Nothing for the Workers !
In our previous articles, published in the March and April issues of the Socialist Standard, we have shown that a Federal Union could not bring permanent peace or improve the lot of the working class.
The claims of Federalists are extravagant and Utopian, because they are based upon misunderstandings of the capitalist system. Like all other reformists who have preceded them, the Federalists are attempting to achieve the impossible : they want to retain capitalism, but wish to eliminate the evils it engenders. Reformists of one school or another have, for generations, been trying to realise that happy state of affairs. With what result? The development of capitalism proceeds unhindered and defeats their efforts every time: wars, degrading poverty, malnutrition, overwork, unemployment and countless other evils inseparable from capitalism are still with us.
In discussing Federal Union, we have been compelled to arrive at this conclusion: there is not the slightest reason to believe that Federalists would succeed where other reformists have failed. Capitalism cannot be adapted and made to function for the benefit of the mass of the population.
As a matter of fact, some advocates of Federal Union are aware that their scheme can do little for the workers as a whole. Perhaps this accounts for their attempts to win the approval of the tax-paying capitalist and the better-paid sections of the working class. Perhaps this accounts for the promises of easier travel, or reduced taxation and even the promise of new careers for the educated sons of the well-to-do, who are now finding a difficulty in obtaining “suitable” places in capitalist society.
We read in “Federation and World Order,” by Duncan and Elizabeth Wilson, that “the institution of a Federal government would open a wide choice of new careers in the new civil service that would have to be formed” (p. 178).
Whilst the “brains” would have new careers within the Union, the two writers just quoted have to admit that, for the ordinary person, life would proceed much as it does at present. Here is what they say : —
“First it must be emphasized that in many ways of ordinary life the average man would notice little change ” (p. 177).
Presumably the everyday sufferings peculiar to the working class would remain: the worry of making ends meet, the anxiety about employment, etc.
In fairness to the Wilsons we must add that they promise the average person “the absence of a sense of insecurity which has of late become part of his consciousness.” But we have already shown that Federal Union cannot give anybody “security” from war nor from the threats of war, because it does not touch the economic rivalries which are inherent in capitalism.
When the worker is asked to support Federal Union, he ought, thereore, to remember that even according to some of its supporters “the average man would notice little change.” That is our contention, too; Federal Union can do. nothing for the working class.
Federal Union—A Bulwark of Capitalism
Federal Union stands for the retention of capitalism. Let there be no mistake on that point. It has been openly admitted by several of its advocates.
Mr. Streit, one of the principal supporters of Federal Union, states clearly and definitely in his proposed constitution that Federal Union would safeguard private property. According to him, Federal Union must give “Freedom . . . from having property taken for public use without just compensation.”
Of course, were Streit allowed to have his own way, were his idea to be rigidly adhered to, there could never be a Socialist society. Compensation for property socialised means that previous owners would have a right to claim some of the products of industry. In other words, he wishes to ensure that present property owners will continue to live without working, that they will continue to claim, as their own, wealth produced by our class.
Socialists are opposed to the capitalist class living, like parasites, on the backs of the workers.
Mr. Curry goes further. He wishes to see the ownership of property as widely diffused as possible. It is thus that we shall obtain, he thinks, a population that is “independent,” that “cannot be easily bribed, coerced, or bullied ” (“The Case for Federal Union,” p. 101).
It is a pity that the Federalists do not get down to facts instead of dreaming and indulging in wishful thinking !
Federalists defend capitalism, so they must be prepared to put up with its inconveniences. The fact is that it is inconceivable to have capitalism and an independent population, to have capitalism and a population of property-holders. As Marx observed in “The Communist Manifesto,” nearly a century ago, the development of capitalism destroyed private property for the majority of people. The small peasant was either robbed of his land or else driven out of existence by the competition of large-scale capitalist farmers. The petty artisan, with his small tools, likewise could not compete against the giant machinery possessed by the wealthy capitalist. In both cases, the result was the same. The small peasant and the petty artisan lost possession of their means of production (land, tools, etc.) and became DEPENDENT on the capitalist class for their livelihood.
Nor has this process ceased. As time goes on, capitalism concentrates the means of production into fewer hands, the small capitalist being precipitated into the ranks of the property-less.
Does Mr. Curry think he can fight against this tendency of capitalist society ? Does he think he can turn back the wheel of history ? This is the dream of a Utopian.
What blindness when Mr. Curry says: “Middle-class independence depends upon economic security.” Which economic security?
Capitalism offers no economic security to the “middle class.” Doesn’t Mr. Curry remember the last economic crisis and the thousands of small capitalists it ruined ? Has he forgotten the streets of towns with their shop windows bearing the “To let” posters?
In case he has, these quotations from the Sunday Express (March 2nd, 1930) will serve to refresh his memory and show how little security small tradespeople have : —
1) “Ten thousand shopkeepers, mainly trading in villages and small towns of Britain, have gone bankrupt during the past year.”2) “Bankruptcies among small shopkeepers have increased 50 per cent, since the (1914-18) war.”
The independence of the small capitalist is a myth. The general trend of capitalism is to replace him by, or make him dependent on, the big combine.
The position of the “middle-class” managers of big firms is little more secure than that of the small tradesman. Technicians and administrators are now trained in such numbers that, if capitalist firms so choose, they can replace them without much inconvenience. This being so, the independence of the salaried worker is also a myth.
To sum up, this is our point. When the masses are divorced from the means of production they cannot be other than dependent upon the capitalist class. When the majority depend on the few for the necessities of life “bribery,” “coercion” and “bullying” are natural normal features of life. Not Federal Union, but Socialism can alone put an end to that dependence.
A Vital Factor
The Federalists reject Socialism on the grounds that some remedy must be found quickly to put the world in order. “Time,” says Mr. Curry, “is an absolutely vital factor.”
This argument has repeatedly been used to dissuade the workers from studying the real cause of their plight, capitalism, and to dissuade them from studying Socialism, the one solution of the world’s ills.
In rejecting Federal Union as being worthless from the point of view of the workers, we take this opportunity of urging them once more to study Socialism.
Earlier in these articles we have shown that capitalism is responsible for the many sufferings inflicted upon the workers. These sufferings will continue as long as capitalism lasts, until the workers take matters into their own hands. Mr. Curry is again wrong when he says: “Mankind is not faced with the immediate alternative, Socialism or disaster.” We say that until Socialism is established working-class history will be one long-series of disasters. These disasters will show themselves in the form of wholesale massacres, prolonged periods of unemployment, struggles to maintain their standard of living, strikes and lockouts. These disasters will confront the working class, Federal Union or no Federal Union. Time, then, is a vital factor. Socialism must be established as quickly as possible.
It is Up to You
The workers can put an end to capitalism as soon as they have the knowledge and the will to act.
The means of production have now reached a stage of development when they could be used to produce enough to satisfy the wants of all. Frequently new processes of industry are not utilised because the markets of the world cannot absorb all rhe good things that are produced. Frequently, too, things are burned or destroyed so as to keep up prices and profits. Obviously production for profit is becoming a more serious fetter as time goes on. Even cabinet ministers and economists have occasionally been obliged to admit that we are living in an age of plenty, that because wealth is being produced in such abundance unemployment and poverty are forced upon the working class.
The Socialist solution for the world’s ills is a simple one, but it needs the co-operation of the majority.
In Socialist society all will co-operate to produce and distribute the things man needs. In return, every member will have free access to the means of life.
Poverty will not exist, because we shall have production for use only, and modern technique assures us of a gigantic output of goods.
Unemployment will not exist, because all those who are physically and mentally able will assist in production.
Wars will cease, because there will be no rivalries for markets. Goods will be made solely for use, not for profit. National boundaries will become meaningless, since the workers of all lands will be co-operating to satisfy each other’s needs. Their interests will be identical. The effort that is now put into the manufacture of armaments will, under Socialism, be directed to the providing of the things all can enjoy.
The armed forces, being unnecessary in Socialist society, its members will give their energies to production.
Obviously, the standard of living of the workers would be greatly increased by the introduction of Socialism, and would go on increasing with each new invention and improved process of production.
It is up to you, then, fellow worker. Are you going to support Federal Union, which, as some of its advocates rightly say, will leave you in your present position, or are you going to organise for Socialism, and win the world?
Clifford Allen
Hat tip to ALB for originally scanning this in.
ReplyDelete