The Racial Problem: Conflict in the U.S.A. (1963)

From the August 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our comrades in North America are making most effective use of the radio in putting over the case for Socialism. They recently broadcast a talk over WBCN in Boston on the current racial disturbances in the United States. We believe that this on-the-spot Socialist analysis will be of interest to our readers and have pleasure in reproducing it below.

It took place in Birmingham, Alabama. Thousands filled the streets, hundreds of Negroes were jailed. The police and firemen used water and vicious dogs on the marching men, women, and children who practiced, as they marched, the doctrine of non-violence. Then an agreement was reached by the Negro spokesmen and the committee of the “white power structure ” made up of a group of “white” civic and business leaders.

A week before, swarms of Negroes overwhelmed the police lines and swept through the downtown area, so state troopers were called in to reinforce the local police.

After Birmingham was quiet for a few days the “white” activists struck, They bombed houses in the dead of the night of May 10, also a motel where many of the Negro leaders were staying. The reaction was a renewed frenzied wave of emotion. Mobs roamed the streets smashing windows, overturning cabs and seeking revenge. The situation finally was subdued but not until President Kennedy sent some 3,000 Federal troops to the area and alerted the national guard.

Whether the situation in Birmingham, Alabama, breaks out anew or remains quiet, there still will be the large question that the events in that city are bringing into focus. Where is the racial problem in the United States heading?

Throughout these remarks, when we refer to Negroes, we have in mind the overwhelming majority—the exploited Negro workers. Their interests are basically as one with the workers everywhere. There is a small section of the negroes who are capitalists (some millionaires, but mostly petty capitalists) and these have a common interest with their fellow capitalists, regardless of colour, country or creed.

This is the fourth of a series and we welcome this opportunity to make our case known to you, our listeners. We have limited funds as we are supported only by our membership and sympathizers. However, we are expending our funds and our energies in this manner because we seek your attention and your support.

Capitalism is beset with all kinds of problems. Last week we focused our attention on war, and we would be pleased if those who listened would communicate with us so that we might know how you feel. Tonight we will deal with the Racial Problem.

We maintain that it is not enough to be informed. It is important to have a point of view. We cannot be indifferent to our fellows having segregation forced on them, treated like inferiors, denied equal opportunities, and worse. We maintain that prejudice is basically economic. There are more than twice as many Negro workers unemployed as there are so-called White workers out of work. The question of racial discrimination is rooted m economic prejudice.

Why are more Negroes unemployed? Why is there an unemployment problem? It is our thesis that unemployment is inexcusable. That the profitability of the capitalist arrangement is dependent on having unemployment, as well as on other factors. The employers need a reserve army of men and women out of work for two good reasons:

1. In order that those who are working will properly respect their jobs and fear the loss thereof, and
2. To keep wages in check.

Supply and demand would send the price of labour-power (wages) soaring if there were not millions of workers looking desperately for job openings. For the capitalists it is a good thing to have their workers hungry and apprehensive and not too independent. This, incidentally, is another illustration of the conflict of interests that separates society into classes.

What does the worker want? He wants employment . . . steady . . . at top pay.

What does the boss want? He wants a labour pool available in order to select his workers and at wages that are as low as possible. The more workers competing for each job, the lower will be the rate that the employer will have to pay.

And the thing that marks off our contemporary times is the wholesale introduction of automation. What does this do? It throws out of work and into the street those workers whose skills are displaced by these new monster machines. The expression in economic statistics is no longer unemployment, but—disemployment. In the steel industry alone hundreds of thousands are out of jobs and due to these new methods and machines they will never be recalled. These new processes in the mass production industries that displaced labour (which, of course, is the primary reason for their introduction) have now created a level of unemployment that has remained constant for many years. It will go higher, it cannot go lower.

Now it seems that we have strayed from our subject. Not so. As a matter of practice the first group to be affected by disemployment is the unskilled worker. As a matter of reality, the Negroes make up a large percentage of the unskilled population. And the viciousness of the circle becomes even more acute because the Negroes are the first and the worst affected. They are the first to be fired and the last to be hired.

Our contention is that capitalism breeds unemployment. Just as my colleague demonstrated last week that war is inevitable, given the relationship of rival, competitive nations, we maintain that racial discrimination can only be eliminated when we get rid of capitalism with its prejudice-breeding competition for jobs.

Let us spend a moment on the subject of racial prejudice. We might start by asking ourselves: What is “race "? Because of the factor of time we will content ourselves with making a few general observations on the question and immediately refer anyone who wants to explore thus subject further to our literature list in The Western Socialist. It might be of interest to those of our listeners who have never heard of the World Socialist Party that we are part of an international group of organizations that have in common a Declaration of Socialist Principles. There is besides our own party, the Socialist Parties of Canada. Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and the World Socialist Party of Ireland. One of the Principles which unite us is particular apropos at this time: . .  "The emancipation of the working-class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex.”

So once again, what is “race”? Biologically, there is no such thing as race. If ever there was such a concept, modern investigation discloses that the mixing and mingling of the human animal homo sapiens, through the centuries and over the continents has completely sullied the purity of any grouping. The colour of a man's skin, the shape of his head, the thickness of his lips, the kinkiness of his hair, his height, his weight only proves how varied is Man. In Hawaii the mixing process of different groupings is in its infancy and already it is nigh impossible to identify any individual. In Brazil the Indians and the Europeans and the Negroes are so fused that there is no Indian problem. Nor is there a European problem or a Negro problem. In the United States where chattel slavery existed until 1865, the Negroes were imprisoned in one sector of the country. Upon their legal release at the end of the Civil War and all the way up until the events in Birmingham, they have still remained imprisoned by economic shackles. This may be a good time to define slavery.

It was Shakespeare who wrote: “He who owns the means by which I live, owns my very life.” The southern Negro escaped from chattel slavery into wage slavery. Under the former he worked for a master from sun-up until sun-down and in return he received his grub, hand-me-down rags and a roof over his head. Under the wages system, the worker toils by the clock for a boss in return for which he gets an amount of money, which barely enables him to buy food, clothing and shelter to maintain himself and his family, so that he can go back to repeat the -process. Most workers will resent the description of their lot as slavery. And we answer that none are so blind as those who will not see. This is not the time for too much elaboration but suffice it to say that the government statistics support this description. Average wages of the industrial workers faithfully match the cost of living index.

Following the Civil War some Negroes came North looking for freedom and opportunity. However, with few exceptions, most were herded into ghettos— Harlems and South Ends—and in the competition for the available jobs, they were always the scapegoats. They were forced to accept menial work as servants, as elevator operators, dishwashers and worse.

Today the situation is aggravated by events taking place elsewhere. The world is in turmoil. The drive to exploit every possibility on the part if imperialist nations finally has caused Africa to explode. What formerly was anti-colonialism now is a demand for independence. The Negroes now constituting approximately 10 per cent, of the population in the United States are showing signs of being fed up with being pushed around. They are still segregated, not only down South where the vestiges of the past persist, but in the North as well. And they resent it. The Negroes are segregated but they are not ex-communicated. They listen to TV and read newspapers. Every channel of communication flashes the injustice of their lot. Some turn to extremes such as the Black Muslim movement. Others are influenced by the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP) and many other groups. It is the Socialist analysis that to get rid of so-called race prejudice there is only one method, to get rid of its cause, capitalism. There is no other way.

Previously we related the fact of unemployment and tied it in with competition for jobs breeding prejudice. How do the current political leaders deal with this7 Their approach is tragically ludicrous. How do they propose to reduce unemployment? By reducing taxes! With the reasoning that this will give the economy a shot in the arm, stimulate business and, lo and behold!, unemployment will be lessened This is like throwing the tide back by using a bucket.

The alternative that we propose is Socialism. Under Socialism the causes of race-prejudice will no longer exist. The entire population will co-operate in producing all the things required by society. Each person will contribute, irrespective of differences, what he is able to society—and will take from society what he needs. Under Socialism competition between human beings will cease to exist. Privilege will be abolished. People will live in harmony.

This is one of the few opportunities we have to underscore an important element in the Socialist case. Usually we get involved in answering away so many misconceptions about Socialism that we fail to bring home the fact that we stand for world co-operation—common ownership and democratic control. And in the language of every Socialist the expression Comrade is used, not in the derisive sense it has come to mean due to the distortion of our ideas when seen through the caricature in the U.S.S.R., but is a manner of addressing our brothers, joined in the greatest job in the world today, the job of educating and organizing for a Socialist world.

From the WSPUS Radio Series: Alienated Men (1972)

From issue number 2 (1972) of The Western Socialist

Have you happened to have heard the term alienation? It Is being kicked around a bit these days, especially by psychologists and philosophers. They tell us that modern man suffers from alienation — a feeling of not belonging, that one is a lost soul who is going through the motions of living with little, if any, consciousness. And among the theories on the cause of alienation we are told that the automated and computerized society of our times is responsible.

Well, no doubt there is some truth to this but the philosophers and behavior analysts of our times seem to be largely unaware of the fact that more than a century ago Karl Marx made use of the word and, in fact, explained it in terms that make it much easier to understand. Marx saw society as divided basically into two economic classes—owners, or capitalists, and workers. Now those who owned the factories, mines and workshops, the land and all that is in and on it, were not lost souls in the sense in which we speak in those times any more than they are today. It was the working class that was alienated — alienated, as Marx explained, from the product of their toil. The workers in those times, as today, were completely divorced from ownership and a consequent feeling of interest in the commodities which they were producing. They sold their mental and physical energies to those who owned the means and instruments of production and distribution and once the agreement was made those energies and the product of their toll was owned — as today — by those who bought the labor power — the capitalist class. In fact, Marx remarked that the workers had become mere appendages of the machines and if he could see the extent to which this machine-appendage relationship has grown in the plants of our times he would roll over in his grave.

For the feeling of alienation on the part of those who produce but do not own can only have been magnified in direct proportion to the intensification of industry in the last century and, particularly, in the period since World War II. True, there are a multitude of small businesses of all sorts in America today. Including small farms. But the mainstream of production is carried on in gigantic mechanized farms and in factories such as are found in auto, steel, copper, rubber, petroleum, and chemical industries — plants that herd thousands of workers under one roof to operate the machinery from production line to office. Can there be any feeling other than alienation among those who do the work in conditions such as these?

As a specific example that has hit the front pages of the newspapers and the TV documentaries, look at the case of General Motors vs. the United Auto Workers Union in the affair of the new Vega plant In Lordstown. Ohio. G.M. estimates that it has lost the production of some $45-million worth of Vega automobiles and Chevrolet trucks because of what it calls sabotage on the part of the workers. The workers contend that they can no longer keep up with the belt. They attribute the increasing number of faulty cars and trucks to the mad greed of the Company to speed-up the process and cut down on the costs of labor.

To whatever extent both sides are right in this argument there should be no argument that the workers understand more than sub-consciously that they are mere appendages of the machinery, completely divorced from any reason for interest in the finished product. And if anybody wishes to research the advantages of a job on an assembly line — at whatever wage — let him try picking up and putting down an ash tray, for example, for eight hours! Then imagine the guy or gal on the line doing one precision task at the same time trying to keep up with a steadily moving belt.

The way to eliminate alienation is to abolish commodity production. In a system of world socialism, where the earth and all that is in and on it belong to all mankind, alienation becomes involvement.

From the WSPUS Radio Series: Labor Day (1973)

From issue number 5 (1973) of The Western Socialist

Labor Day is the occasion when capitalist America honors its wage slaves, those who produce all of the wealth in return for the price of the commodities they need to exist and work and raise families to continue the process. Traditionally, labor unions throughout the country organize parades for labor's holiday thus advertising via their placards, even though unwittingly, the slave status of their members and their particular masters' product. There is some sort of satisfaction, it seems, in the knowledge that one is exploited by rubber capitalists or clothing capitalists or auto capitalists.

The myth of a common interest between the workers and the capitalists is furthered on this day and labor unions vie with the owners of industry in flaunting their patriotism to the nation, the chief pillar of a society based upon the subjugation and exploitation of labor. This is particularly galling to socialists on Labor Day, because this holiday was originally established by the capitalists, with complete approval of labor's hierarchy, as an alternative or antidote to May Day and the revolutionary aspects which once symbolized the first of May were carefully excluded from this first Monday in September. And the fact that May Day has become the property of totalitarian nations of state capitalism makes it all the more galling.

The philosophy behind Labor Day, then, is not at all in tune with the object and principles of the scientific socialist movement. Socialists are dedicated to the establishment of a society in which a common interest among all of mankind will finally become possible. This could only mean the abolition of both working class and capitalist class because the very division into economic classes indicates irreconcilable conflicts of interest among the population. As long as some members of society own the means and instruments by which all must live and the rest of the population must work for them at wages or salaries, a common interest is not possible. Any labor holiday which does not base its philosophy on this truth is a sham and a delusion and labor's very own organizations, the labor unions, are actively contributing toward this sham and delusion.

But Labor Day is not devoid of significance for the membership of the World Socialist Party of the U. S. For many years we have held our national conference on the weekend of Labor Day. usually in Boston which is the site of our national headquarters. on occasion in other cities such as New York and Detroit. Once again we meet in Boston to review our accomplishments of the past year — whatever —, to plan for the year ahead, and to enjoy the opportunity for socialists from widely scattered areas to get together. And what exactly have we accomplished in the year since we last met? In terms of the job that remains to be done, little. The deep confusion that throttles society is apparently as rife as ever. And to add to the confusion there are the government scandals which pit capitalists against one another and provide a deeper smokescreen to hide from the working class the only real need, the need to end the wages, prices, profits system itself. The worst scandal is the continuing existence of world capitalism at this late date.

But we certainly have accomplished something worthwhile in the last year. We have kept the scientific socialist movement alive and this, we feel, is no slight achievement. For confusion even in the ranks of militant and rebellious workers remains. The unfortunate equating of socialism with state capitalism is at least as widespread as ever. The World Socialist Party and its companion Socialist Parties in other countries remain the only dispensers of scientific socialist knowledge in the world at the present time. We continue to insist that the only way out of the mess that envelops society today, that spreads poverty and war throughout the entire planet, is the immediate establishment of world socialism. But this does not imply working for governments rather than for private capitalists. This can only mean the abolition of the wages system, itself, including governments; and their conversion into administrations over the affairs of man rather than over man. This is our message for Labor Day and for every other day to come.

From the WSPUS Radio Series: Nixon & Brezhnev - bosom buddies (1973)

From issue number 4 (1973) of The Western Socialist

There used to be a joke during the last days of World War II about a discussion between an American and a Russian soldier on the relative merits of their respective countries. The GI bragged that because the U.S. is a democracy he could walk right up to President Truman and say: "Mr. Truman. you are an SOB," and get away with it. The Russian responded: "That’s nothing. I can walk right up to Chairman Stalin and say: Comrade Stalin, President Truman is an SOB and I could get away with it."

Well, times have changed and the joke would be completely irrelevant now. For if an American soldier today could walk up to President Nixon and call him an SOB there would be little doubt of the outcome. Nor could a Russian soldier accost Mr. Brezhnev in these times with the message that Mr. Nixon is an SOB without dire consequences to him. For, strange as it seems, Mr. Nixon appears to be admired in Soviet Russia now almost to the extent he is denounced, even reviled in the United States. It would almost seem, from outward appearances gained at the time of the recent Brezhnev visit to these shores that the Kremlin boss could very well run an American style election and win at least a seat in the U. S. Senate while there would be little doubt that Mr. Nixon, were it not for the language barrier, could easily become an important wheel In the Politbureau in Moscow. He is certainly cut from that mold.

But there is a lesson to be learned in all of this. Aside from the obvious fact that the U. S. has a type of bourgeois political democracy that is unique in the world, where scandals of the proportion of Watergate can be brought into the open, the culprits tried in the Press and on TV before they are ever tried in court, there is little difference between the U. S. and Soviet Russia. Putting aside the contradictions and the hypocrisies of the Nixons and the Brezhnevs and getting down to brass tacks why did Mr. Nixon go to Moscow and why did Mr. Brezhnev come here? The answer has been emblazoned in the press and over the air waves with no attempt to hide the truth. Trade agreements, business deals and whatever else might be required to accomplish this aim. The private and corporate owners of American industry stand to make huge profits as do the bureaucrats of state capitalist Russia who function as capitalists even if they may not be so categorized, legally. In any event, neither the workers of America nor the vast bulk of the Russian population have anything to gain from the ‘‘Summit” talks and trade agreements. Their function remains to produce all of the wealth of their respective lands in return for the cash with which to purchase the commodities they need to survive as workers.

So it is certainly not a case of Moscow and Washington laying aside sharp differences in philosophy and ideology for the good of humanity. It is merely a recognition that there is really more in common between American capitalists (and their political wheeler-dealers) and Soviet bureaucrats than there is between these “better" folk and the working population of their respective countries. That the name of the game is profits and that American capitalists and Russian bureaucrats have much to gain by sharing the profits wrung from the hides of their respective working classes.

If our words could penetrate the walls of Soviet censorship our message to our fellow workers in the USSR would be: do what you can to bring an end to the system of state capitalism that keeps you in grinding wage slavery, that masquerades under the name of socialism. Join with us in our attempt to build a genuine socialist movement throughout the world. Our goal is not the widening of trade but the abolition of trade and all the other features of capitalism.

From the WSPUS Radio Series: The Boycott (1973)

From issue number 3 (1973) of The Western Socialist

Are you a supporter of the boycott as a means of fighting high prices? The first big meat boycott of 1973 certainly received a lot of attention by the mass media and produced certain results although it did not succeed in bringing prices down to any really noticeable extent. The red meat industry was certainly affected during the boycott week — all but paralyzed with approximately 75,000 butchers, across the country, being thrown out of work. Part of the losses to the retail owners must have been overcome, to be sure, by the mad rush before the boycott week by more affluent shoppers to cram their freezers. But the net results to the working class, generally, are negligible and until workers can force their employers to pay wage increases they must continue to suffer a cut in their real pay.

For let's face it. The wage and salaried workers are also selling a commodity, labor-power. And just as the farmers can and do argue that the costs of the grain, anchovy meal and soya beans they need to produce cattle and hogs have risen; so should the workers insist that the items they need to produce and reproduce their labor-power — the food, clothing, shelter, etc. — are more expensive. Just as the farmers and owners, generally, must include in their costs the expense of replacing plant, raw materials. etc., so must the workers provide for children who will ultimately replace them as producers and sellers of labor-power. And this is the most important commodity of all because without it nothing can be produced and the owning class would be helpless. So the response of workers to rising prices should be an immediate demand for higher wages rather than joining an organized movement to bring down prices.

In fact, the attempt to bring prices down can only be — in the long run — counter-productive to the interests of labor. Even though the struggle for higher wages does not generally result in the workers getting a larger share of the pie this is still the heart and core of the class struggle on the economic front. In the final analysis it is this struggle that makes workers class conscious and — we maintain —eventually aware of the need for the abolition of the wages system itself. The goal of consumer movements, on the other hand, is a coping with capitalism by fostering the illusion that present wages and salaries can be made adequate if costs of the commodities that are needed by workers can be lowered. Were it possible, in fact, to lower prices generally. the employers would be quick to respond by forcing lower, rather [than] agreeing to higher wages. And since governments of any type and labor union hierarchies, as well, are essentially tools of a continuing capitalism, working people could expect no help and little sympathy from either.

The immediate reaction, then, of workers to the skyrocketing prices should be a defiance (to the extent this is possible), of the Government’s restricted guidelines for wage increases and a demand for higher increases. There should also be a rejection of the George Meany-type ultimatums to Government of a roll-back of prices or a demand for more pay. Socialists say: let’s not worry about their commodities, let us take care of the price of our own.

But all of this sort of struggle, essential as it is, leads nowhere. Like a dog chasing its tail. Capitalist propaganda would have us believe that higher wages automatically brings still higher prices. If there was ever a time that this proposition was proved to be upside down it is now.

The factors that are bringing about fast-climbing prices have certainly nothing to do with wages, are — in fact — a world-wide phenomenon in countries of relative low wage levels as well as in America where high wages are supposed to be responsible for the loss of markets by U. S. capitalism. The only sensible answer remains. as Marx phrased it more than a century ago: Instead of the conservative motto, a fair day's work for a fair day’s pay, the labor unions should inscribe on their banners, Abolition of the Wages System.

From the WSPUS Radio Series: Modified Capitalism (1973)

From issue number 3 (1973) of The Western Socialist

If one were to pick the one most misunderstood word in the language — in any language — today it would be a good gamble to select the word “socialism." It is really interesting, in fact, to contemplate the large number of Americans even who believe they understand what socialism is all about and who will actually admit to accepting it as a superior way of life to what we now have. Interesting because it seems that most of these supposed supporters, like most of those who think they understand the subject but who oppose it, really have something in mind that has no relationship to socialism.

There are, to be sure, a number of variations in the meaning attached to the word. A great many will name the Soviet Union as an example of socialism in action. Others prefer Red China. Still others, the more democratically inclined, go for the Scandinavian countries or Britain whenever the Labour Party happens to be in control of the government. It is amazing how many Americans were convinced in the elections of 1972 that George McGovern presented a socialist program and either supported him or opposed him because of it.

But when one gets down to bedrock there is nothing very much different from one another in any of these varieties of what is widely believed to be socialism. They all have one common denominator: most of the population must work for wages or salaries in order to live while a minority live more than comfortably without the need of socially useful labor. Even where all industry is owned or controlled by the Government there is a class of bond holders and high officials who reap huge benefits from the sweat and toll of the working people.

Right of Access 

Those who have listened to our radio messages and read our literature are aware of a different meaning entirely for the word “socialism." The World Socialist Party does not advocate a system of modified capitalism. We agree with the founders of scientific socialism in the proposition that socialism means the right of access by all mankind to all the wealth that is in and on the earth. This can only signify the end to national sovereignties, even to the sham socialist nations that are spread around the earth and which, like the so-called free enterprise countries, suppress most of their populations and keep millions of their working people in perpetual poverty and insecurity, not to mention turning their populations on the working people of other countries in bloody warfare.

What do we mean by right of access to all wealth? Think a moment. The capitalist class of the West and the bureaucratic parasites of state capitalist nations such as Russia and China enjoy free access, today, because of their ownership and control of the wealth producing facilities. In a world socialist society all mankind will have free access to all wealth because the mines, mills, workshops, land and everything that is needed for producing and distributing wealth will be the common possession of all mankind. Goods and services will be produced only to satisfy human needs and not at all for profit. It will be a world where one gives according to one’s abilities and receives according to one's needs.

You can do something about bringing into being such a world society. You don’t have to continue supporting political parties that advocate one form or another of the wages system. You can help us build such a party into a force that, once having gotten off the ground will swell in size like a snowball rolling down a hill in ski country. The only trick is to get it started and that is really no trick. If you feel concerned enough about this proposal to learn more we urge you to contact us by mail or by the phone number given on this program. Don’t you agree it is time for a meaningful change?

The Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

That's the the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist now published in its entirety on the blog. An excellent issue and, for something originally published in 1974, it really hasn't dated as much as I thought it might have when I originally started scanning it in. I also have a higher opinion of Harry Morrison as a writer after reading it. I'd previously thought he was a bit too dry a writer for my tastes. I was wrong.

Hopefully this issue will eventually find its way onto the World Socialist Movement website or the World Socialist Party of the United States website but, for now, here's a list of the contents of the issue with added links.

• "The source of capitalist (national) power . . ."
• Editorial: Once over lightly
• Introduction
• Foreward

1. The Magic Checkbook
2. Canned profits
3. Incentive and initiative
4. In the meantime
5. The Labors of Sisyphos
6. You must like it
7. Who needs enemies?
8. The Mathematics of Race
9. Smashing Capitalism
10. Religion
11. The Gall of Charity
12. What class are you?
13. How to spot a phoney socialist
14. International Socialism
15. What’s a revolutionary?
16. Brains and money
17. Does peace justify violence?
18. Dedication to wasted effort
19. The supermarket
20. Why “World” Socialists?
21. America’s “Radical” Presidents
22. Women’s Liberation
23. Are we “Commies”?
24. Urban renewal
25. Are we Utopians?
26. The Provocateur
27. Impeach Capitalism
28. Shelley
29. Christmas
30. Human Nature and Behavior
31. Words, handle with care
32. A World Without Money
33. Is food produced to eat?
34. Togetherness
35. To market, to market
36. The profits of addiction
37. Who’s on welfare?
38. The blind spot

• Supplement: The object and declaration of principles 

The blind spot (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

There Is a blind spot in thinking, under capitalism, that affects the most brilliant minds in almost every field, a blind spot having to do with the basics of commodities. Let us illustrate our point by looking at the question of food, of feeding the hungry populations of the world.

Recently, a Nobel Prize was awarded an expert in the science of wheat growing. This scientist, by his research, had so contributed to the knowledge of wheat that it now becomes possible to raise enormous crops of that basic food in areas in which it was hitherto impossible. Wonderful! But there is one serious problem, one flaw in the ointment that isn’t even considered and this, despite the many, many examples in the past of the same problem. Wheat is not produced principally with the idea of feeding hungry people. It is produced for sale on the market with view to profit. No profit, no wheat production. It is as simple as that.

Do you think there is anything untrue about this statement? Then let us remind you of miracle rice, for example. Only a year or so ago a new hybrid rice, several times more prolific than traditional rice, had been developed by the International Rice Research Institute and financed by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations. Did this result in the masses of people in rice-consuming areas of the world now being able to get enough to eat? Of course not. What happened was that the vastly increased harvest flooded the rice market and large quantities of that food had to be destroyed because of inadequate storage and marketing facilities. As reported in The Western Socialist of July-August, 1969, a United States aid official in the Philippines remarked: “We never thought about marketing — we were concentrating on production.”

Or take the subject of oranges. We are told by nutrition scientists that the vitamins contained in oranges are vital in maintaining good health. Is there anybody who actually believes that every child in America is able to get all of the oranges they need? The potential for distribution of oranges In the United States — the richest country in the world — is far, far greater than orange production. Yet the orange growers of Florida, according to a recent news story, are searching for new markets for their commodity other than food because they are producing far more of the fruit than the food market can possibly absorb and this spells disaster for their prices. (One remembers those vast mountains of oranges that were plied up In California during the Hungry Thirties, doused with gasoline, and burned, while armed guards stood watch to keep needy people away.)

Whom shall we blame? The orange growers? The wheat growers? The rice growers? Ridiculous! Why should one blame them? Are they their poor millions of brothers’ and sisters' keepers? Or should we blame the Government? But the Government is the executive committee of the ruling class, the capitalist class, regardless of which political party forms the Government. This is capitalism. the market economy, the system of society in which all of the things people need to survive and to make life worth living are produced in order that surplus value may continue to be produced. To blame individual capitalists or the Government makes as little sense as handing out Nobel Awards to scientists who discover methods of producing food in abundance in an economy where food must not be produced in abundance.

The problem will be solved when the majority of us stop supporting political parties that promise to make capitalism operate uncapitalistically. For political parties and governments do not operate capitalism, capitalism operates them. And that is why the World Socialist Party of the United States does not want your support for anything short of an outright abolition of capitalism and the institution of a system based upon production for use by all who inhabit the earth. Examine your blind spot and investigate world socialism!

Who’s on welfare? (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Everybody seems to be upset these days about Welfare. The percentage of Americans who live — somehow — on Welfare monies seems to be steadily mounting and a rising outcry is heard against the imagined throng of lazy rascals among them who simply do not want to work but who would rather live off the backs of the taxpayers.

Now there are a couple of interesting oddities about this and about other conclusions, by many, on the issue of Welfare. Take, for example. the case of the so-called lazy bums who do not work simply because they do not want to work. Nobody would argue that 100% of the unemployed are simply too lazy to work. There are always a few, it is acknowledged, who are honest and industrious, but who cannot find jobs. The worst diehard enemy of Welfare would admit to this.

But the strange thing about this assessment is the fact that immediately one wonders why those few honest and industrious among the Welfare recipients cannot find jobs. If 90% of the unemployed don’t work only because they do not want to work it should follow, logically, that there must be a great number of jobs that are available. Why, then, would the 10% find any difficulty in locating the anxious, would-be employers of their labor? Something funny about that argument, isn’t there?

What upsets socialists about Welfare, is something altogether different than the usual complaint. We do think it a shame, of course, that so many Americans must get by on the skimpy income allotted by Welfare while it is continually drilled into their heads that they live in the richest country in the world And yet this is not nearly so upsetting to us as is the knowledge that the real recipients of Welfare are not at all those who make up the official roles. The one in seven or one in six, or whatever the figure may be, who wait from month to month for the Welfare checks are working class people, even though they may be unemployed for reasons of physical disabilities or for any other reasons The real recipients of Welfare, and WHAT welfare they receive! are the members of the capitalist class. And here is no 1 in 7, or 1 in 6 figure, either. In this case the percentage is 1 in 1 or 100%. Let's look into this proposition.

There is only one way to create wealth. That is by applying physical and mental energy to raw materials. Now this sort of activity is the function of the working class, not the capitalists. The function of the capitalist class is to own the Industries and to employ those who don't own the means of wealth production to work in them. True, there are capitalists who work and who draw salaries. But they do not work for a living. They could, and, in fact, do, employ substitutes for themselves for less than their own salaries — substitutes who have degrees In Business from the finest schools In the world. The $50,000, or whatever, per year they draw from their business as the salary of management would hardly pay their liquor bills. Any capitalist worth talking about can — and frequently does — spend far more on one social gathering than a Welfare recipient could gross In an entire lifetime on Welfare.

So what, you may ask, is the point? The point is that if people do not work — and most of the able-bodied adult members of the capitalist class either do not work at all or occupy some managerial function as a hobby — then somebody must be supporting them. They don’t eat their money or their certificates of wealth-ownership. They are supported, and in style, by those who do all the work many of whom, from time to time, must hold out their hands for crumbs of tax money during periods of unemployment. Let’s straighten out our perspective. Let’s organize to abolish Welfare for unemployed workers and for the permanently unemployed capitalist class. Let’s unite for world socialism.

The profits of addiction (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

It is interesting to observe that there is a direct correlation between the problems that shake society and the economics of capitalism. Lurking In the background, compounding the ills of any serious problem is capitalism, itself. A good Illustration of this point is to be found in the drug problem.

The existence of drug addiction, to a noticeable degree, is not new. One novel aspect, however, is the fact that It has spread beyond the ghetto areas into the better neighborhoods and it is becoming prevalent among school children of teen and even pre-teen age. Another new fact is the widening adulteration of drugs to the point at which researchers are not certain whether the harmful effects are the result of the drugs or of the adulterants. Adulteration, of course, is directly connected with the drive for profits. To the degree one cuts down the percentage of actual drug — the expensive element — and adds other ingredients, to that extent one increases one's margin of profits which should be the goal of every aspiring capitalist. So what if the adulterants might be more dangerous, even, than the drug? That's not the concern of the entrepreneur and shouldn't be. under the jungle-type economics of capitalism

But an even more insidious—if such is possible—connection between drug addiction and capitalism is the fact that the addiction leads Inescapably to other crimes for the workers who are hooked. Unless one is wealthy, the kind of money needed to maintain a drug habit must come from shop-lifting, picking pockets, burglary, or what have you. As one N.Y. judge once was quoted: “In all my years on the bench I never had a wealthy addict before me." So it would seem that there might be benefit derived from research into the effects of drug addiction among members of the capitalist class, those who can afford to take their pot. their cocaine, their opium neat rather than contaminated by adulterants. Not that knowledge gained from such testing would make a noticeable difference in the quality of the drugs marketed. The drive for profits would remain paramount and just as there are high grade cigars and alcoholic beverages for those who can afford them, with cheap rot-gut for the poor, there will continue to be high quality drugs for the rich junkies and Junk for the poor ones.

There are those who argue that the problem of drug addiction would be solved were the traffic to become legal and controlled by the government. We would be free, they believe, from the nefarious practices of the underworld that now controls it. The drugs would be. at least, readily and legally available and their ingredients subject to government supervision. And we wonder at the seeming naivete of those who offer this argument. In the face of government-regulated patent medicines and prescription drugs (only about 20% of which totally live up to their claimed effectiveness, according to the Food and Drug Administration); government-regulated rot-gut-type liquor and wines; even government-regulated, but inferior, grades of food; we still get the argument from those who would save us from the evils of drugs while retaining the economic system that makes them an evil: let the government control drugs, they tell us, and all will be well.

The point is, to socialists, that the reasons for the desire to use drugs should be better researched. We maintain that there is something real rotten in the state of capitalism when millions of men, women, and children seek escape, or release, from their problems through the use of opiates. The question is by no means one of how to provide only high quality and safe drugs for all. The task is to organize for the abolition of an economic society that encourages—either directly or indirectly — the use of drugs. We urge you to investigate socialism.

To market, to market (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Have you ever been on a cattle ranch and watched thousands of tons of beef on the hoof stampeding in a single corral? You must have at least seen such a sight in the movie theatres or on your TV. Those animals are being prepared for the market and pretty soon they will be herded into railway cars to be transported to the slaughter houses.

Now what about that other sight we see at least five days a week in the mornings and evenings? Thousands of tons of labor-power on the hoof being herded into surface cars, subway trains, buses, automobiles and trucks, being transported to the labor market and home again for the rest and recuperation needed for the next day's toll.

There are differences, of course. In order to realise the profit in the beef, the steer must first be slaughtered. Humans, on the other hand, have no exchange value when they are dead (excepting to the funeral directors, embalmers, cemetary Industry, etc.) It is that value-creating labor power they generate, while alive, that is of importance to the capitalist class. They don’t want to own our bodies — as was the case In times of chattel slavery — they just want to buy our labor power for stipulated time periods And they also want our votes, on election days, to give approval to their system by electing those who wish to continue it. We are not slaves, they tell us, but free men and women.

Is this a gross exaggeration? It certainly is not and the very language of capitalism underscores its truth Take the word market, for example. Merriam Webster defines it as "a meeting together of people for the purpose of trade by private purchase and sale usually not by auction." In light of this, a labor market would be a place where labor-power (mental and physical) is bought and sold. The only reason the workers must bring their bodies to work is that there is no way — as of now — to ship the abilities without the carcasses. In other words, those who must work for a living in the industries of the capitalists are regarded mainly as the owners of a needed commodity and little more. If their particular abilities are marketable, they work at them. If not, they find something else, go on welfare, "mooch on the stem.” or starve.

As an Illustration: recently there was a feature story in the New York Times of the plight of newly-graduating school teachers. There are few jobs at the profession available today. The market for general school teachers became glutted, the story tells us, and the future of these recently-trained purveyors of capitalist- oriented education is grim. Most of those who do find jobs will be working as waitresses or in other unskilled fields far removed from their intended careers. So what happens now in the school teacher manufacturing industry? The same thing that happens in any other industry under the same circumstances. There will be a shrinkage for a number of years in the production of new school teachers, a falling-off of interest in going to such schools. Eventually, say about 1980 or ’85, a new shortage of teachers will have been created and there will be another rush of applicants to that discipline necessitating a new expansion of the industries — referred to as colleges — that manufacture school teachers.

They might just as well be so many sausages or legs of lamb, those bright-faces and starry-eyed youngsters who clutch those sheepskins so proudly. — Is there any sanity to such a system of society? The vast majority seem to think so or at least take it for granted as the only possible way of doing things. Socialists disagree and offer a whole new way of life, a sane world — World Socialism. Won't you join us in trying to bring It about?

Togetherness (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

There are undoubtedly a great many words in the English and other languages that are improperly used with frequency. As an example of such misusage take the little pronoun “we." How natural it seems to be for all of us to employ that word so as to carry with it the implication of togetherness. All 220 million Americans and, in fact, the entire population of this planet, are supposed to have a common interest; to be joint beneficiaries of all that is in and on the earth, and to share a joint responsibility for whatever goes wrong. And this, of course, is sheer poppycock.

Where is there an area — aside from the few remaining and remote tribal societies — where the land and all the means for producing and distributing wealth does not belong to a small minority of the population? Even in those lands where legal constitutions state, in print, that all property belongs to “the people", the real situation puts the lie to such language if "the people" is used synonymously with the entire population. And there is another example of a misused expression in that “the people" — whether in the so-called socialist and communist world, or in America and western civilisation — certainly does not imply everybody, or even a majority, but a relatively small minority who control and benefit from the means of wealth production.

Especially now. during this energy crisis, do words such as “we" become commonplace. “We" have got to cooperate to save gasoline, heat, and light. This is our America, they tell us, in expensive advertising and editorials in the press and over the airwaves. We're all in this together, is the message and the testament.

Well, there is no doubt that the great mass of the population is suffering great inconvenience. Long lines at the gas pumps, to a great extent made up of workers of all types who must have gasoline to perform their jobs, attest to this fact. Even sections of the capitalist class are being hurt badly as they watch others of their class brethren reap a golden harvest from the world-wide shortages. But despite this, there is a simple test one can make to determine the accuracy of the implied “togetherness". Ask your employers to Include you in the distribution of their profits at the end of their fiscal year. If General Motors, U.S. Steel. Standard Oil and Anaconda Copper; If the Rockefellers, DuPonts, Fords, Mellons and the rest of the capitalist class, are partners with the 200 million odd working class members of this society, this America of "ours," then why should they continue to exclude 90% of America’s population from actual and factual ownership of this great land?

The World Socialist movement has a proposition to make. Not to the capitalist class, because we have but so much time and do not wish to waste it. Our proposal is to our fellow workers, the 200-odd millions in this country. You can help put real meaning into that pronoun “we" and into that phrase ‘the people." The system of society known as capitalism is world-wide in scope, even including that part of the world mistakenly termed socialism or communism. To put an end to all of the problems that prevent 90% of the population from enjoying the fruits of production, a new social order is necessary. What is needed is a system based upon common ownership of and common access to all that is in and on the earth, by all mankind. To achieve this end, the working class of this and of all other nations must organize and unite for the sole purpose of ending world capitalism and introducing world socialism. It is our contention that the same section of the population that carries on all of production for an owning class can do the same thing for all mankind. But class society must first be abolished. Let us organize for this goal.

Is food produced to eat? (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

So! You thought all along that food Is produced because mankind must eat That this is the one really important reason for existence of farms, food processing plants and supermarkets. Oh certainly you have heard it said, chiefly by those who disparage the profit motive, that food — like all goods and services in capitalist society — is produced mainly for sale and at a profit. But somehow this didn’t seem to be such an earth-shaking bit of information. You probably tucked the thought away, and went about the business of stretching your food dollars in the markets.

But suddenly you find your dollars shrinking almost from day to day. You stand at the meat counters and gaze, emotionally, at the price tags. You have a family of growing boys and girls who can put away quantities of that food, and you wonder how you can possibly put meat on the table more than once a week, and maybe not that frequently. Or maybe you are a pensioner on a modest fixed income, and you are painfully aware that your check is not designed to include very much of what you might have been used to eating in your more affluent days.

What is it all about’ Why can’t cattle, hogs and fowl be raised in sufficient quantity, as they once were, to make prices more reasonable? And you remind yourself of what you have read in the papers and heard on the newscasts. The growers and processors are either holding back, going out of business or threatening to do so. Why? Because feed grains, it seems, have become so expensive that those producers cannot continue to operate normally under present price freeze conditions. No profit, no food production, they tell us, and so they smother their baby chicks instead of raising them for the table, because it would cost them more to raise them than they could get in their market, and one cannot run a business on losses.

So! It is true then what socialists have been saying all along. The prime reason for producing food — or anything else under capitalism — is not to satisfy the needs of mankind but to sell at a profit. True enough, it is explained today, that there have been serious crop failures due to drought conditions not only in America but throughout much of the world. And there have been those big grain sales to Soviet Russia and Red China that have added to the shortages here. And these are behind those ridiculous prices in the supermarkets.

But then another nagging thought hits you. How about those times, and there were many of them over the years, when there were none of those problems, and when all sorts of grains and vegetables and fruit were grown for the market, and when great quantities of these vital necessities were dumped in the oceans, plowed under, or burned? There was such an abundance that the growers and processors could not get a price that made it profitable for them to sell the food. Oranges, mountains of them, in California in the Thirties, were burned. Potatoes In Idaho, thousands of bushels of them were dumped, even in recent times. Coffee in South America and fish in New England destroyed. Why? Because of Government price freeze policy? Of course not. There was no need for Government intervention then. The problem was glutted markets.

So the difficulties in the supermarkets today are not caused by drought conditions, previous crop failures, big business deals with the so-called Communist nations. It is not that it is impossible to produce enough feed grains or vegetables or fruit or meat. The problem is that the owning grower-capitalists must make a profit, and economic conditions are such that they are being squeezed by rival capitalists. Would it not make sense, then, to get to the source of the trouble, the capitalist mode of production, abolish it, and introduce a socialist society in which the things mankind needs to survive are produced only because mankind needs them? We think it does.

A World Without Money (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Time was, when the idea of a social system operating without a medium of exchange was held only by a relative handful of scientific socialists Today, one hears the concept kicked around a bit more on talk shows and by people who do not necessarily consider themselves revolutionary in the sense of the World Socialist concept of revolution. But one gets the impression that there is not too much understanding of the economics of the question even among many of those who favor a moneyless society. They do openly disagree with the popular notion that no social order could operate without money of some sort but they seem to believe that it is going to be a case of a government of one sort or another proclaiming the abolition of money.

In order to understand why such an act will be not only unnecessary, but impossible, it is all important to comprehend why a medium of exchange, money, is necessary within the present system. Production, under capitalism, is carried on primarily for the purpose of sale on a market with view to profit and, as a result, we have an exchange or a circulation of commodities. Now it stands to reason that if eggs, shoes, whisky, houses, automobiles and all the other commodities exchange on a market in certain proportions there has to be a medium for effecting the circulation. This medium must be, itself, a commodity and one that is universally acceptable as an equivalent of the values of all commodities. So we have the commodity gold acting as the universal equivalent behind the various nominal monies of the world. And unless some other commodity with the necessary properties and the universal acceptance of gold comes along, gold will continue to act as real money.

Besides acting as a medium of circulation, money must exist, then, as a means of payment and as a measure of the values of commodities. Much of this may even be learned in a college economics course.

But the system, today, in the whole world is one of production for sale on a market with view to profit whereas the system advocated by socialists is something quite different. In a socialist world there will be no production of commodities. Goods and services will be produced only for the purpose of satisfying the needs and wants of the population. Eggs, shoes, whiskey, houses, automobiles and whatever else is wanted by society will be produced only because these things are wanted and not to sell. There will be no buying and selling at all and in such a situation there could be no need for anything to act as money.

Two questions might immediately leap to mind. First: do socialists advocate a return to simple barter? and Secondly: when has a moneyless system ever existed, at least in recorded history. The answer to the first question is “No” and to the second. “Never!” But with a but.

Obviously, barter could not exist under socialism any more than could money exist. There is just no need to exchange goods. We produce and we consume and the only difference that would be really noticeable from what takes place today would be the absence of cash registers and private or state ownership of the means of production. Should production of a particular item be inadequate to satiety the needs of the population, production of the item would be increased. If more than enough, it would be decreased.

As for the point that money always existed throughout recorded history: Yes, but not for most of the population. In previous social systems most people never had occasion to require money. Production was mainly geared to the needs of a slave or serf population and their masters. Money appeared only among a minority of the population, in trade.

And NO! We do not advocate a return to slavery or serfdom. We urge the abolition of all slavery, the end of wage slavery, the establishment of world socialism — a system in which the need for money will vanish.

Words, handle with care (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Revolutionary socialism must be extremely careful about words. The only way one can convey thoughts is through a vocabulary and it is surprising how quickly the meaning of words change. We have dealt on this program with the word ‘revolutionary” and commented on its adulteration to the point at which the advocacy of political change within the framework of the present system of production makes one a revolutionist. Socialists insist that the vesting of ownership in the state is not socialism and the managers of state-owned industry are not socialist managers. Unless there is a change from production for sale to production for use with the total elimination of a market economy, there is no revolution. Let us examine some other terms commonly used by professed revolutionists.

“Establishment.” The fiery orator thunders his hatred of the establishment and his supporters give wild approval. “The establishment must be overthrown!” They raise their fists in the clenched salute. And what exactly do they have in mind? It seems they mean the existing managers — industrial or political — not the institution itself that vests ownership and political control in private or state hands. The word is not used by socialists because we prefer to be explicit. We are opposed to capitalism and to the ownership of the factories, mines, mills, workshops, land and all other means and instruments of wealth production and distribution by a capitalist class or a capitalist state.

But even here one cannot be too careful because a majority of the world’s population today live in areas where capitalism is declared to have been abolished. Even though nobody pretends that production in those countries is intended for any other purpose than sale on a market with view to profit, it is still popularly believed to be something other than capitalism. So when we declare ourselves to be in favor of the abolition of capitalism we are generally greeted with something like: “Oh you are in favor of the Russian, or the Chinese system, or maybe the Scandinavian or the systems in many of the Arab nations, or perhaps even Israel!”

Nor does it help all that much when we use the term “world socialism” or “scientific socialism” for we find that both terms are embraced by almost all of the so-called socialist world from the USSR to Ghana and Syria.

But there are some terms that socialists can still use that do separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Socialists are in favor of the forthright abolition of the wages system; the prices, money, profit system, the system of buying and selling, the market economy. What about the USSR, China, Scandinavia, Ghana, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Cuba and so forth. Have they abolished the wages system and production of goods and services for sale on a market? Do they even advocate, in their professedly socialist propaganda, such action? If so we haven’t heard about it and we find their commodities from raw materials to finished goods of all types for sale in America as U.S. commodities are finding their way into the so-called socialist world. And who is there today who does not know that workers in those countries are paid wages and salaries as here, even if lower?

But, they assure us, they are in the early stages of socialism and will attain the society of which we of the World Socialist Party speak later. To which we must answer: “rubbish” The very concepts that prevail in the so-called socialist world are anti-socialist and indicative of a growing capitalism. Nationalism and patriotism. thrift, obedience to political authority, are all hallmarks of capitalism and the antithesis of socialist thought. Socialism can only mean one world where all mankind has free access to all of its needs. Speak up, Mr Brezhnev, Mr. Mao. Mr. Castro, Madam Meir and the rest of you so-called heads of socialism. Is that what you advocate? We can’t hear you.

Human Nature and Behavior (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

"Socialism would be wonderful but it won't work. It's against human nature and you can’t change human nature." How many times have we heard that judgment, usually delivered in a tone of finality. And how many more times will we hear it in the future! It seems almost to be ingrained in the thinking of the average individual, as though he was born with the thought. It is universally accepted in all countries and among all age groups and educational classifications. And yet it is so wrong that one can't help but be amazed. Wrong, that is, if by human nature we mean human behavior. And this is what is generally meant because the nature of man to be human hasn't been subjected to change and is not at all what socialists are talking about.

But human behavior certainly is possible to change and there are many examples around the world today and in the history of civilization of changing human behavior. In fact, there is a branch of psychology that is based upon the knowledge that human behavior can be changed. Practically every university worthy of the name, today, offers courses in behavioral psychology.

However, this is not our field, nor are we ready to embrace this science as an ally of socialism other than to note that behavioral scientists certainly agree that human behavior is changeable. The science of socialism is based on the historical fact that social systems, just as plants and animals, have gone through a process of evolution. Just as man was not always man, nor a rose always a rose, the capitalist system of society was not always part of the scene. Capitalism evolved out of feudalism; feudalism and chattel slavery evolved out of primitive tribal societies when they reached a point in their development that made these higher forms of society possible.

The behavior of serfs and peasants in pre-capitalist society was certainly different from the behavior of wage and salaried workers in our times. Serfs and peasants, like chattel slaves, rarely if ever handled money so the variety of behavior common to people who must have money in order to exist could not have been present among most of the population. The ideology of nationalism was not present among them because nations—in the sense we know today—did not exist. Armies in those times were composed of mercenaries — a separate class — and so it certainly could not be said of peasants, serfs and chattel slaves that they were inherently warlike as so many believe workers of our times to be.

In fact, there are all sorts of evidences In more recent history, particularly in the history of American capitalism, of changing human behavior. Americans are, generally, immigrants from countries all over the world. How long does it take them to change much of their old country behavior patterns? It may seem in many cases that they cling to the old customs but all it takes is a trip back to the homeland after having been through the mill of American-style capitalism a few years to bring into sharp focus their changed behavior. The manner of life dictated by American capitalism has brought about many changes in their way of thinking. And despite their traditional hatreds, the melting pot of developed capitalism has a tendency of mellowing and breaking down hostility.

Socialists maintain that capitalism will, ultimately, compel those who toil for wages or salaries, who produce all but possess little more than their ability to produce, to lay aside the differences that capitalist propaganda still seeks to promote. The working class of the entire world will be forced by the very nature of capitalism to unite in the interests of a higher form of social order — socialism. And a new generation, born under socialist freedom, will look back in amazement at the behavior of their fathers and grandfathers.

Christmas (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

There are several, differing ways of looking at Christmas. The pious Christian regards It as a religious festival, the commemoration of the supposed birth of the S-O-N as opposed to the pagan Egyptian's celebration of the birth (or re-birth) of the S-U-N. The kids all look forward to toys and other presents (if they are young enough) from Santa while the charities and the press have a field day raising funds to buy gifts for the more poverty-stricken victims of capitalism.

The joy in this joyous occasion, in the case of the merchants and money-lenders is directly in proportion to their take from the shoppers and borrowers. And millions of struggling wage slaves, bracing themselves for further escalation of their debt levels, manage somehow to enjoy the festivities, postponing their added worries until December 26th.

The socialist observes this annual scene with a jaundiced eye. Not that socialists are opposed to festivals as such. The custom of celebrating the changing seasons long predates Christianity and it is at least conceivable that festivals will be enjoyed when religions of all sorts have become a remembered historical episode in man's development. So our emotions at this time can best be termed "mixed.”

For leaving aside the religious and the commercial significance of Christmas there is a certain something in the air at this time that underscores the true nature of mankind. The propagandists of capitalism would have us believe that we are, intrinsically, competitive and aggressive toward one another, that a society that can (we claim) best be described as cannibalistic, such as capitalism, is a natural way of life. We are supposed to believe that it is normal for big fish to eat little fish in the world of man as well as the world of fish. There is supposed to be nothing bad about a society that compels working people to compete among themselves for the opportunity to work, to support themselves and families, that divides them on the basis of skin pigmentation or ethnic background or religion.

But despite all of the pressures, including the added pressures of a capitalist Christmas, the gregarious, cooperative, nature of man does bob to the surface, if only briefly, during this period as it does on other equally brief occasions throughout the year. True, the feeling to which we allude is largely debased by the spirit of charity for charity debases the giver at least as much as it does the receiver. Charity is and must be accompanied by the attitude that it is normal and right that there should be those who are in a position to give and those who must be compelled to receive. It is a non-recognition of the fact that divisions such as this exist only because of the economic organization under which we live and that such organization has long outlived its usefulness. Charity fosters passiveness and reaction rather than a spirit of genuine revolution, the urge to organize for the abolition of the social system that degrades humanity.

What, then, would be the nature of a festival in December in a socialist world? We can, of course, only speculate on the positive aspects at this time. It is much easier to predict what will not exist. For one thing, any religious significance will have vanished. It will be no longer necessary for society to support institutions that serve no useful function and with the knowledge of man's dominion over economic forces the urge to maintain religions will undoubtedly disappear. There is nothing, certainly, instinctive in man that makes him believe in a supernatural. Religion must be learned —Secondly, the custom of exchanging gifts, if indeed it will exist, will not be based to any extent on the proddings of an economic class that benefits from such an exchange. For the rest, we are content to leave it to a socialist future.

Impeach Capitalism (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

All over America and, indeed, throughout much of the world the question is being bruited about: To Impeach or not to Impeach, referring — of course — to President Nixon. If one were to measure importance by the quantity of coverage by the mass media there would be no doubt that the scandals generally listed under the heading Watergate are more important than any other problem existing today. Even, apparently, more of consequence than the Mideast War and certainly far more newsworthy than the Energy Crisis or the worsening economic conditions of those who depend upon wages and salaries for a living. And so, on the one hand, there are the politicians and pundits and leaders of Organized Labor who are mounting a clamor for Congress to impeach and try the President for high crimes and misdemeanors with a view to ousting him (unless he bows to the outcry and resigns), while, on the other, are the loud and sometimes strident voices of Mr. Nixon’s defenders, urging him to hang in there.

The Marxists of the World Socialist Party regard this sound and fury as much ado about nothing, insofar as working class interests are concerned We maintain that the high crimes and misdemeanors that Mr. Nixon might well be guilty of are crimes against his fellow capitalists. Given the premise that the arrangement of dividing society into economic classes is correct and fitting — a premise socialists do not hold — any added unpleasantness suffered by the working class is, generally incidental. Whether Mr. Nixon or any other Individual — regardless of political persuasion — occupies the White House and tends to the affairs of U. S. capitalism is six of one and half a dozen of the other. A glance at current and past history should make it apparent that the problems and miseries of most of us are due to something much more fundamental than any high crimes and misdemeanors of any President or government, present or past.

Even the Republican attempts to wipe out Constitutional freedoms are not that all-important to the working class as an Issue to get excited about The freedoms of the Bill of Rights were not designed to safeguard the rights of the masses of the poor, to begin with. The capitalist class, as a whole, will undoubtedly continue to defend whatever liberties are consistent with and beneficial to their system from the depredations of any section of the population. The task of the socialists is to use such freedoms to the fullest extent possible in order to spread the message of genuine freedom, world socialism. Which is why we insist that the important job ahead is not the impeachment of Nixon but the impeachment and ousting of capitalism.

Now how does one go about working towards such a goal? It should be obvious by now, even though it doesn't seem to be, that the one essential need today is an awareness on the part of millions of working people that production for sale with view to profit is the root cause of problems such as poverty, war, chicanery and all high crimes and misdemeanors by elected officials. The only task that makes sense for socialists is to systematically attempt to raise the level of political understanding of the working class in whatever way and to whatever extent is possible. For, as we insist, there can be no impeachment and ousting of capitalism without millions and millions of working people who understand the basics of and are determined to institute socialism. This is the first and most important task of the socialist movement.

With an increasing political awareness and understanding will come a strong socialist political movement, made up of the overwhelming majority of the population, that will ultimately capture control of all central organs of political power — city, state and national — utilizing the only means possible, the ballot. Only when this has been done will capitalism be impeached and ousted. There are no short cuts to socialism.