For a new civilisation

FOR WORLD SOCIALISM

The banks belong to the superstructure of capitalism while private property is its foundation. The financial crises,  credit squeezes and the like are nothing more than the reflections of the fundamental economic crisis arising from the fact that the private ownership of the means of production has become an anachronism in a society where social methods of production have superseded individual methods of production. No amount of credit supply to manufacturers, no amount of currency manipulation which leaves the question of property ownership untouched, can do other than aggravate the crisis of capitalism. This class ownership question is a political as well as an economic question in society divided into owning and non-owning classes. This is the basis of the struggle of classes which many appear to have forgotten. Social ownership, which must supersede the private ownership of the means of production, can only come about through the political victory of the class without property over the class with property. The bankers of the City of London and Wall St won’t flinch from the threat of legislation, but people may well be diverted from that which matters more than all else to-day, namely, the struggle to secure the social ownership of the means of production—the prerequisite of economic and social prosperity.

So let us be clear about what is the meaning of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic term. It is applied by economists and sociologists to the economic system of our civilisation, by means of which some people achieve economic independence and have the privilege of living idly upon the labour of others, who produce a surplus value above that which they receive for their own sustenance. Capitalism refers to the system. A capitalist is one who profits by the system. Even If he labours himself, it does not alter the fact that he has an income apart from his labor sufficient to sustain him for life without labour, and therefore his is economically independent. Capitalism divides society into two antagonistic forces, because it is based upon two sets of conflicting economic interests. The private ownership of land upholds with it the present planless system of production.  Private ownership of the means of production and distribution is the seed or germ of capitalism, of which wage slavery is the most revolting feature. The capitalistic system of production, under the rule of which we live, is the production of commodities for profit instead of for use for the private gain of those who own and control the tools and means of production and distribution. Out of this system of production and sale for profit spring all the entire problem of misery, want, and poverty that, as a deadly menace, now confronts civilisation.

 Socialism is defined as the common ownership of the social means of production and distribution. It is the name given to the next stage of civilisation, if civilisation is to survive.The Socialist Party, championing the working class, declares its intention to be “the abolition of wage slavery by the establishment of a national system of cooperative industry, based upon the social or common ownership of the means of production and distribution, to be administered by society in the common interest of all its members and the complete emancipation of the socially useful classes from the domination of capitalism. In socialism, private ownership and barter in capital being at an end, money would lose the functions which it possessed under capitalism and would be abolished.

Socialism can be described as the science of human association reduced to a practical programme, based upon a profound study of the social organism. It is an interpretation of the past, a diagnosis of the present, and a forecast of the future. It recognises that life in society as well as in the organic world, is constantly passing through a process of evolution. It is therefore founded upon an enduring basis of fact. It points out the great development of the behaviour of the individual that will take place from the environment that will be created by its adoption. It declares that labour is the sole creator of value. It teaches that the only way to attain the just distribution of wealth to those who produce it is through the collective or social ownership, control, and operation of the means of production and distribution, such as lands, mines, factories, railways, communications, etc., etc. It asserts that this production should be for use and not for sale or profit, thus doing away with all private ownership of the means of subsistence, it discards all forms of graft, corruption, and extortion in every department of society. It re-directs the vast amount of unproductive labour and an immense number of useless and harmful occupations into useful constructive labour. Socialism would conserve and not abolish personal possessions as distinguished from capital.Thus homes and their furnishings and all personal belongings not used to produce more wealth would be individually and not collectively owned. The right to work would be universal. The Cooperative Commonwealth is its goal. In order to be understood the socialist case  must be carefully studied. If you wish to oppose it, study it. No-one has a right to be a socialist or to criticize it without understanding the subject.

Some day in the not far off future — there will be an eruption. The hungry millions will turn against the overfed few. As long as the instruments of production remain in the hands of a few  they will naturally use this private ownership for their private advantage. It is not that socialists wish to impose on the future society a huge bureaucratic system, spreading its tentacles, octopus-like, over all the arrangements of social life, crushing all individuality, and reducing every detail of existence to rule and plan. But they do stand for social ownership and social control. All socialists are agreed upon their object, that object being social and economic freedom and equality for all, and the realisation of the highest individual development and liberty conceivable for all, through the social ownership and control of all the material means of production and existence. They must all agree upon this in order to be socialists. We are told sometimes that “we are all socialists now,” but only those who believe in the object as here defined can be properly so described. Those who so believe are socialists, and those who do not so believe are not socialists, whatever they may say to the contrary notwithstanding.

The principles of socialism are fixed and immutable; the means to be adopted to give practical effect to those principles change with time, and place, and circumstances. The object aimed at, the end to be attained, remains ever the same; the policy to be followed to attain that end requires to be frequently revised, and sometimes modified, as circumstances change. Socialism is the one world-wide force opposed to militarism and violence. The Socialist Party is apeace party, and the only political party which really endeavours to seek peace and ensue it.  Socialism implies the co-operation between individuals and groups of individuals, but also co-operation between peoples and lands. In a system of universal co-operation for production for use, all destruction of wealth, all waste, would be sheer loss. And all war is waste. Under the present system of capitalism, class ownership and control of all natural resources and production for profit, war is is not only inevitable but indispensable. All the cries which are raised to justify war – patriotism,democracy, freedom, religion, and so on – are so much humbug, and that the real cause and object is the conquest of markets and control or resources. That being so, it must be quite clear that capitalism and  peace are incompatible, and that however sincere and well-intentioned  advocates of peace may be, their plans are foredoomed to failure, for peace cannot be established while capitalism exists.  It is utopian to dream of establishing peace in the midst of capitalism.  Pacifists talk of universal disarmament but any socialist who has taken the trouble to understand the operations of the capitalist system must recognise that universal disarmament under capitalism is impossible. There is no Super Power which does not find the cost of armaments burdensome, and  would willingly come to some arrangement by which this burden might be reduced. Suppose some such arrangement were arrived at, and assuming, further, that, acting on that agreement, every nation were to disarm. The causes of conflict still remain, and there is nothing in the way of any rival country organising a predatory expedition against its neighbour, and nothing can prevent its doing so.