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.