Answers to Correspondents
Bolshevism and Socialism
We have received a letter from a correspondent, Mr. F. Parker (Islington) about the social system in Russia. He asks in what way the aim of the Socialist Party differs from the Bolshevist system now functioning in Russia, and says that in Russia millionaires have been eliminated, there is no employing class, and, in short, “Russia has carried out Lenin’s programme by Marx and Engels.” He says that all are benefiting in “good wages,” and justifies the Bolshevist system of paying higher wages to some than to others.
Our reply is that the various features referred to do not constitute Socialism. In Russia goods are not produced solely for use (as they will be under Socialism), but are produced for sale, at a profit. While it is true that there is not an obvious employing class, the wages system is the prevailing system. When our correspondent claims that Bolshevism is the application by Lenin of Marxism, he forgets that Marx did not aim at improving wages but at abolishing the wages system. He wrote, for example:
“Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work,’ they (the workers) ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wages system.’ ”
Moreover, Lenin, before the Bolshevik seizure of power, and in its early days, far from justifying inequality of pay as between one grade of workers and another, admitted that it was only a regrettable and retrogade step forced on the Bolsheviks by necessity.
ED. COMM.
Can there be Two Socialist Parties in One Country ?
We have received the following enquiry : —
“Clause 7 of your Declaration of Principles seems to imply that in any given national state there can only be one political party representative of the real interest of the working class. If this is so, what are the social, political, economic or technical reasons in justification thereof? I can only think of the technical one—viz., that owing to the facility of communications—railways, postal facilities, and advertising—it is inconceivable that two or more groups should be formed simultaneously to operate an identical policy, but is this sufficient grounds for the general statement—i.e., why, on logical grounds, must this be so ?—Enquirer.”
Reply.—We think that “Enquirer,” through overlooking one obvious but important factor, has created a difficulty where none exists. If we ourselves put a question, this factor will become apparent. Our question is this: “Granted that workers in different parts of one country (and, indeed, workers in different parts of the world) come to the same point of understanding the nature of capitalism and the means of achieving Socialism, what can there be to keep them apart and in separate organisations? ”
The answer is and must be that workers with a common aim and agreed about the necessity of organising to achieve Socialism will naturally want to unite their efforts, and will do so unless something prevents them. Distance and difficulties of communication may make it convenient to have separate organisations in different areas, but cannot be a reason for having two organisations with the same object working separately in the same area. Also capitalist laws may make it necessary or at least advisable and convenient to have separate organisations for different countries, but here again the members will naturally wish as far as possible that the separate organisations shall keep in touch and work together, as illustrated by ourselves and our companion parties abroad.
ED. COMM.
Socialists and Reforms
A correspondent (S. E. K., Braughing, Herts.) writes asking the following question: —
Editorial Committee, S.P.G.B. :
Dear Sirs, I do not quite understand your viewpoint on the reform question, but if a member of the S.P.G.B. were elected to Parliament would he oppose or support a measure or bill in favour of Family Allowances ?
A reply in “The Socialist Standard” would help many readers, as I get different answers from different supporters of your party.
Yours faithfully, S. E. KEYTE.
There are several aspects of the question of Reform and Reformism. The first is that the S.P.G.B. is opposed to the policy of putting forward a programme of reforms in addition to the objective of Socialism. It has sometimes been argued that a Socialist Party can usefully have a programme of reforms or immediate demands, consisting of measures to improve the workers’ conditions under capitalism. The objections to this are many. One is that such a programme inevitably attracts the support of people interested in the reforms but not interested in Socialism. This leads, as experience has shown in the past, to the Socialist objective being pushed into the background, and to the Socialist membership being swamped by the reformist element. A second objection is that the party which adopts such a policy finds itself advocating reforms which are part of the programme of openly capitalist parties—which causes confusion in the minds of the workers and leads to a demand by the reformist element of the would-be Socialist Party that it should co-operate with capitalist parties in order to put the reforms into operation.
A further objection is that no matter what reforms are introduced capitalism will still remain. It will frequently nullify the temporary improvement brought about by each reform and at the same time produce other evils which in their turn demand still more reforms. The only solution of the workers’ problem is the introduction of Socialism, and this can be brought about only when a majority have been won over to an understanding of Socialism and have organised to achieve it. All the time and effort spent on reforms is time and eifort lost to the propagation of Socialism.
As regards the question of voting for individual measures in Parliament it is not denied that certain measures may, at least temporarily, alleviate the hardship of some group of workers. In such a case, if the effect of the proposal was clearly beneficial, Socialist M.P.s would be instructed by the Party to vote for it while pointing out its limitations. They would, of course, in no case invite support or elections on such grounds.
It should, however, be observed that most of the proposals put forward are not beneficial at all. It can be said, for example, that the past Acts of Parliamenl extending the franchise were useful to the Socialist movement, as also Acts providing and extending education. These cases are fairly clear but a proposal to introduce family allowances would in effect merely have the result of redistributing wages as between workers with young children and workers without.
ED. COMM..
Cheap Imports, Monetary Reform and Socialism
We have received a further letter from the Duke of Bedford in reply to the observations published in our November issue.
Wigtownshire,
November 25th, 1941.
Sir,—I do not quite know why you assumed that my letter which you published in your November issue was an attempt to solve the contradictions of Capitalism. I was not dealing with either Socialism or Capitalism or the conflict between the two, but was calling attention to certain important facts relating to foreign trade and the relation of income to employment in a labour-destroying age.
When I spoke of the “true” purpose of industry, I meant the correct purpose under a sensible system. We are both agreed, though perhaps for somewhat different reasons, that the existing system is not sensible.
I agree that a “close association of work with the right to receive an income” is at present a characteristic of the working class, but seeing that the working class is an extremely important and numerous class, it stands to reason that any financial arrangement which does, or does not, provide them with adequate incomes is a matter which should receive the attention of any practical social reformer. As I have already pointed out, I was not in my letter “defending” Capitalism, but you are surely contradicting yourself when you first attack me for advocating a reform of the monetary system, which you refer to contemptuously as “currency juggling,” and then go on to say that if the reform I advocated were adopted, it would wreck the wages system through which the propertied classes were able to live on the backs of the wealth producers.
It is perfectly true that monetary reform such as I advocate would strengthen immensely the power of the weekly-wage earner to insist on receiving fair conditions of work and an adequate income. Speaking, however, from a very extensive experience of work for monetary reform and the controversy to which it gives rise, I do not find that the ordinary Capitalist opposes it because of the independence which he fears it would give to the weekly-wage earner. I do not say that this attitude of mind never exists, but it is decidedly rare and it is usually confined to the financier, or the controller of some great monopoly. The ordinary Capitalist, once he can be induced to give any serious thought to the matter at all, rid himself of the complex that he cannot understand finance, and see that he is not being invited to support inflation, usually rather welcomes a proposal which, as he sees it, will give him a better market for his goods, and at the same time, enable him to avoid trouble with labour disputes by making it possible for him to pay good wages to his workpeople. Rightly or wrongly he does not anticipate that workers will immediately go on to demand the control of the whole industry and equal shares in its profits.—Yours very truly,
BEDFORD.
The essential difference between the Socialist attitude and that of our correspondent is shown in his
statement: “I was not dealing with either Socialism or Capitalism, or the conflict between the two, but was calling attention to certain important facts relating to foreign trade and the relation of income to employment in a labour-destroying age.” Our correspondent’s proposals were that “cheap imports” should be allowed and that “new money” should be “created” and given to the unemployed. What he overlooks is that these are proposals to accept capitalism while modifying it in what he regards as a practical and beneficial way. They are not and cannot be proposals which will have any meaning under Socialism. Socialism is essentially international. Goods will be produced where it is convenient to produce them and transported elsewhere to be consumed, but there cannot be any question of sale, barter, etc. These are capitalist conceptions and cannot be Socialist ones. Indeed, our correspondent in his first letter (November SOCIALIST STANDARD) writes saying that under his conception of a “rational system” “the foreigner is able to send us a large quantity of goods in return for a comparatively small quantity of our own.” What is this but the existing capitalist cut-throat system? How is it any more rational?
Regarding monetary reform, since under Socialism there can be no need for any monetary system, monetary reforms can only be reforms of capitalism.
Without going into the question of inflation except to say that we do not accept our correspondent’s view, it is necessary to point out another fundamental divergence of attitude. We said that if the penalty of semi-starvation were to be removed, the workers would be in a position to wreck the wages system. Our correspondent’s reply is that his proposal would enable the wage-earner “to insist on receiving fair conditions of work and an adequate income,” but that there is little evidence that the ordinary capitalist opposes this, though the financier or monopolist may do so. It all turns, of course, on the word “fair.” Our correspondent regards it as “fair” that the propertied class should continue to receive incomes derived from their ownership, though presumably he is prepared to see these incomes reduced.
The Socialist case is that the only rational system for the future of the human race is one based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution which necessarily involves the elimination of all property incomes, whether in the form of rent, interest or profit. On this issue all sections of the propertied class have a common attitude—one of opposition.
ED .COMM.