Letter: Fetish for a moneyless society? (1996)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fetish for a moneyless society?

Dear Editors,

I have read a number of Socialist Standards over the last couple of years, and whilst I agree in very general terms with your espousal of socialism, it seems to me that your outlook tends to be naive in the extreme.

Your journal suffers the common affliction of preaching to the converted. For instance, a recent article on Trade Unions and the Labour Party was somewhat simplistic and presumptuous of the reader's left-wing sympathies. After the "Winter of Discontent" debacle we have had to endure a certain legacy of "the unions were running the country". Now whilst you and I might dispute this line, the general public remain cynical of organised labour. The strikes of the late 70s and the miners’ great strike of '84-'85 raised concerns (whether justified or not) about trade union democracy, so some attempts could have been made to tackle the “overmighty unions” thesis.

It might be an altogether better idea to encourage something of a radical forum, and solicit letters and essays from right-wingers so that some of these issues can actually be open to debate.

As for your criticisms of New Labour, this is surely superfluous. I am intrigued by critique of the old clause IV. part IV which differed from your own formulation of common ownership in respect of the socialisation of the “means of exchange”. Well, this really is splitting hairs, isn’t it? This particular fetish of yours for the moneyless society is analogous to the number of angels dancing on a pinhead, a largely esoteric and pedantic concern. You would have been on better ground lambasting Labour for its failure in socialist political economy than arguing about these semantic totems. Money, alas, isn't the problem, the profit motive is! Besides a socialist economy would surely have to ration scarce resources, or at least avoid the “double coincidence of wants". Free access ignores the physical constraints of scarcity.

Your constitution sounds very libertarian, you make a point of saying there are no leaders or followers with the SPGB. This cannot be so, you have an editorial team, presumably an NEC/executive committee. You make decisions and decide a party line, as your journal testifies to. This is leadership of a kind, even if collectively administered and democratically accountable. Presumably you also expel people from time to time.

Perhaps the most damning tenet of the SPGB is that your members have to be avowed atheists to join. I can understand a socialist party advocating the privatisation of religion, but to demand a doctrinaire atheism, is, dare I say it, very Stalinist of you. Of course from a purely scientific viewpoint agnosticism makes sense, but to officially control a person’s private metaphysical leanings is dangerous. Fair enough, I may be personally inclined to atheism, but science cannot resolve this philosophical question, and probably never will. Whilst I may think a person’s metaphysical beliefs irrational, s/he is still entitled to them (in so far as they harm no others), especially as this is pure speculation.

I dislike scientific socialism because it then becomes a caricature, a scientism, a crude 19th century positivism. Socialism should be humanistic and conjectural rather than a Marxist teleology of self-confirming dogma. As such it should concede its limitations and move towards some kind of genuine enlightenment.

A. M. Wallace, 

Rochdale

Reply:

We have our own criticism of the unions. They tend to be bureaucratic not democratic organisations. Many of them support the Labour Party. All of them seek “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work" instead of the "abolition of the wages system". All we say in their favour is that they do by and large succeed in acting as a brake against the ever-present downward pressures of employers and governments on wages and working conditions. That’s why our members join them and why other workers should join them too.

2. You are quite right. It isn’t money in itself that is the problem. It is what the existence of money represents that is the problem. Money means that goods and services are produced to be bought and sold; which in turn means that private ownership exists. Socialists stand for common ownership, for all land and industry becoming the common heritage of the whole community instead of being the exclusive property of individuals, companies and governments. With common ownership, goods are not produced to be sold (how can you sell what you already own?) but to be distributed, or rather to be made available for people to take according to their needs. So you don’t need money, and if you don't need money you don’t need banks, insurance companies, pension funds and other financial institutions which Labour's old Clause IV wanted to nationalise as “means of exchange”. This is not being pedantic: if someone speaks in terms of nationalising “the means of exchange" this shows that they are still thinking in terms of capitalism and so stand for state capitalism not socialism.

3. Yes. we have no leaders. There is an executive committee. elected each year in a vote of the whole membership. The editorial committee of this journal is appointed by the executive committee, but both committees are purely administrative and technical bodies. Policies are decided by a vote at our annual conference of mandated branch delegates and, occasionally, by a referendum of the whole membership. The executive committee, the editorial committee and all other committees are there to carry out those policies. People elected to carry out specific functions on behalf of an organisation and who remain responsible to those who elected them are not leaders, they are delegates. How else could an organisation function democratically?

4. We are not saying that people are not entitled to hold religious and other irrational beliefs if they want to. Of course they are. We are merely say that people with such views are ineligible to join our organisation, as are racists, nationalists. Tories. Labourites and other people whose views we regard as mistaken (including atheists who support capitalism). What’s "Stalinist" about a voluntary organisation laying down conditions of membership? All organisations do this.

5. Socialism is "humanistic" in the sense of wanting a society where humans can relate to each other as human beings and not as commodities and where human welfare is the overriding priority. There’s no contradiction between this and taking a scientific approach to nature and society. In fact it’s the best approach to take if you want to find out the best way to establish such a society.

Editors.

 

 

Blogger's Note:

The above photograph of the SPGB Executive Committee is from the original September 1996 issue of the Standard. I'm not sure who the person is with their back to the camera, but those facing on are, from left to right, Richard Headicar, Gwynn Thomas, Les Cox, Dick Donnelly and Mike Browne.