Letters to the Editors from the March 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard
Productivity and the Wealth of the Capitalist Class
A reader in Australia (G. Harigen) comments, on statements made at various times in these columns about the small average annual increase of productivity. He asks: "Where did the capitalist class get the wealth they have destroyed in two world wars; millions of tons of shipping, with their cargoes, wool, wheat, meat, everything ruthlessly destroyed, to say nothing of seamen and soldiers; labour-power, also a commodity?"
Reply.
In order to understand what has happened in production and in the accumulation wealth by the propertied class, our correspondent needs to consider separately the average amount produced by each worker; the rate at which it increases, year by year; the total amount produced by the whole working class; and the amount of this that is accumulated in the hands of the propertied class.
Taking first the average output per worker, it is a fact that this increases very slowly, though in the early nineteenth century when industrialisation was in its infancy the rate of increase was greater (as it now is in Russia). Colin Clark, who has recently re-examined the question, estimates for Britain an increase of about 1½ per cent a year in the later nineteenth century and in the period 1920-1938, but under 1 per cent, a year since 1945. This is based on average output per worker per hour (see "The Cost of Living” 1957, p. 18). Estimates by other economists do not greatly differ.
The above-mentioned rate of increase relates to the average output per worker. The total output of the whole working class has increased since pre-war days at a faster rate because there are many more workers at work (unemployment of 1,500,000 went, more married women go out to work, and the population of working age is larger). Also hours of work are rather longer because more overtime is worked and this has more than offset the nominal reduction of standard weekly hours.
The division of the national income has changed, with an increase of the proportion going to the wage and salary earners from 56 per cent, in 1938 to 65 per per cent, in 1956; a big increase in the income of farmers and a drop in the proportion going as "Rent, Dividends and Interest" (see "National Income and Expenditure," 1957, H.M. Stationery Office). For “wages” alone (excluding clerical workers) the proportion was 38 per cent. in 1938 and 43 per cent. in 1956.
The monetary figure for “Rent, Dividends and Interest” in 1938 was £1,134 millions, and in 1956, £1,937 millions, but as a proportion of national income it has fallen from 22 per cent. to 11 per cent. (In other words it has not kept pace with the rise of prices).
There is nothing final about such changes and it is probable that the proportion of the national income going to property owners is increasing again.
There remains the question of the accumulated wealth of the propertied class as distinct from their annual income. The war-time destruction of property (estimated at £7,000 million) fell, of course, primarily on the propertied class. Part was covered by “aid” from U.S.A. and some or all of the remainder has been made good out of the surplus value taken from production since the war.
The above figures are not at all inconsistent with the fact that the propertied class, then and now. own the overwhelming proportion of the accumulated wealth of the country, for their accumulated wealth is not merely what they retain out of production each year, but is largely made up of what they have retained in previous years and inherited from the past generation of property owners.
Editorial Committee
Truths and Facts
To the Editor.
Dundee.
The writer of an article which appeared in the January edition of the Socialist Standard under the heading of "Get it Straight in 1958" has given a false analogy between a geometrical truth and a historical fact He writes: "Everyone knows the shortest distance between two points is a straight line: a simple, unanswerable, self-evident proposition. Who, then, could fail to think and act on it ?” What he fails to understand here is that the propositions of mathematics are the outcome of cold calculated thought, while the contrary is the case as regards history, where we have the passions and actions of men to deal with, which, of course, have nothing in common with the abstract truths of mathematics. For the former rules only in the realm of thought, while the latter rules in historical facts, which are not the outcome of rearmed truth. History is not motivated by truth. If it were there would be no history. What is self-evident for mathematics can in no way bear a relation to historical motivation that does move, not exist for truth. It is true that we are all prepared to accept the truths of mathematics, but it is an error to think that because of this, we should all, therefore, be prepared to accept the teachings of Socialism. And from the very fact that people are not motivated by the straight line to Socialism, is proof that history from that point of view is not concerned with moving in straight lines, or truths.
R. Smith,
Dundee.
Reply.
Our correspondent might have been on sound ground if the article referred to had been based simply on analogy; if it had argued that because mathematically the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and for that reason only, therefore there can only be one way of getting Socialism. But the article did not say that. What it did was to point out, on evidence, that the indirect approach to Socialism of the reformists had not arrived at Socialism and is not in process of arriving at Socialism. The argument would stand if the analogy had not been mentioned.
Also in another respect our correspondent misses the point. He writes that the mathematical analogy is no reason why "we should all be prepared to accept the teaching of Socialism.” But the article did not suggest that. It was not dealing with all people and their readiness or unreadiness to accept the Socialist case. It dealt specifically with people who had already accepted the essence of the Socialist idea, but who thought that the indirect, reformist, way would lead to Socialism. They thereby led themselves and others away from Socialism.
Our correspondent tells us that in history we are dealing with men’s passions and actions “which have nothing in common with the abstract truths of mathematics.” This may be true but it is pointless. It misses the important truth that men’s passions and actions can be modified by thought and theory. The S.P.G.B. has always insisted on the practical futility and positive danger of working class actions guided by passion and sentiment instead of by thought and understanding. The more the Socialist case is accepted the less passionate futility there will be and the quicker the progress to Socialism. Men today do not have to go on repeating the stupidities of past history just because it happened.
The study of history has little purpose if it does not enable us to avoid errors of past generations that had not the advantage of being able to study history. We want the present generation to avoid the reformist errors of their fathers. Does our correspondent think we should refrain from trying to do this?
Editorial Committee.
Should We Organize into Political Parties?
To the Editor.
Croydon,
Surrey.
To become party to one idea or aim is to close the mind with regard to all other explanation. We are guided in our ideas by the intuition, and through this the principles of thought. However, "the principle" is to be compared with the hand which guides the torch beam. These "principles" guide every thought and, of course, every action. But, principles are plastic and, as such, can be applied universally.
Parties of a necessity fail, simply because of the negation of this. The “party” restricts the application of any universals, by postulating particular laws of thought and action. Philosophically, rules such as this do not promote plasticity of thought, but restricts the idea (Locke) to inaction.
The parties, because they are viewing “part” of a whole, have rules of conduct which guides the principles; but this is contradictory, for the principles must guide the rules and codes. And, cause to effect, the party ceases to analyse its own rules of conduct; the party-minded are specialists—and like all such, view but a section of the whole.
If the mind is made to concentrate on particulars, it stagnates for want of fresh material. Singular ideas are of little use, unless they are referred to the general principle, remembering that the whole is but the sum total of its parts. All of those particular subjects we know exist, are but of a whole, the universe is made up of particulars, but to try to explain the universe by its particulars would be quite erroneous, but this is the near intention of parties! They erroneously try to explain the whole which exists in the “society" by adopting a fixed opinion, for things are much more than your principles, and they need the plastic mind.
Parties also fail when they insure and secure themselves against expediency—for they fail to see round their narrowness of ideas—that they are expedient in being partisan.
There is a tendency to identify oneself with the ideas which one has, to the point of prestige, and this too, do the parties do and, as a result, they become intolerant of any idea outside their own, and criticise unmercifully any suggestion against the “party-aim”; to observe and study the truth more than often means that the student is unsuccessful in society, and so it is that the party which studies foe truth will anyway never succeed in this society, by that one point; but neither will it succeed among students of truth, for foe truth denies that we become party to it.
Yours faithfully,
M. Nairne.
Reply.
Our correspondent has set out to state what appears to him to be principles of over-riding importance, but in purely general terms and without attempting to examine the consequences of applying them.
His general proposition appears to be that to form a political party involves concentrating on certain aspects and disregarding other aspects. As against this he wants, apparently, that individuals should not form parties but should “study the truth.”
This is all very interesting to those who can live mentally in a void, but what about the solution of the practical problems before us? Capitalism exists. Its machinery of government is controlled by political parties which use their control to perpetuate capitalism. What do unorganised “students of truth” do about this? According to our correspondent they must not form a political party to remove capitalism and establish Socialism, because to do so would require the (to our correspondent) undesirable concentration on the problem of removing capitalism and establishing Socialism.
Since there is no other way to achieve the desired end our correspondent would have us abandon the end— and put up with capitalism. If this is not what he means and accepts, it is for him to come down to earth and tell us.
Editorial Committee.
No comments:
Post a Comment