Party News from the January 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard
Wednesday, December 11, 2024
Letter: Taxes and Labour (1978)
Taxes and Labour
Firstly, i refer to your correspondence columns in the Oct. 1976 and Dec. 1976 issues of the Socialist Standard. It was said in one of your replies that wages are what workers actually receive (net pay) and that taxes are paid by the employing class.
Notwithstanding the incontrovertibility of this assertion, I suggest that the rate of the impost on income is, caeteris paribus, of more interest to the worker than to the capitalist in the short term. If, for example, gross wages remain the same, while the rate of tax falls, then the total outlay of the capitalist remains the same (net pay plus taxation equalling the same gross pay as before the alteration of the impost rate) whilst the net pay of the workers increases at the expense of the tax paid; the reverse being the case if the rate of tax rises.
In the long term, however, an accretion to or a deduction from net wages as a result of a variation in the tax levels has repercussions on the employer. For instance, should net wages diminish as a result of an increase in the rate of tax, workers may then press, successfully, for higher gross pay which would entail an additional payment by the capitalist. Conversely, if net wages rise as a result of a fall in the tax on income, workers would be less likely to seek wage increases and so the capitalist avoids having to make additional payments to workers.
Secondly, the Spring-Summer 1977 Western Socialist contained a reply to a letter. The reply stated that the division of labour will be the basis of world Socialism. However, in The German Ideology Marx wrote ". . . while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow.”
Do you agree with the Western Socialist or with Marx?
P. S. Maloney
London N13
Reply:
Your proposition about tax is fallacious because, while you say that you are accepting that “other things are equal”, in fact ycur proposition is based on the assumption that two other vital factors have also been varied.
Our case is that in reality the burden of taxation (cost of the administrative machine of capitalism) falls on the capitalist class and comes out of surplus-value. Nominally, however, the cost is met partly out of PAYE, deducted from workers’ wages.
Your proposition assumes that the government revenue from PAYE is reduced, but unless you also assume (while giving no reason) that the total cost of administration has been correspondingly reduced, the government has to make an equal increase in the amount of tax collected directly from the capitalists. Your assumption that the total outlay of the capitalist remains the same is therefore untrue.
Your argument further requires (though without saying so) that simultaneously with the reduction of PAYE, the bargaining position of the workers against the capitalists has improved. (What Marx called "the respective powers of the combatants”.) If, before the reduction of PAYE, the bargaining power of the workers enables them to maintain net pay of £x, it cannot be assumed that when PAYE is reduced by £y the workers’ bargaining power is so increased that they can now achieve net pay of £x + £y.
In view of these errors in your proposition, it is not necessary to go into any difference there may be between short- and long-term.
The statement in the Western Socialist is in reply to a critic who argues that "division of labour and private property are equally” the cause of the evils of capitalism. The reply says that in Socialism there will be free access, and "without division of labour this would hardly be possible”.
Marx distinguished between social division of labour, i.e. the existence of separate industries, and the workshop division of labour, i.e. workers being forced to get their living by doing detailed processes. (See Capital Vol. 1, “Division of Labour and Manufacture”, particularly the last paragraph in Section 4.) The latter, but not the former, is peculiar to capitalism.
The Western Socialist’s critic does not make clear whether he is referring to the latter, or both. We do not imagine that the reply meant anything other than the social division of labour. Various industries under capitalism (particularly the motor industry) have already abandoned detail work and gone over to teams producing a whole car, because it gives greater output and better quality.
Anyway, how, in Socialist society, could any worker be compelled to do deadly repetitive work against his will? Marx made that point in The German Ideology. He said it is only under capitalism that a worker has to do it "if he does not want to lose his means of livelihood”. In the well-known passage where Marx spoke of man being “a hunter in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening”, etc., he was talking about "whole” jobs not detailed division of labour (though his examples are not much related to modern conditions). Marx also recognized that to do this the individual has to take advantage of the facilities “to become accomplished in any branch he wishes”, i.e. he has to get knowledge and training—no self-appointed surgeons or airline pilots, as anarchists have sometimes claimed there will be.
Editors.
Letter: The State (1978)
The State
Replying to my letter, on liberty under Socialism—November issue—you state "there would not, and could not, be coercion against any individual or minority who did not agree with majority decisions”. I am in complete agreement. An unequivocal statement which could not be bettered. Yet Clause 6 urges the working class to organise for the “conquest of the powers of government” with the object of converting these powers "from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation”. But, if we are to use the "powers of government”, this surely will necessitate coercion? Further, if we are to rely on State action, the State will have functions to perform and organisms which have functions to perform do not "wither away”. Assuming the people have accepted Socialism, would not advisory councils be best fitted for any necessary organisation? The State can make changes in one way only—by means of force. We may be sure that people sufficiently intelligent to accept Socialism will be able to arrange affairs without compulsion when called on to do so.
I agree that anarchism is a negative philosophy and that only within the framework of a positive society, based on common ownership of the means of wealth production, will a free society ever be possible. With the end of profits and wages system and consequent conflict of interest which now operates between every individual, class, group and nation, the basic interest of all will be the same.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain (alone) constantly puts over this message. But can we ever accomplish it by political means? Parliament and rulers are synonymous terms to the mass of the people. How can we persuade them that rulers are unnecessary in a civilised world if we identify ourselves with that capitalist institution, Parliament. I greatly fear the corrupting influence of the "struggle to gain the Powers of Government” and, oh!, how I wish the SPGB did not indulge in political activity— a vain hope indeed.
F. Ball
Woldingham
Reply:
If it is agreed that the ownership basis of society must be changed, there is no alternative to political action to bring about the change. The capitalist class are a minority incapable of safeguarding their ownership on their own account: the function of the state is to legalize class ownership, and back up the legality with force. Attempts to use "industrial action" or "direct action” to bring about a change are quashed by the powers of government. The only way is for delegates of a socialist working class to take control of the state, so that its machinery can no longer be used to maintain and enforce class ownership. This is what Clause 6 of our Principles means.
Beyond this single major act, the state has no other function to perform. Certainly there will be organization in Socialism, but its concern will be “administration of things” and not administration of people. As you yourself say, people who have a clear understanding of Socialism are able to manage the affairs of society without compulsion.
Your last point is that political activity produces an authoritarian mentality. It does—in those who lack the understanding we have been talking about. All kinds of everyday experiences can likewise produce a belief in leadership and acceptance of corruption. Socialist consciousness is the only effective resistance to them; and the political organization for Socialism must be a democratic one, in which all functionaries carry out neither more nor less than the instructions of those who vote for them.
Editors.
Letter: Classes (1978)
Classes
What is the extent of working class investment in the UK economy and what proportion is it of total investment at a rough estimate?
I was perplexed when I came across the following extract from Marx’s work Theorien Über den Mehrwert II/2 pg. 368. in Bottomore and Rubel’s book Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosophy p. 198:
What [Ricardo] forgets to mention is the continual increase in numbers of the middle classes, . . . situated midway between the workers on one side and the capitalists and landowners on the other. These middle classes rest with all their weight upon the working class and at the same time increase the social security and power of the upper class.
I’m afraid I don’t know what context this was written in (perhaps you can tell me?) but it does appear to me to contradict for example what Marx wrote in The Communist Manifesto about the "lower strata of the middle class” sinking into the proletariat and also in Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right where he talks of the “disintegration of the middle class” (Bottomore and Rubel, p. 190). I had always imagined that by "middle class” Marx meant basically the small businessman. From his analysis of the economics of capitalism Marx predicted the growing concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands —in the sense in which “middle class” is understood as alluding to the small businessmen Marx’s prediction is undoubtedly spot-on. Could it be that in the above quotation from Theorien Über den Mehrwert Marx used the term "middle class” to mean a social grouping embodying a petty-bourgeois mentality? If so when this appears to utterly refute the sort of smug assertions one finds in sociology textbooks that “Marx failed to foresee the growth of a middle class” (even leaving aside the point that to marxists, because someone works in an office or speaks in a posh accent, this does not make him any the less a member of the working class).
Robin Cox
Haslemere
Reply:
1. There is no conceivable way of identifying what shares are owned by workers. Company shares are owned by individuals and joint owners, and by trustees, investment and unit trusts, banks, pension funds, insurance companies, etc. No owner explains when buying shares that he is or is not a worker.
For an individual company it is possible to find out what amount each shareholder owns, but this tells you little. X may own 1,000 shares in 10 companies, as also each of those named in the previous paragraph. However, nobody could combine this information for all companies, or identify the ultimate owners via a trust or a pension fund.
The First Report of the Royal Commission on Incomes and Wealth (pages 81-82) gives some information on the percentage of shareholding in groups classified according to the estimated total personal wealth of the persons in each group.
2. The 1969 Moscow edition of Theories of Surplus Value has an addition to the second sentence of the passage you quote and reads: "The middle classes maintain themselves to an ever increasing extent directly out of revenue, they are a burden weighing heavily on the working base and increase the social security and power of the upper ten thousand.”
In this section Marx is discussing the transformation of capital into revenue and vice versa, with references to Ricardo and another writer, John Barton. In another part of it he speaks of "the landlords and capitalists, their retainers and hangers-on”, and later: "A larger section of the workers employed in the production of articles of consumption that are consumed by—are exchanged against the revenue of—capitalists, landlords and their retainers (state, church etc.).” This makes clear that he was not talking about small businessmen.
Theories of Surplus Value was Marx’s manuscript for a projected Fourth Volume of Capital. The manuscript was never worked up by Marx for publication, and some passages are little more than notes for further elaboration; we do not know if he would have used the same phrases in a finished work. The view which Marx stated consistently is found in Capital Volume 3 (page 1025, Kerr edn.): “In view of the foregoing analysis it is not necessary to demonstrate again, that the relation between wage labour and capital determines the entire character of the mode of production. The principal agents of this mode of production itself, the capitalist and the wage worker, are to that extent merely personifications of capital and wage labour. They are definite social characters, assigned to individuals by the process of production. They are products of these definite social conditions of production.”
Editors.
Letter: Voting Shut-Down? (1978)
Voting Shut-Down?
I am studying the Principles (I am in 100 per cent agreement with the Object) and contacting my nearest branch of the Party, and do believe from what I’ve heard so far that the SPGB is closer to what I believe than any party or group I’ve yet come in contact with. Reformism is indeed a dead end!
One question: The achievement of Socialism by gaining a democratic majority of socialists is one I agree with and I reject violence, terrorism and guerrilla-type tactics. But what if the capitalist parties refuse to call an election? We have no written Constitution in the UK and the fact we have General Elections every three years at least is a convention—also the monarch "upon advice” can summon anyone to form a government—a minority one in theory.
If it looks as if socialists are becoming a majority of the working class I cannot envisage the capitalists maintaining democracy for the convenience of those who are about to bring in Socialism! Related to this point is the fact that many lands do not have a system of democratic elections. I would be grateful for your comments on this. I’m not trying to split hairs but this seems a very obvious objection to the Party’s Principle.
Robert J. Taylor
Holmfirth
Reply:
Capitalism rests upon the support of the working class, and elections are a way of renewing and measuring that support. Though, as you say, many countries "do not have democratic elections”, they do have parliamentary systems; what is missing is a choice of opposition candidates with facilities to put their points of view.
There was no general election in Britain from 1936 to 1945, the three major parties agreeing on a wartime "truce”. This was achieved solely because there was no doubt that the great majority of the working class supported the government’s main policy, i.e. the war against Germany. At other times the capitalist class of a country has had to withdraw from a war because of lack of support from the workers.
If elections were suspended because it was likely that a socialist majority would be elected, the existing pro-capitalist government would be unable to carry out its policies for any length of time. It would not have the cooperation of the trade unions, nor would it be able to prepare for war; and in all departments it would be without the necessary assent of "public opinion”.
As regards other countries, at that stage of development they too would have strong socialist movements. At present the call for “democratic elections” in those countries comes from factions who themselves want the opportunity to run capitalism and would seek working-class support on that basis. Socialists need democracy for the establishment of common ownership, and at the stage when the majority of workers have that conscious objective it will be impossible for the capitalist class to withhold it by political manoeuvres or any other means.
Editors.
A tidy up
Before the end of the year is out, I want to focus on tidying the blog up a bit.
The blog always been a work in progress, but it's definitely the case that the template - so to speak - of posting the Standards on the blog has solidified in recent years (no, I don't know what I'm talking about either.)
In a nutshell, this means that I now make a point of posting details of meetings from the Standard on the blog, and also taken to posting the letters to the editors as individual posts, rather than as one long screedish moan at the SPGB. That's all well and good that I've settled on a way of doing things, but it does mean that the early years of the blog didn't follow that same pattern. My concern is that some material from the Standard has been hidden away on the blog as a consequence.
So, I want to focus on reposting some material as separate posts and also, where possible, post details of past meetings that were advertised in the Standard.
Any suggestion from any quarter that this is nothing more than a naked attempt to pad out the number posts on the blog will be duly noted, and you will be sent to the American equivalent of Coventry . . . Muncie, Indiana.
A "Done & Dusted" catch up special
A bit late in the month. Apologies for that. Got caught up in all the United Healthcare memes. There were just so many.
October was a bit of a ghost month, but I tried to make up for it in November. (Doing even better in December.)
October's "Done & Dusted"
Notes by the Way: Austerity for how long, Sir Stafford? (1948)
Austerity for how long, Sir Stafford?
The opening words of “Let Us Face the Future,” the Labour Party's declaration on which the 1945 General Election was fought, were "Victory in War must be followed by a Prosperous Peace.” There was no must about it and the cessation of American lease-lend soon brought the Government face to face with the fact that capitalism has its own way of disposing of election hopes and promises. Since 1945 we have had to make the best of a series of “crises” all of which have been announced by the Government with an air of surprise as if they could not have been foreseen. The workers have been asked to put up with austerity and “work harder” campaigns on the plea that after all they would not last for ever. Now Sir Stafford Cripps has let the cat out of the bag. Speaking at a Press Conference in London on 11th November, he said:
“We are now and shall be henceforth for as long as we can see into the future, engaged in a competition in overseas markets which demands for our success every economy that efficiency and high productivity can give us. We shall not be able to relapse from this endeavour any more than our competitors in the world markets will. We require a universal and sustained effort . . ." (Italics ours.)(Times, 12/11/48.)
So it is as Socialists have always said it must be, an indefinite sentence. For the workers the capitalist treadmill will last for as long as the working class chooses to put up with capitalism.
The Football Slavery Business
“Janus” in the Spectator (5/11/48) comments on the recent troubles about football transfer fees:
“The protest of the Middlesbrough footballer, Wilfrid Mannion, against the price (£30,000) put on his head by his club focuses attention afresh on the extraordinary traffic in human beings which prevails in League football circles. The transfer fee system has, I suppose, grown up gradually because League football is now frankly a business in which it is essential to attract large 'gates,' large 'gates' will not be attracted unless the home team consistently puts up a reasonably good show, it will not put up a good show unless it has good players, and it cannot get good players except by buying them from another club or putting so high a price on them that another club cannot attract them away. Pages could be written about this. It is enough to say that what the player—whose normal wage is £12 a week—gets out of a transfer fee of £10,000 or £15,000 is £10 for himself. Professional football might take a lesson from professional cricket. A man, it should be added, who leaves the club with which he is registered against its will is barred from playing as a professional for any other club.”
The Edmonton By-Election
The Labour Party’s experience at Edmonton, where their candidate's majority was reduced from 19,000 in 1945 to 3,327, has encouraged the Tories and correspondingly troubled the Labour Party. The Local Labourites blame the turnover of votes on an “insidious doorstep campaign” alleged to have been conducted by the Tories, in which instead of dealing with major political issues and the record of the Labour Government, the canvassers are said to have raised issues of race-prejudice and to have exploited “our nation’s post-war difficulties.” (Daily Mail, 15/11/48.)
The Daily Mail suggests that the Labour vote fell because of “the sudden cut in the bacon ration,” while the Daily Worker says “ This is the fruit of Right Wing Labour policy, particularly its cuts in housing.” (15/11/48.)
What is really going on is the normal working out of capitalist politics, the old game of ins and outs. The Labour "ins” say "ask your Dad about pre-war unemployment under the Tories” and the Tories retort with "ask your Mum about pre-war food supplies, prices and no rationing.” Socialists say look around at capitalism and its effects and ask your Mum and Dad and your grandparents for evidence that capitalism was always useless and hopeless for the working class. Those who administer capitalism are rightly blamed for their responsibility in what capitalism produces, while the capitalist opposition naturally (and falsely) promises that if they get back again capitalism will be different.
The Labour Party got in on non-Socialist votes and when the voters find that things do not go as promised they turn round and vote for candidates who make better promises. A Socialist electorate could not be led away by race-prejudice or by propaganda about bacon rations.
The “Final Stage of Communism” in Russia
A Times correspondent in Budapest (Times, 13/11/48) quotes extensively from an article in the Cominform newspaper which sets out to describe what is meant by "the final stage of Communism” towards which Russia, according to Soviet propaganda, is moving. In the article Stalin is quoted as having said that development towards Communism depends on great increases of production (e.g., to 60 million tons of steel a year compared with 19 million tons in 1940 and rather more now), and that it will take from 15 to 20 years to achieve.
What is of more interest is the social structure of this “Communist” society. According to the Times correspondent the article abandons the Marxian principle that the State will wither away, and also the "free-and-easy” system “about which Engels dreamed,” and forecasts a disciplined society rather like present day Russia but with many more and much better consumer goods. Money will continue under this “Communism.”
The Times, which is interested in the struggle for world power between Russia and U.S.A., rather than in social theories, points out in its editorial that U.S.A. already produces more steel and coal than Russia plans to produce in 20 years’ time.
Solution of the Palestine Problem?
While the new state of Israel disputes for territory with the Arab states, and the Powers behind the scenes think of oil, pipe lines, Middle East strategy and the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, the “solution” of the problem of European Jewish refugees is now accompanied by the new problem of the Arab refugees from Palestine. A letter in the Times (13/11/48) from Mr. Marcus Shloimovitz, in which he appeals to the Israel Government to make a generous effort to help the new army of refugees, contains the following:
"A tragic situation is rapidly deteriorating into a tragedy of heartless abandonment of over 350,000 Arab refugees in Palestine to the ‘mercies’ of a winter without adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical supplies. A letter I received from a co-religionist in the Lebanon the other day says that they are existing under the most deplorable conditions of squalor and semi-starvation. The Israeli Government are in a position to solve the problem, as it should be solved, by allowing them to return to their former homes in Palestine without delay. I am convinced that this is the duty of the leaders of Israel to their faith. It would show that they are merciful and humanitarian, in accordance with the teachings of Judaism. Have human feelings been so dulled by the happenings of the past 10 years that a further 350,000 victims of war (two-thirds are under 18 years of age, nearly one-third are children under five, and one in 10 is either an expectant or nursing mother) are regarded as a minor and inevitable consequence of the Palestine troubles?”
Oil Millionaire
From the Evening Standard (10/11 / 48):
‘‘It will take months fully to unravel the financial affairs of Lord Bearsted. But there seems little doubt that when he died this week, aged 66, he left less than he inherited in 1927 from his father, first Viscount and founder of the Shell oil group.
“Lord Bearsted’s share of his father’s £4,000,000 estate was more than a million. He multiplied this fortune several times.
“But he gave away large sums to charities. In addition, during his last years, Lord Bearsted disposed of the bulk of his fortune by trusts settled on his three sons.”
Another Communist Rift
Alongside the acrimonious dispute between the Tito Communists and the Russian Controlled Cominform another storm has blown up, between the Australian Communist Party and the British Communists. We are indebted to an Australian Comrade for a copy of the ”Communist Review” (Australian Communist Party, September, 1948) in which appears a long article criticising British Communist Party policy, together with an answer by the Executive of the British Party. The articles are far from friendly for the British Party accuses its Australian comrades of attributing to them ”various policies which we have never put forward, without giving evidence to substantiate the statements made . . .”
The British Party is accused of the “blunder of advocating the continuance of the reactionary coalition government, headed by the arch-imperialist and warmonger, Churchill.” It also showed “lack of understanding of the role of the social-democratic government,” failed to foresee the Labour Party’s victory at the 1945 General Election, and "failed to estimate correctly the position in Britain and the mood of the masses.” It is also accused of betraying a "class collaborationist outlook” because even as late as April, 1947 it was boosting the greater production campaign and the export drive.
The British Party in its reply denies ever having wanted a continuance of the war-time coalition government after the war under Winston Churchill, though they admit having proposed the formation of a government of ” National Unity,” but not under Churchill.
As, in 1939, the British Communist Party took the initiative of writing to Churchill and the Labour and Liberal leaders inviting them to form a coalition to oppose Hitler it is rather surprising that they should be so anxious to deny having wanted him as Prime Minister in 1945.
One revealing passage in the Australian party’s reply is the following about the British Communist miners’ leader, Mr. Arthur Horner:
"The language of Comrade Horner, in rebuking striking miners, is as fierce as that customarily used by the extreme right wing in Australia, and is headlined in the capitalist press in order to help break down strikes in Australia.”
A quotation from Mr. H. Pollitt’s booklet, "Looking Ahead,” is used by the Australians with telling effect in a charge that the British Party does not understand what is happening. Pollitt wrote: "I have no hesitation in declaring that the essence of the period we are now in is that of a transition stage towards Socialism.” The British party’s denial that this was meant to refer to Britain, is met by the production of other similar statements and the Australian Communist Party declares that "there can be no doubt that these statements have specific application to Britain and not general application, as the British leaders claim.” Altogether it looks as if some Communist “purges” are on the. way as soon as the Russian Party decides which party is toeing the line suitable to the Russian Government.
Communist Tribute to Rqoeevelt
The Daily Worker (11/11/48) announced a Peace Rally and an ex-servicemen’s march from Trafalgar Square to lay a wreath on the Cenotaph. The Rally was "called jointly by the Daily Worker and nine major trade union organisations.” The announcement goes on as follows:
“A delegation will also go to the Roosevelt Memorial with a tribute from the people of London to the late President ‘lover of peace’ and all those Americans following in his tradition.”
As Mr. Truman was Roosevelt’s Vice-President, and is his successor as leader of the “New Deal” Democratic Party this tribute presumably includes him. And why no Communist Tribute to Mr. Churchill, who, after all, was their choice as Prime Minister of Britain in 1939 and was brother-in-arms of Roosevelt during the war?
Edgar Hardcastle
Letter: Capitalism was Necessary (1948)
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)