Letter: Socialism with wages (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism with wages

In a television interview with David Frost the miners’ leader Arthur Scargill, in spite of opposition from most of the audience, ably set out principles for the organization of a Socialist society. These principles were those of the SPGB with the exception of the retention of the wage system.

His plan seemed very practical. Would you like to comment?

John Keith

Aberdeenshire

Reply:

It is not uncommon for left-wing spokesmen to say things which, apparently, the SPGB could endorse; some of them even borrow from us in criticizing aspects of the existing order. It is necessary to look further into what they are advocating.

You say Scargill set out Socialist principles “with the exception of the retention of the wage system”. That isn’t a minor point—it is what Socialist principles are all about. The wage-labour relationship is not an optional extra but is basic to capitalism. It exists when and because the means of living are the property of a class: the other class, the non-owning majority, are thus forced to sell their labour-power to the owners in order to live. The retention of the wage system therefore cannot be associated with Socialism, for it implies by itself the existence of these two classes. Wages are the price of labour-power, and the wage-worker is the seller: can you have sellers without buyers?

We may say charitably that Scargill is a very muddled person, but it is worth noting another viewpoint claimed by Labourite reformers in the past. Some of them were aware of the nature of Socialism as a classless, wageless society, and that it is the only alternative to capitalism. Nevertheless they rejected the idea of working to establish it because, in their opinion, it would take too long. Instead they sought quick ways to remedy social problems under the name “socialist measures”, or reform programmes which were held to be different because those who advanced them wanted to think of themselves as socialists. None of them has cured the basic ills of capitalism or shown a possible alternative to Socialist action; but the result has been a great deal of confusion as to what Socialism is.

Editors.