Alberta Calling—and the Socialist Reply (1948)

From the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Most people, I suppose, regard Karl Marx as the prophet of Communism, but that is not really correct. 

“Communism — meaning the common ownership of goods—was known in the world for many years before Karl Marx was even heard of. What Karl Marx preached was Marxism—a form of Communism which relies upon force and oppression.”

This statement, together with many others equally vague or inaccurate, comes all the way from Alberta, broadcast by one Richard J. Needham. Unlike most modern critics of Marx—who usually commence by paying him tribute for the scientific character of his works—Mr. Needham tries to belittle him by referring to him as prophet arid preacher. A good critic should never belittle the object of his criticism at the start, that should emerge as he unfolds his criticism. If Marx had been a mere ranter there would be no special virtue in having exposed him. But what is of even greater importance, Mr. Needham should have made himself acquainted with Marxism before he rushed to the microphone to talk about it.

It is true Communism existed before Marx. It was practised in ancient society, was, in fact, the normal mode of social life, but was obviously not known by that name at the time. The word was first used in the early days of the working-class movement and was derived from the French commune, or village community. The communal way of life prevailed, too, among savage tribes discovered in fairly recent times. It is said to have been practised by the monks in the early days of the Christian era. But none of these examples, as Marx said, is to be compared with the higher communism to come; which is only possible when the working class have come to realise that class ownership of the means of life is inconsistent with the free development of humanity.

To Mr. Needham Russia is the embodiment of Marxism. Soviet Russia, for him, is Marxism in practice, hence, for him, to expose the Russian way of life is to smash Marxism. He says :

“This, of course, is what has happened in Russia. Capitalism has been destroyed, but we can scarcely say that Communism has taken its place. What has happened is that a dictatorship has been set up—not exactly a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship acting in the name of the proletariat. Sympathisers with Communism tell us that this dictatorship, as Marx proclaimed, is purely temporary, but it does not seem very temporary. Although it has been in effect thirty years, it still shows no signs of giving way to parliamentary democracy as we understand it.”

Capitalism in Russia destroyed; a temporary state called dictatorship established; and, as yet, no signs of parliamentary democracy as we understand it, Which means: we destroy capitalism, establish dictatorship and progress backwards, or is it forward? to capitalism. What is the truth?

America and Russia are the two greatest capitalist powers in the world, the two greatest powers in the present conflict of power-politics. America with her dollars and her atom bombs, and Russia grabbing oil fields, plutonium and other raw materials in readiness to answer the American challenge for world supremacy.

From this survey of the external facts it would appear that Russian capitalism is very much alive. What about the internal facts? The Supreme Soviet of Russia with all its political and industrial machinery is built on wage labour. The surplus value, over and above the cost of living of Russian workers, now flows into the coffers of the totalitarian state and is divided among officials, political, military and industrial, according to their usefulness in the Soviet schemes for power.

The leaders of the so-called Russian revolution have achieved power over the mass of their fellow countrymen. They lead, or push them into the industrial or military conflict for world domination in a capitalist world, under the dictates of the supreme Soviet. They are as firmly in control of their subjugated millions as the American capitalist class with its control of the political machinery. No Russian worker can escape the efficiency and widely flung tentacles of the Russian Government.

Orders are issued from the top, and they must be obeyed. They are obeyed. What would Wall Street not give to have their wage-slaves under such perfect control? Scared stiff by Hollywood reds and talk of Communists in official positions, they would care little at being dubbed fascist or gestapo, if their power to enforce their orders were equal to that of the Russian leaders.

It is obvious, that there is no dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia, nor anywhere else, nor at any time, now, or in the future. When the working-class is in a position to dictate they will be democratically organised for the purpose they have agreed upon, and their organisation will be intellectually and technically equal to the task. Until then it is the capitalists that dictate, and the workers’ task is an individual one: to understand and help to organise for the day when deeds of ownership and share certificates in the land and means of wealth production will be abolished; and the working-class will carry on production, in a truly democratic manner, for the satisfaction of their needs. Next Mr. Needham quotes from Marx as follows:

“In proportion as capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer must grow worse. Accumulation of wealth at one pole means at the same time accumulation of misery, toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality and mental degradation at the opposite pole.”

All this is substantially true. With regard to the accumulation of wealth Mr. Needham might have discovered that it was beyond dispute. An American work entitled The Modern Corporation and Private Property by Berle and Means, gives the information that one half the corporate wealth of the United States is controlled by no more than 200 companies. While 2,500 officers and directors own between them two thousand million dollars of capital; most of it in the hands of about 250 men who occupy the decisive executive positions.

Mr. Needham does not agree that this accumulation of wealth at one pole means poverty at the other, he says :

“The wages paid to factory workers in Canada and the United States are higher than have ever been paid to factory workers anywhere—not only in the money sense, but also in actual purchasing-power. Millions of factory workers in North America own comfortable houses and up-to-date automobiles.”

A higher standard of living is only made possible by the industry of the workers. But enjoyment of that higher standard by the workers is always opposed by the capitalists. The realisation of it can only come through hard bargaining and often strikes. Higher wages are not the result of generosity or fairness. They are paid for special qualifications, or as a compromise against still higher demands.

But ownership of a comfortable house and automobile is not confined to America. In most capitalist countries, there may not be millions, but there are more or less in a comparable position. This was proved in the last depression, when many thousands worsened the crisis because they could not keep up payments for cars, radio sets and refrigerators.

From the millions of factory workers owning houses and cars take a look at the other side of the picture. Of the slums in all the large towns, where millions do actually live in the grip of perpetual poverty. Where the conditions of existence are below any decent civilised standard. An American periodical, “Fortune,” ,says:

“About 31 per cent. of American homes lack running water; more than ten million dwelling units have no modern plumbing facilities. Eighteen million families are without baths. More than eight million families are without electric light, or power.” (Quoted in Daily Worker, August 1st, 1947.)

These figures possibly cover America’s notorious slums, but weighed in the balance against Mr. Needham’s doubtful millions, the misery side of the scale sags definitely. From the mortgaged or slum home to the factory:

“The factories, of course, have vastly improved under capitalism. People do their jobs under conditions strictly laid down by law. The manufacturing plants of Canada and the United States are the roomiest, the best lighted, the safest and most comfortable in the world. The milk and bread, the fruit and meat consumed by Canadian and American workers has to pass the most rigid tests.”

Who makes the factories roomy and keeps them clean? Not the capitalist owners. Neither is it permitted by them out of consideration for their wage-slaves. The housing of the machine must keep pace with its development. Machines are expensive, and must be suitably housed and protected from weather if they are to replace their value with the sale of products before they are worn out. While the workers who keep them running at top speed must work with ease if they are to last out the shift. And the capitalists who rely on these workers will not tolerate any tampering with food that would diminish their workers’ efficiency or constitute a danger to themselves.

According to Mr. Needham Marx made many mistakes. No doubt he did in minor matters, but in the general analysis of the capitalist system, and the part the workers should play to achieve their freedom he was sound. Mr. Needham says :

“Marx made the greatest mistake when he told the workers to rise up, in blood and fury, and destroy their compatriots: He made his greatest mistake when he called upon them to engage in class warfare.”

Is there a class war? Is there class hatred? The Socialist knows that the capitalists in America, as elsewhere, suppress strikes in blood and fury.” He knows that those strikes are evidence of the conflict of interests in. the basis of capitalist society. Evidences of these conflicting interests are present all over the world; in America, the most advanced capitalist country, more so than anywhere else. The workers all over the world to-day struggle blindly on the industrial field to maintain their meagre standard of living. When, they realise that their struggle is inherent in the system because of its class ownership of the means of life, they will organise consciously for control of the machinery of government, in order that they may abolish class ownership and establish Socialism. A truly democratic system of all the people, who will control production and distribution according to their needs.

F. Foan

Letter: Marx & Socialism — or . . . educating the educators (1994)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx & Socialism — or . . . educating the educators

We publish below part of an exchange of correspondence, which is self-explanatory, between one of our members and Collins English Dictionaries.

Dear Sirs,

I recently bought a copy of The Collins Dictionary & Thesaurus in One Volume as a reference work for my studies. I would like to advise you of a significant factual and historical error it contains.

This concerns the entry under "socialism". There are three definitions given: I refer to the third which states, "(in Marxist theory) a transitional stage in the development of a society from capitalism to communism". This is incorrect. Nowhere in the writings of Marx, nor indeed in those of Engels, are the terms “socialism" or/ and "communism" used to describe either a transitional stage or different stages of social development. In this sense Marx used the terms interchangeably to mean a society of common ownership and production for use, and therefore without buying and selling, an exchange economy, classes or the state.

As a matter of historical interest, this separation was first made by Lenin in an attempt to give credibility to the post-1917 situation in Russia, by frequently referring to that society, now generally acknowledged to be state capitalist, by the term "socialism". As a student of Marx's work for nearly fifty years, I assure you that the definition you give is derived from Leninist theory not Marx's as you state.

Bill Robertson

Reply:

Dear Mr Robertson,

Thank you for your letter of 15 August. In it you state that the definition of SOCIALISM (sense 3) refers to Leninist and not Marxist theory. I agree with your assertion as Marx did not describe any intermediate "socialist" stage between the collapse of capitalism and the establishment of communism. He used the terms "communism" and "socialism” interchangeably. It was. as you rightly point out, Lenin who created this distinction to describe the situation in the Soviet Union after the Bolsheviks seized power. Subsequent Soviet leaders, as you are no doubt well aware, also used this distinction, most notably Khrushchev who in the early 1960s described the USSR as a "socialist state" that would "achieve Communism by 1980".

Thank you for taking the trouble to point out this mistake.

Yours sincerely.

Andrew Holmes, 

Assistant Lexicographer, Collins English Dictionaries.

Letter: Marx and the State (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx and the State

Many of your members and readers may feel that the SPGB is a truly Socialist and Marxist Party. But I doubt if Marx would think so if he were alive today.

One of your biggest theoretical blunders is assuming that society can be changed through Parliament. The state machine of every bourgeois society has as its principal aim the preservation of the supremacy of the ruling class, and the consequent enslavement of the proletariat. So how you expect to use this state machinery against the ruling class is beyond my comprehension. As Marx said in The Civil War in France " . . . the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes”. So how are we to achieve Socialism? Engels provided the answer in a letter to G. Trier dated December 18th 1889. “The proletariat cannot conquer its political domination, the only door to the new society, without violent revolution”, (my emphasis) If the SPGB supposes for one minute the bourgeoisie is going to simply hand over one iota of their power power and privilege just because, by some miracle, the SPGB has a majority in parliament then they are living in a dream world.

For the revolution to be successful we need a strong organized proletarian party. Let us hear what Marx has to say on this in a letter to F. Bolte dated November 23rd 1871. “The political movement of the working class has as its object, of course, the conquest of political power for this class, and this naturally requires a previous organization of the working class developed up to a certain point and arising precisely from its economic struggles”. But we see that the SPGB refrains totally from indulging in these “economic struggles” i.e. fighting for higher wages, against unemployment and public spending cuts etc. Certainly not Marxist tactics!

In number eight of your Declaration of Principles we find the wholly dogmatic and élitist statement that the SPGB is “determined to wage war against all other political parties”. Engels had something to say on this in the above mentioned letter to G. Trier, namely "For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day it must form a separate party distinct from all others and opposed to them, a conscious class party. But that does not mean that this party cannot at certain moments use other parties for its purposes. Nor does this mean it cannot support other parties for short periods in securing measures which either are directly advantageous to the proletariat or represent progress by way of economic development or political freedom”. So much for the SPGB’s dogmatism.

In conclusion I have this to say about the SPGB, principally that it is not the Marxist or Socialist party it claims to be and will certainly never lead the proletariat to emancipation. Socialism will only be achieved by a truly Marxist Party (e.g. The Socialist Workers’ Party) that is active within and able to lead the proletariat to victory, not by the passive élitist theorising of the SPGB.

A. Mounsey

Sunderland

Reply:

Selecting quotations out of context has been the stock-in-trade of the so-called Communist party throughout its existence, and now the non-Socialist Workers’ Party, (formerly IS) are trotting out the same time-worn fallacies.

If society cannot be changed through Parliament, why does the SWP go through the ritual of putting up candidates? Presumably they hope to get elected.

It is perfectly logical for us to aim at capturing Parliament, because we hold that capitalism can be ended in no other way. It is contradictory for the SWP to say Parliament is useless, then try not only to capture it but try to use Parliament, not to establish Socialism but to reform capitalism by modifying the useless policies of Labour governments. This is what “fighting the cuts”, etc., means. In so doing they accept that the power for change resides in the political arena.

Yes, the state machine is there to preserve the supremacy of the ruling class. No less so in places like Vietnam, whose ruling class has SWP support. All the nationalist struggles fought ostensibly against imperialism, and supported by IS or the SWP, have as their aim control of the state to preserve class supremacy. The political parties which support capitalism, including the Labour party which is urged workers to vote for, gain power because they are elected by a majority of workers who as yet are reform, not revolution, minded. When the reverse situation is reached, a Socialist majority will elect their own delegates, and the state will then be in the hands of those who have a mandate to end capitalism. It is good of the SWP to expose themselves as advocates of violence; the workers will wisely ignore them.

Marx’s letter to Bolte makes exactly the opposite point from your selective quotation. He shows that the economic organization of the workers precedes the political, which is decisive.

And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. (Marx’s emphasis)

(Selected Correspondence, Lawrence & Wishart edn., p. 318-9)

So with The Civil War in France. Marx, writing about the Paris Commune (see March SS), explains what happened to “the ready made state machine":

While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself and restored to the responsible agents of society.

And:

Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supersede universal suffrage by hier-achaic investiture.

(Selected Works, p. 472)

The repressive relics like the standing army, the bureaucracy and hierarchy which the state-capitalist advocates of the SWP seek to preserve, are what Marx sought to scrap.

Show us what specific advantage can be gained by the Party for Socialism supporting parties for capitalism. If you cannot do this (and you can’t) your final quotation is meaningless.

Finlly, while calling us élitists you say the "SWP" will lead the proletariat to victory. Leadership is élitism. The SPGB has never set out to lead the workers anywhere. We are confident of their capacity to understand and organize on a conscious basis; only sheep need leaders.

If you can get one of your “leaders” to debate us on Socialism, we will be happy to continue the tuition.

Editors.

Marx and a Professor. (1932)

Book Review from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The critics of Marx are many and varied. Chiefly they belong to two camps: those who are completely ignorant of his life and writings, and those who, though acquainted with both, misrepresent them deliberately, or do not understand them.

Of this latter kind of critic a correspondent drawn our attention to an effort to dispose of Marx by Professor Hearnshaw of the London University, in a book called “A Survey of Socialism.”

The professor’s criticism is levelled chiefly at the Materialist Conception of History and the Labour Theory of Value. The crux of his criticism of the latter is the so-called contradiction between the theory of value as outlined in Vol. I of “Das Capital,” and the theory of the price of production in Vol III. As this was dealt with in the March S.S., this article will be mainly confined to the Materialist Conception of History.

Concerning this, the professor cannot discover any contradictions from Marx’s own writings. Instead, he finds that it has been “exploded,” “abandoned,” and “explained away” by its adherents, among them the “faithful Engels.”

Engels is quoted on page 238 as follows : 

"Marx and I are partially responsible for the fact that the younger men have sometimes laid more stress on the economic side than it deserves.”

This is described as a recantation from Marx. But why? Engels says, “The younger men laid more stress on the economic side than it deserves.” He did not say, as Mr. Hearnshaw would have his readers believe, that the economic side deserves no stress.

Mr Hearnshaw displays great ability in quoting extracts from the writings of Marxists, most of them dragged from their context, to show that Marx has been abandoned. One example is the following extract from page 282 of Mr. Hearnshav/’s book. He says :

“In particular, the Marxian eschatology is as completely discredited and derelict as is the mediaeval hell. “History,” confessed Engels in 1895, “proved us wrong and showed the views which we then held to be illusions.” O shade of Marx ! What will not the injudicious Engels confess now you are no longer-near him to impose discretion ?”

The quotation from Engels, ” History proved us wrong” . . .,” is from his introduction to Marx’s “Class Struggles in France,” and is trickily used to imply that the illusions were the Materialist Conception of History and the Labour Theory of Value. Whereas, students of Marx know that Engels was writing of the tactics to be pursued by the workers, the question of constitutional methods versus the barricades. The illusions referred to were the barricades !

And, be it remembered, Mr. Hearnshaw is not a political peddler, but a professor of the London University.

Two extracts are taken from E. Belfort Bax’s book, “Outlooks from the New Standpoint,” and quoted on p. 239 of Hearnshaw’s book.

The first is : —

“Although economics are the basis of human existence, they are the basis merely and not the complete whole.”

The use made of this by Mr. Hearnshaw is such as to convey to the superficial reader that Marx’s case is that economics are the whole of existence. In reality, however, this particular quotation, though weakly stated, says nothing that Marx did not say. It is a Marxist truism. The second quotation is :

“There are certain human interests whose development cannot be interpreted economically.”

With regard to this quotation we do not attempt to defend Belfort Bax’s position.

It would be as well, before proceeding further, to state what is the working basis of the Materialist Conception of History. It is, as stated by Engels in the preface to the Communist Manifesto :

“That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of 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.”

In much of his writing on the Materialist Conception of History Bax diverged from the Marxian view. He says, for example, in the book from which Mr Hearnshaw quotes, “Outlooks from the New Standpoint” (p. 132).

“It would be difficult to deduce the Cruades from the conditions of the mediaeval manor of the eleventh century.”

Again :

“There is much in the history of the first two centuries of the Christian era which cannot be directly referred to economical courses.”

It will be noticed that Belfort Bax does not say that the underlying causes of events are not economic, but merely that he finds certain events “difficult to deduce'” and others which “cannot be directly referred to economical causes.” This does not dispute the fundamental Marxian proposition that the intellectual and political history of an epoch are to be explained in the mode of production then prevailing; a proposition |which Belfort Bax emphasises repeatedly. It is, however, his obscure and ambiguous use of English (unusual with Bax) that gives Mr. Hearnshaw the opportunity to accuse him of making a “tolerably complete evacuation from Marx.”

Mr. Hearnshaw gives a typical illustration of his inability to understand the Materialist Conception of History or of his deliberate misrepresentation of it on page 105. He says that it does not take into iaccount “sex attraction and religious aspiration . . . they cannot be interpreted as consequences of economic antecedents.” It might surprise Mr. Hearnshaw and Marx’s critics to know that it does take these into account; that it does not interpret them as “consequences of economic antecedents.” What the Materialist Conception of History does say is that the forms which “sex attraction and religious aspiration” take change from age to age; and that these forms can only be explained and understood in the light of the mode of production and consequent social organisation of the age in which they exist.

Mr. Hearnshaw summarises his arguments on page 241:

“The Materialist Conception of History may partially explain the evolution of primitive barbaric society which was wholly engrossed in the struggle for the means of existence, but it does not explain the evolution of civilised society in which other and higher interests prevail ; it leaves out of account—unexplained and wholly inexplicable—religion, patriotism, devotion to ideal causes, martyrdoms, spiritualities; it does not explain Buddha, Christ, Mohammed, Luther, Tolstoi; nay, it does not explain Marx himself. For Marx, assuredly, was not moved by economic considerations.”

It will only be possible to deal with a few of the points raised here.

That primitive society was “wholly engrossed in the struggle for the means of existence” can only be wholly explained—not partially—by the fact that the means of production were primitive and had not developed to the point where it was possible to produce wealth easily, giving time for leisure, making it possible for any to live without working, or of living on the products of another class. In order to survive its struggle with nature the primitive social organisation demanded equal co-operation between its members. This equality was not an ethical creed, but a necessity which arose from the struggle. Class society emerged from primitive society when a mode of production had developed which destroyed this co-operative character of primitive society. It could not arise before. Nomadic tribes following their flocks and herds discovered a new method of production in agriculture, and laid the foundation of a new form of private property. The process was a gradual one, spread over a long period before society based on private property became clearly formed. The important point is that the change was determined by a change in the mode of production. The final result was class divided society, which gave leisure to, and made it possible for, certain classes to be other than “wholly engrossed in the struggles for the means of existence.”

Professor Hearnshaw refers also to patriotism. According to the dictionary patriotism means the “pride and love for one’s own country.” Not only does the Materialist Conception of History explain it, but nothing else can. In feudal society modern productive forces did not exist. Economically, the manorial village was almost a complete and self-sufficing unit in itself. It needed little or no intercourse with the outside world. When it did that intercourse was often “unfriendly.” Feudal history is one long record—so far as the nation is concerned—of internal conflicts. The conception of patriotism and nationalism did not come into existence until developments and changes in the methods of production were taking place, which gradually undermined the economic basis and social organisation of Feudalism. “Patriotism” and “England” grew simultaneously with the extension of the market. Mr. G. B. Shaw illustrates this point in his play, “St. Joan,” which was cast in the 15th century. He makes one of his characters, an English nobleman, say :

“A Frenchman ! Where did you pick up that expression? Are these Burgundians and Bretons and Picards and Gascons beginning to call themselves Englishmen? They actually talk of France and England as their countries. Theirs, if you please ! What is to become of me and you if that way of thinking comes into fashion ? Men cannot serve two masters. If this cant of serving their country takes hold of them, good-bye to the authority of their feudal lords, and good-bye to the authority of the church. That is, good-by to you and me.”

The rising capitalist class were a “patriotic” class at the same time that they were a revolutionary class. It was this patriotism which gave expression to the aspirations of the growing capitalist class that Dr. Johnson, the famous defender of waning feudal privileges, referred to when he said that “patriotism was the last refuge of the scoundrel.”

Changes in the mode of production have broken down the economic unity of the village, have made nations—and empires. Patriotism and Nationalism reflect this development and correspond to it.

Marx, Christ—and other matters.

When the learned professor speaks of explaining Christ and Marx he obviously means the ideas for which they stood in their time.

The basis of Christ’s teaching, i.e., the idea of the “One God,” reflected social forms that then existed. The ground for this conception had been prepared by the dissolution of tribal life, and the destruction of the tribal gods which synchronised with the growth of the Roman Empire. Christ came (or the Christian teaching arose) after the zenith of the Roman Empire had been passed and decay was setting in. The conditions of the slave-classes in the Empire were at their lowest. Appalling poverty, social disintegration and oppression. Christianity blessed the poor and cursed the rich; extolled poverty and promised riches—in heaven. It did not promise recompense on this earth. The economic conditions of the time did not make possible any proposal that would remedy their slavery on this earth. It was perfectly natural then that deliverance from these conditions should take the form of a belief that promised recompense in a “life to come.” This belief fostered—and taught—a tolerance of the conditions of this world, and submissiveness to slavery. The ruling class discovered this and adopted Christianity. Subsequent ruling-classes also recognised it and made use of it; at the same time adapting its theological aspects to suit changing conditions, and their class interests. Hence the changing form of Christianity, from Catholicism to Protestantism, and to the modern abstract forms which have abandoned some of the crudities that were originally attached to it.

There is some similarity in the misery and poverty of the slaves in Ancient Rome and those of the modern proletariat. There is this difference, however, capitalism suggests an alternative on this earth. The tendency which characterises the modern proletariat is not, therefore, like that of the slaves of Rome, to give expression to their discontent by embracing a creed which “despairs of this world,” but it is to express its discontent politically. This it does by supporting, and in withdrawing its support from one political party after another. Sooner or later, knowledge, and the lessons that come from experience, will lead to an understanding of the present order of society. When that point is reached the working class will fulfil its historic mission, gain political power, and establish Socialism. Thus the conditions of capitalism drive the workers to give expression to their discontent in material forms and away from religious forms. Hence, the growing irreligion of the workers.

One of the easiest (and very common) methods of argument is to state what it is thought an opponent’s views are, and then proceed to demolish them. Mr. Hearnshaw (wittingly or not) has used this method. Though Mr. Hearnshaw’s book has over four hundred pages and contains nearly five hundred quotations, there is not one quotation which clearly states Marx’s view on the Materialist Conception of History. Instead, there are hundreds of quotations from books written mostly by anti-Socialists which purport to state Marx’s view. And this, despite the fact that the fundamental principles of the Materialist Conception of History which are outlined in the preface to Marx’s “Critique of Political Economy” could be stated in a few pages. In view of this, the following from page 230 of Mr. Hearnshaw’s book is just cheek :

“The second thing to be considered is this : that the Marxian system, since its formulation in 1894, has been entirely shattered by criticism, so that it is now a moral and intellectual ruin which no impartial thinker professes to regard is an intact structure.”

And nearly forty years after 1894 the learned professor and “impartial thinker,” regardless of the fact that the “Marxian system has been shattered” finds that it is necessary to do so again. There is an endless procession of those who add their “mite” to the shattering of the “Marxian system”; though it might be thought that having once shattered it into a “moral and intellectual ruin” it would, be unnecessary to do so again. But, alas ! the problems of capitalism arouse ever fresh interest in the “Marxian system” and prove the logic of its analysis. Where capitalism appears, there translated into every language, appears the “Marxian system” also. And it will be so until capitalism is abolished.

Further points from our correspondent’s letter dealing with other aspects of socialist criticism will appear in a subsequent issue.

Harry Waite

Marxism and United Fronts (1939)

From the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists recognise the need for working class unity; we are enthusiastic supporters of a united front. But we cannot, and will not, support unity at all costs. It is true to state that a real united front of the working class can only come into being when it is based on the solid foundation of Socialist knowledge. We are, therefore, according to our Socialist principles, obliged to oppose united fronts of the character so often presented, because the object which is aimed at is not of a Socialist character, nor is the basis of the suggested unity Socialist knowledge. Our battle-cry is, therefore, not unity at all costs, but unity on Socialist principles, the unity of an intelligent, politically organised, and determined working class for the overthrow of class society.

Some people may think that this is a very nice ideal, but it is not practical—it is not possible to get a majority of the working class to act along the lines indicated; therefore, it is essential, in order to stimulate activity, to seize upon some issue on which temporary agreement can be obtained between the various parties. In order to justify this form of activity our opponents often quote the Communist Manifesto (wrongly, in the sense that the Communist Manifesto never referred to the modern united front). “The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties . . .” (page 21, M. Lawrence edition). This section of the Manifesto is assumed to provide the justification for all kinds of absurdities in connection with the class struggle in general and unity in particular. It is put forward as the Marxian basis of action in the form of an unchanging truth, a dogma. It is inferred that, were Marx alive to-day, he would urge affiliation to the Labour Party and united fronts for everything and anything, as do our misguided friends, the C.P. and I.L.P. In passing, it might be to the point to add that it seems strange that people who are continually changing policy and tactics on the ground of being dialectical should fail to see (or is it refuse to see ?) that, by virtue of the dialectic, that which was applicable during 1848, and even remained so until 1870, is no longer suited to meet the needs of 1938 (so far as advanced countries are concerned).

If one reads the Communist Manifesto carefully that is made clear, e.g., the joint preface by Marx and Engels, 1872, states (Section 4): —

“… Although in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties therein enumerated.”

Since Section 2 deals with the same matter, it is also included in the joint remarks of Marx and Engels.

We accept the Marxian case, not because of any blind homage to either Marx or Engels, but because they discovered social truths the correctness of which history has proved up to the hilt. The Marxian approach to the social problems places a key, or tool, in the hands of the working class, by which they can understand past social history, the present, and from this glean valuable knowledge to guide their future revolutionary actions, and thereby accomplish the task of overthrow more quickly.

When Marxism is applied, not as a dogma, but as a beacon light to illumine the proletarian highway, then it will be realised that no fixed and unalterable tactics are possible, and also that the particular conditions in any given situation will determine the details of the course to be pursued. Sections 2 and 4 were, and still are, suited to meet the requirements of the infant proletariat in their struggles in countries which have still to overthrow feudalism and establish capitalism. If we view past history we find that man’s development socially was in proportion to the development of his tools. At the stage where private property became established classes were born and class struggles commenced. The ruling class were always the most important class economically. The rise of the modern capitalist :class made them economically the most important class. But they, in order to perform their function, i.e., carry social development a stage further, were compelled to establish their political supremacy in order to permit the breaking down of the feudal fetters which restricted further social progress. In other words, the historic mission of capitalism is to create a great proletariat, eliminate the peasant, establish social production, and centralise control. To accomplish this task the capitalist class had to carry out the revolutionary overthrow of feudalism. If we keep in mind the fact that under the feudal system there were several classes, e.g., aristocracy, peasants, capitalists, and the then developing proletariat, we will see that the class struggle assumed a fourfold aspect. Further, it would not have been possible for the modern master class to have fought its battle with the feudal aristocracy without the aid of both peasants and workers. Again, capitalism was a necessary phase of social development; it therefore represented progress. In addition, so long as the class struggles were of a many-sided character, the issue between the capitalist class and the working class could not become really clear. By way of indicating that this was the view of Marx, a quotation from “Revolution and Counter-Revolution” may serve : —

“The working class movement itself never is independent, never of an exclusively proletarian character, until all the different factions of the middle class, and particularly its most progressive faction, the large manufacturers, have conquered political power, and remodelled the state according to their wants. It is then that the inevitable conflict between the employer and employed becomes imminent and cannot be adjourned any longer . . .” (page 8).

When the capitalist class have attained their political supremacy, then the class conflict is speedily reduced to the clear issue between the two great classes, the last two classes to appear in social history. When one considers that the Communists then in existence were merely a handful, and also that the establishment of capitalism would provide the social, economic, and political conditions which would make the Socialist proposition understandable to the working class; then the correctness of the urge to the Communists to assist their enemies, the capitalist class, in the destruction of their enemies, the feudal aristocracy, to put it in the words of Marx : “In short, the Communists everywhere support all revolutionary movements against the existing social and political order of things” (i.e., the abolition of feudalism). The Manifesto also makes it clear that the Communists should not conceal their aims, i.e., the abolition of capitalism; also that their independence should be preserved.

Contrast this with the programmes of the Labour Party, I.L.P., and so-called Communist Party, who, if they ever had any Communist aims, disdain to reveal them. Their aims are, and always have been, such as any Conservative or Liberal could, at a pinch, vote for. To take a few of the more prominent issues : Work for the workless, 40-hour week, defend Austria, Czechoslovakia, democracy, etc. These are issues which the modern master class are interested in from time to time; there is nothing revolutionary about any of them.

Suppose we put the question: Was feudalism abolished here? The answer is yes. Were the social and political conditions necessary for working class emancipation created ? Again, yes. 

Then it follows that the possibility for the organisation of the working class on an independent basis, and of an exclusively proletarian character, have been in existence for many years. Our task is, therefore, clear: to organise the working class for overthrow, to create proletarian organisation based upon Socialist knowledge for the purpose of social revolution. Instead of doing this our united fronters are even fanatical in their avoidance of revolutionary activity. They squander the courage, enthusiasm, and generosity of the working class in the advocacy of Labour programmes which are essentially Liberal in character; then, on special occasions, become the brazen defenders of British capitalism. It is interesting to note that Engels, in a letter to Bebel, expressed strong views on the question of unit)? at all costs: — 

“Unity is quite a good thing so long as it is possible, but there are things which stand higher than unity. And when, like Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one’s life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else, one cannot greatly grieve that the struggle has broken out” (this refers to the party split) (page 402, Correspondence).

The letter dealing with immediate claims, by Marx and Engels jointly, to Liebknecht, Bracke and others, deals scornfully with the suggestion of dropping the issue of Socialism in order to attract the workers with a programme of immediate aims. Quoting the German S.D. programme as follows, “Let no one misunderstand us. We do not want to give up our party and our programme, but we think that for years hence we shall have enough to do if we concentrate our whole strength and energy upon the attainment of certain immediate aims which must in any case be achieved before the realisation of the more far-reaching ends can be thought of . . .” Engels replies as follows, “The programme is not to be given up but only postponed — to an indefinite period. One accepts it, though not really for one’s self and one’s own lifetime, but posthumously as an heirloom to be handed down to one’s children and grandchildren. In the meantime one devotes one’s ‘whole strength and energy’ to all sorts of petty rubbish and the patching up of the capitalist order of society, in order, at least to produce the appearance of something happening without at the same time scaring the bourgeois.”

How that fits exactly the so-called Communists to-day is self-evident. The Socialist Party refuses to be drawn into this campaign of peddling rubbish; our opponents, who are bankrupt of a case against us, can only resort to abuse and such absurd assertions as: “The S.P.G.B. do not take part in the day-to-day struggle,” etc.

When the question of the day-to-day struggle is examined, it is evident that no member of society, irrespective of whether worker or master, can escape the day-to-day struggle; it is the class struggle, in its non-revolutionary aspect. We, as members of the working class, are very much concerned about such things as the means test, slums, poverty, etc. We realise that, even within capitalist society, our poverty can be aggravated, hence the reason why we endorse the need for the working class to struggle against the encroachments of capitalism where possible. We also know that even the most diehard Tory Government must introduce reforms from time to time; and that, even were all that which has been promised to the workers by Tories, Liberals, Labourites, or so-called Communists (even in their wildest days prior to their extreme Conservatism), granted, we would have poverty, slums, unemployment, etc. As Socialists we want much more than they will ever give, viz., Socialism; consequently we logically concentrate on the quickest means of obtaining it. It is not our job to assist the master class in running society; in the course of doing so, national and local legislation and administration is essential. It is true to state that to-day possibly 99.9 per cent. of the time of Parliament and town councils are concerned with affairs of no interest or concern to the working class; this is so, irrespective of the personnel who form the Government.

We are Socialists, not careerists; therefore, we take our stand on the need for spreading Socialist knowledge. Keeping this in mind, we know that, in proportion to the growth of Socialist knowledge, the working class will find that they will be even more successful on the question of conditions of labour, etc. Try and visualise a May-day demonstration of Socialists, one hundred thousand strong; their banners bearing revolutionary slogans, their ranks the living manifestation of solid unity based upon Socialist knowledge, their action indicative of determination to abolish capitalism. Because you are intelligent, strong and united, you are feared, therefore respected; meantime you are politically ignorant, disorganised and weak; consequently you are not feared, but despised. When the working class are so organised then the words of Marx, “Let the ruling class tremble at a Communist revolution,” will be fully realised. The ruling class, in their panic, will be ever more ready to concede your demands; you will be in a position to demand. Now, in most cases, you only beg. The remedy for all the ills, unemployment, slums, poverty, war, etc., is Socialism; it should be established at the earliest opportunity. To accomplish this it is essential that a majority of the workers become Socialists. We, of the S.P.G.B., are doing our utmost to convince the workers of the need for Socialism; our task is made more difficult by the propaganda of confusionists who call themselves Socialists; however, we will win in the end. The importance of this task should not be under-rated. As Engels said (“Socialism, Utopian and Scientific”): “To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historic mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions, and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.” In other words, make Socialism first, then the rest (unity) will follow, and the working class will soon get rid of capitalism.

John Higgins

A feeble criticism of Marx (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Modern criticism of Marx tends to crystalise itself into the concession that Marx discovered but unfortunately over-emphasised certain important truths about the nature of social development. Thus do his capitalist critics damn him with a faint praise. Mr. Christopher Hollis, broadcasting “On the Merits and Defects of Karl Marx” (Listener, 4/9/47) offered a slight variation of the theme by at least appearing to praise him with rather more than faint damns. Apart from that his treatment of Marx has no further claim to originality.

Marx himself, sensitive to the fact that his analysis of existing social forms demanded some insight, into his historical method, presupposed in the preface, to “Capital,” people who were willing to learn something new and therefore think for themselves. Viewing his motley crowd of critics by and large, might suggest that this presupposition erred on the side of over-optimism. Indeed many of Marx’s critics have resolutely refused to take him neat. Instead they have preferred to swallow him heavily diluted with secondhand versions and hear-say of others. The sharpness and flexibility of Marx’s method must, however, be judged by the way Marx himself used it. The fact that certain people have criticised Marx without troubling to discover what can be learned from Marx himself has not prevented them from offering their own versions “of what Marx really meant” or should have meant. It did not, of course, prevent Mr. Hollis.

Calling Marx’s Historical Materialism crude economic determinism he nevertheless conceded that economic circumstances have a great influence on men’s views and conduct. “It is a naive and adolescent crudity that they are the sole influence,” he added. It is more naively adolescent for Mr. Hollis to attempt to foist on Marx a view he never held and the fallacy of which he himself exposed. Education, philosophy, religion, law, and political struggles, as Marx revealed, in their action and reaction on each other, played an important part by in turn modifying and influencing the main trend of economic development. What Marx did say was that the key to the whole social picture was to be found in the economic relations under which men live, for it is this which constitutes the most important influence over men’s lives and through their lives their ideas, institutions, and general cultural activities.

For Marx all social development is historically conditioned. That men make history is central then to his doctrine. Not out of any old circumstances it is true but out of the material conditions they find to hand ; again for Marx the vital difference between a colony of bees, or an organisation of ants lies in the fact that men’s historically determined social behaviour is consciously formulated for given purposes and directed towards given ends. Mr. Hollis could even learn that Marx’s theory of Historical Materialism is not only a way of understanding history but through that understanding a way of helping to make it.

According to Mr. Hollis Marx’s economic determinism merely formulated the fact that human nature had been predominantly ruled by greed throughout history. To expect human nature to change, except by the most gradual evolution, was from the standpoint of Marx’s own logic and materialistic thesis, utterly irrational. Socialism being ruled by a spirit of love and service was therefore impossible. Capitalism may pass, said Mr. Hollis, indeed it is reasonable to think so, but on the day of its overthrow the new Socialists and Communists speaking the language of the classless society will establish themselves as a new governing class.

Marx’s belief in the coming of Socialism, was, according to Mr. Hollis, the rewriting of his ancient Jewish ancestral creed, Marx being the son of a Jew who became baptised in the Christian faith, Marx himself the inheritor of generations of Jewish faith translated the coming of the Lord in terms of the coming Communist revolution. Other “psychologists” have also explained Marx’s theories in terms of personal motivation. With that delightful lack of agreement and refreshing inconsistency which characterises “the finding” of these mind experts they have arrived at different conclusions to those of Mr. Hollis. Thus Marx’s theories of social revolution have been rationalised, as a desire to be revenged on his father for turning a Christian; the result of an ineradicable inferiority complex ; and even as a bye-product of an unhealthy liver. Doubtless a perverse ingenuity could think up a, dozen more reasons equally good—or bad. We for our part confess our utter inability to attempt an objective assessment of a many ideas in terms of subjective personal motivation. Generally speaking, such is the vast range of human motives that they are mostly too complex and obscure for people themselves to be really clear about them. For us the only satisfactory criterion of a man’s ideas is whether it is a more, or less objective representation of the processes he seeks to explain. Mr. Hollis’ attempts to deal with Marx’s theories from this aspect were, however, singularly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Hollis even described Marxism among other things as a psychology. Although he added “there is no psychologist today who would accept Marxian Psychology.” He thought that in the realm of psychological motivation there was infinitely more truth in Adler’s lust of power theory than in Marx’s crude economic determinism. Not only Marx himself but also his theories are shifted by Mr. Hollis into the realm of “psychological motivation.” The results of Mr. Hollis’ efforts in so doing are sensational. For if we are to believe Mr. Hollis it is not Marx’s view that it is the historical development of social productive forces which put men’s social needs and economic interests in a definite social cast but rather it is certain fixed and inflexible psychological attributes which bring about the social superstructure necessary for their expression. Mr. Hollis, with a wave of his psychological wand, is thus able to turn Marx the materialist into Marx the idealist. For Marx, if we are to believe Mr. Hollis, merely regarded historic social changes as but the derivative and outcome of a state of mind, albeit a greedy state of mind. Social productive relations are not then the prior and indispensible conditions for men’s existence but some ghostly process tacked on as it were to their immutable economic behaviour. All of which leads to the inescapable conclusion that Marxism is but the affirmation of the subjectivist claim that nothing exists but thinking makes it so. Mr. Hollis is probably unaware of the fact that it was Marx who with objective criticism and scientific acumen scourged those idealistic thinkers, such as Stirner, Bentham, etc., who held such notions! Incidentally, although innocently, Marx also scourged the idealistic Mr. Hollis.

Marx, however, denied that men’s economic interests and needs were to be found by an abstract psychological study of men’s minds; any more than they can be found in a physiological study of their bodies. Such interests are not psychologically derived but socially conditioned. More specifically, men’s social interests and economic exigencies have their origin not in the consciousness or unconsciousness of individuals but in the role these individuals play as members of a social group or class, in the organisation of production. Whether a man is born into that social group which makes him slave owner or slave, feudal lord or serf, employer or wage earner, depends not on his good or bad intent but on a set of productive relations indispensable to his existence and independent of his will. A mode of production based then on private property relationships, expresses the way different classes stand to each other in the division of wealth and the manner and extent in which the total social product is divided between them. In a society such as Capitalism the continued social well-being of the class who own the means of wealth production is dependent on the exploited class who are non-owners. It is true that hero and there an individual succeeds in changing his independent status, but for the overwhelming majority of the dependent class their social and economic conditions are given. Consequently their position of social servitude cannot be changed without revolutionising the productive relationships which make this servitude indispensable for the exploiters The interests of an individual are then but the expression of the common interests of his class. Whatever incidental differences may arise between members of the same social group they are subordinated and subservient to those common benefits that serve their class needs.

In the same way the conflict of class interests is never a conflict which originates and centres around abstractions like “human greed” and “lust for power.” These class conflicts themselves have their objective source in the antagonistic character of social relations based on class ownership of the means of living. The solution for the resolving of these class conflicts likewise is not the outcome of arbitrary choice or ethical preference. On the contrary it is the conscious realisation of concrete class needs made possible by the objective opportunities provided by the development of the social forces within present day society. For it is only when social production is freed from the restraint of private ownership which gives power over the lives of the many and hampers their- free development can a state of affairs—common ownership of the means of living—provide the social basis on which “the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of all.” Which shows how much or how little Mr. Hollis understood of the subject he so kindly undertook to explain.

Nevertheless, Mr. Hollis assured his listeners that Capitalism was passing away. While Mr. Hollis was reticent about the shape of things to come he was at least emphatic that the shape would not be Socialism. Sombrely his political horoscope pointed instead to the emergence of a new ruling class. From his statement that the new Society was in its birth pangs we may deduce the fact that the exploited section will continue to be the working class. The economic function of the working class is, of course, to produce surplus value, i.e. the difference in value over and above the cost of their own subsistence and the value of the total product they produce. The appropriators will then be Mr. Hollis’ “new ruling class” who will monopolise the means of living. But it is this method of exploitation based upon the conversion of the dispossessed labourers’ working energies into a commodity and a section who appropriate their unpaid labour which is the starting point and distinctive feature of Capitalism as an historic mode of production. Nothing in essentials will be changed in Mr. Hollis’ “new society.” For a new ruling class to come into existence it must presuppose an entirely new set of economic conditions having entirely different social aims and economic objectives. To call managers, functionaries, bureaucrats, etc., operating and monopolising the means of production under the aegis of the State, a new ruling class is a misnomer. As appropriators of surplus value they would merely be fulfilling the same economic function as the entrepreneur and private corporations they had replaced. The method of exploitation would still exist in the form of capital and wealth accumulation ; or more strictly capital accumulation by the process of seeking, as far as possible, the expansion of surplus value, would be the dominant economic aim and objective. What distinguishes a ruling class is not a particular set of personalities who make up its ranks but the particular way a ruling class, by ownership of wealth resources, appropriates the labour of others. Mr. Hollis’ new ruling class would then be merely different individuals of the old ruling class. In the same way as the former Nazi leaders by forced purchases, appropriation and penetration into large scale industry did not, as some have fondly imagined, form the, nucleus of a new ruling class, but as recipients of surplus value, became part of the German Capitalist class.

It is also an illusion held by Burnham and other supporters of the so-called “managerial revolution” that State intervention weakens and finally destroys the basis of Capitalism. What, in actual fact, does happen is that with the monopolistic growth of modern Capitalism the political functions of the State become more and more integrated into the economic functions of capital. The purpose of political controls is then to ensure as far as possible the smooth running of the various branches of Capitalist production ; the easing of the friction between various sections of the Capitalist class; and the regularising and spreading over of some part of the capital resources of the ruling class in the main field of Capitalist production. State intervention, so far from weakening Capitalism, attempts to strengthen and preserve it in the interests of the Capitalist class as a whole. Even where a considerable measure of State control of industry has been carried out it merely means that the appropriation of surplus value is carried out by the State on behalf of collectivised capital. That is why Mr. Burnham, in his desperate attempt to find a new economic basis for his Managerial Society, merely discovered the novelty of another name for a form of highly developed State Capitalism.

Mr. Hollis also tried to foist on Marx an economic breakdown theory. He said Marx held that only by loans to undeveloped countries was Capitalism able to stave off the breakdown due to its inability to generate sufficient purchasing power ; finally, however, collapse would come. Nowhere did Marx put forward such a doctrine.

Mr. Hollis also thought that the increase of the wealth of the poor was a denial of Marx’s forecast about the development of Capitalism. To talk of the increase of the wealth of the poor is a comical phrase, like talking about the increased health of the permanently diseased. He argued that the worker’s standard of living has increased incomparably more than in all previous recorded history. Yet, strangely enough, never, perhaps, has history recorded such vast inequalities of income on the scale obtaining in Capitalism. What is true is that in spite of the incomparable increase in producing wealth in ever vaster quantities the poverty of the great majority in Capitalism is not merely a logical deduction from Marx’s theories but a physical and social fact.

Mr. Hollis complained that the taxation of the rich was becoming increasingly heavier. One can only say that a system of society, such as the present, where the State is compelled to spend vast resources on the upkeep of such things as armies, navies and armaments in general, can hardly constitute a satisfactory defence of capitalism. If anything it is another excellent reason why Capitalism should go.

That Mr. Hollis should read into what he calls the logic of Marx his own crudely naive and adolescent fatalism of a world in the grip of iron laws based on human greed is lamentable. What is perhaps more lamentable is that it should obtain licence to be performed publicly. Doubtless, however, the traditional “B.B.C. impartiality” is best preserved by letting its listeners hear Marx explained by non-Marxists or even anti-Marxists.

In conclusion we may add that from Mr. Hollis’ discourse on Marx we failed to discern either “the merits or defects of Karl Marx.” We did, however, in this respect discover the defects of Mr. Hollis.

Ted Wilmott

Tiny Tips (2026)

The Tiny Tips column from the January 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

If you make $60,000 a year after taxes, in order to make $700 billion, you’d need to work for nearly 12 million years. ‘The richest 1% own half the stock market (49.9%), while the bottom half of the U.S. owns just 1.1% of the stock market’. ‘The richest 0.0001% control a greater share of wealth than in the Gilded Age, an era of U.S. history defined by extreme inequality’. 

[Consortium News]

The toilet, by Maurizio Cattelan — the provocative Italian artist known for taping a banana to a wall — went up for auction Tuesday evening at Sotheby’s in New York. The starting bid for the 223-pound, 18-karat-gold work was about $10 million. Cattelan has said the piece, titled ‘America’ satirizes superwealth. ‘Whatever you eat, a $200 lunch or a $2 hot dog, the results are the same, toilet-wise’, he once said. 

[Yahoo]

Mother Teresa is still praised around the world for her charity work, but her legacy is deeply controversial. Reports from former volunteers and medical professionals claimed that many of her care homes were unsanitary and neglectful, with patients denied pain relief because she believed suffering brought people closer to God. Despite receiving millions in donations, her organization frequently failed to provide proper medical treatment or transparency regarding the use of the funds. She also accepted money and praise from dictators and was firmly against abortion, contraception, and divorce, even in extreme cases.

[Yahoo]

There are still people who say that Marx is outdated because Russian socialism collapsed … In Russia, capitalism was interpreted as being about private property and private ownership of the means of production, and the Soviets’ proposal was, ‘What if we nationalize everything?’ Then they found that state control ended up being absolute. If you look at the situation of the workers, it didn’t change that much from one system to another. In capitalism, it’s the employers who exploit the workers. During Soviet socialism, the workers were exploited by the Communist Party or by the bureaucrats. 

[ara]

The Russian communist party has awarded North Korean leader Kim Jong Un the “Lenin Prize” for his outstanding contributions to ‘socialist construction’, praising him for standing up against ‘imperialist aggression’ by supporting the invasion of Ukraine. 

[NK News]

The cobbled streets of Newport in Middlesbrough survive from the Victorian era. The staggering levels of child poverty here also feel like they belong in a different time. Six out of every seven children in Newport are classified as living in poverty. 

[Sky News]

It’s time to stop settling. ‘The working class is going to have to look at itself as a whole and say, “Our divisions in race, politics, religion, sectors of the workforce — all that will have to be laid aside,” he says. “It’s a ‘workers of the world, unite’ situation. We’re all in it together against the billionaire class, and it’s going to take that in the fight to win”’. 

[In These Times]

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

Beware the bogey-men (1986)

From the December 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

There was a time when hard-pressed parents sought to control their high-spirited children by threatening that, if they were not "good" (willing to conform to parental convenience). the bogey-man would get them. The owners of newspapers use the same device to frighten their readers into conformity with ruling class ideas and. on occasion, to create a willingness to die in their defence.

The earliest bogey-man the writer can remember was the "Hun" — the subject of fear and hatred during the first World War. This was the name given to the Germans of that time in spite of the fact that the Huns last swept across Europe from Central Asia in the 4th and 5th centuries. However. "Hun" was a convenient alternative to "German" since the British Royal Family were related to Germans.

Then, with the Russian revolution of 1917, a new bogey-man appeared on the horizon. He was known as a "Bolshy" and, although this was an abbreviation of "Bolshevik", meaning "one of those forming a majority", this in no way detracted from the horror with which people were persuaded to regard him. This bogey-man was unique in having an alternative name: "Red", which was on occasion applied to members of the Labour Party as well as supporters of the Communist Party.

But then, when Hitler disappointed the British ruling class by deciding to invade the West instead of the East, the "Nazi" became the biggest bogey-man of all. "Nazi" was an abbreviation of Nationalsozialist — meaning National Socialist — and workers should bear this in mind when others lay claim to being socialist when they represent just another form of capitalism.

However the bogey-man of the 1980s is certainly a "Marxist" — often a "hard-line Marxist", whatever that means. Now. presumably a Marxist is one who agrees with the main economic and political ideas of Karl Marx. So it might be as well for those members of the working class who might be frightened by this latest bogey-man to find out exactly what his ideas were.

Marx maintained that in an advanced capitalist country the population was divided into two main social classes whose interests were diametrically opposed: the capitalist class and the working class. He pointed to the fact that, because the capitalist class owned the means of production of wealth (the land, factories, railways and so on) the working class was dependent on selling to the capitalists their only asset, their ability to work, in order to live. In this process he explained the exploitation of labour, the inevitable poverty of a majority of the working class — and the origin of profit:

The fact that half a day 's labour is necessary to keep the labourer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent him from working the whole day. Therefore, the value of labour power and the value which that labour power creates in the labour process, are two entirely different magnitudes and this difference of the two values was what the capitalist had in view when he was purchasing labour power.

(Capital Part III Chapter VII)

Marx also held that the only solution to the poverty of the working class was for them to make the means of production of wealth the common property of all mankind:

When therefore capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transferred into social property.

(Communist Manifesto)

In the above statement he was also answering those critics who asked what would become of personal belongings. The result however of the change from private ownership of capital to common ownership would, Marx pointed out. mean the cessation of buying and selling since this can only occur if wealth is privately owned:

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying (free trade) disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying and all the other brave words of our bourgeoisie [. . .] have no meaning when opposed to the communistic abolition of buying and selling

(Communist Manifesto)

It would also mean the end of the wages system by which workers were exploited:

Instead of the conservative motto: "a fair day s wages for a fair day's work" they [the working class] ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: abolition of the wages system.

(Value, Price and Profit) 

Finally, he maintained that the establishment of this form of society must be achieved democratically by the working class itself:

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.

(Communist Manifesto)

and

Thus socialism was. in 1847. a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. [. . .] And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself, there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take.

(Preface to the Communist Manifesto)

So what can we conclude from the above quotations? Firstly that members of the working class — and in this group we include those who think of their wages as "salaries" — should have nothing to fear from this latest in a long line of "bogey-men": the Marxist. The true Marxist brings the key to the emancipation of all people from poverty and conflict.

Secondly the above quotations should enable us to distinguish the true Marxist from the many who assume, or are given, this title Reading back over the quotations, we can ask whether the self-styled "Marxist" explains the economics of capitalist exploitation, believes that the means of wealth production should be the common property of all. explains that this means the abolition of buying and selling and the end of the wages system — and whether the revolutionary change from capitalism to socialism (or communism) must be the democratic act of a majority of the working class.

Or does the "Marxist" represent an élite who claim they can lead the working class — offering reforms on the way — to a form of society in which they see themselves as the new ruling class? If so. here is your true bogeyman.

John Moore

Editorial: Marx and Hardie. (1908)

Editorial from the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the Labour Leader, October 23rd, 1908, under the title “Is there to be discord?” Mr. J. Keir Hardie makes a lengthy endeavour to justify the position of the Labour Party in its relation to Socialism. His criticism of the S.D.P. attitude as representing an altogether needless sect is plainly correct, as that body, while holding aloof from the Labour Party nationally, allows its members to work with the Labour Party locally. If the Labour Party is to be considered as an opponent nationally, surely it is equally so locally. To us there appears no reason whatever for thus attempting to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, except either an altogether mistaken notion of Socialist tactics, or an endeavour to play the political game.

But Mr. Hardie, in building his case for the Labour Party, invokes the blessing of Marx, Engels and Liebknecht, and for that purpose quotes two or three sentences from a letter Marx is said to have written in 1871. The rest of the letter is excluded on the plea that it would occupy too much space. Yet one column on the leader page is occupied in announcing and repeating Hardie’s statements, and could easily have been dispensed with to make room for the whole letter ; and if one column was not sufficient, a whole page could have been made available by omitting tlie advertisements of soothing syrup, ointment, pills, boot polish, etc. with which pages are filled. As it is the quotation is by no means satisfactory, and cannot be made to bear the construction Hardie labours to put upon it. As he himself says, “Marx’s great point was the organisation of the working class as a separate political party, apart and distinct from all other political parties.” Despite his assertion, Marx’s great point is emphatically not met by the Labour Party, which is, as we have demonstrated time and time again, a wing of the capitalist Liberal Party, and has its present footing in the “House” only with the consent of that party. Although political prophecy is a dangerous pastime, it is safe to say that the Labour Party will go out on the ebb of the Liberal tide that carried it in.

That portion of the quotation referring to sects which Hardie throws at us is equally inapplicable. “When the working class becomes ripe (for an independent historical movement) all sects are essentially retrograde.” The whole point is, therefore, whether the working class is yet ripe, or in other words, whether the working class is yet Socialist. There; can be no two opinions about it ; indeed, it is not a matter of opinion, but one of fact. The working class has to be converted to Socialism, and when that has been accomplished, the movement necessarily set up precludes the possibility ot sectional differences so far as the course of action is concerned. The present trouble, the exacerbation of which has called forth the pronouncement which forms the subject of this note, arises from the fact that the workers are not Socialist and cannot be driven or led or otherwise persuaded to take a line of action in accordance with the wishes of Hardie & Co. The fact that Hardie & Co’s, line of action is not the Socialist one is not the point for the present. It is not good enough for Hardie to put the thermometer in the furnace and then persuade himself that it registers the temperature outside.

The independent movement of the working class for its emancipation, admittedly necessarily Socialist, must be the work of a Socialist party, and the Labour Party is not the Socialist Party. Hardie has already explained that the I.L.P., as a political factor, has completely sunk its identity in the Labour Party, so that it is wih the latter alone that we have to deal.

The Socialist party has first of all, therefore, to convert the working class—has, in a word, to be a propagandist body. During its work as a proselytising force it is bound to take political action. The question which constitutes the rock of offence is whether that political action shall be merely an item in the general work of propaganda, or whether it will play down to the unconverted to win. The I.L.P., the S.D.P., and every other political party outside the S.P.G.B,, has chosen the latter course, and thereby ceased to be Socialist propagandists—fallen out of the Socialist movement. That they stole the Socialist thunder, used the enthusiasm of the rank and file, and prostituted the name and the cause of Socialism does not matter—they won. But the cost of their election is the hindering of the development of class consciousness and the hampering of the work of the Socialist movement. The greatest set-back, the most powerful opponent Socialism can possibly have, is, as Liebknecht has said, the man who comes into our ranks as a friend and a comrade and betrays us.

Marxism, a Virile “Ghost” - Part 1 (1933)

From the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to an article in John O' London's Weekly, dated May 13th, 1933, "Marxism is Dead,” and though students of Marxian thought may feel ill disposed to mourn the loss of one departed spirit alone, we find the theories of Adam Smith coupled with those of Marx.

In passing, we should like to take the opportunity of mentioning that the number of times Marxism has been "appointed dead” during the last half century must surely surpass the number of times the world has been “coming to an end" since the going of Jesus Christ.

However, the death of Marxism having been “duly certified,” the writer of the article in question proceeds to the post mortem examination. But what does the analysis reveal? Lest Marxians should await the result of the analysis in fear and trembling, we hasten to disclose the findings of our journalistic analyst. Let us reproduce his own words. After suggesting that the two most important books ever written on political economy are “The Wealth of Nations,” by Adam Smith, and ”Das Kapital,” by Karl Marx, our critic says: — 

“The doctrines of Adam Smith and Karl Marx alike are, of course, discredited amongst modem students of economics for the simple reason that those doctrines left out the human factor."

It further appears that both Marx and Smith helped to bring their own works to disaster because of "their essentially materialistic outlook on the economic activities of mankind.”

What a revelation, indeed! We seem to remember hearing all this before, many a time. Anyhow, aside from the positively untrue and dogmatic assertion that Marx’s theories are discredited amongst students of economics (unless it is meant that they are discredited by those who oppose Marx’s theories, in which case we sympathetically agree). What, may we ask, is meant by the "human factor.” Presumably, since no details are given by our critic, we can but conclude that we have once again encountered that hoary objection to Marxism that it leaves no part to the influence of human behaviour in moulding the history of human society.

Now, were it not that this notion is so often stated in open or disguised form, even by pseudo-Socialists, we would feel impelled to act similarly to the Pharisee of old and ”pass by on the other side.” But, unlike the Pharisee, instead of thanking ”God” for not being "as other men,” we should confer the honour upon Marx himself. For even a casual study of Marx’s works is sufficient to dispel the illusion stated above. But perhaps a casual acquaintance with his writings is too much to expect from some of his critics.

Rather does it seem that the one indispensable condition for a criticism of Marxism is not to have read Marx at all. Or to have read him and ignore what he says. Significantly enough, in the same article from which we have quoted, the writer says quite bluntly: “It is safe to say that not more than a very small percentage of Marxian Communists have ever read ‘Das Kapital' or any of their master’s voluminous writings.” From which we gather at least one of the reasons for his criticism, for, if only a comparatively small number of Marx’s adherents are adequately acquainted with his writings, then it is fairly safe to make any kind of attack upon those writings. One may gain access to a “coward’s castle" at any time, where ignorance and credulity offer an easy passport.

However, what was the materialistic outlook of Marx? Did he fail to observe the operation of what is called the human factor?

These are questions which have often been replied to in the history of Socialist thought and will bear answering again in view of the continuously increasing interest in Marx’s theories.

At the moment we shall do well to let Marx speak for himself. When dealing with a series of events in French history during the nineteenth century Marx wrote as follows:—

“Man makes his own history, but he does not make it out of the whole cloth, he does not make it out of conditions chosen by himself, but out of such conditions as he finds close at hand.”

This is taken from a work in which, from first page to last, he proves how men acting upon the political and economic conditions of their time, exerted a considerable influence upon them. We refer to "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.’’ Again, when contrasting the materialistic views of some of his predecessors with his own, Marx declares in the most unmistakeable manner:—

“The materialistic doctrine that men are the products of conditions and education, different men therefore the products of other conditions and changed education, forgets that circumstances may be altered by men and that the educator has himself to be educated.” (Engels, “ Feuerbach,” appendix, page 130.)

What could be more dear and comprehensive than these two statements. Those who really want to understand will find in them the foundation stones, so to speak, of the science of sociology, the science dealing with human society, and the history of its development.

But to return to the matter of Marx’s materialistic outlook upon mankind. The materialist attitude of mind, both in science and philosophy, Which took definite form in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, was the result of a lengthy process of investigation made by thinkers over many centuries. Hence, apart from certain definite modifications introduced into materialist thought by Marx, materialism as a doctrine was no more the exclusive product of Marx’s brain than the general theory of organic evolution was that of Darwin’s. Historically considered, the foundations of materialism were laid by some of the greatest thinkers of Ancient Greece. Democritus, Heraclitus, Empedocles, Aristotle and Hippocrates, were among the ancient minds who formulated the rough and ready groundwork of all modern materialist methods of thought, despite the fact that they lacked the solid backing at the disposal o£ modern scientific workers.

Democritus formulated his world-renowned theory of the atom and indicated the general truth upon which modem science rests, namely: “Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing is ever annihilated.” In this view-point he was followed by a number of thinkers who endeavoured to explain the whys and wherefores of existence, aiming all the time to find the cause or causes of things within nature’s own operations. Some idea may be gathered of the influence these men had on the world of thought and understanding immediately around them, from that powerful poem of classical antiquity, ”Of the Nature of Things,” by the Roman poet, Lucretius. He attempted to explain the many phases of existence, including man himself, biologically considered, and the rise of mankind from the savage to the civilised state, by means of purely natural causes. Amongst his most notable examples in this direction are his suggestions on the origin of speech and language. Says Lucretius: —

“ But Nature ’twas

Urged men to utter the various sounds of tongue. 

And need and use did mould the names of things. 

About in same wise as the lack-speech years,

Compel young children unto gesturings 

Making them point with finger here and there, at what’s before them.

For each creature feels by instinct to what use to put his powers.”

Of course, modern scientific thought would not put it in quite this way, but it cannot be logically disputed that here, at last, are the germs of a rational interpretation of natural phenomena.

In effect, the whole mode of reasoning here referred to marked a revolutionary departure from the primitive and age-long method of regarding all manifestations of existence as though some power or powers outside and above nature guided and controlled existence. Those of our readers who are desirous of obtaining detailed information concerning the methods of enquiry of the Greeks, and even thinkers of recent times, should consult ”The Biographical History of Philosophy,” by George Henry Lewes. This work is easily one of the best of the nineteenth century’s productions.

However, it is not without significance that these early attempts at a true understanding of nature’s workings were suppressed or kept in the background by the tyranny exercised by and through the power of “Holy Mother Church," but a discussion of this need not detain us at this juncture.

But when the revival of learning and the spirit of “free" enquiry arose after the “long winter sleep of the Christian Middle Ages," the formulas of some of the Greek thinkers were revived and re-employed in investigation, but this time with the more ripened experience and accumulated knowledge of a later social advancement. Perhaps it will appear strange to some to learn that, in the words of Engels: “The original home of all modern materialism, from the seventeenth century onwards, is England." A nasty knock this for those who attribute the origin of materialism to Germanic sources in the attempt to preserve the illusion of “English respectability."

Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Hartley, Priestley and others form a band of thinkers who, by the scientific method of observation and experiment in their various fields of research, helped to furnish the truth of modern materialist thought. Further, the growth of the various natural sciences from the fifteenth century onwards until the explanation of the origin of species by Charles Darwin, in the middle of the nineteenth century, mainly settled the question as to whether natural phenomena had a natural or supernatural origin.

Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology and Biology were the sciences which, each in their turn, presented the world with a picture of nature's workings without the aid of any external power. In strict logic the “Gods" were consigned to the limbo of the dark and ignorant past.

Pierre Laplace, the eminent French astronomer and mathematician, truly summed up the position in his reply to Napoleon. Asked by the Emperor why he had not even mentioned the supernatural in his work, “Mecanique Celeste," Laplace replied: “Sire, I have managed without that hypothesis."

Nevertheless, despite all that had been accomplished in the physical sciences, the last stronghold of supernaturalism was, as yet, to be conquered, namely, human society and its history, the science of sociology was yet to be placed upon a sound foundation.

It was inevitable that as something approaching exactitude had been established in the natural sciences, human history and its modes of being mid becoming could not for long be left outside the general trend of scientific thought and classification. Unquestionably, it was no mean task to survey the history of human society and reduce its movements to the operation of ascertainable natural laws, for the simple reason that history had mainly presented itself as a “ crude heap of irrationality and violence." The great task consisted in discovering some sort of order in the seeming disorder of historic events and their relationship and interconnection with one another. Further, was human society and its mode of being always the same as it presented itself to the general view of the nineteenth century, or had it also experienced an evolution, a process of development, such as had been ascertained in the purely physical world? In other words, could the principle of natural causation apply here as elsewhere? An affirmative answer to these questions was finally given by means of the materialistic method.

Thomas Henry Buckle, the author of the introduction to “The History of Civilisation in England," is outstanding among a few historians who made noteworthy attempts to formulate the laws of social development. Buckle saw clearly enough that such notions as chance action, the alleged free will of man theory, the doctrines of predestination and supernatural guidance could account for nothing of value to the problem of history. Moreover, he openly said so. Buckle went direct to the purely physical surroundings of mankind to find an explanation. Climate, Food, Soil and the General Aspect of Nature were the agents chosen by him to explain the rise and growth of society and its institutions. Rightly or wrongly this was a method of historical research which cannot be said to be other than materialistic throughout. It sought the material background of human existence as the propelling force behind the rise of society from its earliest beginnings.

But Buckle's theory of physical geography fell short in its application to the major question to be answered. Granted that it could account for the background, so to speak, of human endeavour in its earlier stages, but since the conditions of physical geography remain fairly stationary over immense periods of time, they could hardly be said to account for the many remarkable changes in human society that have taken place in historic times.

The real explanation to the problem was discovered and most comprehensively stated by Marx, with Engels and the American Ethnologist, Lewis Henry Morgan, making the same discovery independently of each other. This explanation is now known throughout the world as the materialist conception of history. Briefly, it is founded upon the recognition of the simple fact of organic existence, not, by the way, disputed within the domain of biology, that the primary need of mankind is the acquisition of the means of subsistence, and, therefore, the manner by which these are produced and distributed, forms the basis of all social organisation, no matter how varied the form such social organisation may take.

Further, this theory ascribes the final causes of all great social changes, namely, the changes from one form of society to another, to the changes which take place in the means and methods of producing and distributing the wherewithal to live, whatever form they may take, at particular stages of social development. We respectfully ask readers to note the phrase, “final causes of social change," and not the sole causes as is so often wrongly conceived or stated.

However, this is the essence of Marx’s crowning "crime," to use the phrase of our critic, his "materialistic outlook upon the economic activities of mankind."

From what we have so far stated, it should be perfectly plain that materialism as a system of thought amounts to our accounting for the operation of natural forces, through "laws" of nature herself. Observation and experimentation with the facts of existence, with verification through experience, is ^the kernel of the materialist doctrine. As far as human knowledge extends, the principle of causation is seen to be operative throughout nature, in all its manifestations, and whoever seeks to overthrow the materialist method must produce from nature something without a cause. We leave to other minds, however, this attempt at miracle working.

Robertus.

(To be continued.)