Letter: Socialists and Russia (1935)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists and Russia

August 6th, 1936.

 

Dear Sir,—I was listening to your speaker at Finsbury Park on Sunday evening, August 4th, when he remarked that the Soviet Government had issued loans from 7 to 12½ per cent. profit to subscribers, and hinted that by inviting foreigners to invest they are acting just as State capitalists and that the workers are nothing more or less than wage slaves. May I point out that these loans are used for construction of Socialistic industries and that the bulk of Russian workers, numbering several millions, are subscribers towards the loans, knowing full well the .purpose to which the money is being put. The interest given is certainly an incentive, but it should be pointed out by your speaker that as these loans are spread over an enormous number of subscribers the profit accruing to an individual investor is very small and cannot exercise any influence. Also, the number of foreign investors is estimated at less than one per centum (1%) of the total.

The Bolshevists are practical realists and know full well the impossibility of abolishing wages at the present time. As a matter of fact, this is not so very important, but what is much more essentially valuable is that the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution is held firmly in the hands of the workers themselves. If this is not practical Socialism, what is? Can it be denied that the Bolsheviks took over a graveyard and have now progressed at an amazing rate? Can it be denied that the material well-being of the Russian workers is improving from year to year, and that, to my mind, is the acid test, whether they are wage-slaves or overcoming the conditions of wage-slavery that is inherent in private capitalism.

Your speaker boasted that he is upholding the truth. Therefore he should amplify statements that are likely to be misrepresented by mischievous and unscrupulous individuals.

I remain.

Yours faithfully,

H. Jackson.

Reply.

The principal issues raised by our correspondent are: (1) Whether the social system in Russia is Socialist or Capitalist; (2) Whether the bondholders are all small investors; (3) Whether industry is progressing, and (4) Whether the material conditions of the workers are improving.

For replies to the various points, our correspondent is referred to the pamphlet "The S.P.G.B. and Questions of the Day," and to the Socialist Standard, October, 1934.

Brief replies are also given below: —

(1) Socialists from Marx onwards are agreed that characteristic features of Socialism are the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution; the production of goods only for use, not for sale; the abolition of all forms of income from the ownership of property; the abolition of the system of wage-labour; and the consequent disappearance of privilege.

Are these things found in Russia to-day? Certainly not. The Communist clique which controls the State machine maintains control of Russian industry as rigid as the control of the British Government over the Post Office. Goods are produced for sale, and at a profit. Rent, interest and profit from the ownership of property, bonds, etc., is a normal and growing feature of economic life. As our correspondent admits, the Bolsheviks, so far from having abolished the system of wage-labour, “know full well the impossibility of abolishing wages at the present time.” Lastly, by various means, including the great and growing inequality of pay between the masses of workers and the high-salaried officials, privilege is enjoyed by a fortunate minority.

(2) It is true that the great majority of bondholders own only small amounts of bonds, but exactly the same plea is made in England and America by the defenders of capitalism. In Russia, although precise figures are not available, it is known that some of the bondholders own large or comparatively large amounts. But in any event, this is beside the point. Under Socialism there will be no investors.

(3) The S.P.G.B. has not questioned the claim that Russian industry (like industry in Japan, Turkey, and other countries) has expanded rapidly since the war.

(4) The S.P.G.B. has not denied that the standard of living has risen since the Bolshevists obtained power. That does not mean, however, that we accept all of the extravagant claims made by some Communists. Russia is a country in which rigid censorship and suppression of independent working-class organisation is the normal order of things. As, therefore, it is impossible to hear the unfettered expression of the opinion of the workers themselves, we must accept with caution the claims made by the Russian Government since that Government has the usual interest in presenting the facts in a favourable light.

In conclusion, we would ask our correspondent a question. Seeing that the Russian economic system is not Socialism because it lacks the essential features of Socialism, will he tell us by what name he would describe it other than the one used by our speaker, “ State capitalism.”

Ed. Comm.