Letter: Control and countries (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Control and countries

Many people on the Left define Socialism simply as workers’ control of industry through workers’ councils or soviets. As commodity-money relations would remain this cannot be Socialism, could it be workers’ control of capitalism? or would such circumstances inevitably give rise to a governing élite? If not would the workers to be exploited, if so by whom?

Marx wrote that “no nation that oppresses another can itself be free.” Whilst it is correct not to support capitalist “National Liberation” movements, what is the position of the remaining colonies of a European nation if that nation becomes Socialist? For instance, in Britain’s case what would happen to Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Falkland Islands, etc?

In my previous letter regarding the actions a single Socialist country would need to take when surrounded by hostile capitalist countries you accused me of seeing only a “one way dependence” when I said such a country would have to be self-sufficient. In the first instance there will be only one Socialist country, it would inevitably be joined by others, but not immediately. In this period it will be isolated and even attacked by capitalist states who will see it as a threat to their survival, remember the Allies attacked Russia in 1918. In this situation it would certainly require an armed Force even if structured differently than at present. I do not believe you have devoted enough thought to this problem.

As most workers in the world live under some form of dictatorship should they aim first for a parliamentary democracy which would allow them to organize industrially and politically, or is it possible to have a direct transition from dictatorship to Socialism?

Finally, do you think Socialist society should have an industrial or ecological base?

Ian Greenslade

Southminster

Reply:

You rightly point out that any change in the running of industry which left commodity production intact could not be Socialism. Those who advocate workers’ control of industry, through workers’ councils, also envisage the mass of workers following a revolutionary leadership to the promised land. It does not need much imagination to work out who would then do the exploiting.

We suggest that you examine the full implications of Socialism. It would be quite impossible to implement production solely for use and free access to goods and services in one country. Capitalism is worldwide and its inherent contradictions and social problems are experienced by workers in all countries. Ideas do not develop in isolation. Both the need to end capitalism and the possibility for that end arise out of the nature of the system itself. It is extremely unlikely that the vast majority of workers in only one country will realize their class position in society. It is quite inconceivable that Socialist understanding could mature among the working class in one country unbeknown to fellow members of their class throughout the rest of the world. (The Russian revolution was not Socialist). Socialism is by definition worldwide. The establishment of a social system based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means for production will signify the end of national frontiers. There will be no possible use for armed forces. For reasons already stated the existence of dictatorships will not prevent the spread of Socialist knowledge. The aim for democracy should never be separated from the objective of Socialism.

In Socialist society production will be geared to human need. Industry will be necessary and ecological balance possible.

Editors.

Answers to a Correspondent: How Should Socialists Vote? (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

How Should Socialists Vote?

Several questions have been put to us by two readers at Brighouse, Yorks. The first concerns the use of the vote.

Must a Socialist refrain from voting at the Parliamentary and Municipal Elections until such times as the S.P.G.B. membership warrants its own candidates’ standing ?

If so (and we gather from your paper that such is the case), do you not thus help establish a permanent Imperialistic Tory rule? In advising your readers and members not to vote, surely this has the effect of strengthening the anti-Labour parties.

Reply.

If the S.P.G.B. case is sound then the Socialist must vote for Socialist candidates only, and if there are no Socialist candidates then not vote for any of the non-Socialists, whether Liberal, Tory, Labour, Fascist or Communist. The only object of the Socialist Party of Great Britain is to achieve Socialism, which necessitates first gaining a majority of convinced Socialists and then gaining control of the machinery of government. To win over the workers to Socialism involves convincing them that capitalism and all the parties which take part in administering capitalism are undeserving of working-class support, and that Socialism is literally the only thing worth fighting for. How could we do this if at the same time we were telling the workers that the difference between Liberal and Tory, or between Tory and Labour, is worth fighting for? Our certainty that in the long run the workers will come over to Socialism is based on the impossibility of any party making capitalism run smoothly and in a way satisfactory to the workers. But if it is in fact an impossibility to make capitalism satisfactory to the workers, then it inevitably follows that any party which associates itself with the administration of capitalism must sooner or later find itself an object of working-class hatred and discontent. In other words, every party which becomes the Government under capitalism is bound to fall into disrepute with the workers. The only possible and logical course for the S.P.G.B. is, therefore, the one it adopts of dissociating itself from the Labour Party and every party which is prepared to administer capitalism. Our strength is bound up with our independence and with the fact that we have never misled the workers by telling them that capitalism can be made to work to their advantage.

Our correspondents draw the unwarranted conclusion that the attitude of the S.P.G.B. helps the Tories. Actually our membership is drawn from men and women who were formerly in all the capitalist parties, or in no party at all. The Socialist Party grows at the expense of Liberals and Tories, Fascists, I.L.P. and Communist, as well as at the expense of the Labour Party and the unorganised. The possibility of Socialists voting for any non-Socialist candidate does not and cannot arise. If those who proclaim themselves Socialists were to vote later on for non-Socialist candidates, it would be because they had ceased to be Socialists—or had never understood Socialism—and in that event, having lost their political bearings, they are just as likely to vote Tory as to vote Labour. Take, for example, those so- called Socialists who voted for the National Government.

Finally, we would remind our correspondents that all over the world there are Governments of the kind they describe as “Imperialistic-Tory.” Who was it made those Governments possible? Obviously not the small minority of Socialists, whose votes are so few that they could not make any difference to the result of elections. No, what made those Governments possible was, among other things, the disgust and disillusionment created among the workers, by the attempts of Labour Governments to administer the capitalist system.

Is the Labour Party the lesser evil? 

Now, agreeing that some economic system must operate until the establishment of Socialism, and that system is capitalism, is not the Labour reformism type (with all its faults) preferable to the shade that extends beyond to the Hitler extreme?

For International policy alone, is it not worth our while to support the Labour Party?

Reply.

This question, like the first one, takes no account of the impossibility of making the workers satisfied with capitalism. Because of that every party which comes into office on a wave of discontent and temporary popularity, is fated to be kicked out of office after a brief term—discredited, disliked, disheartened and disunited; to give way to another party rising on a new wave of discontent. To say that the Labour reformism type of party is preferable to other parties, up to Hitler's party, is to overlook the fact that all of these parties are reformist parties of the same general type. No political party can nowadays gain power unless it appeals successfully with a programme of reforms to the mass of the electors. Hitler is playing this game strictly according to the rules. Indeed, his promises of drastic reforms and Socialism in a few months, and his pretence of bustling energy show that he has beaten the Hendersons and Webbs and Maxtons, and the other reformist leaders at their own game.

The reference to the international policy of the Labour Party is somewhat staggering. The party which entered the war-time coalition Governments, and shares responsibility for every action of those Governments at home and abroad, is not in a position to boast that it is in any respect more enlightened than the Liberals and Tories. The international scene is not to be changed by fair words and humanitarian sentiments uttered from behind the ramparts of the British armed forces. International discord exists because of capitalism, and the two Labour Governments in Great Britain, with their five new cruisers, their bomb-dropping on native villages in Iraq, and their “continuity" of suppression in India and elsewhere, were quite unable to remove the discord or materially alter international relationships. They were regarded abroad simply as the mouthpiece for British capitalism.

Trade Unions and Politics.

We note the S.P.G.B. agrees with Trade Unionism and such protective activity for the proletariate under the present conditions.

Can you, then, deny the view that those unions, to be most effective, must send representatives (at present Labour) to Parliament?

Reply.

We do most emphatically deny that the trade unions have become more effective through sending Labour M.P.s to Parliament.

The majority of the men and women workers are not supporters of the Labour Party, but are sympathetic to the Liberals, the Tories, or to no party at all. The way to get the workers to come together most effectively in trade unions is to emphasise their common interest as workers. This cannot be done if the unions are affiliated to one party—the Labour Party—and supporters of other parties are made to appear almost unfit for trade union membership. A great deal of harm is done to the trade unions through their support of the Labour Party. (A few unions have tried to get over this difficulty by running candidates as Liberals and Tories, as well as Labour.) The dangers of the position become most obvious when a Labour Government is in office. When that happens the influence of the Labour Party is at once used to prevent the unions from embarrassing “their" Government, that is, to prevent them pressing demands for higher wages.

It is not denied that against these big disadvantages the presence of trade union representatives in Parliament has certain advantages, but the disadvantages are far weightier. From the Socialist point of view one of the most serious is that the trade union M.P. almost invariably comes to regard himself as speaking for the “industry," so that we see so-called non-party groups in Parliament, representing the railways, the mines, agriculture, road transport, etc. Periodically this brings its natural consequence in the shape of trade union M.P.s in one group backing the employers against a similar group in a rival industry. This has happened, for example, in connection with the rivalry of railways and road transport.

Such a position cuts right across the lesson the Socialist is trying to teach, that the interest of the working-class is opposed to that of the capitalist class.

Socialism in one country. 

Can one country, having elected a Socialist Power, and the rest of the world remaining capitalistic, operate Socialism within its own borders? 

If not, what would that Socialist Government do?

Reply.

The possibility of one country having a Socialist majority long before other countries need not be seriously considered, and certainly it is idle to consider it now when the number of Socialists in all the countries together is almost negligible.

The factors which govern the growth of the Socialist movement (the contradictions of capitalism, the more and more glaring evidences of wealth and poverty, the inability to plan production and distribution or to abolish unemployment, and the carrying on of Socialist propaganda) operate everywhere under capitalism. There is no sign that the Socialist movement will grow more quickly in one than in another of the more developed capitalist countries. If it should happen then it will not be a question of a Socialist Government deciding what it will do about the matter, but a question of the whole international Socialist movement deciding what it will do about it. They will have to decide in the light of all the conditions then existing. As we do not know the conditions we cannot prophesy what decision the Socialist movement will arrive at.

Ed. Comm.

No socialism in one country (2026)

From the April 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism is not a collection of separate national systems; it is a global network of production, trade, and competition. Every country is tied to the world market, and survival within that system requires competing for profits, investment, and economic advantage.

Because of this, any attempt to build socialism in one country alone would be forced to operate under capitalist pressures. It would have to maintain wages, compete in international markets, and prioritise economic survival over human need. Step by step, the original goal of a cooperative and democratic society would be pushed aside by the demands of global competition. History shows that isolation does not abolish capitalism — it reshapes it under new management.

Socialism, therefore, is not a national project but a humanity-level one. The working majority everywhere shares the same condition: we produce the wealth of the world yet remain dependent on wages and subject to economic insecurity. Our struggle is not against other nations or peoples, but against a system that divides us while relying on our collective labour.

The necessary conclusion is clear: real emancipation requires conscious, democratic action on a global scale. When people understand their shared interests beyond borders, they can replace production for profit with production for use, competition with cooperation, and economic domination with genuine human freedom. Socialism is not merely an ideal — it is the logical and practical next step in the struggle for a world organised by and for humanity itself.

Global networks

What is often missed in discussions about ‘banana republics’ is that the decisive transformation was not simply political independence but the globalisation of capital itself. In the past, domination appeared visible because it was concentrated in a single corporation or foreign power controlling land, labour, and government institutions directly. Today, control is more diffuse and therefore less obvious. No single company needs to govern a country when financial markets, credit systems, trade dependence, and technological monopolies can discipline entire economies.

Modern states are not passive victims; they actively compete to attract investment, secure export markets, and integrate into global production networks. This creates a situation where governments formally exercise sovereignty while simultaneously adapting policies to maintain competitiveness within the world market. The pressure no longer comes from a colonial administrator but from capital mobility itself — investment can simply move elsewhere.

This helps explain why countries with very different political ideologies often pursue similar economic strategies. Whether governments describe themselves as left, right, nationalist, or progressive, they must operate within the same global framework of profitability, productivity, and trade balance constraints.

In this sense, the historical ‘banana republic’ has not returned, but neither has dependency disappeared. What has emerged instead is a system in which economic power operates structurally rather than territorially. The question today is not who rules directly, but how global economic relations limit the range of choices available to every nation-state.

Structural problem

When reformist governments promise improvements within capitalism, they inevitably collide with economic factors they cannot control — investment decisions, profitability, need for capital accumulation, and global competition. When reforms stall or are reversed, disappointment follows, and many workers understandably turn elsewhere, sometimes towards right-wing populists who appear to challenge the status quo more decisively. This recurring pattern points to a deeper structural problem rather than individual political failure.

Historical examples like the reforms under Lyndon B. Johnson, subsidised education, or public transportation systems in countries such as Brazil show that significant social concessions can exist within capitalism. Free or subsidised services, however, were never simply the result of goodwill; they emerged under specific economic and political conditions — periods of growth, social pressure, or geopolitical competition. When those conditions change, reforms become vulnerable to cuts or restructuring, regardless of which party governs.

This helps explain why debates framed as a struggle between ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’ administrations miss the underlying issue. Policies may differ, but governments operate within the same economic framework, which ultimately prioritises accumulation and fiscal constraints over permanent social guarantees.

The recurring cycle — reform, limitation, frustration, and political backlash — suggests that the problem may not lie primarily in voter misunderstanding or conspiracies, but in the expectation that lasting social security can be achieved through reforms that leave the basic economic structure unchanged.

Understanding this dynamic may be more useful than attributing political shifts solely to ideology or manipulation, since it highlights why similar outcomes reappear across different countries and historical periods.

Moral denunciations

The controversy surrounding Noam Chomsky and his association with Jeffrey Epstein has generated intense debate within the left, but much of the discussion reveals a deeper political confusion. The focus has largely shifted toward personal morality and individual guilt rather than examining the social structures that allow power, wealth, and influence to concentrate in the first place.

Capitalist society consistently brings intellectuals, politicians, financiers, and academics into overlapping networks because access to funding, publishing, and institutional influence depends on proximity to wealth. This is not primarily a question of individual virtue or hypocrisy, but of how a system organised around capital inevitably connects cultural authority with economic power.

Sections of the left tend to respond to such controversies through moral denunciation, as if removing flawed individuals could purify politics. Yet history shows that replacing personalities does not alter the underlying social relations that reproduce inequality and elite influence. The problem is systemic, not psychological.

A serious socialist perspective therefore avoids both personal hero-worship and moral panic. Intellectual contributions should be evaluated critically and independently of personal reputation, while recognising that meaningful change cannot come from reforming elites but from conscious democratic control of social production by the majority itself.

In that sense, the debate should move beyond personalities and return to the central question: what kind of social organisation continually produces these concentrations of power, and how can society collectively move beyond them?

R.

Letter: Three questions (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Three questions

Since the late ’forties when I listened to Socialist policy and principles at Lincoln’s Inn Fields or at Hyde Park Corner, I have considered the propositions of the SPGB. I find myself in agreement with the political theory you set forth, but there are three points which I have never been able to resolve.

The hypothetical situation of a Socialist party coming in as an administration in any country in which you have a connection would mean that it would, as a Socialist entity, probably find itself alone in a capitalist world. Would not the maxim of Lenin that “socialism is impossible to sustain in one country alone” apply? (I agree that Lenin’s conception of Socialism was erroneous but the doctrine would, I think, just as truly apply to any of your sister parties.)

As I understand the Socialist position there would be no police or law-enforcement body in a Socialist society. It is agreed that most crime stems from existence in a capitalist society, but I cannot think that all crime would disappear under Socialism. Rape, for example, would probably exist in any society. How does one deal with violent anti-social acts which, so far as one can tell, are not the product of capitalism?

I cannot accept that Socialism and religion are incompatible. True, the way in which the capitalist establishment uses religion for its own ends obscures the issue and prolongs the coming of Socialism, but it seems to me that contemplation of the possibility or otherwise of a life after death is purely a matter for the individual, and to insist that one’s opinions in this matter should be declared before being considered as a member of the SPGB appears high-handed if not dictatorial. After all, if one were regularly to consult a psychiatrist (for which, for many people, religion is a substitute), would this too preclude membership?

E. Morley 

London S.E.5.

Reply

For convenience we have numbered our correspondent’s questions. The replies are:

1. Socialism will be world-wide because the system it will replace is itself world-wide. The establishment of Socialism in one country alone is impossible because the means of production are operated throughout the globe. You appear to assume that political ideas cannot cross political boundaries. This is not so. Even in the nineteenth century when communications were much slower and more laborious than today, ideas spread very quickly. Even repression and censorship by the ruling class could not prevent ideas spreading. Remember that 1848 was called “the year of revolutions” when uprisings occurred all over Europe. Indeed, there was an often-quoted saying which sums this up admirably — “When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold”.

2. See the reply to another correspondent on the “problem” of crime.

3. Socialism and religion are incompatible. The former explains man’s development and his social relations in material terms which we can verify. Religion on the other hand “explains” the world by reference to the existence of an unprovable entity, i.e. God. The belief in a possibility of life after death is a soporific which prevents the action that is urgently needed to solve present- day problems being taken now.

4. Undergoing psychiatric treatment is no more a bar to membership of the Socialist Party than is undergoing treatment for corns.

Editors.

Letter: Socialism in a single country? (1995)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism in a single country?

Dear Editors,

As a newcomer, while supporting the goal of socialism globally, I question your rejection of the idea that it cannot or should not occur in one country beforehand, especially as this appears incompatible with the declared principle of a "speedy termination" of capitalism.

Given that formidable beneficiaries and advocates of capitalism world-wide are united in their determination to maintain their system, attempting to overcome them all simultaneously does not seem the best use of limited resources, nor does it provide a tangible stimulus to the world’s exploited to break free from lifelong restraint.

To use a demolition analogy: it's unnecessary to destroy a dam by exhaustively coating the entire surface with voluminous plastic explosive in order to shatter every part synchronously.

The same result is achievable by concentrating a limited charge in one place, so allowing what is constrained to first break free with such drive that the rest of the barrier steadily wears away in conjunction with an increasing rate of escape.

One nation succeeding through socialism would make the advantages so clear to others, so quickly, that any countermeasures to bolster the international profit system would be swept away by the dynamic surge for the same benefits.

A sufficiently developed nation could go it alone and meet all its needs and requirements through socialism without being isolated from the rest of the world (though even isolation— as duress to reconform—would fail since retaining global ties would be preferable rather than essential).

Any raw materials that had to be imported could be bartered for. And if necessary, by exporting surplus goods, foreign currencies could be obtained for maintaining world-wide communications and transport links etc.

Preserving these international relations would not be a betrayal of socialist values nor an act of reformation. It would be a means to and end. whereby the baby gains protection and its diet is supplemented, while also enabling all to observe it swiftly growing strong, healthy and contented.

Without any financial restraints, wastage of resources and dog-eat-dog disunity, the full benefits of common ownership could be realised throughout the pioneer nation, transforming and improving lives to such an extent that a socialist chain reaction would inevitably be triggered across the planet.

By insisting on simultaneous global socialism, or none at all, time might run out due to capitalism’s destructiveness before the former can be achieved. 

Max Hess, 

Folkestone, Kent

Reply:

We don't say that socialism should not be established in one country but that it can't be. If it could, then we wouldn't be opposed to this, but it can’t because capitalism is a world system. not just in the sense of being dominated by the operation of world market forces but also in terms of the underlying technical conditions of production and world-wide division of labour which socialism will inherit.

No one country could be self-sufficient not even the most developed country in the world, the United States, nor the largest Russia, nor the most populous, China, nor Japan, nor even a multi-country trading bloc like the Common Market And the idea of any other part of the world going it alone is just ludicrous.

What this means is that no one part of the world can opt out, at least not without suffering a drastic reduction in the amount and variety of goods and services available to satisfy the needs and wants of those living there. People would be deprived of products from other part of the world or would have to work longer and devote more resources than otherwise to producing them.

In these circumstances, even if private property and the profit motive were to be eliminated within its frontiers, the country concerned would hardly provide the attractive model you assume for people in other countries to want to follow.

You say that this drawback could be got round by bartering with the outside, capitalist world, but have you thought this through? The products to be acquired from the outside world would have to be paid for (whether in money or in kind) at the full market price. But these outside products would not be able to be acquired unless some products produced in the country had first been exchanged on the world market. For this to happen they would have to be competitive in terms of quality and price with the same products produced in the capitalist world, otherwise no other country would want to buy or barter for them.

So already, to participate in the world market, the isolated would-be socialist country would have to behave capitalistically, striving to keep labour costs down and so further restricting the already reduced standard of living of the population. As people would be unlikely to agree to this voluntarily a new ruling class to enforce this would be likely to emerge. The end result would be not "socialism in one country" but state capitalism in one country.

There is another point you overlook. Abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism is not like demolishing a dam. It requires the existence of an active and participating socialist majority. Without this there can be no socialism, so for socialism to be attempted in just one country there would have to emerged a socialist majority in just that country. But how likely is this to happen in practice?

We think it is highly unlikely. Given the fact that social conditions and problems are basically the same all over the world, and given that socialism is the idea of a world society where the resources of the Earth belong in common to all humanity, we can see no reason why socialist ideas, when they begin to catch on, should only spread in one particular country and not in others.

In our view it is much more reasonable to assume that socialist ideas will spread more or less evenly in all countries. In which case, apart from being impossible to achieve anyway but the problem of perhaps having to try to establish socialism in one country won’t even arise.

Editors.

Letter: Ownership and Arms (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ownership and Arms

Your party supports common ownership of the means of production and distribution, but opposes nationalization, calling it state capitalism. How, therefore does your party propose to bring about common ownership and does it wish to do this for all industries?

Your party opposes religion, why? Is this because your party is based on Marxism?

Finally, why does your party oppose and wish to abolish the armed forces? In a socialist state surely they could be used to defend freedom and democracy. If this country were to be invaded by hostile forces what would your attitude be to resistance?

Michael Newton,

Cambridgeshire

Reply:

Nationalization is a means of running capitalism under the auspices of the state. It has nothing whatever to do with Socialism and bears no resemblance to common ownership. Look at the coal mines, the railways, electricity and steel: the same capitalist economics of money, wages, and profits and competition for markets hold sway as in the “private sector”. Common ownership means that the whole world and all its industry and resources will be held in common by all mankind. Goods and services, being produced solely for use, will be freely available according to need. How? A democratic majority on a world basis will first come to understand the need to change and then vote for it. This presupposes their readiness to co-operate in bringing it into being and running it.

Yes, Marx has supplied the scientific basis for opposing religion. The crude and primitive mumbo- jumbo of religion has served successive ruling classes through centuries. When the working class develop class-consciousness they will have no further need for pie in the sky. There is no rational or scientific basis for religious ideas; clinging to them anchors the workers to capitalism.

Your final question assumes “this country” will go Socialist first and be on its own. You must be on your guard against nationalistic habits of thought. The workers of the world are confronted by the same social problems, all arising from the same cause—capitalism. Socialist ideas will not spread in isolated pockets here and there. Millions of workers in this country must become Socialists before the system here can change. Can your really imagine this happening while in the rest of the world ideas stand still? As Socialism involves working together and organized co-operation, then as the movement for Socialism grows the liaison and unity of workers will grow and will necessarily be world-wide. Hostile forces are a product of capitalism. They are represented in the military machines of rival capitalists struggling for markets and profits. Workers have no country to defend, and armed forces only exist to conserve the property of the capitalists. Workers have a common interest wherever they are, and no reason to be hostile to each other. For further expansion of the above arguments you will find our pamphlets War and Questions of the Day well worth reading.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Nationalist Parties (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

I should like to ask the Socialist Party view on nationalism and anarchism and some other points.

There is hardly a country in Western Europe that has not spawned a nationalist or separatist movement. Basques and Catalans in Spain, Bretons and Corsicans in France, Frisians in Holland, Scots, Welsh and Cornish in Britain. As all political parties are expressions of class interests, where do the nationalist movements stand on this score? Are these movements fighting to save minority cultures, and if they are is this good? As you advocate Socialism on a world scale you will surely need to satisfy the linguistic and cultural demands of minority peoples.

Second, your views on anarchism. I have read anarchist literature and found that their view of post-revolutionary society is similar to the Socialist Party’s, the disagreements appear to be over the methods used to obtain this objective. This being so, should Socialists work with anarchists?

As the capitalist class has vast wealth not only in cash but also in goods (houses, cars, art objects etc.) will these be confiscated after the revolution?

As the world cannot be expected to become Socialist all at once what would be the relationship between the Socialist and capitalist countries, for instance what would be the relationship between a Socialist Britain and capitalist Saudi-Arabia, considering that the latter supplies most of our crude oil? Would a country becoming Socialist have to achieve self-sufficiency?

Finally, do you think it desirable that the Socialist parties round the world unite to form a single World Socialist Party?

Ian Greenslade

Southminster

Reply:

What makes capitalists a class is that they have in common their ownership of the means of living, and an interest in preserving it and continuing production for profit. However, there are various sections of the capitalist class, and the regime in any one country reflects the dominance of a particular section. In Britain and other advanced countries the industrial capitalist holds sway, and other sections — as, in the recent past, the housing landlord — can be sent to the wall for his benefit. Thus, not one but several parties represent the interests of capitalists; each will favour a particular section, and will argue that to pursue policies on those lines is the best thing for the system as a whole.

The case of nationalist organizations is for local capitalists instead of foreign ones, and this is supported by programmes of reforms which they say would be made possible by the change. There are many recent examples to enable you to form an opinion of the consequences. The desire to preserve regional speech and traditions need fear nothing from Socialism. These suffer under the capitalist nationstate; “education” has ironed them out severely, and many people divest themselves of local speech and manners because they find them handicaps in getting jobs and maintaining prestige.

Socialists have a fundamentally different view of society from anarchists’. The latter see not the capitalist system but “authority”, particularly that of the state, as their enemy and therefore reject the idea of gaining control of the state machine to change society. It is difficult to generalize about anarchists because of the variety of their opinions as to what they seek to do, but anarchist publications continually demand social reforms. What is the use of advocating a free society and at the same time bolstering this one; or opposing the state and at the same time applying to it? We have nothing in common with that.

We are concerned with people getting houses in Socialism because they cannot get them now, not with "confiscation”. You will find that when servants are not available the desire to live in palatial houses will vanish (this is already happening now). When art objects no longer represent large sums of money there will be a different evaluation of them. We have all heard about priceless masterpieces found in attics; presumably they were put there because their owners thought poorly of them, until the discovery of the money connection endowed them with remarkable beauty after all.

To answer your final questions briefly, Socialism in one country is not possible. But you are assuming a one-way dependence. Turn this round and ask how a monarchical dictatorship would manage in a Socialist world, whether it would be capable of self-sufficiency, and how likely it would be in those circumstances to resist the movement towards Socialism in its own territory. There are Socialist parties with the same Object and Principles as ourselves in several countries, and with the growth of the movement we shall no doubt have to consider world organization. Hasten the day!

Editorial Committee.

Correspondence: Socialism for Great Britain only. (1931)

From the November 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (W. Langham, W. Ealing) asks how this country will obtain food supplies from abroad after the establishment of Socialism here. It is, of course, inconceivable that Socialism could exist in Great Britain alone while the rest of the world remained capitalist. But this presents no special problem, since it is equally inconceivable that capitalist development and Socialist propaganda could convert a majority to Socialism in this country without comparable progress having been made in the rest of the capitalist world.

When Socialism has been established on an international basis, the problem of producing and distributing goods will naturally call for organisation, and society will set up administrative machinery for that purpose. The organisation of production and distribution will not be fettered by the present national frontiers, and the problem of moving goods from one country or continent to another will not be different in kind from the problem of distribution within these areas. The world already shows many instances of smoothly-working international machinery, such, for example, as the Universal Postal Union, which co-ordinates the international transport of postal matter.

Editorial Committee.

Letters: The blessings of money (1998)

Letters to the Editors from the June 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

The blessings of money

Dear Editors,

In the March edition of the Socialist Standard there is an article entitled “The Curse of Money”. Whereas I consider such ought to be termed “The Blessings of Money”. For when Pol Pot destroyed money he didn’t advance his country to new heights, but rather dragged it back to the Stone Age.

Money gives the individual the facility of choice: spend it on immediate gratification, or invest it for long-term interest. Do as you please—but of course you take the consequences.

I have also taken the opportunity of enclosing several items from the Nottingham Evening Post, Friday 13 March 1998. You will find its very relevant to my comments.

Alan Donn, 

Nottingham

Reply: 

Of course if you have capitalism people need money—that’s one of the things wrong with capitalism—and the more of it you have the better you can live. But we’re not proposing the abolition of money within a capitalist society. As you point out, when Pol Pot tried this in Cambodia it had disastrous results. What we are advocating is a change in the basis of society from class ownership to common ownership so allowing the purpose of production to be changed from making a profit to meeting needs, one consequence of which will be that money will become unnecessary. In such a society people would have a much wider choice than they do today where the amount of money you have limits what you can get. The point made in the book which the article you mention reviewed was that money also poisons social relationships by reducing them to commercial, buying and selling.

The items you sent us from the Nottingham Evening Post about bonus payments to workers in Jessops department store don’t back up the point you are trying to make. They report that 750 workers are to share a “bumper payout” of £2m representing 22 percent of their annual salary or 12 weeks’ wages. A bit of simple arithmetic shows that each worker will be receiving an average of about £2,667 which is 22 percent of £12,112 a year—well below the average wage, even if some of the 750 will be part-timers. Jessops is part of the John Lewis Partnership which operates a scheme of paying workers low basic wages and then topping them up with bonuses related to profits. Most workers would probably prefer to receive their wages as a guaranteed £12,112 a year rather than as a basic £9,445 plus a possible bonus of £2,667. Profit-sharing schemes are a swindle designed to get workers to work harder and be grateful to their bosses for paying a part of their wages as if they were a share in profits.—Editors.

 

Socialism on one island?

Dear Editors,

Re your reply (“Socialism on one island?” April), you restate that a global balanced growth in socialist awareness is more likely, and ask: “What’s so special about the [British] 1 percent . . .?” Of course, the answer is Britons aren’t special, and socialism might take off quicker elsewhere. But can you not envisage a time when one country might have a particularly influential socialist; TV programme; publicity campaign; profits-before-people scandal etc—or a combination of these—which results in exceptional progress? That country’s socialist party would then have a choice of either pressing on to abolish capitalism first, or deliberately easing off to avoid uneven development—this latter choice probably being made if party members believe one-country socialism to be impossible. If this belief is erroneous, a critical opportunity may then be lost. Hence the suggestion that the feasibility of go-it-alone socialism be properly evaluated now.

For example, you suggest the downside of British-only socialism would be going without citrus fruits and other products “that won’t grow in these climes”. But a counter argument is that whereas using large translucent canopies, hothouses, genetically modified plants, artificial lighting etc to enable such growth may be economic madness under capitalism, it can easily become a socialist reality if needed.

I’m not nationalistically “deliberately aiming to establish socialism in just [one] country while the rest of the world remains solidly capitalist”. The fact is common ownership must start somewhere, and even you acknowledge the likelihood of “socialists having won control in some parts of the world but not everywhere”, so why not consider the workability of one-country socialism and its ramifications for global capitalism, in case we get the chance to board the first bus that comes our way? Ignoring it without good reason, and waiting years longer until a dozen come along together, isn’t necessarily the best way of getting from A to B.

Max Hess, 

Folkestone, Kent

Reply: 

The establishment of socialism is not a race between national sections to see who can get there first, but a co-ordinated world movement to ensure that we all get there at more or less the same time. If there is any uneven development it will be up to the world socialist movement to decide what to do. As we said in our pamphlet Questions of the Day (1978, p.64):

“Socialists are sometimes asked about another aspect of uneven development. This relates to the possibility that the socialist movement could be larger in one country than in another and at the stage of being able to gain control of the machinery of government before the socialist movements elsewhere were as far advanced.

Leaving aside for the moment the question as to whether such a situation is likely to arise, we can say that it presents no problems when viewed against the world-wide character of the socialist movement. Because capitalist governments are organised on a territorial basis each socialist organisation has the task of seeking democratically to gain political control in the country where it operates. This however is merely an organisational convenience; there is only one socialist movement, of which the separate socialist organisations are constituent parts. When the socialist movement grows larger its activities will be fully co-ordinated through its world-wide organisation. Given a situation in which the organised socialists of only a part of the world were in a position to gain control of the machinery of government, the decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time.”

Editors.

Letter: Problems of Socialist Administration (1939)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent, L. H. Tickner (N.13), referring to our reply to ” D.G.D.” in the February issue of the Socialist Standard, writes : —

“You say that (when the working class has gained political power) ‘changes will be introduced in orderly fashion … in co-operation with their fellows in other lands.’ (L.H.T.’s emphasis.)

“While this is right in theory, it occurs to me that, if this condition is essential, Socialism may be expected in, say, a hundred years’ time, or may be that is just a little pessimistic or optimistic?”

Reply.

Socialism in this country alone is impossible.

It is unthinkable from many points of view, one of which concerns our reader’s question.

It is unthinkable that capitalism will force the workers of England to become Socialists, and not have the same effect on the workers of other coun­tries. When the British worker is ready for Socialism, his fellow in the industrially advanced capitalist countries will also be ready. Workers of all countries are faced by the same problems, the solution to which is the same—Socialism.

Having gained political power in their respec­tive countries, Socialists will together plan the working of the new society. Obviously, it will be in their interests to do this in an efficient, orderly fashion. For instance, it will be necessary for them to ascertain, roughly, what things are required, and in what quantities. Then the necessary steps to fulfil these requirements can be taken. The required number of workers will be able to set to work on their different jobs.

As countries are dependent on one another for different articles, it will be necessary for Socialists of different countries to co-operate.

We are unable to oblige our correspond when he asks us to prophesy the date of the Socialist revolution.

We would, however, remind our reader that, nowadays, movements often grow quickly. For example, the German Nazis within a few years grew from a small divided minority into the largest party in the German State. Similarly, we believe that once the Socialist movement has got a firm footing, it will grow rapidly.

The question asked by our correspondent, and other questions of a similar nature, have been dealt with in the following issues of the Socialist Standard : —

August, 1927. November, 1931. September, 1933. June, 1932. February, 1938. February, 1923.

Clifford Allen

Letter: Housing in Russia and "Socialism in one country" (1958)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader (Mr. R. L. Rhodes, Trowbridge) writes as follows:—

Dear Comrade,

In “Notes By The Way” (Socialist Standard, December, 1957) you comment on bad housing in the Soviet Union. Surely after having about 25 million people made homeless after the last war had ended and added to other problems of reconstruction, only a person who could perform miracles could have solved the problem over night. The SP.G.B. claims the Soviet Union to be a capitalist state, and that Socialism cannot be brought about in any country unless the whole world turns to Socialism. This theory in my opinion is wrong, as for instance say, Britain’s working class were prepared to elect a Socialist government and in the United States they still elected a capitalist government. What would be the attitude of the S.G.P.B.?

Yours fraternally

R. L. Rhodes.

Reply.

Housing in Russia

Our correspondent thinks it quite reasonable in view of wartime destruction, that the Russian government has not bear able to “solve the problem overnight” This is of course precisely the excuse given by the British and other governments. It is a characteristic piece of capitalist double-talk. With the resources available in Russia, Britain, America and elsewhere it would have been technically quite practicable to have the population decently housed but for the fact that in each country priority is given to other things, notably the fantastic expenditure on armaments, including the American, British and Russian A bombs and H bombs. Since each government places “guns before butter,” and before working class housing, they can all plead that the residue of materials and labour is not sufficient for decent workers’ houses. And of course the inability to build houses only applies to working class houses, not to the abundant, luxurious accommodation made available for the rich and the leading politicians in all countries.

We would also draw our correspondent’s attention again to the statement about Russian housing in our December issue. How does his plea that houses were destroyed in vast numbers in the war that ended over 12 years ago justify the present building (for the workers only) of new houses that are “one storey buildings very little larger than a one-car garage?" And of course the masses of slums and near-slums were there in Russia before the war broke out. They are not the product of the war.

"Socialism in One Country”

There are two quite distinct notions about the possibility of getting Socialism in one country alone.

One is held by people who think that Socialism can be imposed on the people by the government and that all you need therefore is for the government to be taken over by a group who want Socialism. The point about this theory is, of course, that it assumes that you can get Socialism without having to wait for the workers to become Socialists. If this theory had been sound our correspondent would not have written to us asking a question but would have written giving us the answer. He would have been able to tell us that in 1918 the Russian Communist Party seized power and then, in accordance with the theory of Socialism in one country, had triumphantly introduced Socialism in Russia without having to wait for the workers in Russia to become Socialist or for the workers out of Russia to become Socialist. Our correspondent does not tell us this because it is not true. After 40 years of power, what they have produced is State capitalism, and we readily agree that you can have State capitalism in one country.

The other theory about Socialism in one country is the one our correspondent asks us to consider, the notion of the workers becoming Socialist in one part of the capitalist world but not in other parts, this theory has been put to us ever since the S.P.G.B. was formed but it has undergone repeated changes—the country in which this is supposed to happen is never the same. At one time, it was Germany where the workers were supposed, to be on the verge of Socialism; then the purblind I.L.P. told us that it was Australia (they even had it happening in one state alone in Australia, in Queensland). Then Mexico and France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, New Zealand and numerous other countries, each had their turn—not forgetting Britain where Socialism was about to dawn with the Labour Government of 1924. All of these examples were based on the supposition, now put in the letter above, that the majority in one country become Socialists while those elsewhere do not. Which brings us from fanciful assumptions back to reality. Our correspondent gives us no reason whatever for supposing that something will happen which is contrary to all experience. The overwhelming majority of workers in Britain, Russia, U.S.A. and everywhere else have not yet abandoned their belief in capitalism. Those who have become Socialists are everywhere a small minority, and everywhere at present the Socialist idea spreads only slowly. Experience everywhere supports the view that the progress of the Socialist movement will be much the same everywhere because broadly the workers’ experience of capitalism is everywhere similar. Also the movement in one country influences growth in other countries. The tempo will at some stage increase but again there is no evidence of any kind to suggest that it will quicken in Britain and hang back in U.S.A. and Russia or vice versa. On the contrary the only expectation is that the growth of the Socialist movement everywhere will be accompanied by increasingly effective common international action by the Socialist movement. The international Socialist movement will be strong everywhere before the possibility of Socialism arises, and if the election at which Socialists take governmental control out of the hands of the capitalists in one country slightly precedes the elections at which the workers elsewhere do the same, the situation will present no problem of any moment The capitalists everywhere will be at the end of their rule, and will know that they are at the end of their rule, in face of the worlds’ Socialists acting as one united movement

Editorial Committee

Letter: Socialism In One Country (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Were England to achieve Socialism or even be in process of achieving that ideal goal, would we not become economically strangled by all other countries? Our natural wealth being limited to coal and iron, we are entirely * dependent on the means of survival to a prejudiced, vindictive capitalist world.

I would be pleased to know my fears are ungrounded, and would be grateful for a reply.

H. F. 

Leeds.

Reply:

Our correspondent’s assumption is, in fact, false. He himself points out that England, for example, is deficient in many types of natural wealth which are essential to a modern society. This is also true of many other countries. Even those countries which are naturally rich often find it to their advantage to import raw materials or manufactures.

The modern process of producing and distributing wealth is an intensely social and co-operative act, which no country can opt out of. Because of this, any attempt to set up Socialism in one country must come to grief, for that country would be forced to enter into commercial relations with the capitalist part of the world. The very fact of that country trading with others would mean that its "Socialism" was at an end.! 

Socialism, therefore, is nothing if it is not a world-wide system. Some parts of the world may advance towards it slightly before others. But the eventual establishment of it must be a virtually simultaneous act, to transform society from a competitive to a co-operative basis.

Editorial Committee

Letters: Socialism on one island? (1998)

Letters to the Editors from the April 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism on one island?

Dear Editors,

Is a socialist Britain really still an “impossibility” (Editors’ reply, Letters, Socialist Standard, January)? If the people understood what socialism was, and voted to make a go of it, is there proof: That if we resorted to all the available land for food production, there would not be enough? That we are incapable of producing satisfactory goods we need no matter what? Has there been a scrupulous and fair evaluation into such matters? Advances in productivity may have now reached a state where self-sufficiency in food, goods and essential services is no longer the “impossibility” it once was in Russia, etc due to economic backwardness.

Food is being destroyed, stockpiled or not grown because over- rather than under-productiveness has become a problem for capitalism. Goods can also be mass-produced now with comparative ease. If financial restraints were removed entirely, considerable latent productive forces could be brought into play-—including millions of people unemployed and wasting their labour in banking, etc. new techniques could be adopted, like widespread recycling of metals and other materials. It does not happen now simply because of the financial cost.

The world market needs countries to keep playing the capitalist game. If they can opt out, it would be global capitalism that loses—not socialist countries utilising a far more productive, efficient and flexible system. Your “world car” was merely an example of global market forces—not “interdependence”. Various parts are produced in different countries due simply to more favourable economies and tax systems, cheaper and better prepared workers, grants to attract foreign firms and other incentives that boost profits. You cannot extrapolate from this market that British socialism could not meet all needs. Socialism is superior in many ways, and as no sensible attempt to establish it has ever been made, only proper evaluation of hard facts can shed light on what the outcome might be.

There is no proof that retaining limited financial links would cause a socialist country to fail. Twenty-four million tourists brought £12 billion here in 1995. If this helped socialism to thrive by allowing a few imports of items which Britain could not provide, then it makes sense. British socialism succeeds. Visitors go home impressed. The world’s media report socialism works well. Other populations inevitably consider how they would benefit from joining in. Socialism soon expands. The Socialist Party must handle money to end capitalism. A socialist Britain would be doing the same.

Political, economic and other factors make even development of socialism world-wide unlikely. If supporting evidence does not exist, maintaining that one-country socialism is impossible may be a mistake. Furthermore, must not activists ease off promoting socialism if other countries were lagging behind, thereby causing supporters to despair and feel let down?

Max Hess, 

Folkestone

Reply:

To start with your last point—which in fact is the whole point—we fundamentally disagree that “political, economic and other factors make even development of socialism world-wide unlikely”. We think the opposite is true.

Leaving aside for the moment that one aspect of the idea of socialism is a world-wide society without frontiers, passports and separate nation-states, why should the idea of a society of common ownership, democratic control and production for use not profit, when it begins to take off, progress quicker in (to take your example) Britain as opposed to France or Germany or America or Japan or Argentina or South Africa or . . . ? What’s so special about the 1 percent or so of the world’s population who live on these islands off the northwest coast of the Eurasian landmass?

Life, problems, concerns–and the objective solution–are the same wherever capitalism exists. This is why it is unreasonable to suppose that people in one area will come to see through capitalism without this happening to people in the other areas too, at more or less the same rate.

Already, under capitalism, people are beginning to think in world terms. More and more people are coming to appreciate world music and world theatre. Millions more follow world sporting events, and there is a growing consciousness that all humans are part of one world, that we share a common planet. As more than one astronaut has remarked, when looking down on the Earth you can’t see any frontiers. Millions of people throughout the world are concerned about world poverty and world hunger and problems such as global warming and tropical deforestation.

This is a reflection of the material fact that we are increasingly living in one, interdependent world, albeit a capitalist one at the moment. It is this interdependence which has long meant that there are no national solutions to today’s universal social problems. Capitalism is a global problem, to which the answer is global socialism.

If people in one country were lagging behind (for some reason you will be able to imagine better than us) this would not be a reason for easing off but for stepping up spreading socialist ideas amongst the people of that part of the world.

We should perhaps add that we are not so naive as to imagine that the changeover from world capitalism to world socialism will occur over a single weekend. The changeover can be envisaged as taking place over a relatively short period of time of, say, five years (we don’t know) so the situation might well occur of socialists having won control in some parts of the world but not everywhere. Naturally, they will manage as best they can in the circumstances, no doubt ending class ownership and bringing in democratic control of all aspects of social life including production. Their other main priority would be to do what they could to accelerate the winning of power by socialist majorities in the rest of the world.

But this is not the same as the situation you seem to be envisaging of the people of one country deliberately aiming to establish socialism in just that country while the rest of the world remains solidly capitalist. In our view, this is neither desirable nor at all likely to happen. So we are not called upon to speculate about whether people in Britain would be prepared to go without tea, coffee, chocolate, oranges, bananas, rice, soya, rubber, cotton and other products that won’t grow in these climes, or about whether they will be able to manage without new supplies of iron ore, aluminium, nickel, copper, manganese, mercury, chrome, tungsten and other rare metals.

Editors.

Stone age economics?

Dear Editors,

I read with great interest your reply to Bryan Fair’s letter in the January issue of Socialist Standard in which it was stated that a Socialist Britain is an impossibility because of international economical interdependence.

I hope you will forgive me for stating the obvious from this, that is, if all countries worked towards being independent of each other for all their needs, indeed, not only would a socialist Britain be possible . . . but a complete socialist world would be possible!

You also stated that countries such as Russia, Cuba and Nicaragua have tried to escape from the laws of the world market economy, yet to my knowledge, none of these countries have ever really gone down the road to a Stateless Moneyless Society, which I think, must include autonomous self-reliant communities.

Probably, the hub of the difference between myself and your thinking is that I do not believe for one moment, that in a future socialist world, workers would clock in and out of massive factories making goods to deliver across to the other side of the planet. Surely, mass culture of any sort must be eradicated if true socialism is to shine through.

It is, however, quite feasible to understand that people would work within small communities for their own needs and the needs of others which they can relate to within their own community. This is not to say that surpluses can not be passed on to other communities and there be some international activity between communities, and migration between communities.

Vic Button, 

Deeside, Flintshire

Reply:

When you talk about “self-reliant communities” we don’t suppose you mean this literally in the sense that each “small community” should actually have to provide for all its needs from its own resources. If we ignore the resources which will have been inherited from capitalism and which will be able to be used for a while, for many communities this would mean having to go back, not to the iron age or the bronze age, but to the stone age since they wouldn’t have any access to metals or metal ores.

Since we can’t believe you really subscribe to so absurd a position we will interpret your phrase as a rhetorical flourish and assume that what you envisage is “self-administering” communities which would try to meet as many of their everyday needs as practicable from local sources. That local communities should be the basic unit of democratic self-administration is a principle we can go along with but, when it comes to production, it is as well to be aware to what extent local communities are interconnected and interdependent and that this places severe limits on what needs could be met locally.

The fact is that people in small communities aren’t able to produce all they need, or anything like it. The final stage of the production of a range of goods for everyday use could be done locally–food, clothes, shoes, furniture–as well as repairs but neither (most of) the raw materials nor (in most cases) any of the metals to make the tools and machines used in this final stage could be produced locally.

You don’t like the idea of mass production but most people would consider access to such items as a cooker, a fridge, a vacuum cleaner, a washing machine, a telephone, a radio (and a TV) as essential, but you can’t be suggesting that these should be assembled individually on an artisanal basis. To meet needs, they would have to be produced en masse. This doesn’t mean that they need be produced under the conditions that exist today in factories under capitalism. Far from it. Factories in a socialist society can and will be structured and run quite differently: slower pace of work, shorter hours, more automation, non-polluting technology, democratic participation in decision-making, even be set amidst trees and gardens.

Nor, to answer your point, would they be “making goods to deliver across to the other side of the planet” (except, perhaps, for some factories producing very specialised equipment as for hospitals or scientific research). They would be making goods to supply all the local communities in a given area.

People also, rightly, consider running water and mains electricity as necessities. Although some water and some electricity could be supplied locally, the machinery and equipment to do this (pipes, pumps, tanks, generators, transformers, cables, wires, etc) couldn’t. Even environment-friendly technology such as solar power involves highly sophisticated equipment that will be beyond the capabilities of local communities to produce on their own.

So, local communities cannot be independent or self-reliant as far as meeting their material needs goes; they are interdependent. This is not a question of communities passing on their “surpluses” to one another (most, if left to themselves, wouldn’t have any surplus); it is a question of them being interlinked in a single network of production which in the end embraces the whole world.

This does not mean that everything has to be controlled from a single world centre. Only a few functions would have to be dealt with at world level such as, for instance, communications satellites. Most could be carried out (as in practice at present) at a level that can be called regional (in world terms). It is at this level that production of intermediate goods and machines and equipment can be envisaged as being produced, for distribution for use either in other factories or by local communities.

Local communities can only be the basis for consumption and for democratic decision-making but not for production. Of course the actual degree of centralisation and decentralisation will be up to the people around at the time to decide in the light of their traditions, experiences and preferences. One thing, however, is clear (but you realise this anyway): even the ultra-decentralised structure you advocate could only be achieved in a world where resources no longer belonged to private individuals, corporations and states and where production was no longer carried on for sale on a market with a view to profit. In other words, in a socialist world.

Editors.

Letters: Why Socialism Must Be World Wide (1998)

Letters to the Editors from the January 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why Socialism Must Be World Wide

Dear Editors,

I have read the articles in the November Socialist Standard setting out the basic socialist philosophy with much interest and benefit.

In its articles on Russia the Socialist Standard pointed out, in 1934, that socialism “is impossible in one country alone, owing to international economic interdependence”.

This fact still applies, so how would a socialist Britain, having abolished money, exchange goods with a predominantly capitalist world?

Bryan Fair, 

Dorchester, Dorset

Reply:

A “socialist Britain” is an impossibility for the same reason that a “socialist Russia” was in 1934: capitalism is a world system into which all countries are locked and from which none can escape on its own.

Various countries, beginning with Russia but also others like Cuba and Nicaragua, have tried to escape from the laws of the world market economy but only at the price of establishing a state capitalism which in the end has had to take into account world market pressures anyway.

In fact it could be said that an isolated “capitalist Britain” is just as impossible as an isolated “socialist Britain”. Ever since capitalism first began to develop about 500 years ago it has involved multi-lateral trade between different countries so making them mutually interdependent; in fact one definition of capitalism is that it is the world market, the world trading system.

As capitalism has developed countries have become more and more interdependent. International trade on which all parts of the world now depend for the daily lives of their inhabitants (just think what you had for breakfast) reflects the underlying fact that production itself involves working on materials that have in part come from different parts of the world.

At one time the typical pattern was that raw materials would come from one part, be worked up into a finished product in another, and then sold there or in some other part. Nowadays, not just raw materials but also parts and semi-finished products are exported and imported. The best known example is perhaps the “world car”, as most cars now are, whose various components are produced in a number of different countries and which is only assembled in one particular country.

So “interdependence” is the key fact of economic life today. Because capitalism is a world system so must be socialism, the system which will replace it. In fact, socialism recognises that all parts of the world are interdependent today and seeks to bring social and institutional arrangements into line with this underlying productive fact by establishing a worldwide democratic community with, besides local and regional (“national” in today’s parlance) administrations, a world administration. Frontiers become obsolete, as does adherence to a particular nation-state. We all become citizens of a united world, Earth-people not “British” or “American” or “Russian” or “South African” or whatever.

Trade, as the buying and selling of goods, ceases to exist but not of course the transfer of goods from one part of the world to another. This will still take place, even if the people of socialist society might decide to produce everyday items of individual consumption more locally than at present. This won’t be trade because it won’t be an exchange of equivalents measured in monetary terms. It will just be the transfer of materials and products from one part of the world to other parts where they are needed, without anything needing to be transferred “in exchange”

Editors.

A Stalinist Writes

Dear Editors,

I saw your review of the book Children of the Revolution; Communist Childhood in Cold War Britain and read it with interest. I must now buy the book, although I anticipate being enraged.

Being born in 1940 I well recall my childhood and teenage years as the son of Communist parents. Wonderful, loving Stalinist parents. Stalinists they must have been because they refused to go along with the demonisation of Joe.

I was brought up on the Daily Worker and books were always plentiful. I could go my own way, I was just one of the fortunate few with access to both sides. After a brief mid-teen crisis when I wanted to be the “gum-chewing good guy” and not a “gook” or an automaton under the control of “State Capitalism” I became a Communist.

Like your reviewer I too joined first the YCL and later the CP. However, I never quit. I went instead from believing that Stalin was of his time to now knowing that Stalin was right. He remains right to this day.

I remember telling my Dad that I wanted to go to Sunday School with some of the kids. This Stalinist said “go ahead”. I went once, never again. I remember too, being on a train with him in 1956 when a man came in the carriage asking for cash and help as he was a poor Hungarian on the run from the Russian hordes. My Dad put his glasses in his top pocket and told him “there are two ways to leave this carriage, by the window or the door, take your pick”. Predictably, this fighter against Red tyranny scurried through the door.

Because, comrades, sometimes the tanks have to be sent in and if the Hungarian counter-revolution had succeeded or the Czech one in 1967 [sic], the chaos that is now Eastern Europe would have occurred sooner with other generations suffering what is being suffered now thanks to revisionists, counter-revolutionists, traitors, the weak, corrupt and the liberal.

And who is counting the dead now, as they pile up all over Eastern Europe. But it’s OK, Wall Street and the CIA, the controlled media play it down, because after all, no-one’s nationalising anything without compensation. Nothing to worry about. Business as usual.

And when the cattle cars are filled again it will be that much harder to defeat the enemy next time without Joe and his Red Army.

Paul Barrett, 

Penarth, Mid Glam

Reply:

We have no reason to believe this letter is a spoof. It confirms the view about the “New Communist Party” expressed in the pamphlet by Mike Mosbacher reviewed on our books page and explains why they are known as the “Tankies”. Such people have done the cause of genuine socialism no end of harm by associating it with the vicious one-party state-capitalist dictatorship that existed in Russia under Stalin and where people were also transported in cattle cars to slave-labour camps where they died in their millions.

Editors.