Socialism—More Than Equality (1941)

From the May 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Apologists for capitalism, ever asearch for doctrinal dope to infuse new life into the doddering near-corpse of the present politico-economic set-up, will drag out some outworn theory, blow the dust off it, and present it to the public as up-to-date evidence against the socialist.

Common among these theories is one built around the suggestion that the rich may well experience as much financial difficulty as the poor.

We have, in the Daily Express for April 12th, a leader page article by Mr. Paul Holt. This deals with Mr. Donald Skilling, who at West London Police Court, admitted to earning £5 10s. weekly putting up Anderson shelters, and with the magistrate, Mr. Paul Bennett, who cried, “No wonder income tax is 10s. in the pound !”

Mr. Holt contends that to earn this wage “is no crime,” and makes out a budget to demonstrate. He further thinks that Mr. Bennett cannot find it “all bees and honey” on his £2,000 a year. He refers, too, to Mr. Hely Hutchinson, M.P., and merchant banker, who recently told the House of Commons that after meeting just claims he had 4s. each for his family.

Self-styled “Man o’ the People,” in the People for April 13th, observes: —

“We used, some of us, to talk of “Socialism in our time.” To-day, under a predominantly Conservative Government, we have stormed the barricades of money privilege and come much nearer to “equality of—financial—sacrifice” than ever before.

Will there be any rich men left among us ? Yes, but it will need a gross income of £66,000 a year to leave any taxpayer with £5,000 a year net! The colossal incomes are cut to the bone.”

Now, having reduced the Socialist to tears of pity for the luckless millionaire doomed to struggle along on his £5,000 a year, the defender of capitalism usually assails him with, “It’s all very well you grumbling about inequality, but the rich are just as badly off as you.” Then come high-sounding statements about harmony, and capital and labour going hand-in-hand, with a heigh and a ho and a heigh nonny no, sweet lovers love the spring.

This common misconception that the Socialist just aims at taking from the rich and sharing is one of the many unfortunate outcomes of the obscuring propaganda of avowedly capitalist and so-called labour institutions.

Hence, we must at all times reiterate: (1) no matter how large a man’s income, he is a worker if he is forced to sell his mental or physical energies for it; (2) it is readily appreciated that many capitalists, in the basically unnecessary fight for wealth, may to varying degrees suffer worry and inconvenience, and this applies particularly to the few capitalists who have an active role in their business. But the essential point is that they, as well as the working-class, would gain with Socialism a better, fuller life, free from economic dominance; (3) that Socialism will not bring merely a different share-out, but a much greater total wealth.

This last point merits enlargement, for with it is closely connected the utter refutation of the contention that capitalism is now necessary to progress.

It needs little effort to see that modern man finds his life so dominated by work he has little opportunity or energy for intellectual advancement, the little he does receive being almost entirely the result of capitalist training for capitalist ends.

It is not so obvious to the uninitiated that under modern capitalism, production of the material means of life is not progressing, but retrogressing. Though the rate of production consistently increases, the totality of production is with like consistency restricted.

This is done by (1) leaving unused a considerable portion of the two basic factors in wealth production—land and labour power; (2) deliberate, “legal,” large-scale destructions of goods the world over; (3) national and international agreements to restrict production of commodities below the potentiality; (4) use of labour for ends peculiar to capitalism and meeting no human need: armed forces, insurance workers, commercial travellers, banks, advertising, servants, pawnbrokers, and the printing and production of paper for putting the prices on packets of peanuts are a few examples; (5) neglect of improved scientific methods of production, e.g., in the English cotton industry, Government enquiry found only a minute fraction of the industry using any of the three developments of ring spinning, automatic looms and highspeed winding.

Well, I suppose all this is because people already have all they need ?

Oh, no. Nearly all of them are in great want.

Then, surely all those in want are organising to set things right ?

On the contrary, they’re fighting among themselves as hard as they can.

. . . and little Audrey laughed and laughed, for it was crazier than “Alice in Wonderland.”

And crazy it is, tragically so. These wealth restrictions arise because under capitalism the profit motive controls production. With Socialism will come production for human needs, banishing for ever the ghastly paradox of poverty amid plenty.

Richard Tatham