In modern industry, raw material is taken from the Earth, pass through factories, where it is manufactured into articles of sale, and then distributed to markets by various ways of transport. The whole system of transaction is made possible and facilitated by means of money and credit—by banks and banking. Without the constant co-operation of millions of workers employed in these various sub-divisions there can be no industry in the modern sense. The objective conditions for socialism are apparent everywhere. Cooperative mass organisation of labour within industry, collective corporate enterprise and its far-flung interests, separation of ownership and management and the collective performance of managerial functions by hired employees. We can see this exemplified by the supermarket chain stores in distribution. An abundance exists which makes possible and necessary the collective or socialist distribution of goods, a socialisation of consumption to correspond with the socialization of production. Capitalism rejects this possibility and necessity because it means its own abolition.
Industry is integrated in socialism, managed as a whole, not as scattered parts disregarding and clashing with one another. Considerations of private interest or profit interfere neither with production nor consumption. Rational planning of industry is possible, with the exclusive aim of meeting community needs. The abundance of industry is released on an immensely enlarged scale. As this means the abolition of capitalism there is a clash of the old and the new, a struggle of classes, a struggle for power between the classes representing the old and the new.
The struggle for power aims to get control of the state or to retain control. Like all states, the capitalist state is an organ of class rule and suppression, under capitalist control, enmeshed in all the class-economic and exploiting relations of the existing order. Capitalism creates an ideology to disguise and justify its predatory character: it is a necessary device of class domination. The dominant capitalist interests use all means, of an increasingly forcible nature as the struggle sharpens, to retain control of the state for a twofold purpose: to suppress the proletariat and its allies in the struggle for power, and to augment the economic activity of the state. Although their ideal is that government is best which governs least capitalists constantly enlarges the scope and use of state power. More and more state action was required by the complex relations and problems arising out of capitalist expansion. Governments “protect” the home market and newly developing industries, enterprises call for state intervention in the form of financial subsidies or actual government ownership for various reasons: their unprofitable character, lack of private capital, as a source of government revenue, in the interests of the economy as a whole, or simply for reasons of political expediency. The state “regulates” the relations of capitalism. State capitalism is used to encourage and permit more rapid economic development.
The term state capitalism was originally used to designate only the government ownership of economic enterprises. But its meaning is now much wider to include all forms of government intervention in economic activity to aid capitalism to overcome the contradictions and antagonisms in industry, particularly in the United States. The intervention is always within the relations of capitalist property and exploitation, of the subjection of labour to capital. All forms of state capitalism are animated by the necessity and use of the collective action of the state to “strengthen” capitalism as much as it can and “compensate” for the effects of the anarchy of production as much as is possible. State capitalism has been greeted by many on the Left and the reformists as the progressive unfoldment of a new social order. In reality, the result has been the deepening entrenchment of capitalism.
Pressure from workers has forced the adoption of reforms and minor concessions of social legislation to “placate” this labour opposition. The usual justification for reform from the Left lies in the fact that they make it easier for the workers to organise themselves and enlighten themselves about the real meaning of capitalism and the part that they are forced to play under it, and shows the thinking worker how futile it is to dream of reforming capitalism. They furnish, besides that, a rallying ground for those workers who cannot see beyond their own nose, and perhaps would not understand socialism, but do feel the need for a shorter working day.
The risk, however, arises when reformists try to persuade the workers as well as themselves that socialism only means the sum of a number of such petty acts and restrictions; that in other words, welfare measures are socialism. By that approach “socialism” gets the credit for legislation which are in all but name means for defending capitalism against socialism and all the disadvantages which arise from that fact are written down to the discredit of socialism. The dominant class interests use a bastardised “socialism” to prevent the coming of socialism and to stabilise capitalism
No doubt reform changes will always produce a certain reaction such as disillusionment but that may be less if there are some real advantages than if the whole measure is an elaborate swindle. The main point, however, is whether the experience of decades of social reform activities has not been to show that it would be simpler and better to concentrate our efforts on the abolition of capitalism than on any attempts to reform it. That is not to say that we need reject capitalist reforms but we ought to regard them as what they are, as attempts to prolong capitalism. The less enthusiasm we show ourselves about them, the more keen will the capitalist may well champion them.
Our business as socialist is to show how inadequate all such reforms are as solutions to remove the evils from which the workers suffer. But above all there is a need for us to make clear that only with the abolition of production for profit, and the competition between the capitalists for sources of profitable investment which is an inevitable result of the capitalist system, can we get rid of the social problems of capitalism such as poverty, crime and war.
Socialists may sometimes talk about the inevitability of socialism but there is for socialists a great danger to forget the requirement for enthusiasm for the great social and economic transformation of society. Many overlook the fact that it is the collective workers’ will which forms the essential element in that development of socialism. We also assume that the workers will continue to engage in the daily class struggle . Were they to accept the coming of socialism in a fatalist sense, and think that they could sit down tamely and wait till socialism came to them, they would soon lose all the rights that they have gained and become mere slaves.
The reformism of capitalism must fail. But that does not make socialism inevitable. Capitalism does not “grow into” socialism, it merely determines the necessary historical conditions, which provide the working class with the opportunity for creative action. State capitalism is not the transition to socialism but a reaction against it and becomes a type of corporate capitalism. There is no “final" crisis of capitalism , unless the workers makes it so. For capitalism can always find a “way out” from a recession, even if it is by stumbling about blindly for the exit.
When class-conscious workers, both politically and economically, have become so well organised as to make their exploitation impossible, then capitalism will have reached the end of its life. That is what we understand by social revolution, and our ideal – that of human brother- and sisterhood – is revolutionary, because it is only to be realised by the social revolution.
No comments:
Post a Comment