The Tree and Its Fruits
Perhaps one of the most frequent statements we who are out for the emancipation of our class are confronted with is, that as such-and-such a thing exists at present “it always will be the same,” In other words, as evils exist to-day under capitalism, they will also exist under Socialism.
Now if the base of a tree is rotten it stands to reason that the tree itself will not be very strong, and in some cases propping up will become necessary. But if the tree has a good foundation, one can expect it to be sound and healthy, and no propping up will be required. The same applies to society.
Even some non-Socialists admit that the present basis of society—the ownership of all the productive wealth by a few to the detriment of the many—is rotten, and that the basis of Socialism—common ownership of the productive wealth of society—is sound, and yet they immediately state that any new form of society will bear similar fruit, and what is required is reformation of the system. The base is to be left untouched, and therefore still rotten.
Others argue that “human nature” must alter for Socialism to be practicable, at the same time overlooking the fact that what they are pleased to term “human nature” is very amenable to the influence of environment, and that with the totally different conditions of life obtaining under Socialism, the same necessity for detrimentally struggling one against the other will have disappeared.
Some recognise that at present antagonism arises between owners and non-owners of the means of life, but fail to recognise that when these means are socially owned such antagonism will cease.
If only those who continually enquire of the Socialists “would there be so-and-so under Socialism ?” would always remember that the whole community would possess the instruments of wealth production, and the interest of each would be the interest of all, and then think for himself or herself whether “so-and-so” would be necessary or to the advantage either of the individual or the whole community, Socialists would be relieved of a certain amount of the work that falls upon them.
Perhaps it would not be out of place to instance a few of the things that would not exist tinder Socialism.
In the first place there would be no POOR, as all the means of wealth production would be jointly owned by the whole community, and as a consequence CAPITAL (wealth used to create profit) would not exist. Seeing that there would be no poor and needy, the necessity for CHARITY and PAWNSHOPS would be dispensed with. STARVATION would not be known, for to starve a person would mean that society would be deprived of that person’s assistance.
The so-called UNEMPLOYABLE that exist to-day are persons who, having been unable to find a purchaser of their labour-power, have gradually sunk lower and lower—for even their clothes do not last for ever. They would not exist as such under Socialism, but would have the opportunity of performing their share of the labour necessary for the maintenance of society, and have their needs satisfied from the common store they had helped to produce.
The “FALLEN WOMEN” (numbering 80,000 in London alone, according to the report of the London Lock Hospital and Rescue Home) are those who, being unable to sell their labour-power, are forced to sell their bodies in prostitution in order to live. The necessity for any woman to descend to this awful depth of degradation could not arise under Socialism, for every woman would have unrestricted entry to the field of useful social service, the reward for which would be full enjoyment of the material products of the social labour.
There would be no necessity for WAR, under Socialism, as interests being common, no clash of interests could give occasion for armed strife. And of course, with the abolition of war would go the need for ARMIES, NAVIES, BOY SCOUTS and so forth.
There would be no need for CORRUPT PRACTICES (which still flourish in spite of the Act) under Socialism. They are prevalent to-day because those who cannot succeed in the competitive struggle in a straight-forward way, naturally find themselves compelled to adopt any other means that may be within their reach to advance their interests, and adulteration, fraud, lying and trickery are the result. It is quite clear therefore that there is an incentive to deceive, cheat and defraud, and while such incentive exists all the teachings of Christianity and all laws and police and judges and jailors in Christendom will never succeed in preventing corrupt practices.
The IGNORANCE which exists to-day is caused by the fact that it is to the interest of the master class to keep their victims in darkness, and because excessive toil and lack of leisure allows no opportunity, and crushes all desire, for study. Under Socialism, the abolition of classes and the consequent unification of interests would make it to the interest of all that everyone should receive a thorough education, in order that they might develope and be of best possible service to society.
The state of affairs which allows an IDLE CLASS to exist, while another class work all hours imaginable, would not be possible under Socialism. This present idle class would have to do their fair share of the necessary work, without privilege of any sort, and so help to alleviate the task of the others.
These examples of evils that certainly would not exist under Socialism could be added to very largely, of course, but they must suffice.
The present system of society is like the rotten tree referred to, and the fruit it bears are the institutions that now exist.
What the workers want, therefore, is no more fighting for props (according to Lord Loreburn, the present Liberal Lord Chancellor, the workers find life more strenuous to-day than 50 years ago, in spite of reforms); no more vain striving after palliation in a system the very nature of which defies palliation, but a great and final endeavour for emancipation through a new social system on a sound basis. The institution of such a form of society is the object of the S.P.G.B.
R. A. M.