How society changes (1954)

From the October 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anthropology has always been an interesting subject to Socialists. Morgan's Ancient Society and Engels’ Origin of the Family, are only two of the books which have helped us to see how society has changed and developed in the past, and therefore gives us an indication of how it is likely to change in the future.

This process of change is very clearly shown in a report by Dr. Ralph Linton, Professor of Anthropology at Columbia University, which appears in the book "The Individual and His Society," by Kardiner and Linton.

The report derives from Linton's own field work among the Tapala and Betsileo tribes in the island of Madagascar, and relates how a simple change in the mode of production revolutionised a whole tribal society. 

The Tanala

On a forested mountain plateau live the Tanala. They are an agricultural tribe, living mainly by rice cultivation. They grow the rice “dry"—that is, like an ordinary cereal. Only one or two crops can be raised on any one piece of land by the methods which they use; after that the land has to be allowed to grow up in jungle and left for ten to fifteen years.

At the beginning of the season the elders of the lineage arrange the heads of the families within that lineage along the edge of the land to be cleared for that year’s crop, and assign to each family a strip of given width. The men of each family then clear their strip as far back as they consider necessary to meet their rice needs for the year. This assignment is made equitably—if a family gets poor land one year it will be given good land the next. Each family has full rights on the strip which it has cleared while crops are actually being grown; after that it reverts to the general lineage property.

There are no ceremonies or magic connected with food, except for a small family offering made to the ancestors at harvest time. Everything except land is individually owned, but there is little, if any, difference between rich and poor in living standards, and there are no social classes.

Wet Rice

Such a description is far from complete, of course; but it does give one a picture of the sort of society which Linton found still existing among the Tanala. It was a society which consisted of a number of independent mobile villages, where money was unimportant, where a large degree of social equality prevailed, and where anxiety about property was very largely absent. But even while Linton was there, important and far-reaching changes had been brought about by a gradual change from dry rice to wet rice cultivation. The latter is the ordinary type of rice growing found in India, China, etc., where permanent paddy-fields are used. To the ordinary observer, this change might seem trifling, but to a Socialist it is far from insignificant, because it affects the economic basis of the society. Let Linton take up the story from here:—

“ [Wet rice cultivation] was at first an adjunct to dry rice carried on by individual families. Before the new method was introduced on a large scale, there were already rice swamps of permanent tenure, which never reverted to the village for reassignment. But land favourable for this use was very limited, because of natural factors. Thus there gradually emerged a group of landowners, and with the process came a breakdown in the joint family organization. The cohesiveness of this older unit was maintained by economic interdependence and the need for co-operation. But an irrigated rice field could be tended by a single family, and its head need not recognise any claim to share it with anyone who had not contributed to its produce.

“This group of permanent rice sites formed the nucleus of a permanent village, because the land could not be exhausted as was the land exploited by the dry method. As land suitable for wet rice near the village was presently all taken up. the landless households had to move farther and farther away into the jungle. So far away would they be that they could not return the same day. These distant fields also became household rather than joint family affairs . . . (p.282) 

“The mobile villages had been self contained and endogamous. The settled villages were much less so . . . Intermarriages became common. In this way, the transformation from independent villages to a tribal organization took place 

“The process brought further changes in the patterns of native warfare. The old village had to be defended; but not at so great a cost nor with the necessity for permanent upkeep. When the village became permanent the defences had to be  of a powerful kind involving big investments and permanent upkeep.

“Slaves who were of no economic significance in the old system, now acquired economic importance. . . .  Thus the tribal organization grew in solidity, and with the change the old tribal democracy disappeared. The next step was a king at the head who exercised control over the settled elements but not over the mobile ones." (p.283.) There were now real differences between rich and poor. Poverty and oppression became known for the first time among the Tanala.

The Betsileo

Now let us look at the Betsileo, near neighbours of the Tanala, whose society has been based for a long time on wet rice cultivation. There are more swamps and valleys in their part of the country, and they have also taken up irrigation. But from all indications, their original set-up was the same as that of the Tanala. Basically, “we can regard Betsileo as the Tanala culture, after all the changes consequent upon wet rice had become consolidated, organized, and institutionalized. We are therefore observing an important experiment in the dynamics of social changed (p. 284.)

Among the Betsileo there is a rigid system of ground rent, paid by a proportion of the produce. There is a rigid class system, with a king, nobles, commoners and slaves. The powers of the king are absolute over the life and property of everyone. “In short, here was a feudal system of a kind” (p. 285.)

The power of the father in the household became supreme, particularly in the sense of ownership. Unlike the Tanala system, among the Betsileo all household property belongs to the father except his wives' clothes and gifts to his wife and children. Children not infrequently desert their parents—a thing unknown among the Tanala.

There is much more emphasis on the supernatural. “ The Betsileo make a clear distinction between life and soul. Life ceases with death, the soul continues.” (p. 288.) Much of this interest has to do with apprehensions over losing money or position.

The Process of Change

Here, then, we see social change in action. We see changes in the mode of production causing changes in types of ownership. We see these new types of ownership causing changes in the relations which one person can have to another. We see new attitudes arising out of these relations. We see new institutions arising out of these attitudes. (We see these new institutions causing further changes of attitude, and so on). We see, as Linton has already pointed out, the dynamics of social change in action.

Here is another clear and valuable example of a process which is going on daily and hourly around us here in the world today. Let no one say that the Materialist Conception of History is a mere empty theory when we can see it justified up to the hilt in such a practical example as this.

The whole book is of some interest to Socialists, since the main author. Dr. Abram Kardiner, openly acknowledges the great debt which social anthropology owes to historical materialism. Here is another example of the way in which ideas long put forward by Socialists are being today painfully rediscovered by the academic world.

J. C. Rowan

Marx Against Keynes (1951)

Book Review from the October 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Marx Against Keynes," by John Eaton. Price 3/6. 1951.

This book is published by Lawrence & Wishart— a fact which leads us. after many bitter experiences, to expect that though Mr. Eaton may start off with Marx, before long he will end up with V. I. Lenin, “Socialist” countries, colonial “liberation” movements, “Moscow the workers’ citadel,” old Uncle Joe Stalin and all. And so it does, in fact, turn out.

It is particularly interesting in this case, however, since, in criticising Keynes and his admittedly capitalist economic theories, Mr. Eaton uses arguments and sentences, even whole paragraphs, which speak just as loudly against the present practice in Soviet Russia. Let us look at one or two examples.

On page 16, we find Mr. Eaton saying this: “The adherents of bourgeois theory do not in their day-to-day policies look towards the ending of wage-slavery; they do not see in the wage-profit relationship the source of crisis and all the incalculable consequences that stem from it throughout the capitalist world. Socialism becomes therefore only a matter of talk. In practice, the policies of these people aim only at easing the chafing of the workers’ chains and to ensure ‘the feeding of the slave in his slavery.’ But Capitalism in the period of its general crisis is less and less able to do even this except for exceptional and fleeting periods.”

We could hardly find anywhere a more accurate indictment of the Soviet system: everything fits: the contrast between theory and practice, the lip-service to Socialism combined with the capitalist practices of wage-labour, profits and general exploitation, it’s all there. “They do not in their day-to-day policies look towards the ending of wage-slavery.” Too true, Mr. Eaton, too true!

And there is more to come. On page 72, we find him saying this: “In the period of monopoly Capitalism, the capitalist State no longer ‘holds the ring’ for the capitalist class as a whole, but is subordinated to the most powerful sections of the capitalist class, namely, the monopoly capitalists, who seek to use the State to advance their own economic interests.”

“This section of the capitalists no longer opposes State-interference in the economic sphere, but on the contrary, is continually requiring the State to take action on its behalf, to salvage its profits, to protect its ‘spheres of influence,’ etc., etc.” In Soviet Russia, this process has been completed. The monopoly capitalists and the State have become one. Let us go on to the next page (p. 73) and see what Lenin has to say about monopoly capitalism and State. (“ V. I. Lenin; State and Revolution”: 1917.):

“The imperialist war has greatly accelerated and intensified the process of transformation of monopoly Capitalism into State-monopoly Capitalism. The monstrous oppression of the masses of the toilers by the State—which is becoming merged more and more with the all-powerful capitalist combines—is becoming ever more monstrous.”

And there speaks a man who knows. He ought to know. He helped considerably in the process of making it more monstrous! For in Soviet Russia, where every great industry is a monopoly, run to make a profit, using wage-workers, Capitalism has found in the State a happy and safe resting-ground, where interest comes in as regularly as clockwork, where there are no troubles with labour to cause loss of time through strikes and so forth (unrest in the Soviet labour force is always caused by Trotskyite-Fascist-Imperialist-Wall Street agents—and we know what to do with them! Heil, Joe), and where workers are made more and more productive with the help of the State propaganda machine. It may not be a Workers’ Paradise—but it certainly is a rich man’s Paradise! As far as the workers are concerned,  Lenin’s words must sound very sharply and very much to the point, if they have ears to hear.

Time after time Eaton swings into the same line, that the British Labour Government (and indeed the greater part of the British Labour Movement) says it is socialist, and then goes off and plays the capitalist game. And time after time his criticisms come back like a boomerang and smite him hip and thigh. On page 65, for example, he laughs to scorn the “ Socialism” of Douglas Jay and Clement Attlee and its “claim to be socialistic.” He says that the “whole point” about it is that "it preserves the production relations of Capitalism." He is apparently unable to see this is also the case in the Soviet Fatherland, so tenderly watched over by Big Brother Stalin. What are wage-labour, capital investment, buying and selling, and all the rest, if not the “ production relations of Capitalism ”?

This combination of clear-sightedness with blindness is quite startling at times. On page 23 we find the following: “One may here be pardoned for asking under what circumstances wages may go up. They cannot, according to capitalist theory, go up in a seller’s market because that inflates prices, nor in a buyer’s market because high wage costs would put the capitalists out of the competitive race. They cannot go up when profits are low, because the capitalists must be left some profit margins; they cannot go up when profits are high because something must be put to reserves to safeguard the future.”

“In short, such theory proves that wages must never go upland this, if nothing else, it proves itself a truly capitalist theory.” Quite true. Very nice. But doesn’t Mr. Eaton see that this is always true of wages? That they are always kept down as near the physical minimum as possible? That they are never raised without a fight, or the threat of a fight? Doesn’t he see that that’s a permanent characteristic of Capitalism, whether in England, America, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia or wherever it finds itself? Only three pages before, he has quoted Marx on surplus value! He quotes the very passage where Marx says that the division of the total product of industry, the determination of its profit, “is only settled by the continuous struggle between capital and labour, the capitalist constantly tending to reduce wages to their physical minimum, and to extend the working day to its physical maximum, while the working man constantly presses in the opposite direction. The matter resolves itself into a question of the respective powers of the combatants.” Eaton adds that “ In 1949, for example, the capitalists got £3,055 million in profits and the workers £4,280 million in wages; but there is no eternal law that says the division must be just that and no other.”

We do not appear to have any figures for 1949 for the Soviet Union, but it must be obvious that the same sort of division took place there. The Russian workers are wage-workers, just the same as we are. They are exploited by Capitalism, just the same as we are. The only difference is, their propertied people are in a stronger position than ours are. They have the full and direct backing of the State, with all its coercive machinery, both physical and mental.

But still Mr. Eaton turns his blind eye. And we begin to wonder. We begin to wonder whether he really can’t see the similarity between Labour Britain and Soviet Russia, between Keynesian theory and Soviet practice.

We begin to wonder whether the eye really is blind—or whether his invocations of Marx and imprecations on Keynes are not just so much verbiage thrown up like a smoke-screen, to hide his real intention of bemusing any workers who may read his book into the belief that Marxism and the Soviet Union have some link, some actual connection. And this suspicion is borne out by his frequent references to the Happy Fatherland. He says, for example (p. 89), that the 1914—18 War was an “armed conflict between the great capitalist powers in the course of which one of their number was overthrown and the first Socialist State was established.”

By what feat of legerdemain Socialism can be established in one country—Socialism, which is of its very essence an international system—he does not inform us. Neither does he tell us how in a semi-feudal system Socialism could have been established—Socialism, which has as its prerequisite the full development of the productive forces of Capitalism. He does not tell us, in fact, how the impossible was achieved—for the very simple reason that it was not achieved! But he goes on quite happily (on pages 22 and 53—4, for example) to assume that Russia is socialist, that Russia’s allies are socialist—and that Socialism is the opposite of Capitalism! He can’t have it both ways. Either Russia is capitalist, and has similar productive relations and similar interests with other capitalist countries at a similar level of development, or else it is socialist. But we have shown that it isn’t socialist—compare the definition of Socialism at the head of the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B.—so it must be capitalist. “But it calls itself socialist.” Very well. Memo: when a supporter of the Russian national interest (e.g., a member or supporter of the Communist Party) says “ Socialism,” what he means is “Capitalism,” Russian State Capitalism. “But it is opposed to Capitalism.” No. Not Capitalism. Capitalists. And particularly rival capitalists! In the same sense, Lord Nuffield, or General Motors, are against capitalists. They are brought to a position of opposition by the economic forces that make them what they are. And in just the same way, Russia, Joe Stalin or no Joe Stalin, is brought to a position of opposition to other capitalist countries by the very forces that make it impossible to establish Socialism in one country.

And so it goes on. We have not the space to expose all Mr. Eaton’s false arguments and misleading tricks of the pen. He descends at times to the lowest level of verbiage, as (p. 11)—“The workers, inspired by the Russian Revolution, had Socialism in their hearts "! And then surprises us by a piece of honesty (or a slip of the pen) as (p. 44)—"In short, he (Keynes) is not a Bolshevik defending wages, but simply an exponent of 'novel measures ’ defending Capitalism.” A fine distinction, Mr. Eaton, a very fine distinction.

In spite of all this, Mr. Eaton’s criticisms of Keynes are both clear and valid. He shows that Keynesian theories are completely insufficient to do what they profess to do, namely, make Capitalism work smoothly and prevent unemployment. He shows, too, that the Labour movement is evidencing a tendency to get on to the Keynesian bandwagon. For these reasons, the book is worth reading, at least for those who want a handy introduction to Keynes’ theories (the section on Keynes, from the bottom of page 33 to the top of page 52, is all that one really wants to read) and the bearing on them of the Marxian conception of surplus value and the accumulation of capital. It is written on a very simple level.

For those who can sort out the wheat from the chaff, there is some matter in the book to warrant a perusal. For the uninstructed reader, it is a dangerous quagmire.

J. C. Rowan

SPGB Meetings (1952)

Party News from the September 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Next War (1951)

From the August 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Every time a war comes, it's surprising. That doesn’t mean that the war, as such, is unpredictable—the Socialist Party of Great Britain has quite consistently predicted the wars that have happened since its inception—but simply that they aren’t quite the sort of war that’s expected. It always seems to be assumed that the next war will be much like the last, only bigger and better.

This assumption is usually wrong.

The 1914-18 war produced the first example of complete trench-warfare. Nobody expected that when the war began, and at first everyone was surprised, particularly the cavalry! As the war went on, both sides adapted themselves to the new situation. Trench warfare was accepted as the new norm.

When the 1939-45 war started, everyone was fully prepared—for trench warfare! The mightiest trenches ever constructed—the Maginot and Siegfried lines— were bristling with artillery, commodious and comfortable, well equipped with all the latest scientific devices. They were hardly used. The Blitzkreig had arrived on the scene. The enemy was advancing from behind, and the guns faced only forward! Everyone was surprised, particularly the fathers of the Maginot line! The blitzkreig, together with the increased use of air offensives, culminating in the devastation of the atomic bomb, became accepted as the new norm.

At the present time, everybody seems to be talking in terms of an all-out war between America and Russia, blitzkreig, atom bombs and all. But if we can get over our desire to be surprised, we can see that it may be different, simply because as things stand neither side stands much chance of winning such a war. Furthermore, it has been shown conclusively that the “winners” of such wars end up in hardly a better position than the “losers." Again, anyone thinking of starting a war would much rather it took place on someone else’s territory, rather than on his own. He might otherwise suffer himself, and that would never do!

What may happen, then? Are we not to have a war at all?

It seems doubtful at this stage whether capitalism can do without a war of some kind going on. When it was feared that there might be a cease-fire in Korea,, the whole of Wall Street slumped in one afternoon.

But the kind of war that will take place may be the type that is now going on in Malaya, Indo-China and Korea, and which may start in Persia, various parts of Africa, some parts (later on) of India and Germany. That is, it will be the type we first became familiar with in Spain—a “ Civil War ” which is either fomented or used—or both—by great powers who have theoretically no part in it whatever. This has been dubbed a “limited liability” war, and this phrase expresses very well the capitalist nature of the proceedings.

It can take three forms: the one, where an oppressed colonial people revolt, through the medium of a nationalist movement, against the “mother country"; another, where the oppressed peasantry or proletarians revolt, via a freedom movement, against the ruling class of their own country; and the third, where one part of a country which has been, split away, goes to the rescue of their “oppressed” brothers in the other.

Now, each of these types of war has in it the power to elicit sympathy. But in reality our sympathy should be for them, rather than with them, because they are so palpably misled. Their nationalist movements, in which they place so much hope, are movements leading them towards a narrow capitalism in which capitalists of their own nationality will oppress them and exploit them quite as enthusiastically as the colonists—and probably more so. Their “freedom” movements, in which they believe so fervently, will only succeed in changing one ruling class for a fresher and more efficient set of masters. And the “oppressed brothers” who are “rescued” or “ liberated ” soon find that under capitalism there is no rescuer powerful enough to save them, no liberation by mere force of arms.

These things would be true even if the protagonists were left to fight things out themselves. But they’re not.

As soon as one of these little struggles starts, round through the air swing the Russian and American vultures, the Russians with words (and arms), and the Americans with money (and arms). And another “limited liability” war has started. Strangely enough, the most important ones always start where strategy would dictate, either for position or for raw materials. Not so much for markets, because war is itself a market, a market in which expensive goods are sold, in large quantities, to people who are forced to pay for them, willy-nilly. For position, because a big war (Russia v. America) may come, and both sides want to get in the most favourable position in case it does; for raw materials, for internal consumption, export of finished goods, and war production, all of which must be conducted at a profit—preferably of the handsome variety.

But the “limited liability” wars could carry on for fifty years before the big battle commenced, quite easily. There are enough oppressed people in the world, in one way or another, to keep a dozen armies busy for thrice that time. And, as we have seen it suits the capitalist book very well to have a war or two going on. It’s very stimulating to trade.

But what a trade! Imagine for fifty years, the workers pouring out their, sweat and toil, producing commodities, not for their own consumption, but for the destruction of life and wealth in other countries, in which process the commodities consume themselves.

As the poet says.—

... and gun sales lead to more gun sales 

they do not clutter the market for gunnery 

there is no saturation ... 

because no other consumers are necessary. The great problem of markets is solved! Solved by allowing millions of hours of socially necessary labour-time, embodied in bullets, shells, bombs, tanks, bombers and fuel, to expend itself in the shortest possible period, and in the process to destroy lives and wealth laboriously built up over many decades. What a society, in which labour time so spent is “necessary”! Nowhere better than here is the open antagonism between what suits capitalists and what suits workers more glaringly revealed.

Capitalism thrives (albeit a temporary and precarious thriving) on the prosecution of wars. In the years following the great slump of 1929-32, re-armament was the main stream on which capitalism floated to recovery—if you can call what happened in 1939 recovery. Workers don't thrive on war. It’s workers who are driven to produce ever more and more, it’s workers who make sacrifices, it's workers who die. Capitalism wants fifty years—or more if possible—of “limited liability” wars. Workers don’t. There is nothing they want less—except the big all-out atom war that’s always lurking in the background as a possibility. But it’s what they’ll get—if they don’t get wise and turn to Socialism. There is no answer to Capitalism, and no answer to the workers’ problems, inside Capitalism. Capitalism must burst apart and change to Socialism. But this can only come about if you, the workers, understand and want Socialism.

You see where Capitalism is heading. Workers! Let’s use our heads, and head for something different!

J. C. Rowan

Blogger's Note:

J. C. Rowan has his own wiki page. It's worth a look.