Letter: Do you get the picture? (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Do you get the picture?

Dear Editors.

You know what happens to the sheep that follows the goat down the path of no return? They end up in the freezer. It doesn’t pay to follow leaders!

It reminds me of an old saying I heard in the Socialist ranks. "Where there are leaders there are led, where there are led there are bled". When you act like sheep you are begging to dc sheared. Do you ever wonder why millions are spent during a campaign to get someone into office? Obviously there is a great deal at stake. Candidates are identified by their ideology. If a Socialist candidate entered the race, his only monetary support would be supplied by the Socialist Party and they would have to rely on donations from the members and sympathizers and they are unlikely to have any rich "Perots" to help them. Since we are the only Party that represents working-class interests it follows that the Government is owned by those who can spend millions on campaigns. They pass all the laws in their favour. They have at their disposal all the most able professors of economics, all the captains of industry. Nevertheless, even with all their power, they cannot make capitalism do their bidding. It is like trying to steer a boat without a rudder. No-one can fix something that cannot be fixed! We must replace capitalism with socialism. "Once a Socialist always a Socialist" is a familiar saying among socialists. When you have become convinced that reforming capitalism doesn’t work (for the have-nots) there is no other alternative.

We all pay taxes, right? Consider this; in the last 50 years that I know of, taxes have increased year after year and we have been able to pay them. Where do we get the money? In your pay envelope. When you negotiate with your boss for a raise, the "cost of living" is the main topic of discussion, and that includes taxes. Do you get the picture?

William Hewitson, 

Santa Maria, California

If Maria Victoria, of Collyhurst, Manchester, will supply us with an address we will be able to reply to her recent letter.

A World of Abundance (1997)

From issue 13 of the World Socialist Review

All work done in this society called capitalism can be classified as necessary, because no employer would pay for unnecessary work. We must assume that all the work we do is “useful — in the defense industry, the prison system, advertising, banking, brokerages, the judicial system and many more activities that do not produce “wealth.” I regard wealth as something tangible, like a jumbo jet or silk stockings.

Socialists advocate the establishment of a system of production for use rather than the present system of production for profit. It would result in all the above work becoming unnecessary. These workers could then spend their time building jumbo jets or perhaps making silk stockings . . . or whatever.

I dare say that there are millions of folks engaged in professional sports, music, movie making and many other fields of what we call entertainment. The boss obviously thinks that this is a useful part of his system. I would think that it makes the worker’s life more tolerable, and this is the main reason for its existence, though I’m sure the boss likes to be entertained also. The socialist has no objection to being entertained. Since there would be no money involved in a socialist society, the entertainers would be truly dedicated to what they do.

In a socialist society, as in any other society, mankind must, as the first requirement, produce necessities such as food, clothing and shelter; after that, anything goes — perhaps a trip to the moon? It all depends on your priorities.

I urge you to give some thought to the establishment of socialism . . . where fabulous salaries, dividends, landlords and bosses will no longer exist: no wars, no countries, no national boundaries. Instead, a worldwide community of people who for the first time will be able to control their destiny (within the limits of time and space).

With the aid of nature, the workers of the world produce everything you see around you, everything, I mean everything. Why must we buy what we produce? Socialists want free access to all goods produced, owning everything in common with all five and a half billion of our neighbors: true democracy, an administration of things, not a governing of beings.

Raise your sights, folks. Make it happen . . .

William Hewitson

Letters on Socialism (1997)

From issue 13 of the World Socialist Review

The following two letters, written by socialists to their local newspapers, found their way into our mailbox not too long ago. We reprint them here to show that, even with a tightening corporate lock on the free expression of opinion in the media, it really is possible to put the case for socialism before thousands of readers who have never before heard of it. Any other comrades who writers to editors (whether or not they get them printed) can send copies on to the World Socialist Review, and we will print them too.

The first letter is addressed to the editor of the Santa Maria Times (California), and the second, to the Arizona Daily Star of Tucson, Arizona.

Marx may have been right*

I’m going to garner a few passages from a book written 150 years ago . . . I write in response to the article, “Working with nothing to show.”

The “division of labor” has been going on for more than 150 years . . . One author explained what was happening and what would continue to happen, and I quote, “the special skill of the laborer becomes |worthless. It is changed into a monotonous force which gives play to neither bodily nor to intellectual elasticity, his labor becomes accessible to all.” He goes on, “In the same measure, therefore, in which labor becomes more unsatisfactory and more repulsive, in that same proportion, competition increases and wages decline.” And again, “the capitalists vie with one another as to who can discharge the greatest number of employees.”

He adds a little humor: “If the whole class of wage-workers were annihilated by machinery, how terrible that would be for 'capital,' which without wage-labor ceases to be ‘capital’.”

“Thus the forest of outstretched hands entreating for work becomes ever thicker, and the arms themselves become ever leaner . . . Crises increase and become more violent.”

The author whom I have been quoting was Karl Marx, and of course we all know that the owners of the communication networks would never give any supportive information about him.  . . I simply write to let you know that the present conditions were forecast many years ago and they will certainly get worse.

No one can fix Capitalism.

—William Hewitson 

* Heading added by the editor.

The Classless Society

I can still recall my first encounter with racism. It occurred many decades ago at an English elementary school when I was called “Jew-boy.”

But I also recall that throughout my life there has not been one day without either a major or minor war. Poverty (which is the economic status of the working class compared to that of the capitalist class) has been continuous and pervasive worldwide — together with unemployment, insecurity and, of course, racism.

All these social evils have been, and always will be, impervious to reformism for their eradication.

I ask the rhetorical question. What is there so sacrosanct about capitalism that the accusing finger is never pointed at it as the culprit and cause of all these prevailing miseries — except by only a handful of the population?

As long as the vast majority does not understand how capitalism functions, scapegoats and racism will flourish as red herrings, diverting the working class from its historic mission — the peaceful and democratic elimination of capitalism.

Technologically, wealth can be produced with comparative ease to satisfy the needs of all. Buying, selling and profit are therefore no longer required. They should be replaced with production and distribution solely for use with free access to all goods and services, eliminating money and the wages system.

This will never happen until the world working class realizes, amongst a multitude of other concepts, that the society’s fundamental problem is its division into classes — not races. We all belong to only one race — the human race, and we merit a new system of society worthy of our potential and intelligence.

—Samuel Leight

Letters: Not my war (1999)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not my war

Dear Editors,

Like you I am opposed to dropping bombs on my fellow human beings. My “side” is opposed to the “sides” of Milosovic, the KLF and the NATO powers, including “our” government. My “side” is for peace and live and let live against power politics, territorial urges and militaristic posturing.

Having no shares or property to defend, I give all Tommies permission to take it easy and stay at home with their wives and bairns. The airmen and soldiers are victims too of a cynical, greedy two-faced hypocritical bunch of warmongers.

If war is ever “necessary” this should proceed by the politicians heading the column into battle.

Robert J. Taylor,  

South Shields 

We have a dream

Dear Editors,

We have a dream, it’s a big one too. Our dream embraces the whole of humanity and they don’t come much bigger than that. In our dream we see every person on the face of the Earth having the same value, priceless! In our dream gone will be the days where one person’s life will be considered more valuable or less valuable than any other. Gone will be the days when someone will be paid as much for reading the News for a day as a nurse will receive for a whole year of looking after the sick. Gone also will be the days when some have a life of untold luxury, wealth and privilege just because they happen to be born in a certain bed.

We have a dream . . . in a socialist world buildings will be built to the highest possible specification (just like banks are now) to be inhabited by people and not to house lumps of gold, bits of coloured glass and pretty pieces of paper. We don’t know how long it might be before our dream becomes a reality, it might take quite a while. We realise that there are plenty of people who have a vested interest in retaining the demeaning values upon which society is based . . . for the time being they are doing alright thank you, Jack.

Capitalism is a reality, but the dream that once was, for too many, has now become a soul-destroying nightmare. One million people in this country alone take a daily dose of Prozac (anti-depressant) to help them get through each day. This is a legal drug, just imagine how many more are getting away from it all by “fixing” on anything that they can lay their shaking hands on.

The fact is of course that capitalism has and continues to fail people in their millions, they see no hope, they have no hope, worse still they don’t even have a dream.

John Phazey, 

Sutton Coldfield

 

Labour no good

Dear Editors,

Re your article “What’s New about New Labour?” (March, Socialist Standard), it is of course, perfectly true that (so-called) “New” Labour is no different from Old Labour. The Labour Party never was a socialist party. Over the years it has had many far left hot-heads in it; one of the most notable being Aneurin Bevan (although, towards the end of his life, he mellowed considerably). The Labour Party in its policies was only really a left-wing conservative party. That is why, in my opinion, it has spent most of the years of its existence in opposition.

When in government, it has introduced means testing for the for the very poor, cut dole money, introduced a compulsory two years’ national service for all young men on attaining the age of 18, banned strikes making them illegal, operated wage freezes, limited wage increases. True, they introduced child benefit after the war; but, in old money, Hugh Dalton, then Chancellor, put a shilling on 20 fags and sixpence on 10 fags to pay for it. The aforementioned policies seem more like the policies of a far right Thatcherite party than a so-called Labour Party.

One of the first assertions in the Labour Constitution was: “The Labour Party is a Socialist Party”. It wasn’t and never has been. But the one that always amuses me sadly is the old Clause 4: “To secure for the workers by hand and by brain, the full fruits of their labour and the most equitable distribution thereof.” Jolly decent of them eh! Who was anyone to deny the workers by hand or brain the full fruits of their labour?

I always remember in the long ago, November 1956 to be exact, as a young engineering apprentice in the Ford Motor company, I was invited to join the AEU. I had to fill in a form and attend the branch I had chosen with my seconder who had joined me. The new recruits stood out at the front of the meeting and the Branch Chairman read a text out to them (I suppose they still have it). The first part of the text had in it: “Our ancestors and predecessors were vilified and persecuted and, what prosperity we have now, is the fruits of their labour.”

Most of the text, however, has faded from my memory. The part I do remember is the end part: “May you live to see the day when we have ended the system that causes unemployment, that causes poverty in the midst of plenty, and replace it with a just and equitable one.” In the intervening years, particularly during the Thatcher years, my thoughts have often gone back to that far-off night. Would I ever live to see that day?

Stuart P. King, 

Romford, Essex 

Become a socialist

Dear Editors,

I think that most folks have heard of Socialism but I doubt very much that their definition coincides with mine—a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community—a world-wide community of 5½ billion of us humans.

We Socialists are quite satisfied that the only way to achieve this goal is by political action. Use your vote to bring about an end to the present system, capitalism, which deprives the worker of the wealth they alone produce.

The solution to most of the ills of the world is a simple one, establish Socialism. However it cannot be done without a majority of Socialists. Our socialist candidates will flat-out tell you that they don’t want your vote unless you want socialism. Reforming capitalism is not on the agenda. Our political opponents have been doing that for over 200 years.

The socialist can point the way but they will not adopt the role of “leader”. Have you heard this before? “Where there are leaders there are led, where there are led there are bled.”

We must first cast off the role of being a follower. You may think you cannot be hoodwinked. That you are extremely intelligent. That you are too wise in the ways of the world. The facts prove otherwise. You have voted for the Whigs and Tories, the Democrats and Republicans, the Liberals and Conservatives for the past 200 years. These are facts. Let us face it: you have been misled year after year. Your “leaders”, with their smooth talk and promises, have proven that followers are made to be bled. Become a Socialist and learn how this capitalist system operates and why it cannot function in the workers’ interests.

Bill Hewitson,  

Santa Monica, California

Letters: Outdated Marx? (1998)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Outdated Marx?

Dear Editors,

Having read the Socialist Standard for several months now I must admit that your politics interest me but as far as your views on Marx are concerned I find them old-fashioned and irrelevant. Admittedly last century there was a place for Marxism to help to educate the working class, but the workers are more “street-wise” now and probably more self-centred, though they are fragmented, but the class struggle just does not exist for most of these people. Why don’t you ditch your Marxist views and find a more dynamic method to drive yourself forward and gather the more radical sections of the working class with you? Marx will always be a historic figure for the part he played a hundred and odd years ago, but none of his predictions came true, so why all the emphasis on his methodology?

John Loomes, 

Sheffield

Reply: 

You exaggerate. None of Marx’s “predictions” came true? Has the control of industry become more and more concentrated into fewer and fewer hands? Has the proportion of capital invested in plant, machinery and equipment grown more and more in relation to that spent on living labour? Has the process of capital accumulation proceeded, not smoothly, but in fits and starts, periods of rapid growth ending in periods of slump? Have the rich got richer? Have more and more of the old middle classes become employees? Has the peasantry declined? Has the proportion of wage and salary earners in the working population gone up? Have money-commodity relations spread more and more into all aspects of life? Has the economy become more and more international and globalised? Need we continue?

We don’t blindly adhere to everything Marx said and did. In fact we criticise him on some points, for instance his taking sides in wars and his support for some nationalist movements. We recognise that, because he was politically active at a time when capitalism had not yet fully built up the material basis for a world socialist society, he took up positions on day-to-day issues which are no longer relevant today now that capitalism has done this.

The reason why we continue to refer to Marx’s views on capitalism and history is not because it was him who put them forward but because he happened to be the first person to “lay bare the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production”. The conceptual tools he developed for analysing capitalism (value, labour-power, surplus value, constant capital, variable capital, rate of surplus value, rate of profit, etc.) are still useful today. Similarly with the tools he developed for analysing past and present societies and social change (forces of production, relations of production, economic base, political and ideological superstructure, class, class interest, class struggle, etc.).

It is true that Marx’s expectation was that the working class would become more and more class conscious and that when a majority had become socialists they would take political action to abolish capitalism and establish socialism and that this hasn’t happened (obviously). But because it hasn’t happened yet does not mean that it never will. If that was true then capitalism would last for ever. But, presumably, you don’t believe that any more than we do.

Editors.

USA

Dear Editors,

I have been interested in Marx’s works for over 60 years and I like to keep tabs on our economy as it unfolds. I do not profess to be an expert in business affairs but from where I sit way up in the bleachers, you might say, I get a wide-angled view that encompasses the whole world. I do not get overly excited about the details, like international skirmishes, the constant bickering over trade agreements or disagreements. I’m aware of them but only as they affect the overall picture itself and how the capitalists react to the various problems. I read all about merging and down-sizing, and about bankruptcies and mass lay-offs of thousands of workers. I see the Dow plunge 550 points in one day. I like to see Marx’s predictions come true, mainly because he has been misquoted and maligned for the past 100 years or more.

In my amateurish way I hope to shed some light on the future of the capitalist system according to Marx. What we have at present is the culmination of thousands of years of progress in the methods in which man produces his needs. It is of paramount importance that we advance to the next system in an orderly way. If we are not careful we may extinguish all life on the planet before Socialism can be established and lose our chance of finally controlling our destiny, within the limits of time and space.

With the introduction of nuclear devices and the constant friction generated on the international scene by capitalist economics we may go the way of the dinosaurs and take with us all other forms of life and all that sustains life, the animals, the birds and the bees, and yes, the vegetation, the water and the very air we breath. Must we bring it to an end? We are heading in that direction.

PS. My father moved from Preston, Lancashire, in 1912 and brought with him to Winnipeg socialist ideas. I moved to California in 1953 mainly for the climate. Legally I am still a Canadian citizen but I like to think I am a citizen of the world.

William Hewitson, 

Santa Maria, California