Letter: Money Will Go (1948)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a letter criticising the article “Money Will Go.” published in our February issue. The letter and reply are printed below.—Ed. Comm. 

To the Editor,

Dear Sir,

I must take strong exception to your argument regards non-payment of services in the armed forces, referred to in the Socialist Standard, issue dated February, 1948.

The indisputable facts are that the soldier was forced to pay direct fares for his recreational journeys (worked on a mileage basis), for his haircuts (3d.), entertainment (according to rank), barrack-room damages, lost articles of kit and clothing and certain medical treatments.

Also you stated that—because the soldier did not pay direct cash for certain services—he did not take advantage of those services. The truth is the very opposite. The authorities were at their wits’ end to stamp out waste and duplication caused by this laxity —pointing out that “if the soldier did have to pay for them in direct cash—he would have a more healthier respect for his kit and clothing.”

I have pointed out that a soldier paid for his haircut. I would also like to point out that if he wanted a decent one it was wise to tip the barber . . . If you wanted your boots repaired nicely—then ‘‘drop” the regimental cobbler . . .  In fact, the distribution of leave, food and duties were all worked on a racketeering basis—as any old soldier will tell you.

The reason for this criticism of your article is (firstly) to get your facts right and the inadvisability of using a half-baked argument and (secondly) to compare your method of reasoning to the troubles that confront us now.

The S.P.G.B. does not factually enjoy the sole rights in relation to its beliefs in a classless, democratic, Socialist society. Nine out of ten Socialists and Communists believe in the same dictum—as the ultimate goal of the peoples of the earth.

Nobody—other than idiots—believes that people accepting (however knowingly) socialist beliefs are turned automatically into little angels.

Even if the S.P.G.B. were returned to power (the wide world over) its theories, on the abolition of money being practiced, would be determined—not by an aim— but by the suitability of the people in honouring and working the theory in question.

And, for the S.P.G.B. to admit that, just how goods, food, houses, travel and aeroplanes, etc., would be distributed—‘‘ we cannot say ” (thus evading the whole point of the article, i.e. a practical alternative to money) is a fine exposure of your self-satisfied, noses in the air attitude to realism, that has rightly earned you the nick-name of—"Armchair Philosophers.”

E. H. Seymour

Reply:

The article to which our critic objects set out to show that the popular belief in the necessity of a monetary system to secure distribution is unfounded. It pointed out that (even under capitalism) men and women in the Forces ‘‘did not have to put their hands in their pockets and produce money in order to eat, dress and sleep.” It did not go further than that. It pointed out that the army form of distribution is not ‘‘an example of socialism in operation,” and further pointed out that in the army “all things are not freely available.” Our critic, without challenging the main items, now gives us some relatively minor examples of the things that are not freely available and has overlooked the fact that the article itself covered the point.

We would not dispute that under those conditions there was some waste but we question whether it was anything like so widespread as our critic believes when he says that “the authorities were at their wits’ end” about it. We are also quite well aware that there is a considerable number of “rackets” and ‘‘fiddles.” These points, however, do not affect the carefully limited use that was made of the army form of distribution in the article in question.

Our critic then goes on to say that the “S.P.G.B. does not factually enjoy the sole rights in relation to its beliefs in a classless, democratic socialist society. Nine out of ten Socialists and Communists believe in the same dictum—as the ultimate goal of the peoples of the earth.” This assertion is very wide of the mark. What he says of Socialists is true of all of them not merely of nine-tenths. If, however, by ‘‘Socialists” he means “Labourites” it is quite untrue as Labour Party literature and the actions of Labour Governments sufficiently demonstrate. As for the Communists they claim that Russia is already a “Socialist society” and even our critic must be able to see that it is not a democracy but a dictatorship and is not Socialist in the sense used for generations by the pioneers of Socialism.

We do claim that convinced Socialists when Socialism has been achieved will behave like responsible members of society. What the phrase about being ‘‘turned automatically into angels” has to do with it we do not know.

When our critic asserts that under Socialism Socialist ‘‘theories” would be determined by “the suitability of the people in honouring and working the theory in question” he appears to be a victim of the ancient illusion of the Communists that Socialism can be imposed from above on a non-Socialist population. How could Socialists be anything else than ‘‘suitable” to administer society on the Socialist basis of common ownership and democratic control?

Our critic’s final paragraph shows that he has not troubled to read what the article actually said. Having given in broad outline the basis of distribution that necessarily will go with society based on common ownership of the means of production and distribution and having shown that the money system which goes with private ownership would have no place, the article pointed out the truth that should be self-evident, that we are unable to forecast such "details” as whether people will wish to eat in public halls or in private dwellings. Perhaps our critic thinks he can make that forecast; if so it is for him to fill in the details. But if, like us, he cannot do so then, like us, he should see the uselessness of drawing up blue-prints about the details of the future Socialist society.

W. Waters