We have received the following letter criticising the article in the October Socialist Standard entitled "Will ‘The Last Hottentot’ hold us Back?"
Dear Sirs,
Capitalism is Necessary.
Gilmac, at the beginning of his article in the October Socialist Standard, chiding those who talk in a superior way of backward races, writes the word “backward" in inverted commas, as though its use is unjustified. Later he uses the word without quotation marks, as though its use is justified. We gather that peoples can be backward in one way and not in another; they are good enough mentally but backward socially. In his own words, they lack the “social conditions favourable to the development of Socialist ideas." By social conditions he obviously means capitalist conditions. So it seems we have got to wait for the Hottentots after all.
Once the backward peoples “take part in building up capitalism on their own account," he says, “then they cut the cord that ties them to the past." So that is what they need, says the Socialist—Capitalism. "Everywhere native populations are stirring restlessly, struggling to cast off the shackles of the past in order to enter the heritage of today"—that is, the heritage of Capitalism.
Gilmac says: “India is undergoing the birthpangs of a capitalist state which will soon transform its primitive village economy," and “the primitive agricultural communities of India will soon be overwhelmed as India gets upon its capitalist feet." India must have Capitalism, implies Socialist Gilmac. Capitalism is necessary in India. And while the Indians are enjoying the necessary Capitalism, Gilmac will presumably say: "Capitalism is horrible; away with it and replace it by Socialism."
I can imagine a S.P.G.B. seaman disembarking at Bombay this week and meeting an Indian steelworker. As he would be anxious to spread Socialist propaganda the following dialogue might take place:
Socialist: Comrade, you have a miserable life. You are born in poverty, you live in poverty and misery and you die in poverty. Capitalism is the cause of this.
Indian worker: Yes, I am poor and miserable. What would you substitute for Capitalism?
Socialist: Socialism! Under Socialism all would work and all would share in the wealth produced, so we would all be well off.
Indian worker: That sounds fine to me. We must have that.
Socialist: Wait! You can’t have Socialism yet. You haven’t had enough Capitalism. You must have Capitalism to prepare you for Socialism.
Indian worker: You tell me Capitalism is awful and that I ought to do away with it and have Socialism, but you also say I can’t have Socialism until I have had more Capitalism. You are telling me mutually contradictory things. If I must have Capitalism, as you say, I will put up with it, and not waste my energy grousing about it.
I should like the S.P.G.B. answer to this question: If Capitalism is necessary and inevitable in the evolution of human society towards Socialism, why grumble about it?
If you print this letter, I suggest you keep my heading, if it states your position correctly. It will, however, look somewhat peculiar in a Socialist journal.
Yours faithfully,
G. Davies
London, S.W.17.
Reply.
Mr. Davies makes no attempt to deal with the substance of the article he criticises, nor does he deny that Capitalism is rotten and produces wars, poverty in the midst of plenty, degrades the wealth producers and causes a host of other evils that spring from the particular type of class ownership in which it is rooted; his only argument is that if Capitalism is a necessary evil why grumble about it? He forgets that most of man’s conquests of natural forces have been accompanied by necessary evils, and that it was only by "grumbling" about them that these evils were eventually either eliminated or considerably reduced. In the social sphere the horrors of the early factory system, which degraded, demoralised and decimated the factory population, were responsible for fierce protests that helped to bring about changes in factory methods. The protests were just as much a necessary product as the factory system itself. According to Mr. Davies’ curious ideas of necessity there should have been no protests, and children from the age of six or seven years of age ought still to have been abandoned to the unbridled lust for profit and exploitation of people like the cruel factory owners of the middle of last century, who battened upon human misery.
Mr. Davies refers to the phrase the “heritage of today" as if it simply meant the Capitalist social organisation itself, but it meant more than that; as the article makes clear it also meant the ideas that develop out of Capitalism, the opposition to Capitalism from which springs the desire for the common ownership of the means of production that will involve the disappearance of clashes, of trading, of money, of the exploitation of man by man and of all forms of social privilege except those which are accorded to the young, the old, and the infirm. By giving birth to ideas like these, and by demonstrating that it is incapable of bringing comfort and security to the mass of the world’s population, Capitalism of necessity digs its own grave.
Capitalism became a necessary evil once sections of mankind had got upon the track of the advantages to be derived from privilege but it also, in its time, conferred benefits as well as evils upon mankind. In the general march towards Socialism it has played a valuable part. Capitalism has been both revolutionary and reactionary. It was revolutionary in the sense that, at considerable cost in human suffering, it developed the productive forces to a pitch where it became possible to guarantee comfort and security to all, relieving mankind from blind dependence upon natural forces; it is reactionary in the sense that, being founded upon privilege, it is now a barrier to the achievement of this comfort and security. Socialism, a necessary product of Capitalism, will absorb all the valuable productive achievements of Capitalism but it will abolish class ownership of the means of production and, at the same time, the multitude of evils that spring from this class ownership; it will abolish privilege, thereby leaving the way open to a free, full and happy life-for all. Capitalism has taught mankind the value of associated labour on a world scale; the profit motive which is its central idea, sordid though it is, sent people scurrying all over the earth, and delving deep under the earth, to make the earth fruitful; it developed marvellous machines and methods of production, but now, as far as the advanced nations are concerned, its work is finished and its fruit has become rotten; what remains to be done is to take advantage of its accomplishments and turn its achievements from means of causing suffering to means of bringing happiness.
Now let us turn to the imaginary dialogue between an Indian worker and an S.P.G.B. seaman which Mr. Davies regards as so devastating to the position we take up. We preach Socialism to the Indian worker, to the Hottentot and to every other worker; we recognise, however, that, regardless of our desires, Capitalism is still continuing to develop in India and elsewhere and that the Western workers have not yet decided to establish Socialism. We further appreciate that though India cannot at the moment jump straight into Socialism without a considerable development of industry and ideas yet it can learn from the advanced nations, learn both industrial methods and socialist ideas, and that it can do so comparatively rapidly. If India does happen to lag behind when the workers of the advanced nations establish Socialism then, for the reasons outlined in the article criticised, India would have no difficulty in becoming absorbed into the new world social system, the advantages of which would be obvious from the outset and would be easy to absorb.
Where backward people “take part in building up Capitalism on, their own account” they do “cut the cord that binds them to the past." It is also a fact that this development, as we have already shown, brings them nearer to the achievement of Socialism. On the basis of this Mr. Davies argues that we should advocate Capitalism to the Indian worker as a stepping-stone to Socialism. What he overlooks is that Capitalism is already well developed in India, in spite of areas of backwardness, and that Socialist ideas are already spreading there. It is, therefore, the Capitalist who advocates and builds up Capitalism in India and the Socialist who advocates Socialism and builds up the Socialist movement. The Socialist does not say to the Indian worker “Wait! You can’t have Socialism yet. You haven’t had enough of Capitalism. You must have Capitalism to prepare for Socialism.” What he does say is: You can have Socialism as soon as the majority of the Indian workers understand Socialism and want it! Therefore study it and work for its achievement.
From the foregoing it will be seen that Mr. Davies’ suggested heading is wrong; Capitalism was necessary but is no longer. That, however, will not prevent it from undergoing a hothouse development in areas where it has not yet made great progress. On the basis of Mr. Davies’ argument there would have been no social evolution; chattel slavery and other forms of social organisation would still be flourishing because nobody would have "grumbled” about their evil consequences. Unfortunately for his argument they did "grumble,” just as, no doubt, he grumbles when Capitalism pinches him in some directions. It is certainly astonishing to find someone cavilling at grumbling after the fearful consequences of the first world war, the last world war and the prospect of still more terrible experiences in the new war that is foreshadowed ; wars that were and are a necessary consequence of the Capitalist social order. Mr. Davies seems to have been blinded by his logic and, like the imaginary Hottentot, is out of touch with developments in the world in which he lives.
Gilmac.
No comments:
Post a Comment