Capitalism v. Socialism (1935)

From the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

Trade Union official cites Russia!

There has lately come before us a copy of The General and Municipal "Workers' Journal (June, 1935). Reminiscent of a parish magazine, its pages contain so many incorrect statements and samples of loose thinking that it would take several issues of the Socialist Standard to deal with them individually. It may, however, be of interest to deal with the “Notes” of the General Secretary, Mr. Charles Dukes, especially those under the heading of “Capitalism v. Socialism.” The United States is quoted as an example of capitalism, whilst Russia is referred to as “Socialist Russia.” The General Secretary states that the disaster of capitalism in the United States is due to the fact that they have no policy for refunding their National debt, which has increased by nearly 12,000 million dollars as a result of the “New Deal” policy. The General Secretary should know, however, that national debts are not necessarily disliked by the capitalist class—who are the only people concerned; in fact, some of them like them so well, that there is at the moment a widespread newspaper campaign for expanding armaments by means of a £250,000,000 loan, instead of by means of taxation.

A national debt is nothing more than a sum of money owed by the capitalist class as a whole to that section of the capitalist class which invests its money in war loans and other government securities. The incomes of the whole class are taxed in order to pay the interest to that section. National debts, therefore, are no indication of disaster to the capitalist class.

His remarks on Socialism show that Mr. Dukes knows not what this is. Our own definition of Socialism will be found by reference to our object on the centre page of every issue of the Socialist Standard. As it is now fairly well known that the conditions in Russia do not correspond to this definition—in particular, the means of production are controlled, not democratically, but by the controllers of the Communist Party—it will be obvious that Socialism has not been established in Russia.

Again, as under Socialism goods would be produced solely for use, the necessity of the exchange medium—money—would disappear, yet the General Secretary refers to “money,” “income,” and “expense,” as part of the Russian “Socialist” economy. Another reason given for the “success” of “Socialist” Russia is, that she “does not seek the assistance of foreign loans.” Here, again, he is wrong. Instances of foreign loans negotiated by the Bolsheviks have been recorded previously, but the following is a case in point: —

BIG LOAN TO SOVIET.

Prague, Monday.

Soviet representatives to-day signed an agreement with Czecho-Slovakian banks for a loan of £2,083,000 for five years at six per cent, to finance purchases of Czech manufactures by Russia. —British United Press.

(News Chronicle, June 4th, 1935.)

As to the nature of the “success” itself, this would appear to consist of the fact that there are insufficient workers for the available jobs, and that output in the heavy industries has increased as compared with a year ago. And this is the “success” of “Socialism”! It is, of course, simply the conditions which are regarded as successful under capitalism.

The case for Socialism as against capitalism can be put both correctly and much more simply. Briefly it is that capitalism—a system of society based upon the private ownership of the means of production—produces certain unpleasant effects upon an enslaved class called workers, viz.: poverty and insecurity most of the time, and, by way of a change, unemployment and war. It is, therefore, in the interest of the workers to completely change the basis of a society which produces such effects. As the opposite of private ownership is common ownership. Socialists advocate the replacement of the existing form of society by one based upon this common ownership of the means of production and distribution, namely, Socialism. This result can, however, only be achieved by a class-conscious working class organised for that purpose. It is for that purpose that the Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed, and it is up to all workers who agree with our position to join with us and help on with the work. Now, fellow workers, what about it?

R. Milborne