(We have received the following letter from Mr. C. Stowasser, Manchester, who writes on the notepaper of the “Henry George School of Social Science.” Ed. Comm.)
Dear Sir,
In the interesting article of your May issue, “A Budget Secret Revealed,” you made one or two statements which I would like to comment on. In the first place you implied that the subsidy system should have been extended by increases of subsidies on foodstuffs. There are two points to be made on this: (a) subsidies, like taxes, ultimately come for the most part out of the pockets of the workers; (b) subsidies instead of increasing production merely help to increase land rents and are therefore of benefit to the landlords only. In the second place you implied that all incomes should be equalised. Now, although I sympathise strongly with this idea, 1 should like to point out that even if there was a completely equal distribution of wealth in this country it would only raise workers’ wages by about five pounds per annum. So you see the question is really and truly mainly one of production and redistribution. Now what all Socialists fail to see is that full production can only be achieved when we break down that all powerful barrier, the Land Monopoly. As you well know, since there is no tax on the site-value of land, the landowner is able to withhold valuable town land from use and by so doing creates a tremendously high monopoly value of land. Is it any wonder that there is poverty and unemployment when the community must pay a toll, amounting to as much as £500,000 or £600,000 an acre in the case of towns, for the right to use land. If we taxed landowners on the positional value of their land all landowners would be forced either to use their land fully or sell cheap—there would be full employment and plenty of houses—the exploitation of the worker would cease. Your paper shows clearly that autocratic planning does not bring prosperity—why don’t you go one step further and proclaim that true freedom can only come by giving all men access to the land through the taxation of land values.
Yours sincerely,
C. Stowasser, B.A. Comm.
Reply:
Our correspondent reads into the article he criticises (“A Budget Secret Revealed,” Socialist Standard, May) implications that were not suggested or intended, and that were in fact expressly disowned. He assumes that we are in favour of an increase of the subsidies on foodstuffs, and that we “implied that all incomes should be equalised.” He is quite mistaken. The S.P.G.B. stands for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. We hold that there are no ways in which capitalism can be made to function in the interests of the working class. We do not say that the Labour government in general and Sir Stafford Cripps in particular have followed a wrong budgetary policy and that all would be well if they followed some other policy. As we pointed out in the article,
“Budgets are the financial arrangements made for the conduct of the capitalist state and it is childish muddle-headedness to ask that they be transformed into ‘Socialist’ budgets.”
Having taken on the job of administering capitalism “they are forced within very narrow limits to do those things that capitalism requires.”
On the question of equalising incomes our correspondent is equally wide of the mark. Under capitalism incomes come from wages or from the ownership of property and they vary greatly in amount. Socialism is not a scheme for making them equal. Wages and incomes from property-owning will both disappear under Socialism. The principal way in which Socialism will lessen the labour and increase the consumption of those who under capitalism are the working class will be by cutting out the enormous waste of labour inseparable from capitalism.
Having disposed of one correspondent’s misconceptions about Socialism now let us look at his scheme for reforming capitalism by the levying of “a tax on the site-value of land.” This is not a working-class issue but a hangover of the conflict of interests between landowners and industrial capitalists. It is not even a vital issue to the capitalists any longer. When the land was monopolised by a relatively small number of big landowners the industrial capitalists suffered the mortification of having to give up to the landowners a large part of the proceeds of their exploitation of the workers. They resented it and would have liked to escape that burden. The result, however, would have been to increase the profits of the capitalists; it would not have lessened the exploitation of the workers. But in the past half century landownership has undergone great changes. We read in the Sunday Express (20/3/49) that whereas “less than 50 years ago 2,500 private landlords shared between them over half of Britain, today, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, there are only 469 estates of more than 1,000 acres left.” The government itself, the Local Authorities and the nationalised industries have vastly increased their holdings of land and much land is now owned by farmers: “of Britain’s 370,508 farms, a third are now owner-occupied. ” Also much land is now owned by estate companies and industrial companies and the writer in the Sunday Express states that the Prudential alone owns land valued at £35 million. These changes have taken place but they have not in the least improved the position of the working class.
In a leaflet that our correspondent sends us we arc assured that the scheme he recommends would “provide public revenue without hampering industry,” and that the burden would fall only on the landlord. But nowhere are we told why the working class should object to the landlord receiving part of the proceeds of working class exploitation without also objecting to the industrial, commercial and financial capitalists receiving a much larger part. According to official estimates the receivers of rent from land and buildings took £430 millions in 1948; but the profits of traders and partnerships amounted to £970 millions, and the trading profits of companies were £1,639 millions. In 10 years the percentage of the total national income going to receivers of rent has fallen from 8.5 per cent., to 4.4 per cent., while the other two groups of exploiters have increased their percentage from 21.2 per cent. to 27 per cent. This may please the capitalists but it is no concern of the working class.
The S.P.G.B. urges the workers not to interest themselves in the internal squabble of the exploiters but to work for the abolition of all exploitation.
Ed. Comm.
No comments:
Post a Comment