The Socialist Standard welcomes letters for publication, putting questions about the Socialist case or commenting on articles.
What capitalism depends on
I have been a reader of the Socialist Standard for the past three years and would not hesitate to call myself an SPGB sympathiser. However I sometimes doubt whether Socialism will ever come about. I have no doubts that it is the only logical and democratic society, but it seems that the capitalist class through its control of the means of socialization — the television, the press, in advertising and the educational system, together with its control of the means of production can continue to dominate indefinitely.
It also appears that capitalism can ride crises which it creates and even come through the same as ever without causing the working class to realize its follies and become politically conscious and support the SPGB. As E. Hardy said in the debate with Sir Keith Joseph "There has been a growing recognition that perhaps Marx was right. Then in the years between the wars a blight fell upon the world. Its name was Keynes . . .” Thus it seems that it was quite easy for the capitalist politicians to talk of "interest rates," “the circular flow of income," and "Government investment" in relation to unemployment instead of the crucial theory of surplus value, neatly avoiding the truth.
Obviously Socialism cannot come about overnight as it requires the understanding of how the capitalist system works by the working class. However, is it not true that we are no further along the road to a society based upon common ownership of the means of production than we were in 1904?
Finally, in relation to what I have already written do you endorse the view of the SPGB in The Nature of Politics by J. D. B. Miller when he writes "They are not daunted by smallness and ineffectiveness, arguing that everyone will come round to their view in the end, or that mankind is, in general, too stupid to see what is good for it” ?
Adrian Walker
Liverpool, 8.
Reply:
On the points raised by the quotation you give, it is true that we are not daunted by reason of our size: we have no need to be with the strength and accuracy of the case supporting us. Although Socialism has by no means been attained, it does not follow that the SPGB is ineffective. Wherever our literature is read, or our position put at meetings of all sorts, many people express — as you have done — a sympathy with our Object and often an agreement with our analysis of capitalism.
The last two points of the quotation are contradictory, yet, if either were correct, the SPGB would need to carry out no more activity. We argue that once workers understand our ideas fully, they will desire and work for Socialism. This is not put forward as a proposition to reach "in the end” but now. This is why we are active now. The quotation’s sneering rejection of workers’ ability to attain the necessary understanding must represent the personal view of its writer. It has never been our view.
You say "capitalism can ride crises which it creates” but remember that in practical terms it rides them only with the active support of the working class. Capitalism cannot carry on without this support, whether in crises or not. Workers are hoodwinked and misled to this end. The point being that the stronger our voice, the more workers will recognize the real alternative to be attained.
Editors.
It is robbery ?
Why does the Socialist Party of Great Britain claim that man’s activity, society’s activity, centres around Speakers’ Corner, Marble Arch, where the SPGB speaks?
How vast and worldly and adventurous is the activity of socialists outside party activity? Socialists claim that they aim to obtain Socialism democratically (the only way). To act democratically means also that you must act legally in all of your activity in and outside party activity. How is this possible when the economic system, capitalism is NOT democratic? There is no democracy in the economic and industrial jungle of capitalism, and it is extremely difficult to remain legal (democratic) in this field.
Socialists say the capitalist class "rob” the workers by denying them the full fruits of their labour. So what’s to stop us robbing them, the capitalists?
J. W. Spencer
London W.2.
Reply:
The opening of your letter is unoriginal; for a reply to that, see page 157 of this issue. Your second question is why Socialists should act legally, either in their political party or as individuals, in an undemocratic society. The answer on the Party account is that capitalism requires the consent of the ruled-over and so provides a sufficient democratic apparatus for Socialists to use. Your concern about democracy should show you that the attempting of illegal means implies conspiracy, i.e. action by a minority. As individuals, most of us would say that there are enough problems for working people without adding to them by going in for crime.
However, your last paragraph shows a serious misconception at the bottom of your argument. The working class sells its labour-power, its only possession, to the owners of the means of production and distribution, who lay claim to the consequent products. The workers are not robbed — indeed, it is impossible to be robbed of what one has never owned; they are exploited. To argue that it is robbery just the same implies (a) that the Socialist case is about “right” and “justice” — it is not; and (b) that the aim of Socialism is to snatch back the product. Of course our aim is that the working class shall obtain the full fruits of its labour, but the target has to be not the product in itself but the ownership of the means of production. That is what the struggle is about.
Editors.
More about inevitability
Your article on “The Inevitability of Socialism” was interesting, but I feel that you did not deal adequately with a fundamental contradiction at the core of your case.
One of Marx’s central arguments was that philosophical ideas and political principles always occur as a result of historical material forces and social relationships, rather than the other way round.
If as you claim the material conditions for Socialism now exist, then surely, according to Marx, the necessary ideas ought automatically to be present also. If these ideas are not present at the moment (you admit that they are not) then this must mean either (a) Marx was wrong or (b) you are wrong in saying that the conditions for Socialism now exist. No amount of juggling with the arguments will avoid these difficulties.
If, in the current situation, it requires a freely made, conscious and almost unanimous decision of the international working class to achieve Socialism, it must follow that there is a possibility of that decision not being made, which certainly appears to be the position today. To say in these circumstances that “Socialism is inevitable” is surely to rob the word of all meaning.
If I remember correctly, Marx once said something about no social system ever disappearing before its possibilities for expansion and development had reached their limits. Despite the grotesque violence, inequalities and illogicalities, it cannot be denied that capitalism in recent years has generally displayed a certain dynamism in producing increasing quantities of material goods.
Could it be that in certain areas, perhaps in the developing nations of the “third world” capitalism still has some way to go before its potential for expansion is exhausted?
A. R. Ewbank
Middlesex
Reply:
Our correspondent alleges that we claim, along with Marx, that the material conditions automatically produce Socialist ideas. We claim no such thing, and the article makes this clear.
Socialist ideas do arise from the economic conditions of capitalism, but not automatically. The prevailing ideas held by most people are the ideas of the ruling class. They are capitalist-minded; they accept the wages system and the buying and selling of wealth as in the natural order of things. Also the property institutions, its legal code, ideas of religion, morality and capitalist politics. These dominant ideas arise from the material conditions of capitalism, and propaganda through the press, TV, pulpit and the educational system will try to keep these impressed on workers’ minds. However, you cannot nourish a starving man on propaganda, or provide him with a house, or solve any of the recurring social problems brought about by the contradictory nature of capitalism. The performance never matches the promise.
Socialist ideas arise out of an examination of these social contradictions and the nature of capitalist society. Socialist knowledge, like all knowledge, has to be gained, and to the extent that workers are interested in learning something new it will be gained. We cannot have Socialism without conscious socialists. The workers of this and other countries have never been in a position to make a decision on whether or not to establish Socialism, for the simple reason that the overwhelming majority know little or nothing about it. Philosophically speaking, workers can reject Socialism in the same way that a drowning man can reject a lifebelt thrown to him. Growing discontent and greater social awareness of the nature of the system will compel men to think and act. Socially, men do not act arbitrarily — they act with cause.
The use of the word “inevitable” in the context of the article means that Socialism simply has to come if society is to develop. It is a social necessity which follows inexorably from certain causes. Its establishment will be a consciously organised social decision.
Our correspondent is mistaken in his interpretation of Marx’s phrase stated in the Materialist Conception of History viz:— “No society ever goes out of existence before all the productive forces for which there is room have been developed.” He claims that capitalist productive potentialities have some way to go, particularly in the Third World. Production under capitalism is based on a world market; goods are produced for sale or exchange. The productive forces exist to serve this world market alone. When the market has absorbed all the products it is capable of absorbing production is curtailed or fettered. The productive forces do not exist simply to produce wealth — they must produce profit. No sale — no profit — no production. Technically speaking there is practically no limit to the development of new means of production. Every advance in science and technology, each new mineral discovery, can add to the social wealth. But there is simply no market room for further development of the productive forces, and this is what matters. The working class is the greatest productive force in history but millions are forcibly debarred from producing through unemployment. The present international crisis of capitalism is based on over-production of commodities of all kinds, motor cars, oil tankers, steel, textiles and food. This is what capitalism is, and why we want to replace it with a sane and sensible method of social production based on social need.
Editors.
An evolutionary view
It has not been the denial of access to the mass media that has limited the growth of your party, for the appearance of Socialism on the TV screen would have resulted in a massive switch-off, as the tens of thousands of workers who have stood at your platform have been switched off — by capitalism. To safeguard its career capitalism developed an intolerance of any idea which sought to subvert its will, and reduced the working class to a silenced majority. It has been this ideological impregnability of capitalism that the SPGB has been vainly trying to breach.
The fact now being revealed is that capitalism, its zenith behind it, no longer needs its age-long grip on the mind. The ethos which could be defined as the social mind is now being disengaged that it might reach for its next objective. Vandalism, hooliganism, dissident political violence are physical manifestations of this disengaging process which is causing a slackening of social cohesion — a sense of lack of social purpose.
The ideals and standards which have stood sacrosanct for so long are now examined, questioned, debated. More or less concurrent with this enquiry is a groping for an alternative which must identify itself eventually with the Socialist aim.
The SPGB cannot expect to benefit immediately from capitalism’s final phase, for political thinking is evolutionary. Your party does not hold this view, but it follows from a careful reading of your excellent pamphlet “Historical Materialism”.
Today a majority of workers are in favour of a monarchy; within five years that opinion will be reversed and the institution scrapped. The economic and social circumstances which have hitherto frustrated the Socialist aim are now yielding to the needs of the new social order, which encourages me in the reiteration that, although at the age of 62, I expect to witness the triumph of Socialism.
F. C. West
London E.2.
Reply:
Though you write as a sympathiser, your letter expresses views we cannot accept. Your standpoint seems to be that capitalism will amiably unfold — in fact, is now unfolding — to give Socialism. Our “Historical Materialism” pamphlet does not give any warrant for such an automatic process. On the contrary, it emphasizes what Marx insisted: that men make history.
What you call the “ideological impregnability” of capitalism is another way of saying what Marx said also that the dominant ideas of every epoch are those of its ruling class. These ideas are not the same ones throughout the lifetime of a social system, but alter as its needs change. But unless they give way to class-consciousness and the understanding of Socialism, they remain supporters of capitalism. What makes you think that vandals and hooligans accept capitalism any less than the most respectable citizens? Or that there is more hooliganism and violence today than in the past (you’ve been listening to the mass media, haven’t you?)
Nor do we understand what is meant by saying that capitalism is past its zenith. The evolution of society has been one in which classes have struggled against one another for the ownership of the means of living, and this applies today. The capitalist system has been in existence two hundred years or less. At times it appears exuberant, at others in low water; but it remains capitalism nevertheless, and its giving way to Socialism will take place only when the working class pursues its economic interests to their proper conclusion.
If you want to bet that royalty will have been disposed of by 1980, we can find you a taker.
Editors.
Up on your feet !
Although not a member of the Socialist Party, I have consistently read the Socialist Standard for many years now. I must say that I agree with many of the sentiments expressed in it and I regard the freedom of the proletariat as an essential prerogative of Socialism.
However, there is a tendency (because of the present system of society) for the capitalist class to disregard this and to treat the working class as inferior plus a thoroughly repugnant attitude of treating them as if they were not worthy of existing on the same planet as themselves and in point of fact endangering the lives of the exploited class (the proletariat) for their own comfort. I wish to ask how to combat this lack of security of myself and others under the present system and want to know what practical steps can be taken?
R. G. Davies
Birmingham
Reply:
Look at the world round you. All its wonders, from sliced bread to jet airliners, are made and provided by working men and women while the capitalist class sit on their behinds pretending to be superior.
No member of the working class should accept that pretence, or the idea of being humble. “I’m not an educated person,” say questioners at our meetings sometimes. Nonsense: the workers are the educated, capable class. It is part of the mythology of any social system that the masters and rulers are the wise ones to whom the rest must defer. Note, however, how the tune changes at certain times. If you have lived through a war you will recall that the workers then are buttered-up: their brains and bravery are magnificent and they are promised everything — until the war ends, when they are transformed back into trouble-making layabouts.
For practical steps, turn to the inside cover of this and every copy of the Socialist Standard to see how you can join the Socialist Party. When you become a member, there will be another nail in the coffin of this disgusting system; and we don’t think you will feel inferior to its moguls any longer.
Editors.
Socialist Art
Concerning your article on “Art and Civilization” in the March issue, I thought you might be interested in hearing the following comments by way of a corollary.
One of the effects of the domination of society by one class (whether openly by it alone or by extensions) is to concentrate subjective expression as an abstractly separated aesthetic in a small number of individuals. Necessarily, of course, they must come from the ruling class. Art as such sets itself apart from the daily experience of society because the ruling class must have an idea point of reference, an orientation, a theoretical statement in which it is emotionally represented as “the good,” the beneficial, the healthy, the desirable, etc — this, as part of its self-identification as authority. Which means that high Art presupposes a system of organized deprivation, oppression and manipulation; Socialist art, on the contrary — or rather, art under Socialism — is based on the direct universality of all persons, and so is pre-eminently a practical art, an art of practice. Under these conditions, what is artistic cannot really be separated from what is “practical,” and indeed, art must automatically be a matter of social practice — a separate pole from the thinking activity as such, but no more a separate compartment of existence. It is therefore to be concluded that, under Socialism, theoretical art would tend to disappear and to be replaced by an “art of praxis”; under conditions of classical communism (as indicated by Marx), daily existence would itself contain all the characteristics which theoretical art today corrals together in a separate and isolated function.
Ronald Elbert
Messages distorted
Your experts say they will answer my letter if I say what it means, and to assist me to do so they ask me three questions. I am very glad to answer so that I can get their reply as I have no doubt many other readers of the S.S. will.
(a) The workers of Britain will take the advice given them by socialists because they will finally have no alternative. Capitalism has broken down, it doesn't work any longer. Money, stocks, shares, investments etc. will no longer have any value, it is rapidly falling now as the first two articles in your own current issue point out. I quote as follows from the second article: “Capitalism . . . has outlived its usefulness” (I do not think it was ever any use but you obviously do). “Production will be owned and controlled by the whole worldwide community”. It was this that made me say the S.P.G.B. expects to go on for ever; but I take the view that there is no need for us to wait, it will be much better to set up a socialist economy and set an example for the world-wide community to follow.
(b) How they may take control. By taking over by the workers in them of all fields, factories, and workshops and taking no notice of the S.P.G.B.
(c) If you don’t like the expression “socialist state” will “socialist economy” suit you better as in my reply to (b)?
In reply to your last paragraph, I agree that it is no great hardship to have to dodge back but note that in the current issue you have managed to avoid this. I am surprised that you take so much notice of the posh magazines but even they do not dodge back, they just put the advertising in and then go on.
Tom Braddock
East Preston
Reply:
We are not experts! We simply pen the answers that any Socialist Party member could give.
Capitalism has not broken down now, just as it did not collapse in the ’thirties. Economic crises are a normal part of its existence. The view that capitalism has outlived its usefulness has not suddenly been reached because of the current crisis.
Socialism would not be a practical proposition without the ability to produce in abundance. Through capitalism, with its insatiable quest for profit, the means for production have been developed to the point where abundance is possible. It is in this historical sense that capitalism has been useful.
Socialism is not about workers controlling factories etc. but about human beings having social ownership and democratic control of their total environment. Such a social system cannot be established without the full understanding and active co-operation of the vast majority of the working class. They will come to this understanding because Socialism is the only solution to all of the problems posed by capitalism. Socialism is by definition a worldwide concept and it is nonsense to speak of “setting it up” in this or any other country. Incidentally if you think otherwise what are you waiting for?
We in the SPGB are not keeping anyone waiting but are enthusiastically working to achieve our objective —Socialism!
Editors.
A letter that says it all
I have been a staunch Socialist for all of my mature years and I hope that the enclosed donation will help to further the aims of the Party and speed up the coming of the day when true Socialism will be embraced by all.
I was born in North Shields, Northumberland, in the year 1878, came to Canada in 1910 and have been here ever since. I will celebrate my 97th birthday on July 31st, am in possession of all my faculties and expect to be around for a few years yet but not, I’m afraid, long enough to see Socialism become a universal way of life.
Hoping that the efforts of those who actively participate in the task of teaching true Socialism will be crowned with success in the not too distant future.
A. W. Love
Winnipeg
In brief
G. Cowan (London W.9) and D. Edwards (Wakefield): See article “What are You Doing About It” in this issue.
R. Smith (Dundee): Your letter only goes again over the ground of the previous ones, and we leave readers to consider them and our replies. However, we would add that we cannot possibly give an undertaking to publish letters in full. If we did not edit many of them, only one or two could be published in each issue. It is open to any correspondent to stipulate “In full or not at all”.
J. W. Pitt (Worthing) and E. Wheeler (Rayleigh): Many thanks for your letters of appreciation.
Winifred Mawson (Horsham): A full reply to your question will appear in the next issue. Also P. Sliwinski (Newcastle), I. Hunt (London W.l.) and J. J. Sternbach (U.S.A.)
No comments:
Post a Comment