access to this technology. it is still an important opportunity for us. (For example, around 70 percent of the US population have access to an internet connection.) We should leave to others the task of worrying how the net might possibly be regulated.
Daniel Greenwood,
Coventry
SLP backs down
Four members of our Colchester Branch attended a meeting of the Socialist Labour Party in Ipswich on 25 April at which Arthur Scargill declared that he "would debate with anyone". We publish below the exchange of correspondence which followed:
"Dear Mr Scargill,
At a Socialist Labour Party meeting in Ipswich, in early May, you offered to debate with any organisation. Colchester Branch members of this Party who were at the meeting would like to take you up on that offer.
The Socialist Party would welcome such a debate and could arrange for it to be held in the East Anglian area or in Central London.
We hope to hear of your acceptance in the near future when a date and venue can be arranged.
Janet Carter, General Secretary,
The Socialist Party.
16 June 1996.”
"Dear Ms Carter,
Thank you for your letter regarding a debate between yourselves and the SLP.
Our policy at this time does not include such a meeting.
P. Sikorski, General Secretary, SLP.
I 3 August 1996."
We will keep readers informed of future developments.
No comments:
Post a Comment