Tyranny (2025)

From the November 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard 

 

Tyrants are surely not difficult to spot. A Hitler or a Stalin are, in hindsight, ludicrously obvious. Yet, in their own time, they garnered popular support, even as their excesses were becoming evident. Even with the clarity of history exposing their misdeeds, there are those who look back on them with political affection.

It is more difficult to evaluate the tyrannous potential of an individual who is in the process of emerging. Especially to those who are looking for, craving for, a leader to cure their individual and national ills.

Take the near veneration of Winston Churchill, despite his political record of disasters such as the Dardanelles campaign in the First Word War. It was, of course, his war leadership in the 1940s by which his political sins were largely, if not universally, absolved. Can he be cited for any actual acts of tyranny though? The deaths of an estimated 3 to 4 million Bengalis due to Churchill diverting food supplies makes an argument, especially in Bengal.

A strategic decision in wartime circumstances it might be argued by those more sympathetic. But tyrants usually claim their decisions are strategic, in the best interests of their people. The need to crack eggs to make omelettes.

The point though is not that this or that person is a tyrant. Such would be to identify tyranny solely with individuals. A problem solved by the expedient of choosing leaders who are not tyrants. Tyranny as a personality disorder.

However, if it’s the whole political, economic and social system that is tyrannous, then a tyrant is an individual expression, the figurehead of that tyranny. Hitler and Stalin had whole coteries around them as complicit as those individual leaders. The death of Stalin did not lead to the dismantling of the tyrannous regime in the Soviet Union. Indeed, the Stalin period was the continuation of that established by those who assumed power along with Lenin. It is arguable that the Bolsheviks, for all their communist posturing, merely adapted the previous Czarist methods to their own ends. The present Russian incumbent is a continuation barely veiled by a very dubious and threadbare ‘democratic’ cloak.

Over 2300 years ago Aristotle commented at length on the subject of tyranny, identifying its main features. Tyranny is often the manifestation of political turmoil, unstable government and a disaffected people. It reflects deep social and institutional issues caused by economic disparities and political dysfunction. People begin to look for a solution in the form of a leader who seems to embody the promise of resolution. Such an individual though will be looking to exploit these disruptive features for their own political or economic (or both) ends. Tyrants will impoverish their subjects to the point they feel they cannot resist. Aristotle was, of course, addressing individual rule in the political circumstances of his own time. It is feasible to consider his principles of tyranny in the broader context of society at large. In our time this is the continuing predominance and rule of capitalism.

Instability

Instability is a fundamental feature of a system posited on the principle of ruthless competition. The accruing of profit is the motor driving the system and this is achieved at the expense of the wealth creators, the workforce, and competitors.

To best serve capitalism’s requirements the workforce is stratified economically by a variety of remuneration levels. Economic disparity between workers creates sectional interests that divide rather than unite workers in the face of the real schism, between workers as a class and capitalists. Political dysfunction then arises when workers begin to identify with different political parties purportedly serving their particular interests, while actually administering the system on behalf of capitalism. This enables the capitalist system, in its role of tyrant, to use these disruptive features for its own economic and political ends. Capitalism’s subjects, the workers, are impoverished to the extent of being wholly dependent economically upon capitalism.

Even the seemingly well paid rarely, if ever, achieve economic security that might allow them to feel independent of capitalism. A seemingly luxurious lifestyle can quickly dissipate if the ‘generous’ salary disappears. Impoverishment is certainly more obvious to those on or near the minimum wage end of the pay spectrum. They are so insecure and drained by their circumstances they are rendered seemingly powerless to resist. Nor do they readily recognise common cause with those who are financially more comfortable, even (erroneously) called middle class. Indeed, it is this sector of the working class that becomes an object of their dissatisfaction. They feel diminished by the ‘middle class elite’, readily portrayed in the media dedicated to serving the interests of capital, as espousing ‘liberal’ or ‘lefty’ notions from their detached estates. This can manifest as mass street demonstrations against supposed ‘middle class’ shibboleths such as immigration, even socialism, as ineffective reformism is often misidentified. Would-be tyrants emerge to offer leadership that is actually misleadership.

There are actual tyrants heading brutal regimes as well as those who aspire to being tyrants with their own brutal regimes. These are often not as useful to capitalism as freer societies more compatible with free markets and flexible workforces. The democratic, or at least seemingly democratic, political model largely seems most suitable for capitalism to flourish, or deal with social unrest when flourishing periodically gives way to economic crisis. Should the democratic model become undermined by ineffective governance, with none of the established political parties able to maintain stability, then the implicit tyranny of capital can find explicit form through an insurgent political force.

The only antidote to the tyranny of capitalism, implicit or explicit, is socialism. Until workers can look beyond the immediate circumstances of their particular strata and identify themselves as a class they will remain as subjects of that tyranny. Socialism is the way workers can take real democratic possession and control of the means of life, where use and the meeting of all needs, not profit, is the motive force of society. Then the tyranny will have been truly toppled.

Dave Alton

Where’s the money going to come from? (1994)

From the August 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anyone who watches the political programmes at Sunday lunchtime will he familiar with the question "Where’s the money going to come from?" On 1 May, for instance, Brian Walden pressed Labour MP Ann Taylor on this question as a rejoinder to her suggestion of increased nursery provision. And Robin Cook, who insisted on the European Social Chapter (On The Record, 29 May), was similarly rebuked by the money question. Labour MPs of course have no real response they can hold against this shibboleth of received wisdom; they believe in the basic precepts which necessitate the asking of the question.

It seems obvious to socialists that an analysis of the nature of money is required here. It can't be simply assumed that money is a type of innocuous representation of actual wealth. On the contrary it must be asked if its overall arithmetical form imposes certain ideological categories and casts its own ethical (or unethical) shadow over our existence.

Nowadays the analysis of money has disappeared, in Orwellian fashion, from economic discourse. But critiques of money extend back over 2000 years. One of the best discussions of money, and one that greatly influenced Marx, is still that of the Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle.

Aristotle

Aristotle attributed two natures to money, that of a means and that of an end. This distinction reflects an ethical critique of the effects of money and how it is used. Some uses of money were acceptable and even laudable, argued Aristotle, as when money is used simply as a convenient means of getting useful things. But other uses, he said, were unacceptable or perverted, as where the exchange of goods was simply a mask for the accumulation of money or spurious wealth. So trading directed towards the use of goods with money merely as a common medium of transaction was seen as good, and trading directed at the exchange of commodities for profit, with commodities used merely as a means of securing this profit, was seen as bad. The distinction corresponds closely, but problematically as we shall see, to the one between use value and exchange value.

Aristotle used the example of the Delphian knife to illustrate the perverting effect of money. The Delphian knife was a tool that was made to be exchanged for money rather than to be used to perform a task. It could be used as a knife, a file, and a hammer, but in none of these functions was it very adequate, its only advantage was that it was cheaper in money than the three separate tools together. Hence a compromise is made between the tool-like properties of the knife and its exchange properties, and insofar as it was made to serve the latter function, it is not really a tool, except, as it were, a tool for making money rather than things.

Even philosophy itself is compromised by its association with exchange value. According to Aristotle, the Sophists let themselves be tainted by the profit motive, for the Sophist "is one who makes money from an apparent but unreal wisdom". The medical profession too becomes confused when its ends are mixed between money-getting and health. Contemporary examples inevitably spring to mind: "health" businesses selling liposculpture, far from providing perfect information on the effects of the operation, as the market sophistry maintains, on the contrary deliberately deceive patients about the risks involved, in order to secure the sale. And it could be argued that in every consumer product, a compromise must be made when the purposes involved in its creation are divided between exchange and use value; between the requirements of the seller and those of the customer.

Aristotle’s distinctions of exchange and use, means and ends, ethics and purely economic factors apply to the modern orthodoxy. The relatively trivial question "Where’s the money going to come from?" becomes the penetrating question "What is money?" The latter question challenges the received categories of exchange relations and demands an investigation into the barbaric practices out of which exchange arose. It is a question that asks is money realistic — or atavistic?

It is clear that ideas as much as facts are central to the workings of money. For example, the principle that whatever projects are envisaged must come out of existing funds. Fiscal spending, so it is said, represents a real practical limit which it is impossible to surpass. Behind this is the idea of a finite cache of wealth, a fund or a larder, in which things have been stored, and out of which things can be withdrawn at a later date. Is this really a practical matter, as no doubt Brian Walden would believe, or is it the promulgation of an ideological programme?

Admittedly the roots of this "larderism" lie deep in the facts of prehistory, when the store of food for the winter exemplified the model of a limited physical source determined by the real quantity and the real fertility of the land. This model still provides a basic formula for the operation of banks and nations, the only difference being that food has been replaced by an abstract symbolism of money, taking the form of bank reserves or national currency reserves representing all forms of production, not just agricultural.

This larderism has a powerful hold on the level of folk economics. On this level, the constraints of fixed budgets emerge in populist style as slogans such as "you can't just print money", "there is no bottomless pit", "you can't have your cake and eat it", "you don’t get ought for nought", "money isn’t made in heaven it's earned here on Earth", "there's no such thing as a free lunch", etc. Ah, the stuff tabloids are made of. And on the academic level, the principle seems to be simply elevated by nobler terms of expression rather than critically evaluated. Lord Robbins urged us to accept economics as the eternal problem of matching infinite wants against finite resources; the fundamentals of Mercantilism insist that "no man profiteth but by another's loss". All these aphorisms, ranging from crudity to casuistry, suggest a store of goods gained by toil in the summer as protection from the oncoming winter.

Despite creditable origins, this economic picture is logically flawed by its attempt to project the properties of a primitive domestic situation upon the complexities of the modern macroeconomic world. Some systems do follow the model of a fixed fund of goods, but the patterns of complex interaction between humankind and the biological and physical world, are, or can be, either synergistic or mutually exclusive. In the case of synergy, the more you take out of them, the more you have left; in the case of exclusivity, activity in one area has no effect on activity in another. The universal form of money makes all activities mutually burdensome, and insists, for instance, that the growth in education must be paid for by cuts in health, or investment in transport must be paid for by defence. Thus a kind of universal parasitism is established. One must question the nature of a formula of mutual burden which happens to have the very useful effect, for the Establishment, of dividing factions of society as competitors for limited resources.

The concepts of synergy and mutually exclusivity seem to violate the plausible, but examples are easy to find. The human body is synergistic in that the more you expend its energy as in exercise, the more energy you have as in fitness. If the linear economic model was applied to the body, you would get fit by sitting still and eating, thereby accumulating capital as fat. Mutual independence is clearly a fact of the natural and human worlds; there is no logical or physical connection between distant objects and activities. A bee taking honey in Glasgow is not constrained by one doing the same in London, yet Strathclyde is constrained by public spending in the Home Counties. Why do we impede ourselves in this way? Well, the popular wisdom is that there is only one pot of honey (money), for which we vie for attention. We should learn something from the symbiotic ecology of insects.

Free lunch

An even more serious error of money symbolism concerns the frontier of possible growth. The pseudo-physical arithmetic limit on economic development seems to be rooted in the Physiocratic principle that all wealth comes from the Earth, or the similarly-arbitrary Mercantilist precept that all wealth comes from the trade, or for that matter from the Marxist view that value is added by labour. But not only are the Earth’s resources, in contradistinction to the money model, symbiotic; they are also supplemented, as is the human body, from an external source. The human body is an organism in the world and receives its energy through food, and the Earth is a planet in the solar system, that likewise receives, free of charge, an inexhaustible input of fuel from the star in the middle of the solar system: the sun.

The sun is the free lunch that orthodox economics can’t come to terms with. The money system operates on a closed world assumption, on the much-stated monetarist principle that money is made here on Earth, it doesn’t come down from the sky. In fact all the wealth-making processes on the Earth are driven by extraneous energy that does come down, as it happens, from the sky. If money fails to reflect this reality and its function becomes not to reflect actual resources but to impose an ideological limit on their development and distribution. And if those limits demand that the homeless cannot be housed and that the hungry cannot eat (because where’s the money going to come from?) then that ideology isn't innocuous but a necessarily ethical, and unethical, force.

So Aristotle’s point is proved: the effect of money does poison the transactions and distributions it enforces its rule over. But not just directly because of the profit motive or exchange, but indirectly because of the general nature of the abstract form of exchange which embodies false assumptions about the nature of the world: the assumption that the fiscal frontier is the final frontier.

But to make Aristotle’s analysis fully consistent we ought to abandon the means/ends distinction which had a confused relation to the use/exchange distinction, and say not that there are two types of money (use money and exchange money) but that money necessarily is exchange value, that exchange value is necessarily perverse, and that true usefulness is necessarily contrary to the abstract value which money imposes on the physical world.

If Aristotle had accepted this analysis it would have solved a number of problems for him. Instead of having a tension between the two natures of money, one related to use, and one related to exchange, he could have rejected exchange completely and have said that the evaluation of goods should be dependent solely on their quality as defined in use. In a socialist system it is indeed use value that is the criterion of true wealth, and the spurious abstraction which exchange relations arbitrarily, and harmfully, apply to useful things would be simply removed.

If the premise of inherent scarcity is abandoned, as it can be when the qualitative, generous and realistic physical frontier is substituted for the miserly quantitative economic frontier, then it is no longer necessary to measure all goods by one universal standard as a means of rationing them. Is money the measure of all these things or are humans? Let us say the latter and thus advocate, along with an Aristotle-made-consistent, the abolition of exchange and the abolition of money. And if money is abolished, the question, where is the money to come from, is obviously redundant.

Norman Armstrong

Leadership and Lenin (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The idea of “ Leadership ” developed alongside the growth of private property; it was a reflection of class-divided society, and the leader or leaders always represented property interests. Behind the idea was the theory that a few are born to lead whilst the many are born to serve. Over 2,000 years ago Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, put the idea this way;—

“He who can foresee with his mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and he who can work with his body is a subject, and by nature a slave."

“And so in one point of view, the art of war is a natural art of acquisition, for it includes hunting, an art which ought to practice against wild beasts, and against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit, for war of such a kind is naturally just."

In the last century Thomas Carlyle, in his essay on Chartism, put the idea in a more polite form:—

"Surely, of all 'rights of man,' this right of the ignorant man to be guided by the wiser, to be, gently or forcibly, held in the true course by him, is the indisputablist. Nature herself ordains it from the first; Society struggles toward perfection by enforcing and accomplishing it more and more . . . In Rome and Athens, as elsewhere, if we look practically, we shall find that it was not by loud voting and debating of many, but by wise insight and ordering of a few that the work was done. So is it ever, so will it ever be."

As soon as the workers began to combine to try to obtain some amelioration of their conditions their Movement was also cursed with this idea of leadership, and a contemporary of Carlyle, William Lovett —a working man who drafted the six points of the Charter —complained bitterly about it: —

“They were always looking up to leadership of one description or another; were being swayed to and fro in opinion and action by the idol of their choice, and were rent and divided when some popular breath had blown that idol from its pedestal. In fact the masses, in their political organisations, were taught to look up to 'great men' (or to men professing greatness) rather than to great principles."

Despite Lovett’s complaints the leadership idea was firmly entrenched in the radical and social democratic movement, and became one of the pedestals of Bolshevism. Lenin, the most prominent of the early Bolsheviks, had a complete contempt for the workers, looking upon them as just pawns in the struggle for power. In a pamphlet written by him in 1902, entitled “What is to be Done,” he indicated the attitude that governed his actions. The following quotation will make clear what this attitude was: —

“We said that there could not yet be Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. This consciousness could only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working-class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realise the necessity for combining in unions, to fight against the employers and to strive to compel the Government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.

The theory of Socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical and economic theories that were elaborated by the educated representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals. The founders of modem scientific Socialism, Marx and Engels, themselves belonged to the bourgeois intelligentsia." (pages 32-33.)

“The workers can acquire class political consciousness only from without, that is, only outside of the economic struggle, outside of the sphere of relations between workers and employers." (page 76.)

Lenin was arguing against those who contended that only the trade union struggle mattered, but in doing so he showed his hand. It may be pointed out, in passing, that it was largely from the theories of French, German and English working men that Marx and Engels acquired the knowledge that they systematised into scientific Socialism.

Lenin was an opportunist struggling for power and when it suited his policy he glorified the intelligence of the workers (see for instance his arguments in favour of trusting “ the masses ” in “Lessons of the Russian Revolution," page 24) pouring scorn on the alleged intricacies of organisational functions; later on he was just as emphatic in the opposite direction. This whole organisational policy, however, was built upon the idea that only a few possessed the intellectual capacity to direct the masses, and this was his interpretation of the “ Dictatorship of the Proletariat." Let us just give an example of how he wrote when he was appealing for working class support:—

“Capitalist culture has created industry on a large scale in the shape of factories, railways, posts, telephones and so forth, and on this basis the great majority of functions of ‘the old State' have become enormously simplified and reduced, in practice, to very simple operations such as registration, filing and checking. Hence they will be quite within the reach of every literate person, and it will be possible to perform them for the usual 'working- man's wage.’ This circumstance ought, and will, strip them of all their former glamour as 'Government,' and. therefore, privileged service.

The control of all officials, without exception, by the unreserved application of the principle of election and, at any time, recall; and the approximation of their salaries to the 'ordinary pay of the workers'—these are simple and ‘self-evident' democratic measures, which harmonise completely the interests of the workers and the majority of peasants; and, at the same time, serve as a bridge, leading from Capitalism to Socialism." (“The State and Revolution," page 46.)

The above was written just before the Bolsheviks obtained control of State power; after this was accomplished the tune changed. To illustrate this change of tune here are some extracts from “Resolutions and Regulations of the Tenth Congress of the Russian Communist Party (29th March to 4th April, 1920) Published by the Executive Committee of the Communist International. Moscow, 1920." In considering these extracts it must be remembered that Lenin was the dominating figure in both the Russian Communist Party and the Communist International-

“The Congress makes it obligatory to all members of the party mercilessly to fight that particularly obnoxious form of ignorant conceit which deems the working class capable of solving all problems without the assistance in the most responsible cases of specialists of the bourgeois school. The demagogic elements who speculate on this kind of prejudice of the more backward section of our working classes can have no place in the ranks of the party of scientific Socialism.

Registration of individual output or productivity of labour and the granting of corresponding individual premiums must also be carried out in a way suitable to administrative technical staff. Better conditions must be secured for our best administrators and engineers to enable them to make full use of their capacities in the interests of Socialist economy.

A special system of premiums is to be established for those specialists under whose guidance the workers can attain the necessary qualifications to make them capable to accept further independent posts.'* page 16.)

Gone was simplicity, election of officials, equality of wages and the rest of the support-catching slogans. In place of them the iron hand of dictatorship and of the “intellectual minority” was revealed. Many pages of the report were given over to arguments alleging the necessity and advantages of one-man management and responsibility. It is interesting to notice that the penalties to be imposed for failure to fall in line with labour discipline included internment in concentration camps. This shows that forced labour and concentration camps were used to bolster up dictatorship at the beginning of Bolshevik rule.

“The way to fight this labour desertion is to publish a column of desertion fines, the formation of labour detachments of deserters under fine and finally internment in concentration camps.” (page 20.)

The quotations we have given will show that leadership, an attribute of private property society, which has cursed the working class’ movement from its inception, was elevated into a guiding principle by the Bolsheviks, and sedulously followed out up to the present, bringing with it domination and the “flesh pots of Egypt” to the privileged minority whilst the masses suffer penury, hard labour, and the threat of the concentration camps or worse.

(All italics in the quotations arc in the originals.)

Gilmac.

The Roots of Politics (1951)

From the August 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

As the Labour Party have failed to deliver the goods they promised there is a tendency to turn away from politics by many who previously supported the Labour Party. Some are turning to the trade union movement to seek the solution to their troubles, others are giving up the struggle in despair. A lack of understanding of the basis of their troubles led them to support the Labour Party in the first place. Had they realised that the policy of the Labour Party would not, and could not, lead to a fundamental change in the basis of society they would not have been disappointed with the fruits of Labour policy.

Wherever any class or individual throughout history has reached a dominating position it has been accomplished by participation in politics. Even the so-called dictators, like Alexander, Caesar, Cromwell, Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin, have all gained a dominating position in this way. When firmly entrenched they have sought for means to keep up the illusion that their power is based upon the interests of the majority, and have even been compelled to make certain concessions to popular dissatisfaction. They have continued in power by promising a return to older procedure when the external and internal enemies of the State have been finally crushed. Hence their power has been prolonged by their capacity to continue to foster the illusion that the external and internal enemy is hindering the people from entering into the prosperity that the policy of the dictators aimed at securing.

It is sometimes argued that we are living in the present and that a study of past history is a waste of time. That we should concern ourselves exclusively with the practical questions of to-day. Practical questions of two thousand years ago are still practical questions of to-day, although some of them may come up in a somewhat different form. This is so because a fundamental social condition of to-day, the existence of class ownership of the means of production, was also present then.

In the opening paragraph of one of Marx’s essays he wrote, "The tradition of all past generations weighs like an alp on the brain of the living." Since the outgrowth of private property, thousands of years ago, traditions associated with it have troubled the brain of man across the ages and still muddle his outlook upon even the simplest problems of to-day, distorting bis views upon politics.

Politics has to do with the State. The State came into existence along with property and the division of society into classes that struggled against each other for power and domination. All class struggles are political struggles; struggles for control of the State for the purpose of using it or removing it The basis of politics is the production and distribution of wealth: the form political struggles assume is determined by the economic organisation of society at any given time. Political parties represent, or claim to represent economic interests. They are organised for the purpose of getting control of the State power to serve these economic interests.

Many of the institutions and the procedures bound up with government to-day are thousands of years old, and so are the arguments put forward in defence of these institutions and procedures. Elections, the secret ballot, short terms of office, rotation in office, majority rule, the whip, filibustering, the magistracy, representative government, leagues of nations—all these were present in societies, based upon property, that flourished over two thousand years ago. Every new class that economic development threw up sought, in its turn, to get control of the State machinery in order to put social relations into a mould that suited it.

Running through history like a thread are the constant disputations about how a well-organised State should be controlled, and property is the constant factor in which these disputations are rooted.

In ancient Greece class rule was philosophised into "the question as to whether the one ablest individual, or the most capable and virtuous minority, or the general body of citizens should, or does, rule"— and the same questions are debated to-day on the same basis, class rule.

An old Greek writer, Xenophon, put the idea in a general form when he wrote: “ 1 am always of opinion that of whatever character governments are. of a similar character also are the governments which they conduct.” It is interesting, in passing, to notice that Xenophon, in an essay “ On the means of Improving the Revenues of the State of Athens," put forward a strong plea in favour of nationalising such enterprises as the silver mines, shipping, market buildings, shops, lodging houses and places of entertainment. He argued that State investment was "the safest and most durable of human things."

Aristotle, the most influential of ancient writers, in his “Politics" proclaimed that “the State is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal." Farther on he writes :

“ 'And so, in one point of view, the art of war is a natural art of acquisition, for it includes hunting, an art which ought to practise against wild beasts, and against men who, though intended by nature to be governed, will not submit; for war of such a kind is naturally just."

In the Middle Ages Machiavelli (whom a humorist pointed out bears “ the domestic name for the devil") warns the Prince to take account of classes in governing, and balance one against the other for his own benefit.

In the early years of Capitalism, John Locke, in his essay on civil government, gave the following definition of political power:

“Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community in the executing of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for the public good."

Harrington, in his "Oceana," argued that power naturally and necessarily followed property, and Cromwell opposed universal suffrage on the ground that: "The consequences of this rule tend to anarchy. For where is there any bound or limit set if men that have but the interest of breathing shall have voices in elections.”

lu America, Madison, one of those responsible for the Declaration of Independence, wrote: “From the influence of different degrees and kinds of property on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensues a diffusion of society into different interests and parties." How sentiments can vary from practice was shown by the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution of the United States, 1787-1789. The Declaration contained the following paragraph:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life. Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

- Section 9 of the Constitution runs as follows:

"The Migration or Importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress ... but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

This section was put in to serve the property interests of the importers and users of black slaves. “ All men are created equal "—well, not all men!

These are a few illustrations of the fact that since property came into existence it has produced the classes that contend for control of the State, and determined the attitude of a ruling to a ruled class. Further that as long as a class controls State power it seeks to mould society to suit its interests. To-day the capitalist class rules and rules in their own interest, though under the guise of "labour." In order to bring about a fundamental social change, a change from Capitalism to Socialism, it is necessary to take control of the State out of the hands of the capitalists. This can only be done by political action. But something more than this is required. This political action must be taken by a majority who understand and want Socialism, otherwise it will only have the appearance of the removal of power while in fact power will still remain where it is. This is what happened when the Labour Party became the Government.

Gilmac.

Socialism’s Invincible Ally. Ever-changing Society (1940)

From the July 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that chattel-slavery would exist eternally.

Such a belief was natural at the time Aristotle lived, for on all sides were slaves and slave-owners. More important still, it must be remembered that the means of wealth production were then at a low stage of development: they could provide comfort and luxury for a few people only if the masses were in a state of absolute slavery. Consequently, Aristotle could not foresee that, as a method of piling up wealth for a ruling class, chattel-slavery would at some future date become inadequate and be superseded by more efficient forms of human exploitation.

To-day, we have much more information to hand than had Aristotle. We have, for instance, access to historical data which, for obvious reasons, were beyond the ken of anyone living in Ancient Greece.

By a study of history the working class can learn many useful lessons, one of which is this : society and human relationships are constantly changing: ideas and morals are not permanent, but are subject to change as are the methods of producing the material things needed by man.

However, notwithstanding the teachings of history, one meets many people, including those with a university education, who can conceive of improvement ONLY within the present system of society. They are unable to visualise society without capital, wages, empires, trade and all the other paraphernalia of Capitalism.

Yet, sooner or later, Capitalism will give place to another form of society. Just as older forms of society—Primitive Communism, Chattel-Slavery and Feudalism—were in turn superseded, so will Capitalism itself be superseded some day. From the worker’s point of view, the sooner Capitalism gives place to Socialism the better it will be; it is for this reason that we, Socialists and members of the working class, propagate Socialism.

What Makes Change Inevitable ?

It would, however, be a serious mistake to imagine that the voice of the Socialist is the sole agent in bringing about the change. The Socialist has an ally which is, so to speak, pushing on ahead all the time in order to prepare the road and make easier his task. This ally is ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, which caused man to abandon the earlier forms of society and which finally will force him to abandon Capitalism.

When chattel-slavery and wage-slavery came into conflict during the last century in America, it was not the kindliness of human nature that caused the former to be replaced by the latter. Chattel-slavery was not ended because man revolted to see his brother degraded and suffering. In fact, most of the supporters of the Anti-Slavery Movement were blind and callous when confronted with the deplorable conditions in which wage-workers toiled and eked out their existence.

Chattel-slavery in America passed away because the manufacturing interests became the predominating interests in the country and wage-labour was more economical for factory work.

Northern capital needed workers it could employ and discard at will—in short, it needed “free” wage-labour.

The following extract taken from the “London Economist”—at that time (1853) the leading organ of British free trade Capitalism—gives point to our statement that the economic factor was decisive in shaping the opposition to chattel-slavery :

“Slaves,” this paper says, “are costly instruments of production. … A slave population hampers its owners in more ways than one. . . . The responsibility of the employer of free labour is at an end when he has paid the covenanted wages; and his advantages in dealing with the general market are exemplified in that THERE ARE MORE FORTUNES MADE BY THE EMPLOYERS OF FREE LABOUR THAN BY SLAVE OWNERS. The Astors, the Girards and the Longwofthys are the millionaires of the States, as the Rothschilds, the Lloyds and the Barings are the millionaires of the old world—not the slave owners, however wealthy, of Carolina, Cuba or Brazil.” (See Simons' “Class Struggles in America.”)

The feudal system in Europe, too, broke down and passed away, when it became a fetter on production. With the discovery and colonisation of new lands in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, there arose an ever-increasing demand for goods. This demand could not be satisfied by a Europe which remained for the most part feudal. The guilds imposed restrictions which were a brake on production. New methods in the producing of goods were, for example, strictly forbidden by the guilds; also a master craftsman was restricted in the number of journeymen he could employ and in the quantity he could turn out. Individuals, therefore, began to break with the guilds and, to avoid public opprobrium, set up their workshops on the outskirts of towns, in country districts or in new towns on the coasts, where the rate of production could develop apace and without hindrance. In time this rising Capitalism began to undermine the guilds, since the goods produced by Capitalist manufacture were cheaper and more plentiful than those produced within the guilds.

Soon the feudal lords, the large landowners, who usually held themselves aloof from industry and trade, found their privileged position challenged. As a class, the old feudal nobility had become superfluous; no longer did it render any service to society. “In the Middle Ages …. the peasant needed the feudal lord, who protected him from violation, relieved him of part of his judicial and administrative duties towards the community, and, above all, freed him from the oppressive burden of military service.” (Kautsky’s “Thomas More and His Utopia.”) With the growth of Capitalism all this was changed. The modern State arose, enforcing internal order. The feudal lord could no longer claim to be the protector of the peasant, nor could he save him from military service. “The army of chivalry was replaced by a paid army, recruited from peasants.” (Kautsky.)

As the child, Capitalism, grew more and more robust, it yelled more and more for the total abolition of those restrictions on trade imposed by feudalism, and which were becoming more and more irksome to the capitalists. Capitalism was in conflict with feudalism. The agents of Capitalism, the capitalist class, fought out a class struggle against the upholders of feudalism, the feudal lords. This class struggle culminated in the gaining of political power by the capitalist class, who, once enthroned with power, began reorganising society so that Capitalism could develop unrestricted.

Thus did the capitalist class gain supremacy on the wave of economic development, thus did Capitalism sweep away feudalism, when feudalism proved inadequate to satisfy new needs.

Socialism Inevitable

The arrival of the capitalist system did not arrest economic development. On the contrary. New methods in industry were introduced with greater rapidity than ever before.

It is precisely this development of Capitalism, this continuous revolutionising of the means of production, which will lead to the end of Capitalism. Socialism will not come because a few thinkers wish it, but because its establishment will become a necessity, felt by the mass of the population, the working class.

Before Capitalism had reached maturity, Socialism was an impossibility. Whenever it happened that some could see the ultimate end of society’s evolution and attempted to hasten its arrival by minority action, they were either crushed by reactionary forces or became disillusioned when confronted by the enormity of their task and by the lack of response from an immature working class. Baboeuf and his followers in France provide us with a classic example of how intellectual idealists, reaching out for a new system of society before conditions had ripened, were stamped out by the armed forces of the capitalist State. And we have all met the old agitator who has given up the struggle as useless because he regards the working class as “a dud egg.”

We, of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, do not consider our class—the working class—as a dud egg.

We do not aim at leading the worker into the promised land; we know, from experience, he cannot be led to Socialism. Socialism will never be established until the workers are willing to cooperate actively in its running, until they have realised that Capitalism is unable to satisfy man’s needs and must go.

Capitalism, as it evolves, with wars and more frequent and prolonged industrial crises, will itself make the workers turn to Socialism.

As time passes, the class struggle, at present waged so blindly by the workers, will take on a new significance. Whereas now, for the average worker, the struggle is waged in order to maintain his standard of living, to gain minor concessions in his working conditions, it will in the future become more and more a struggle against Capitalism as a whole.

The progress of Capitalism over the whole globe is going on apace. Capitalism pushes itself into every nook and corner, thus increasing the number of wage-slaves.

India, once a market for British goods, is itself an exporter of some of the self-same articles. Even China, so often looked upon by the average person as a market for foreign goods, is developing on capitalist lines and producing certain articles in excess of the demands of the home market. In a book, “Empire in the East,” edited by Joseph Barnes, Groves Clark, writing on “Changing Markets,” says:

“This modern cotton industry in China now has reached the point where it is able to supply a large part of the demand in that country for the coarser grades of cloth, and even to furnish considerable amounts of manufactured cotton goods for export . . . But the mills in China, besides having gone far towards closing the Chinese market to foreign manufactured piece goods, also are becoming serious rivals of the mills in Japan in supplying piece goods to the East Indies regions, especially to the large Chinese communities there.” (P. 140.)

The change that has occurred in India and China has either already taken place or is now taking place in many other parts of the world.

The fact is that Capitalism, as it spreads to every corner of the earth, is glutting the markets of the world with goods. Hence it happens, especially in times of economic crisis (as 1929-31), that goods, urgently needed by the workers, are destroyed because no markets for them can be found.

In addition, be it remembered, technique is continuously being improved so that machines become more and more efficient and turn out commodities in ever increasing quantities.

Unfortunately for the life of Capitalism, production always shows a tendency to expand; markets, however, cannot indefinitely be extended to keep pace with this greater and greater production. Production for sale (i.e., profit) becomes, therefore, a fetter, since goods are produced only when they can be sold at a profit.

Thus the point is fast being reached when Capitalism will in most of its industries be permanently unable to produce at full capacity. Indeed, in some industries, this point has already been reached : hence, unemployment.

What of the future, therefore ?

The tendency will be for machines and workmen to stand idle more than ever before. Those in work will be forced to struggle constantly to maintain their standard of living. Big business alone will be able to compete in the restricted and keener markets of the world; the small capitalists, like the workers, will find their position even less secure than previously.

In those days, the power of the capitalist Press will be gone. Promises of improvement will be powerless to soothe a working class already satiated with promises. The working class will become solid against the common enemy : Capitalism. With more and more readiness will workers listen to Socialist propaganda and accept the Socialist position. Socialism will become THE subject of conversation. The workers will see that as long as production for profit prevails, their insecurity and poverty will continue. The issue will become clear cut—SOCIALISM OR CAPITALISM?

And so it is that economic development which caused Chattel-Slavery and Feudalism to pass away, will lead the workers to abolish the capitalist system and its wage-slavery. Modern industry is now producing goods in such quantities that they cannot be consumed in capitalist society, although millions suffer from malnutrition and starvation and are badly clothed. Private ownership of the means of production and the consequent production of goods for profit are preventing the workers from having access to the wealth that they produce, are barring the road to the further progress of the human race. This lesson will be learned by the working class and they will gain political power to introduce Socialism—a society wherein goods will be produced, not to enrich a class consisting of relatively few persons, but by the whole of society for its own enjoyment.

Clifford Allen

The Society of Tomorrow. (1908)

From the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The result of all the more or less ingenious plans of the future society is but to demonstrate the possibility of the Socialist System. All who have nothing to lose and everything to gain by the social transformation easily persuade themselves of the excellence of the future society. Even the petit bourgeois – the small capitalist – having the presentiment of his impending ruin, being tormented by the knowledge of his insecurity and filled with a feeling of vagueness, is quite ready to say “Yes, Socialism is an excellent thing, but, alas! it is Utopia!” And to show you the Utopian character of Socialism he invokes, first, human nature; secondly, the indestructible selfishness of humanity that results in the war of each against all; and thirdly, the opposition of those who possess, which he declares impossible to overcome.

How does the Marxian conception comport itself in order to reduce to nothing this triple impossibility?

Human nature! This has been invoked every time there has been any question of advancing a stage in history. The slave-holders called to witness this same human nature in order to clinch the absolute impossibility of the abolition of chattel slavery. In his “Politics”, Aristotle, “the giant of antique thought”, sought to demonstrate that the Greeks are by their very nature destined to dominate the rest of human kind as masters. Nature is eternal. And every dominant class desires – quite naturally – to eternally prolong the régime which secures its domination and enjoyment: it considers, therefore, its own system as natural. Its nature becomes Nature itself. It does not see beyond its own interests, and it confounds the laws of its own conservation with those of the universe. It suppresses history – which only exists by changes – and invents a physical theory of society, which theory seeks to persuade us that inequality between men socially is as eternal and necessary as that between the organs of the body. The laws of Nature are not slighted with impunity, therefore the system of the exploitation of man by man is, according to the exploiters, a law of Nature. Every revolt against it is consequently madness or a material impossibility.

To these interested sophisms the Marxian conception opposes the true history of humanity. It demonstrates the fact of the perpetual changes that occur and have occurred in forms of production and appropriation.

Human society is a particular case in universal evolution. Nothing is eternal and unchangeable. Everything is variable. By showing that the struggle of the classes is at the base of history, Marxism unveils the historical mechanism and shows that every given social form is entirely relative, entirely conditional.

Classes and systems succeed each other and differ from each other. Thus all objections drawn – by the hair – from that much invoked “human nature” are destroyed. Marxism does not recognise man in abstracto. It knows only the owner of the slave, the feudal lord, the capitalist, the proletarian, and other “historic categories”. It replaces the vague and confused by that which is concrete and clear, and abandons generalities to the psychologists, philosophers, and metaphysicians.

Better still – by analysing scientifically the capitalist system, the Marxian shows not only that Socialist society is possible, but also that it is necessary. Collective organisation of labour is possible because it exists. It is present in the factory, in the mines, in the great stores, in the great financial establishments. It circles the world by railway and ploughs the ocean in Dreadnoughts. Individual exploitation is in flagrant contradiction with this collective organisation. From this come crises – catastrophes which demonstrate more and more that the capitalist system is becoming impossible. Soon it will be no longer for us to show the possibility of Socialism. It will be the task of the partisans of the present tottering system to prove the possibility of its continuation by any normal and progressive development.

As to the selfishness of individuals and of classes, not only does Marxism not deny it, but it utilises it to organise the proletarians into a class party, preoccupied above all with its interests, which, happily, are in complete accord with those of the social organism and of true civilisation.

There remains the third objection – the third pretended impossibility of Socialism – the resistance of those who possess. The Marxian conception is easily victorious. Socialism becomes possible just in the same degree as great capital absorbs smaller capitals, and production on a great scale supersedes small-scale production. Socialists have not to expropriate the owners – they will only expropriate the expropriators. They will restore to society the property which has been stolen from society. They do not fight private ownership of objects of immediate consumption. They struggle against capitalist property, against the oligarchy of property – the monopoly of the means of production.

The possibility – nay, more, the inevitable historic necessity – of Socialism springs thus from the play of economic forces. The organisation of the working class and the conquest of political power by this class indicate the first stages on the route to be followed.

(Ch. Rappoport in Le Socialisme. Translated for the Socialist Standard.)

The Labour Theory of Value Before Karl Marx (1934)

From the July 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The labour theory of value is the view that the value of an article is determined by its cost of production in human labour power—according to the conditions of the time. In its fully developed form it was analysed and explained in detail by Karl Marx in “Capital.” We are not concerned at the moment with the theory as it was finally worked out. We are only concerned with the forerunners of Marx, who contributed something to the view. Owing to limits of space we can only consider briefly the most outstanding of these forerunners.

Value presented an insoluble problem for over two thousand years. The first glimmerings of a solution did not appear until the middle of the seventeenth century, when a society mainly concerned with the buying and selling of goods began to take definite shape in this country and was in process of taking shape on the Continent.

As far back as the time of Aristotle—two thousand three hundred years ago—the problem was in the air. Aristotle himself, in his “Politics,” and in his “Ethics,” had something to say about it. He knew that there must be some property common to objects as unlike as bread and shoes that made it possible to measure them against each other. He knew that the common property was not their usefulness, but he was unable to find out what it really was. He ends his examination rather lamely with the remark that people have agreed to estimate value in money. And this after he had already pointed out that exchange existed before money. He makes the illuminating remark, however, that profit-making originated with coin.

For hundreds of years this formed the limit of knowledge on the subject.

As commerce spread over society and accumulating money became increasingly the aim in social dealings, the question of the value of money came more and more to the front, particularly when succeeding representatives of the royal treasury sought to build up waning funds by debasing the coinage. Consequently, during the later middle ages, a considerable literature grew up around monetary matters. With the dawn of capitalist society, in the 17th century, the question became acute. The problem before the writers was: How did wealth originate? Or, as we would put, it: What was the source of surplus-value?

Out of these discussions two main schools of thought developed. The Mercantilists and the Physiocrats, one English and the other French. The Mercantilists claimed that wealth accumulated by means of trade, through buying from the foreigner cheap and selling to him dear. In other words, by having a favourable balance of trade,” an idea that still persists, as witness the nature of the discussions during the recent financial crisis. The Mercantilists, consequently, propagated the view that the traders were the most important group in the nation and were the builders of the nation’s wealth. An idea quite in harmony with conditions that were raising the trader to the most influential position in society.

Thomas Mun, a leading merchant of the time and a director of the East India Company, wrote a book that was published in 1664 entitled “England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade,” which puts forward the Mercantilist view very clearly and vigorously.

The Physiocrats, a group that originated nearly a hundred years later in France, a country whose main prop at the time was agriculture, held an entirely different view. According to them, wealth originated solely in agricultural production, as it was only by farming that a man received back for his work more than it cost to keep him, and, out of the surplus, the trader and the rest of the population lived. Turgot, a prominent Physiocratic writer, who appeared towards the end of their influence, puts their outlook very clearly in his book, “Reflections on the Formation and the Distribution of Riches,” published in 1766.. The Physiocratic doctrines were an expression of the interests and outlook of the capitalist farmer, and Mirabeau, one of their leading political representatives, took a prominent part in the French Revolution.

Turgot was a very clear thinker. He had a considerable knowledge of history and had travelled far enough intellectually to point out that the labourer’s wage was determined by his cost of subsistence.

Sir William Petty, an important member of the Mercantilist school of thought, was the first to make a real contribution to the labour theory of value. In a book he wrote that was published in 1662 and entitled “A Treatise on Taxes,” he states quite plainly that it is labour that gives value to things, but, under the influence of his trading outlook, he defines exchange-value as money, and the particular labour employed in the production of gold and silver as the value-producing labour. Hence he was led into confusion.

He wrote a series of essays in "Political Arithmetic,” which represents the first form in which economics is treated as a separate department of knowledge. These essays are remarkable for brevity and clarity. In one of them he explains in a paragraph the significance of the division of labour as illustrated by a watch, and he does it in a manner that showed he had a clearer grasp of the point than Adam Smith, although, writing a hundred years earlier. Adam Smith confused the social division of labour with the division of labour inside a single workshop, but Petty made no such mistake.

In 1733, Richard Cantillon, another merchant, wrote his book “On the Nature of Commerce in General." In it he stated that the value of a thing was nothing more than the measure of the land and the labour which enters into its production. He was influenced by the Physiocratic idea of the importance of agriculture, as also to some extent was Adam Smith. Cantillon held the view that the daily work of the humblest slave corresponded in value to twice the produce of the land on which he subsisted.

After Petty there was another thinker, probably the clearest thinker of his age, who put forward the labour theory of value in a broad form. This man was Benjamin Franklin, who, in 1729, when barely twenty-three years of age, wrote an essay entitled “A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency." In this essay he argues that the value of articles is measured by the time taken to produce them, but he considers that money has an extra value on account of the way in which it facilitates exchanges. In spite of his clearness of thought he, like his predecessors, was lost in the mystery of money. In fact, all those who preceded Marx got into difficulties when they came to treat of money. In their efforts to analyse money they frequently contradicted the sound views they had previously put forward on value in general.

Another youthful writer, an Italian named Ferdinando Galiani, published a book, in 1750, entitled, “Dell Moneta." He was only twenty-two years old when he wrote it. In this book he pointed out that labour was the sole source of value, but he confused the wages of the worker with the value of the article produced. For instance, he contended that the value of a woollen article was equal to the cost of the raw wool plus the cost of supporting the men who produced the woollen article.

In 1777, Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations" appeared. In it he attributed the accumulation of wealth to the division of labour. He made a considerable advance in the analysis of questions concerning economics, but he was still far from understanding the real nature of value. He held that the determination of the value of an article by the labour-time taken to produce it was true of earlier times, but not of the developed capitalism of his day. He also fell into the same error as Galiani, confusing the value of what a man produces with the value of what he gets—his wages. If this view were accepted, then the value of all the articles produced would only be equal to the total wages paid to the workers who produced them.. This was the state of affairs the later Utopians yearned for and what they would have called “fair exchanges." Adam Smith also failed to see that the labour of an engineer and the labour of a bootmaker could not be compared as such—they had both to be reduced to a common basis, the simple expenditure of human energy.

How weak Adam Smith’s grasp of the problem was may be gathered from the fact that he put “labouring cattle" under the heading of productive labourers, and also attributed value-creating properties to “profits of stock” and to the forces of nature.

The progress in knowledge of the labour theory before Marx really ended with David Ricardo, a stockbroker, who made the final contribution in his book, "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,” published in 1817. His fundamental proposition is that the values of all articles, including the value of labour-power, is determined by the labour required to produce them with the prevailing skill and methods. But, as Frederick Engels has pointed out, Ricardo did not see that it was labour-power and not labour that was the value-producing quality, and hence, that the transformation of money into capital was based upon the buying and selling of labour-power. It was the discovery of this fact that gave Marx the key to the problem, and it was Ricardo’s failure to see it that landed him into difficulties when he came to treat of the more complex forms of money.

As a capitalist himself, and one who made a fortune on the stock exchange, Ricardo was quite clear, in fact brutally clear, about the basis of the present social system and its aim, which, he pointed out, was production for profit. He was against State interference in industry, and contended that wages should be left to free competition. He also held the view that the prevailing economic tendency was for wages and rent mutually to increase until they swallowed profit, and he foresaw a time when all property would belong to owners of land and receivers of tithes and taxes. He was quite clear, however, about the fact that neither wages nor profit, nor rent, entered into the determination of the value of an article. Surplus-value, he showed, was the portion of value left after deducting the wages of the producer from the value he added, but he was inclined to confound surplus-value with profit.

As already mentioned, the analysis of value really ended with Ricardo. Nobody after him added anything of importance to his work. The so-called “Ricardian Socialists” who followed him accepted his view that labour was the source of value, and, on the basis of it, demanded that all products should belong to the labourer.

The first of these writers was William Thompson, an Irish landlord, who, in 1824, wrote a book entitled “An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth most conducive to human Happiness.” As the title of his book suggests, the ideas of the “Utilitarian” philosopher, Bentham, had an influence on his outlook. He defined the existing social system as one of force and fraud, and he proposed a new system on Owenite principles. He was very much interested in the Owenite co-operative experiments and visited the Owenite colony at Ralahine, in Ireland.

He took as his basis the view that all wealth is the product of labour. He contended that all men are equal, or nearly so, and therefore capable of producing equal quantities of wealth. Wealth is unequally divided, therefore the few possessors must abstract it from the many producers.

Neither he nor those of the same group who followed him really understood the nature of value. They thought the seller arbitrarily raised the value of articles above the wages paid to the producers, which they took to be the real value. He held that labour was not, at present, an accurate measure of value, on the ground that desires are apt to vary, but he contended that in a future social system such as he proposed, commodities would exchange at the “ value of real use." He assumed that the future system would also be a system of commodity production, but “fair" exchange would be the social principle.

Thompson's confused views of value are illustrated by the fact that he believed machinery added additional value to products beyond the value as mere instruments of production, and also that, in certain instances where labour is saved in the production of an article, value is added to it by this saving of labour.

In 1825, a year after Thompson's book, appeared, Thomas Hodgskin wrote his “Labour Defended against the Claims of Capital," and, in 1827, “Popular Political Economy." Hodgskin, a retired naval officer, was a friend of ] Francis Place and a member of the radical circle that gathered round Jeremy Bentham.

He also argued that the labourer should receive the whole of his product, but he included in the term "labourer" the master and the buyer and seller. He accepted commodity-production as the basis of a future society, but wanted to rule out profit. On the question of value, he was not clear. He confused the value of goods with the quantity, and asserted that the more goods there were the greater was the total value, in spite of a proportional decrease in the quantity of labour required to produce them. He also appeared to think that profit and rent were amounts added on to the value of articles.

Although his outlook on this fundamental question was confused, Hodgskin’s destructive criticism of existing society provided the Chartists with useful weapons in their struggle. He did a considerable amount of lecturing, founded with Robertson the “Mechanics' Magazine," in 1823, and was instrumental in the founding of the Mechanics' Institute, where he lectured. He later joined the staff of the Economist and the Morning Chronicle, dropped out of the active propaganda movement, and lived to a ripe old age.

 

After Hodgskin comes John Gray, a successful business man, who delivered a series of lectures on "The Nature and Use of Money," which were published in book form in 1831 and again later in 1848. In these lectures he claimed to have discovered the real source of social troubles, which he attributed to a flaw in the monetary system. He urged that demand should be based upon production, instead of production being based upon demand, which, he claimed, was the basis of the existing system. He proposed to rectify matters by establishing standard banks which would issue credit in the form of transferable vouchers based upon the stock, etc., or, in other words, based upon the powers of production.

So convinced was Gray of the soundness and the magnitude of his discovery that he had his book widely distributed, particularly to economists and universities, and he offered a hundred guineas to anyone who could refute his views. In recent times the Douglas Credit Theory has had a certain popularity, but there is little in the fallacious theories of the Douglas scheme that was not anticipated by Gray a hundred years ago.

Gray's views on value were quite erroneous. He believed that gold was no true measure of value and that there was none. He contended that the scarcity of gold prevented its value from being determined by labour. He, again, took for granted the continuation of commodity-production, but proposed that, in future, labour should be the measure of value. This was to be accomplished by the producer fixing his own price for his product and the competition of producers determining whether this price was right or not!

Gray was, at one time, considerably influenced by the views of Robert Owen, and, in 1815, he managed an Owenite colony at Orbiston.

The last writer we will refer to is J. F. Bray, a journeyman printer and the author of "Labour’s Wrongs and Labour's Remedy," published in 1839. His book is long and very wordy and full of conceptions of justice and equal rights, inspired by the economic analysis of Ricardo. His fundamental proposition is that as the earth is common to all, and labour is the sole source of wealth, each human being has a right to the fruits of his own labour. He claimed that as wealth was produced by labour, the capitalist, who did not work, lived by the legalised robbery of the producer. He claimed further that the problem was the same in all countries, whatever their form of government, and that, therefore, the solution applied internationally. A strain of anarchism runs through his writings, but he made some very apt criticisms of existing arrangements and had very clear conceptions on particular points.

His fundamental ideas, however, clouded his analysis of the present economic framework. He believed that the capitalist made his profit through unequal exchanges—buying goods at their values and selling them for more than their values. For instance, he saw that the capitalist paid the worker for a day’s labour a wage that was only equivalent in value to the product of half a day’s labour, but he did not see that what the worker was paid was the value of his labour-power. He did not realise the implication of his view. He fell into the same error as many before him and believed that value was equivalent to the wages paid to the producer.

Like the rest of the Utopians, Bray believed that the world had been searching for thousands of years for a just form of society and it was now discovered. To him the correct society was the result of knowledge based upon first principles which were true for all time, and could have been established as easily two thousand years ago as to-day.

It will, therefore, be seen that he had no fresh contribution to make to the labour theory of value. On one point, however, he was quite clear and emphatic—that mere governmental changes would not alter the worker’s position. Hence he advocated a complete change in the social basis—but it was not really so complete as he imagined.

To sum up, it may be said that the analysis of value from the point of view of the labour theory begins in 1662 with Petty, and ends in 1817 with Ricardo. Although the Utopians did not further this analysis, they did excellent service in pushing forward the worker’s case, in the course of which they made valuable and biting criticisms of capitalist society. As Marx has pointed out, the kernel of the matter was contained in their outlook, and their attitude logically led to Socialist ideas.

Gilmac.

Notes on Economic History (1) (1960)

From the November 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Economics before Mercantilism

The object of these notes is to provide a general introductory guide for those who would like to know more about the subject of Political Economy. They cover the period from early times to Marx and set out the main developments and theories that arose during that time, using as a key the Materialist Conception of History.

Engels in his preface to the 1888 edition of the Communist Manifesto says: "The 'manifesto' being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms its nucleus belongs to Marx. That proposition is: that in every historical epoch the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch."

That proposition is, in short, the Materialist Conception of History.

By the term economics is meant throughout these notes the study of the production and distribution of wealth. Such a study must take into consideration historical, geographical and many other factors, always bearing in mind that behind the abstractions are real people, who combine, deliberately or otherwise, to produce and distribute wealth.

Neither in classical antiquity, nor yet in the Middle Ages, did there arise any finished systems of economic thought. In those epochs, when men's thoughts were concerned with the heroic and supernatural, the economics of life was regarded as of little importance. Only when, as today, life is dominated by the forces of competition and struggle, is civilised life dominated by economic considerations to the extent we know it today. Even in those earlier ages, however, economic thought such as it was showed signs that it had arisen out of earlier forms of society, and developed and evolved with these societies.

It is an error to picture the course of economic development as though mankind has passed simply from a primitive form of society to a slave-owning form, then to a Feudal one, and finally to a Capitalist economy. At all times there have been lesser economic groups that formed integral parts of the larger, nation-wide or world-wide complexes.

During the primitive period of man, in the Stone Age, the exchange of things went on, and there are proofs of the existence of some form of primitive trading as far back as the Bronze Age, since the constituents of bronze (tin and copper) are not generally found together. At the beginning of historical times, in Babylon, Persia, Carthage, Egypt, Greece and Rome, there was a well-developed form of trade, with industry carried on for export, together with monetary systems and credit.

The beginnings of economic science itself go back to Plato and Aristotle. Plato (347 B.C.) and Aristotle (322 B.C.). made some contributions to economic science, but as far as economics is concerned, mention need only be made of Aristotle's remarks on money, interest and taxation. Aristotle saw the essential nature of money as this: "That it is an intermediary in the exchange of utilities, thus acting as a medium of exchange." To him, however, it is sterile; "it brings forth no children." It cannot of itself produce any goods; therefore interest is wicked. This teaching was to have a great influence in the later Feudal period.

The economic thought of the Middle Ages was dominated by the teachings of Thomas Aquinas (1274), who derived from Aristotle and the Roman civil and canon law the concept of a "just price." Aquinas held that there were two kinds of justice:

1. Distributive justice.
2. Compensatory justice, or the justice of exchange.

In the matter of price, justice is found in the equality of mutual benefit in an exchange. What determines income is not the supply and demand of labour, but a normal outlook, the customary and average mutual adjustments between the individuals who exercise functions. To quote Aquinas, "Wherever a good is to be found, its essence is due measure." Thus we get the idea of income that is "suitable" or "proper" to a man's position in society. Interest on money, or usury, is frowned upon. "Money is a medium of exchange, its use is in its consumption." Consequently, for the use of borrowed money it is wrong, or at least improper, to expect anything beyond simple repayment. Aquinas does make exception in the case of tenancy, hire and credit for goods supplied. In later years, missed opportunities for gain, and loss incurred by or injury to the lender, became good grounds for demanding interest.

The prohibition of interest or usury is basically designed for an economy based on land as property, that is Feudal society, which endeavoured to keep money, and those ideas that flow from an economy based on money, under control.

Economic ideas, and the practical application of them, show a gradual growth and conflict as the old Feudal society begins to decline. The development which economic science made after this period are bound up with the growth of towns and the increasing power of the traders. The early stage of these developments is generally known as the Mercantile period and this will be dealt with in our next issue.

Bob Ambridge