Samuel Leight (1985)

From the May 15th, 1985 issue of the Library Journal

You've got to love the wee gems that Archive.org throws up sometimes. Stumbled across — aye, right, 'stumbled across', I'm fooling no one — an advert in the American Library Journal which dates from 1985, and which was probably placed by the late Sam Leight himself, for his two excellent self-published books.

It's a sign . . . a sign I need to get my arse in gear to scan in some essays/chapters from both of these fine books. 

A Haunting Spectre (1981)

From the December 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

Between 1976 and 1978 our comrade Sam Leight, of the World Socialist Party of the US, broadcasted regularly on a local radio station in Tucson, Arizona. He has now selected a number of these broadcasts and published them as a 230-page paperback book entitled World Without Wages. All the basic aspects of the socialist case — capitalism, socialism, class struggle, materialist conception of history, economics, trade unions, war, religion, racism — are covered in a style easy to read and understand, even if, inevitably in a selection of this sort, there is a certain amount of repetition. To give an idea of the book’s merit and style we publish below a broadcast on the question of war.

A spectre is haunting the world. Unfortunately it is not the spectre of communism which, like its synonymous term socialism, exists only within the minds of a small minority. The spectre to which we refer is the dread of world-wide nuclear warfare. The possibility of an “international holocaust” which can threaten the survival of the human race cannot, and should not, be ignored. New evidence is available daily, through the media, showing clearly how war and capitalism are inseparable; that the potential for World War III is ominously becoming more pronounced.

It becomes the social obligation of every adult to study the situation, not superficially but in depth. One should disregard the mind bending distortions of the defenders and reformers of the system. They invariably never focus attention on prime causes but are constantly creating false enemies and bogus issues. Meanwhile the real culprit, capitalism, is protected from proper scrutiny and deserved condemnation.

It is beyond the capabilities of political parties or individual leaders, irrespective of their talents or good intentions, to properly control the system they so staunchly defend. The emergence of one crisis upon another, in an unending stream, not only proves this point but is indicative of a society whose very core performs in an anti-social manner. The basis of capitalism is large scale production of commodities for sale and profit, through the employment of wage labour by the ruling, owning class. This is the foundation that determines a complex array of insoluble social phenomena, creating an environment unmistakably hostile to the welfare of those forced to survive in the labour market. And it is precisely in the market place of the capitalist that the seeds of war are implanted, eventually to reach their ultimate maturity.

Commodities must be sold in order for profits to be realised. Markets are forever imperative, both domestic and foreign; trade routes, spheres of influence and boundaries must be protected; and new areas of investment and exploitation are always being sought. Wars occur over these material issues when negotiations between states, each representing their own ruling capitalist class, reach an impasse.

The technology of modern nuclear warfare, together with its horrendous consequences, places the whole of mankind squarely within the same arena. To a degree this occurred in World War II; but with the subsequent development of atomic warfare the destructive capabilities that can be unleashed are monumental in comparison to all previous conflicts. A government report issued in January 1978, in its assessment of the impact of a major nuclear war between the two main superpowers, finds that at a minimum the United States would have 140 million fatalities and the Soviet Union 113 million.

You do not have to search beyond this point to find adequate cause for supporting, with your every fibre, the case for socialism. For the case for socialism is the case against capitalism. How can one logically justify at this stage of so-called social progress, when the fate of millions, if not of all humanity, hovers in precipitous balance, serious questions about the practicality of socialism, the bogy-man myth of human nature objections, or the impossibility of socialist comprehension by the majority, and so forth? We will naturally continue to deal with these arguments, as and when they are put forward, just as we have done for the past 70-odd years. But when a system actually creates its own gigantic coffin, which can at any time engulf us all, and when there awaits a logical alternative — socialism — then we say our case has been vindicated on this one score alone.

We have, of course, much more to offer when we urge for the speedy elimination of capitalism — all the major social evils are spawned by the system. But the war issue alone adequately substantiates our position; all the rest, this in no way detracting from their equal importance, just adds so much more grist to the mill.

The doomsday clock keeps ticking — only the establishment of socialism will cause it to stop.

The consideration of nuclear war creates a scenario which abounds in the complexities of military technology and political evaluations that combines present reality with future speculation. We can take inventory of the gigantic nuclear stockpile; review the past, and mourn the incineration of 200,000 Japanese at the end of World War II, acknowledging that nuclear warfare is no longer an academic issue but history. We can ponder on probabilities, formulate attitudes. One important fact should be recognised. Wars, whether they be termed conventional or nuclear, cannot be prosecuted without the support of the majority of the working class. It is true that a nuclear war could be instigated without formal working class approval; but working class acceptance of capitalism is a tacit authorisation, given by them to the ruling class and their representatives, to administrate the system. The consequences, whatever they may be, must be accepted as part of the deplorable political contract initiated at the voting booths, when the workers sanction capitalism's continuation.

The manufacture of nuclear warfare, together with its allied technological implementations, has for years preoccupied the two major superpowers. As each power produces some new horror, conveniently symbolized — ICBM’s, Minuteman III, the new MK-12A, or the Soviet SS 20, SS19, successors to the SS18 and SS 19, or the contemplated US mobile MX — one power vies with the other for equality or ultimate superiority. For fiscal 1979 the Pentagon proposed a $128 billion military budget; even if this is pared to $125 billion as has been counter-suggested, either figure would be a record. And the military of the United States and Soviet Union will unceasingly offer their own brand of “plausible” reasons for the continued madness, with seemingly no slackening of tempo. The very existence of such an arsenal, notwithstanding the popular, overly-optimistic theory of mutual deterrence, provides the constant risk of the destructive instruments being utilised.

Attitudes towards nuclear warfare can vary not only within governments but between governments. For example, it can be conjectured that at some time the Soviet Union’s self-appraisal of their capabilities of “winning” a strategic nuclear war might be at variance with those held by the United States. The deterrent perceived, and hoped for, by the United States may not be sufficient to dissuade an act of aggression by the Soviet Union against the United States, or for that matter vice versa. Many factors could influence such a decision: an evaluation, either rightly or wrongly, of substantial superiority in some given military area at any particular time; a calculated acceptance of limited casualties and destruction, which for example could be offset by new territorial gains in Europe, or elsewhere: an assessment by the Soviets of their advantageous civil defence capabilities, which apparently at present far exceed those of the United States; and lastly the always prevalent temptation of a first strike. These possibilities can be expanded, amended and debated. However, the mere fact that they are available for contemplation is in itself a social tragedy.

China must also be considered a nuclear power. They have already detonated nuclear bombs, have an extensive civil defence system, and the Soviet Union’s arms race takes cognisance of their so-called communist rivals. In addition approximately 35 other nations can be expected to have nuclear capability within the next few years, not to mention increasing hazards from terrorists and other maniacal movements.

The social significance of this deplorable example of capitalism’s threat to man’s security and survival cannot be under-estimated. We find ourselves threatened by obliteration from forces potentially uncontrollable, that are rapidly increasing with an alarming magnitude. Society is at present entrapped within a volatile system capable of unthinkable human massacre. All the antagonisms that capitalism produces, inclusive of, but not limited to, war can only be removed when the working class throughout the world recognise the cause and fully understand the solution.

One does not need to search far for supporting evidence to show that under capitalism war is inevitable. War is an integral part of the system, inescapable from its function, and society is guaranteed its presence as long as capitalism continues. The unknown factor is whether the violence will become world-wide and nuclear at any particular time. Certainly the history transpired since World War II would imply that this possibility is most strong.

The director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in May 1977, stated that since September 1945 there has not been a single day in which the world was free of war. In fact, 12 wars were being fought on any average day. The casualties, he said, since the end of World War II, run into the tens of millions with the armed forces of more than 80 states fighting on the territory of more than 70 states. His summary of the war situation was based on the research of Hungarian Professor Istvanhkende, who estimated 133 wars between 1945 and 1976, elevating to the status of a war guerrilla attacks that cover a considerable part of the country in which they operate. We suggest that this information, the validity of which we have no reason to doubt, coupled with public knowledge and experience, verifies beyond dispute that war and capitalism are bonded together in an unbreakable social mould that in the modern world cannot be separated, one from the other.

In September 1977 the prestigious Stockholm International Peace Research Institute released its annual report on the possibilities of a nuclear war. The institute concluded: “The probability of a nuclear war is steadily increasing". This depressing conclusion, reported the institute, “is virtually inescapable given, given the consequences of advances in military technology and the spread of nuclear capability”.

In a lengthy report by the Bookings Institution under contract to the Pentagon’s Advanced Projects Research Agency, as reported January 1977, the United States since 1946 has made 19 conspicuous nuclear threats, flexing its military muscles in more than 215 different incidents, often with notable success, to obtain foreign policy objectives. The most serious US nuclear threat came in 1962, over the Soviet missiles in Cuba. In 1973 the US put strategic forces on alert when it believed Russia was preparing to invade Israel during the Yom Kippur war. Again, in August 1976 the US alerted a variety of forces, including B52 nuclear bombers in an incident related to North Korea.

As reported in February 1977 some US intelligence experts believe the Soviet Union is spending about $1 billion a year on civil defence — 12 times the current US budget. This they say is cause for concern because they fear the “balance of terror”, a so-called psychological deterrent to nuclear war, would be toppled if the Russian population were protected and Americans were not.

The US Defence Civil Preparedness Agency, Department of Defence, in February 1977, published a pamphlet entitled Protection In The Nuclear Age. I quote from the introduction:

  Potential aggressors can deliver nuclear warheads accurately on targets up to 8000 miles away. Despite continuing efforts to achieve and maintain peace, a nuclear attack upon the US remains a distinct possibility.

 . . . I now imagine myself huddled in a Fallout Shelter. In the distance I hear ominous explosions. Some mad, quixotic notion, over which I have no control, impels me to engage an obstinate old friend, sitting beside me, in political banter. “You wouldn't settle for socialism, would you?” As the detonations grew louder and closer I could hear his reply. “Please don’t talk to me about socialism — certainly not now. And as I’ve told you before — it's not practical. Don’t you understand — it's not practical”. And at that precise moment the lights went out!

Samuel Leight

"Overpopulation"—Bugaboo and Biological Scapegoat! (1980)

A chapter from Samuel Leight's 1980 book, World Without Wages (Money, Poverty & War)

Many are under the impression that the world is overpopulated and that this condition results in a variety of social evils all of which are due to the prolific nature of men and women. People, and especially the very poor, are accused of indiscriminate procreation, and as a consequence creating poverty, shortages, unemployment and overcrowding. Workers are admonished to exercise discretion, use restraint, and practice birth control. On the surface it might appear to the unsophisticated and naive that the ruling class and their spokesmen are prompted by genuine compassion. Socialists, however, have learned to regard philanthropy, charity and advice with a jaundiced eye and to seek economic reasons when they receive ruling class counseling. 

Let us examine the facts, and trace the origins of the "over­population" bugaboo. In 1798 the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, a professed English economist and member of the holy orders, published anonymously the first edition of "An Essay on the Principle of Population," with subsequent additions which finally became a book, the sixth edition of which was published in 1826. His thesis was based upon the premise that population tends to outrun the growth of production; that it develops, if unchecked, in a geometrical progression whilst the means of subsistence increases only in arithmetical progression. These two different ratios result in a condition of overpopulation, and consequently the quest for social happiness must forever be elusive because population will always tend to exceed the capacity to sustain it. He maintained that food supplies, although they could be increased by various methods, would nevertheless always fall behind population increases, which could double in comparatively short periods of time. He viewed contraception as a "vice", accepted the "misery" of the workers as inevitable, approved of workhouses for the poor, as long as they were reasonably uncomfortable and provided a hard existence for the occupants, and favored late marriage and "moral restraint". And he regarded wars, famines, disease and plagues as a divine balance in the scheme of things. 

It can easily be recognized that such an approach would have, and still does have, an overpowering appeal for the capitalist class. The blame is placed fairly and squarely on the poor for their own misery—the starved and destitute are responsible for their own starvation and destitution. They have taken the word of the Good Lord literally—they have gone forth and multiplied, but excessively! In addition these topsy-turvy notions provide a justification and excuse for war and other atrocities. After all, if our problems are caused by being overburdened with millions and millions of people, and if this overpopulation produces premature death and disease—war, famine and human destruction should be accepted as inescapable and unfortunate cures. This pernicious, anti-working class doctrine is accepted by some—incredulous as it may seem. 

In the summer of 1976 I was aboard a freighter heading for South Africa. I became involved with two of my fellow passengers on the subject of "overpopulation". Sam was a farmer from Ohio, and was blaming many of the current social problems on overpopulation, and Marc was a youngster of 18 who was agreeing with Sam in his moronic and morbid presentations. Finally, Sam made the statement that because of the tremendous problem of overpopulation, although it was regrettable to say, possibly Hitler's massacre of six million Jews was not such a tragedy after all. Poor Marc, who not only was Jewish but was fervently nationalistic towards Israel, became deathly white and looked as if he was ready to pass out. He wasn't getting seasick but he sure was sick of Sam! I chided him gently, but firmly, "You see, Marc, where this type of thinking must eventually take you." He understood, and I know that he will never forget the lesson or forgive his shipmate. 

The Malthusian theory of overpopulation represented a welcome change inasmuch as it diverted the attention of the workers away from the true cause of their problems, capitalism, shifting the blame from an economic base to a biological and sexual one. It is always a necessity for the ruling class of any era to find a scapegoat, and" overpopulation" can be just as useful as racism, opposing nationalities, or "indolent" workers. Different times are conducive to different lies—just so long as the truth of how capitalism really functions is never discovered! 

We readily admit that should human beings increase geo­metrically and indefinitely, a time would arrive when the food supply would be unable to sustain a population that had grown to numerical infinity. But this is an unacceptable, completely false hypothesis. There are no biological or natural laws that explain population growths. History will show that increases in population have not taken place with any formula of mathematical progression but, on the contrary, have varied from time to time, and the fluctuations are related to social, economic and material conditions. Population growths, therefore, cannot be regarded in a vacuum as a separate entity, operating automatically, independent of the dynamics of society. 

Malthus also does not take into account the human factor of the ability of man to use science, technology, and his own energies and ingenuity to master all his production and distribution challenges, whatever they might be. In addition when Malthus refers to "moral restraints" he concedes by implication that human beings can control their birth rate, and that the size of a family can become an elective choice of the individual, under certain given conditions, due to the existence of modern birth control techniques. This has been amply demonstrated in many countries during recent years when birth rates have dropped through the extensive use of artificial prevention. Of course birth control has been used as another red herring when it focuses attention on population as a cause unto itself, and ignores the limitations and restrictions that are inherent within capitalism, and result in food supplies being determined and conditioned by a market economy. If socialism would have been researched by the workers with as much diligence as has been displayed in the pursuit and relentless quest for new and improved birth control methods our movement would have greatly benefited. 

Incidentally, many of the comparatively recent innovations in birth control, whilst affording the manufacturers substantial profits, have proved to be injurious to health and have produced side effects that are undesirable and which can ominously threaten our future well-being. 

The term "overpopulation" in itself has no meaning or social significance unless it is related to specific conditions and has an applicable framework of reference. Countries are not over­-populated in relationship to land mass, but modern industrial cities have concentrations that are completely disproportionate to other areas. In 1975 the United States had an estimated 213 million, and more than 3 out of every 4 lived in cities or suburbs, which occupied only 1.5 per cent of the land.

As far as food supplies are concerned, there is no over-­population problem relative to society's capacity for producing an overabundance either today, or within the foreseeable future. The resources of the earth have never been fully utilized and it has been established that of the approximate 50 per cent of the globe's soil which can be cultivated only 10 per cent is being used. According to the United States Department of Agriculture there are about 25 million square miles of agricultural exploitable land, which means approximately 16 billion acres that could be cultivated. On this basis, with a present world population of approximately 4 billion, there would be available today about 4 acres per person. There are many large areas in Africa, South America and Australia that are still virgin lands awaiting development that possess the potential for sustaining millions.'

The sea represents an untapped larder rich in minerals and vegetables. It is a veritable treasure house of food supply and energy which can also be used as an additional means of irrigation through the conversion of sea water. Many modern ships today have their own distilling equipment which converts sea water to completely pure distilled water. 

The possibilities for potential food supplies are unlimited but even under the restricted and restrained economy of capitalism, producing not to satisfy human needs, but for a market and for profit, overabundance and overproduction have often been the problem and not the reverse. 

World grain production for the 1975-76 season was at a record high. United States wheat harvests achieved records. Wheat and rice production in China did likewise. The United States Food and Agricultural Organization in November, 1975 was about 2 to 3 per cent above 1974. Agriculture and food supplies are of course related to sources of energy and at present petroleum is a prime necessity for transportation. Recent newspaper articles in February, 1977, refer to an estimated 600 billion barrels of oil trapped in oil shale rocks in the Rocky Mountains awaiting development and equivalent to a 10-year supply of oil needs for the United States, and a disclosure that Mexican oil reserves top 60 billion barrels.

Apart from food, the working class have clearly demonstrated their unique ability to produce way in excess of what is needed for them to live on. The survival of the capitalist class should attest to the accuracy of this statement because they have been living on this surplus, in the lap of luxury, since the time of the Industrial Revolution. 

Poverty and deprivation are of course not caused by so-called "overpopulation", but on the contrary unhealthy and unwholesome conditions of poverty result most frequently in large families. Karl Marx aptly stated in Capital that "The size of the family is in reverse ratio to the height in wages." The miserable conditions produced by abject poverty give rise to overcrowding, lack of proper sanitation, and an apathetic attitude born of despair and hopelessness. Add to this a lack of proper education and malnutrition and human beings become incapable of properly organising their personal lives even on an elementary basis. The terrible poverty to be found in India, with millions living in the streets, is an example. If all these impoverished and destitute humans became childless and sterile overnight their misery would still endure, because they are propertyless, have no work, and have little or no access to food, clothing and shelter. To blame their condition, and the similar ·plight of millions of workers throughout the world, on "overpopulation", in a society capable of producing untold wealth and abundance, is to add a terrible insult to their social misfortunes. Even in countries where the populations are small relative to the large areas of land, such as Canada and Latin America, poverty and hunger are prevalent and conspicuous. 

There is, however, one outstanding feature common to all countries irrespective of their size and population. And that is the existence in each nation of a fortunate, privileged minority who never have to contend with problems of poverty or large families because they own and control the wealth of the world. They became rich through the efforts of the working class, and irrespective of their sexual or biological habits, and they will remain in this same economic position until their employees realize the true nature of the system that enslaves them. When this time arrives the age of scapegoats, red herrings and political baloney, no matter how it is sliced, will be at an end. And you can be certain that men and women who have finally obtained their emancipation and freedom, and have be come the common owners of the world's wealth, will also have the intelligence to control their numbers according to the desires and requirements of a socialist society. 

Samuel Leight

The Materialist Conception of History (1980)

A chapter from Samuel Leight's 1980 book, World Without Wages (Money, Poverty & War)

The socialist is politically opposed to the system in which he finds himself; this opposition arises from an analysis of capitalism, and the realization that socialism will solve the majority of the economic and social problems that exist today. We further claim that a policy of reformation will do nothing to alter the basis of capitalism, and therefore no major social evil can ever be removed by any reform or group of reforms.

Socialists attempt to survey the historic development of society, to ascertain how society has evolved, and to discover the prime causes that have been responsible for the changes that have taken place. It is indisputable that society has passed from one system to another, but the underlying dynamics for this is not initially obvious, and has been a matter for conjecture and controversy. The answer to this question is of paramount importance, because armed with the correct scientific approach to the historic development of mankind it is reasonable to suppose that this same method will enable us to properly examine the system under which we now live, and by so doing create first, the theoretical sound solution to current social problems, and second, the practical application of the theory.

The interpretation of history put forward by Karl Marx and supported by The World Socialist Party and its companion parties is referred to as The Materialist Conception Of History. The name itself implies that it is distinct from other approaches, and that there are contrary concepts.

The Materialist Conception Of History asserts as its fundamental proposition that it is the economic basis of any society, and the way in which production and distribution of wealth is organized, that is the main determining factor of the social structure of society, and the foundation on which the outlooks, ideas, conduct, social relationships, legal and political structures rest. Further, that these conditions are never static, but are continuously in the process of change and development; that they constitute the main element of historic change, and are the predominate dynamic influence responsible for social evolution. This social evolution has been reflected in different systems of society with different economic basis that have evolved one from the other.

Since the advent of private property history has been a record of class struggles, and the control of the state machine has always been of prime importance to the ruling class of any era. Man acts within his environment and is conditioned accordingly. He affects and makes history but only within the scope of the material conditions in which he lives. There is, therefore, an interplay between man and his surrounding material conditions that react one upon the other and out of which change and development occur. The Materialist Conception Of History does not preclude other influences upon historical development, such as geographical and climatic conditions, or, for example, traditional social hangovers from the past, but the economic factor constitutes the main determining and dominating condition—the way people associate together in order to produce a livelihood.

We can now compare this materialist approach to history with other concepts and recognize the fundamental differences.

The socialist discards the "Great Man Theory", although we have already acknowledged that man plays an active part in reacting to his existing circumstances. But to view history as the record of the deeds of so-called great men, leaders, kings, and emperors is to ignore the fact that these historic figures were the result of the prevailing material conditions and not vice versa. Such an approach perverts historic truth, but nevertheless is taught openly, or implied covertly within the educational system, affording the ruling class with a technique for preserving their power position, by encouraging nationalistic and patriotic ideas, and propagandizing youth to accept misconceptions of leadership, and the glorification of war with its legalized violence.

To the extent that one considers Divine Providence and God's will as the determining factor of historic development we find ourselves in the realm of mental fantasy, becoming divorced from reality. A true working class materialist approach to the world is sabotaged and never given an opportunity to mature.

While the Materialist Conception accepts the influence of ideas upon history we at the same time relate the ideas to the material conditions from which they have developed. Ideas themselves are the result of the action of the brain, which is the phenomena of thinking matter. These ideas originate from their material surroundings and are the mental products resulting from an evolving society. The universe exists apart from man's consciousness, and ideas as we understand them have only existed since the advent of man, through the function of his brain. The materialist approach recognizes that man's awareness of the universe is registered through his thinking faculties, but that the totality of things existed before man, and that man is a comparative recent arrival upon the scene.

The socialist rejects all metaphysical and supernatural approaches, and regards astrology, associated outlooks, and predictions as having no scientific value or supportable proof.

Members of the working class should discard in their entirety these false approaches to history, because not only do they do an injustice to intelligence, but they create yet another intellectual barrier to the comprehension of the socialist case.

It is unreasonable to presume that capitalism represents the final cycle in social development. We contend that socialism is the next logical progression and that capitalism has long age fulfilled its historic purpose and has outlived its usefulness. Man has journeyed through changing and different systems of society. To contend that he has reached the pinnacle of economic development with a system that has produced poverty amidst plenty, and economic insecurity along with production techniques that have virtually unlimited potential capacities, is to close one's mind to the future and to ignore the historic facts of the past. Society has never been static, it is always on the move, forever changing; every past system has evolved into another. The advent of socialism, for the first time in history, will mark the conscious social and political effort of a majority establishing a new system of society, and being at the same time fully aware of the meaning, implications, and social justifications for this revolutionary act. The social consciousness of man will have arrived, somewhat belatedly, at a new, inspiring plateau.

Regressing to trace man's progress through organized society, we find a period wherein he lived in tribal groups, referred to as primitive communism. Everyone within the tribe had the right of access to whatever was owned by the tribe. In good times their simple needs were satisfied, and in periods of shortages there was hardship. Man lived by picking his food from the trees and vegetation, and by the killing of wild animals. Initially his tools were simple in construction. Fire was discovered, stone clubs and spears fashioned, the bow and arrow invented, and polished stone instruments were made. The art of pottery was developed, the taming and herding of animals, together with the use of bronze, and primitive agriculture and the cultivation of crops. Then, with the discovery of the process of smelting iron and the making of iron tools, together with the advances made in agriculture, man began producing in excess of the needs of the tribe. Private property made its appearance; with this there came a need for protection, and the authority of government.

A new society was developing which took the form of warrior chiefdoms that covered vast areas of the world, and which comprised the patriarchal warrior chief and the clansmen who owed allegiance to him. The main mode of production was agricultural. Chattel slave empires developed in Egypt, Babylon, Greece, and Rome. The economy was mainly agricultural, with some trading; the slaves formed an economic basis in society and were owned outright by their masters. The city-state came into being and was an instrument of power used by the ruling class, and these states later grew into empires.

From this society feudalism evolved. Manorial estates were established; instead of the warrior chief there was the lord of the manor, with serfs who were tied to the land, but unlike the chattel slaves were not physically owned by their master. The serfs tilled a small portion of the land for themselves for a part of the week, and the balance of the week worked for the lord on his estates. All their rights were subordinate to the feudal lord. Within this feudal system merchant capitalism began to grow and small home manufacturing was started. Steam was utilized, harnessed to tools, and production was revolutionized.

With colonial expansion, commerce and trade prospered and feudalism, with its aristocracy, came into conflict with the new emerging capitalist class. The Industrial Revolution of 1760 in England, in France in 1789, brought with it large scale manufacturing based upon wage labor, and the production of commodities for sale and profit in the market place. The handicraft, and the mode of individual production under feudalism, had undergone a transformation to social production based upon wage labor, with the private ownership of the means of production and distribution by a minority of the population—the new ruling class. Capitalism had arrived—and with it new forms of misery, inequality, and deprivation for the majority. To complete the picture, the 1917 Revolution in Russia marked the commencement of capitalism in the U.S.S.R. operated on a national basis through the state machine, with the so-called Communist Party in dictatorial control.

Socialists maintain that to properly understand the ideas of any period of social development it is essential to examine the economics of that era, and to realize that the prevailing ideas are co-related to the economic base.

With this approach as a political yardstick, and if it is understood that the capitalist system can only operate in the interests of the capitalist class, all overtures made by reformist and capitalist parties for continued support should be rejected. Social problems must be analyzed from a materialist standpoint and all promises made by so-called leaders regarded with profound skepticism. They function as agents representing the interests of the capitalist class—it can never be otherwise.

We have often been accused of possessing a cold approach towards humanity because of the connotation inaccurately applied to the term "materialism". But on the contrary, we state that in order to eliminate all the inhumanities of capitalism a materialist approach is mandatory. The application of materialism in the social sense means an investigation that leads unerringly to socialism as the logical next stage of man's organizational development.

Together with Karl Marx we say: "Our task is not only to understand the world but to change it!"

(This essay first appeared in 'World Without Wages (Money, Poverty and War!), a series of Tuscon Radio Broadcasts presented for the World Socialist Party of the United States by Samel Leight)

Samuel Leight

War (1980)

A chapter from Samuel Leight's 1980 book, World Without Wages (Money, Poverty & War)

It is never in the interests of the working class to support war.

Wars are fought over private property and related issues and as long as we live under capitalism the conditions that give rise to war will always exist.

Capitalism is the cause of modern war.

If we were living within 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 society as a whole, war would be non-existent. For socialism is a system which would be world-wide, with no trading, buying and selling, but goods and services would be produced solely for use and not for profit. People would give to society according to their individual ability and take from society according to their needs. Such a society would unite the human race as a social unit, with no economic classes or divisions, or national barriers. The material objective would be: to produce and distribute goods and services in sufficient quantity, and of the finest quality that can be practically obtained, to satisfy the needs of all. In complete contra-distinction to this, capitalism produces international rivalries that are the basic cause of modern war,

War in the modern world has the potential for the destruction of the human race. It could be argued that this will never happen, but it cannot be denied that capitalism has produced atomic warfare, and the potential for total human annihilation does exist. This ever-constant threat of total human destruction, with which we all have to live, is sufficient reason unto itself for the workers of the world to organize for socialism and abolish capitalism—and to acquire the education, knowledge and desire to effect this change as quickly as possible.

The World Socialist Party has a most clear and positive attitude to war. We are opposed to all wars, whether they be major and world-wide, or minor and localized. Our opposition to all war has been consistent from the time of our origins with the establishment of our companion party in England, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, in 1904. We do not oppose war in so ­called peacetime and then change our position when war is declared,jumping on the Band Wagon or flag waving, patriotism, and jingoism. The World Socialist Party, and its companion parties, state that all wars in the modern world are fought over private property issues, markets, trade routes, boundaries, territorial rights, and spheres of influence. Modern war is really an extension of "business under capitalism" carried to an extreme of ultimate violence, when the economic rivalries between the various national sections of the capitalist class can no longer be peacefully resolved or controlled. War is business as usual, but with the added ingredients of the insane and mad slaughter of humanity fighting over the material interests and properties of a minority. The working class, as that section of society that is propertyless in the means of wealth production and distribution, has no interests at stake in supporting any war, at any time, for any reason.

The socialist opposition to war is an opposition distinct from all others. It is not an opposition based upon religious beliefs; and although we are opposed to war on social and humanitarian grounds, our opposition is not limited to a humanitarian approach—it goes much further. The socialist opposition to war results from our analysis and opposition to capitalism; the realization that this system is the cause of war; further, that the working class are living under a system that can never be made to operate in their interests; and that war is inevitable under capitalism, and that the two go hand in hand and should be completely opposed by the workers at all times until they are both finally eliminated, one with the other. 

Wars can be opposed from the wrong political standpoint as far as the working class are concerned. For example, an opposition to the recent Vietnam war can be an opposition which states that it was not in the interests of the United States to have participated. But this is not a socialist opposition to the Vietnam war. For when we talk about the interests of the U.S.A. what does this really mean? The United States, like all capitalist countries, Russia and China included of course, is divided into two main classes - the working class who are the majority, and who are the non-owners of the means of wealth production, and the capitalist class who are the minority that own and control the means of production and distribution. So when one talks about the interests of the United States this is not a true, scientific statement. The United States is a geographic entity classified as such by man. The Government of the United States administrates the capitalist system within the United States, protecting the interests of its own ruling class at home and abroad. Other governments throughout the world, Russia and China included, operate in similar fashion. The people in the United States who were in opposition to the Vietnam war, and who were not socialists, or who did not take a moral, humane, or religious opposition to the war, were in effect stating that the prosecution of the war was not in the interests of the American capitalist class, and this could or could not be an arguable case from the American capitalist class standpoint. But it is not the socialist case in opposition to the Vietnam war. Most of the people that opposed the Vietnam war would not hesitate to support a different war if they considered that there was justification for their support. Because the unfortunate fact remains that the working class do not properly understand how capitalism works and therefore do not appreciate that it is the system itself that breeds and causes war. 

Vietnam, from the United States capitalist viewpoint, had a strategic value as a base of operations for the eastern trade—it was a gateway to Southeast Asia. Furthermore, from an American business standpoint it was a market place, a source for raw materials. Another tragic aspect of the Vietnam conflict was that it afforded United States capitalism an opportunity to test its military technology. This resulted in the wholesale killing of Vietnam workers, peasants, women and children who were destroyed by mass bombing, napalm bombing, and were the victims of chemical spraying of rice fields, and other atrocities. The greatest atrocity became the war itself.

The Mid-East, which for decades has always been either on the verge of conflict or involved in war, is a veritable powder-keg of comparatively small nations spawning opposing interests, with the major powers aligned behind them in positions of antagonisms. The issues at stake are boundary lines, economic conflicts, trade, and oil. 

The Arab/Israeli situation has produced war, perpetual strife, and killing. And the Arab and Israeli working class, just like workers elsewhere, do not understand their true position in society. While socialists have deep and genuine sympathy for all minorities that have been persecuted, and of course much worse, the conditions that give rise to Hitlers, Mussolinis, and let us not forget Franco and Stalin, always exist under capitalism. The so ­called Jewish problem has not been solved with the establishment of Israel. In fact a good case could be made to show that Jews living in Israel are in far greater danger of total elimination than they have ever been before. Atomic warfare, limited to a strike against Israel, could eliminate this small territory with all its population. If this sounds far fetched, remember the horror that was perpetrated against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This crime against humanity was later rationalized and justified under the humbug of expediency. The Jewish people live in constant fear of war, and the horrible possibility of mass annihilation of the Jews in Israel, through atomic warfare, exists. As far as a home for the Jews is concerned, a Jew living in Israel, in a home with a mortgage on it, can be turned out of his home, should he miss some mortgage payments, in just the same fashion as an American Jew who also is in similar default. And of course this applies to workers the whole world over. 

In 1914 our companion party in England, the Socialist Party of Great Britain, opposed World War I, and in 1939 the World Socialist Party of the United States and all our companion parties opposed World War Il. The World Socialist Party reiterated the message given in 1914 by the S.P.G.B. in its War Manifesto. I quote these words which were given to guide the working class attitude to war and to inspire action to achieve socialism. They were applicable in 1914, in 1939, and they are just as true today:—

"Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our Fellow Workers of All Lands the expression of our Good Will and Socialist Fraternity, and Pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the Triumph of Socialism." 

World War II was caused by the clash of economic interests between the German ruling class and their partners and the various European, English, and American ruling and capitalist class. It was not a fight over ideals, freedoms, or democracy. It was a war fought over material and property issues. The real cause of the war, as is always the case, was camouflaged with high-sounding phrases in order to gain the support of the workers. If the British and American governments were concerned with matters of principle, such as Democracy and Freedom, why would they have had as an ally Russia that harbored a dictatorship equally as harsh and as cruel as the one in Nazi Germany? As a matter of fact, Churchill, in an open letter to the London Times in 1938, praised Hitler, saying:

"Were England to suffer a national disaster I should pray to God to send a man of the strength of mind and will of an Adolf Hitler."

The governments of capitalist countries do not declare and support wars over idealistic stands on questions of democracy or dictatorships, but wars are declared and fought over private property issues. Fascist Spain, under the despotic dictatorship of Franco, was always supported and helped by the Government of the United States. Of course, the United States bases in Spain were very much responsible for this alliance. Where were the ideals of Democracy and Freedom displayed here with the support that Franco Spain for years received from the United States? This support was probably responsible for the long life of the Franco fascist dictatorship. 

When wars are ready to erupt lies, humbug, and hypocrisy are the order of the day. The workers are called on to sacrifice themselves on the false pretext of fighting for freedoms, or for "right" against "wrong," or because the aggressor is at the doorstep. And at that time it is too late to examine the cause of war because the workers are already enmeshed in it—killing and maiming at the behest of their leaders. 

War is not a method that can be used to preserve democracy. Take political inventory today and you will find just as many, perhaps more, countries under military juntas, dictatorships, and countries with little or no democracy, as we had in 1939, when World War Il erupted, supposedly as a fight for Democracy against Dictatorship. 

If the working class can be persuaded to support capitalism in peacetime then they can be persuaded to support their respective ruling classes when war is declared. The time that is ripe for the working class to become socialist is now, when there is no worldwide war. In fact, the working class should have become socialist, abolished capitalism and wars, decades ago, and millions of lives would have been saved. But once a war is declared, the declaration itself presupposes that the capitalist class and their governments know that they will have the support of the workers. Without this support this system could not continue for one second—wars would be impossible to prosecute—they would, of course, be non-existent. The working class are responsible for the production of all wealth under capitalism, and when they are called on to defend the wealth that they have produced, but do not own, they are ready for the supreme sacrifice, under the mistaken belief that they are fighting for ideals. 

For who in his right mind would be prepared to go out and die, or be maimed, for such material things as private property that belongs to a small group in society that function as parasites in peacetime and provocateurs in war? Fellow workers we urge you to wake up while you are still in the land of the living.

I quote from a very famous man who was not a socialist:

"I feel only contempt for those who can take pleasure marching in rank and file to the strains of a band. Surely, such men were given their great brain by mistake; the spinal cord would have amply sufficed. This shameful stain on civilization should be wiped out as soon as possible. Heroism on command, senseless violence and all the loath­some nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism—how passionately I despise them!"

This statement was made by Albert Einstein and was reported March 14, 1962, in the New York Post.

Whenever war is fought, for whatever superficial and false reasons, and whichever side is declared the victor, one side is always, invariably the loser—the world working class.

Samuel Leight