Letter: The simple life under Socialism (1945)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The simple life under Socialism

A Letter from a Correspondent.

Paignton, Devon.

Sept. 7, 1945.

The Editor, Socialist Standard.

Sir,

COMMON OWNERSHIP.

A man of simple tastes—and there are many such— might not desire theatres, cinemas, wine, beer, spirits, tobacco, or even books.

Why should he work, say, four hours a day labour time in a society which provides these, together with chewing gum, lipstick, powder, scent, nail varnish and much of the finery and fiddle-dee-dee of women, when a society of persons working on average, each, one hour per day can produce his comparatively simple needs?

What, then, does common ownership mean in this regard?

Yours faithfully,

Chas. E. Berry.

Reply.

Our correspondent's question arises partly from carrying over to Socialism a standard of judgment that is only appropriate to capitalism. Under capitalism the workers have good reason to dislike the conditions under which they work, because they are working for the benefit of the capitalist and under the harsh discipline the latter’s agents impose, and because hours are excessive and working places often drab, dangerous, uncomfortable and insanitary. From this many workers draw the erroneous conclusion the expenditure of energy on the production of articles useful to society is in its nature unavoidably unpleasant, and that the only pleasant expenditure of energy is on some activity not connected with production. This is absurd, as a little reflection will show. Every Socialist who uses his leisure time deriving pleasure from doing work connected with propaganda and organisation for Socialism is well aware that these same activities may be distasteful when performed for an employer. Under Socialism, when the conditions surrounding work have been freed from all capitalist features, labour will be, as Marx pointed out, “no longer the means to live, but . . . in itself the first of vital needs.” (Criticism of the Gotha Programme.)

Our correspondent may nevertheless maintain that the individual whose requirements are less than the average requirements of the members of Socialist society has a right to refuse to work as much as other people, even if the work is not distasteful. Suppose for the sake of argument, we concede our correspondent's claim. May we now ask him on what possible ground he can restrict this solely to the “man of simple tastes”? Why, on his contention, should not every individual object to working part of his time to produce articles that are going to be consumed either by non-producers or by those who, for one reason or another, cannot produce as much as the average? If the man of simple tastes can reasonably claim that he should work two hours against other people’s four hours, why should not every able bodied man and women who works object to the necessity of providing food, clothing and shelter for the non-workers, the babies, the aged, the sick, the disabled? If these “passengers” were allowed to starve, the able-bodied working population could produce their own requirements with much less expenditure of energy!

The whole proposition overlooks the fact that we have, as human beings, an interest in the well-being and happiness of the rest of human society, and under Socialism normal people will not desire to segregate themselves from the generally agreed arrangements for producing the requirements of all.

If, however, some individuals really think it important to discourage a high standard of living, they will have the obvious democratic remedy. They can try to convince the majority. Clad in a simple loincloth (though not in the English climate), eating only the simplest foods, living in plain, easily erected dwellings, or a hole in the ground, eschewing alcohol, tobacco, books, theatres, cinemas, etc., etc., they can set out to persuade the unregenerate majority that there is within their grasp a peace and pleasure yet unknown to them if only they will go and do likewise and cut the working day to one hour instead of four.

Alternatively, why should not the men and women of simple tastes, who are not interested in the ways of the rest of humanity, be left alone to enjoy their simple life, segregated like the insane, surrounded by a band of silence, to live and die in splendid isolation?

Ed. Comm.

Letter: Hours of Work in Socialism (1946)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our issue for November, 1945 (“The Simple Life Under Socialism"), we replied to a correspondent who had asked whether, under Socialism, a man of simple tastes would have to work for as many hours as those whose needs are greater. We have received a further letter.

London, E.11.

Editor, Socialist Standard,

2, Rugby St, W.C.1.

Sir,

“Common Ownership" 

Surely it is not the intention of the S.P.G.B. to ghetto-ize, or put in a concentration camp, all those who resent giving extra labour time to produce a standard of life for others in a Socialist Society, far above that which the objectors seek for themselves? It is the purport of your reply to my earlier letter to do so. But I cannot believe it without further information.

It isn't fair to caricature my Objector as a Simple Lifer, thriving on little more than plates of fresh air.

Ernie Bevin likes motor cars, others like aeroplanes, so all I ask is that the extra labour time “equivalent” to the production of these extras shall be provided by Ernie Bevin and aeroplane fanatics. The same goes for tobacco, alcohol, scent, and so on. A very large minority may not want these things, thereby living at a standard requiring less labour time. I do not refer to an extreme simple lifer, such as your caricature for the purpose of your case, as it is easy to cater for a few simple lifers.

I grant that children do not produce and must be provided for out of a common fund, but it doesn’t affect the point I’ve raised as regards those adults who are satisfied in the production caused by substantially less than the average labour time per capita, and do not wish to yield more labour time.

Unless you can explain, I am afraid that common ownership has a very elastic meaning—if any.

Since “ need ” is the basis of your case, and exchange is ruled out, as is the receipt of the product of one’s own labour or its equivalent, you must face the question in this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Chas. E. Berry.

Reply.

It will be useful to start by making it clear that the problem, if it arose at all, could only be a small one. Firstly, it obviously could not affect a majority of the population because they could decide in accordance with their wishes. Nor could it, as our correspondent assumes, affect “a very large minority.’' While there may be a group that does not want tobacco, another that does not want alcohol, and innumerable similar groups, it is entirely false reasoning to add them together and thus make up "a very large minority” of the population. The problem only concerns those people who want a low standard of living all round, and if we ask ourselves how many people there could be who want none of the things listed by our correspondent—in his earlier letter he mentioned also books, theatres and cinemas—the answer is obviously that there could be very few. (It should be observed that doing without cars and aeroplanes looks simple but may cover much. Are these individuals intending to do without all articles transported by those means?)

If, however, we grant that there might be a small minority that has no wish to share in most of the articles and services that the majority of the population consider desirable, it still does not follow that all of this minority will want to work fewer hours than the rest of the community. Let us, however, suppose, for the sake of argument, that there may be a small minority that wants a low standard of living and insists on very short working hours (as also possibly a few anti-social individuals who want to consume but not to work at all). Why should society bother about such small problems? Both groups could well be left to please themselves. The alternative would be for the majority to burden themselves with making special arrangements to measure each individual's work and consumption. Socialism will not need or want any such capitalist notions. In conclusion we must emphasise how unimportant such hypothetical problems are in relation to the benefits that the great mass of the population will derive from Socialism. The millions who, for the first time, get security and adequate food, clothing and shelter, and who work shorter hours than they do now, will not be unduly exercised in their minds about the proposition of doing without lots of things in order to work, say, only one hour a day. It seems reasonable to suppose that the majority will easily agree on a standard of comfort and corresponding hours of work, which, without being exactly what all groups or individuals require, will please most people and not give any a cause for a sense of grievance.

Editorial Committee