Equality under capitalism (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

In an article in the Sunday Observer (31/12/1950), Charles Davy poses the question, “ what will Britain be like in ten years’ time?” He wonders whether Britain should aim at a “classless” society, since he recognises that the so-called “Welfare State” is one “where class differences are still wide and well- marked.” Mr. Davy goes on to show that a classless society is understood by some people to be one in which “freedom will be maintained and equality at last achieved.” But Mr. Davy, like many before him, finds “equality” a stumbling-block. He wonders what it can mean in practical terms, since he sees “no obvious sense in which all men are equal, and so many ways in which they are not.”

In his “practical” way, Mr. Davy starts off with the viewpoint of the “child’s fear of being cheated" from which he traces a conception of justice “which implies equality before the law.” However, Mr. Davy himself in his wisdom realises that this lawyers’ well-worn phrase is meaningless. As he puts it:

“We can give men equal legal and voting rights; but we find that they are still subject to economic exploitation, and to gross family poverty which makes a mockery of the fair and equal chance.”

But even with the introduction of the “Welfare State” we find “that glaring inequalities persist.” So what can we do? One can now see Mr. Davy almost trembling with excitement; he daringly continues: “Should we then go further still, declaring that the very existence of rich people, while others are poor is an affront,”—and here at last comes the anti-climax —“and use taxation to narrow the gap until it is hardly noticeable?” But this is rejected, as it is only the viewpoint of some Labourites.

Mr. Davy himself is not so radical! He finds the solution in the “religious idea of equality,” which turns out to be—guess what?—the nineteenth century dogma of laissez-faire in twentieth century garb:

“ It requires that everyone should be given (as far as is humanly practicable) a fair chance in life.” This is the top-level of equality to Mr. Davy, above which “there should be freedom and variety: competition within the rules of fair play.” At last, he shows himself in his true colours: wistfully recalling that “in earlier societies, inequalities were accepted as part of the given order,” he regrets that “to-day it is very hard to get them accepted without envy and resentment.”

So inequality must now be disguised, it must be “seen and felt to be functional, derived not from privilege or influence but from the demands of the work in hand.” This is what Mr. Davy understands by a classless society, “ for the class to which a man belonged would not be fixed nor would it apply to him as a human being. It would simply be a working-dress.” This principle of functional partnership “would' call for far-reaching changes in the forms of ownership and association whereby power and authority are exercised, and rewards distributed in economic life." Thus Mr. Davy’s Britain of ten years hence would exemplify the “fundamental social paradox” of “ the equality and inequality of man”!

Of what “the far-reaching changes in the forms of ownership” will consist, their promulgator is not explicit. But no matter—he says they are only changes in form. This must mean that the substance of our present system of ownership will remain. This system consists in the class ownership of the means of production and distribution, whether through private or state forms, by the privileged minority, called capitalists. The propertyless majority of the members of society are forced by their economic condition to sell their labour-power for a wage or salary-to the privileged capitalists. A surplus-value is produced by the working-class over what they receive back in the form of wages; from this surplus-value all rent, interest and profit is derived. The motive of capitalistic production is to make profit. This is the basic economic disease of our time; from this arise the social inequalities. Mr. Davy is yet another of those social charlatans who see the symptoms but know not their cause. He is a typical apologist for the evils that are inherent in the nature of capitalist society. His concern is not to abolish inequality, but only to disguise it in such a form that the workers will no longer recognise it.

Socialists desire to show their fellow-workers that Socialism alone means equality. By Socialism is implied a system of society where the private ownership of the means of life, production for profit, a money or exchange system, and the existence of classes are all abolished. All the members of society will stand in a similar relation to the world’s wealth—all will be owners, or if you like, non-owners. Each will contribute what he can to society and take what he requires. There will be plenty for all. This is what Socialists understand by equality. In the words of Marx, “from each accord to his ability, to each according to his need."

D. A. Stern