When the Socialist Party puts forward its plea for the common ownership of the means of wealth production it is sometimes greeted with the statement that if all the wealth produced was divided among the whole of the people, the workers would receive little more than they do at present owing to the small number of those who are very wealthy and the multitude of those who are poor. Economic “authorities” assert that if the wealth of the rich, or the total income of the whole of the people were “divided up” the result would only amount to an extra pound or two each. The insignificance of the amount is then paraded as a demonstration of the impractical and delusive nature of the Socialist Party’s proposals.
“Dividing up” has no place in the Socialist Party’s philosophy, and our case, from the point of view of wealth, is built upon modern productive capacity rather than the actual amount of wealth at present produced. The ideal aimed at by industry is a future when one person can, by pressing a button, set in motion the machinery that will automatically perform all the functions necessary to produce what will meet the needs of the whole world without the help of another labourer. The greater the productivity of machinery and the economy of labour the nearer industry approaches to this ideal. That is to say, fewer and fewer workers are required to attend to the needs of the world.
Given the capitalist method of production, under which the means of production and the products are owned by the employers, it is surely obvious that, after a certain limit has been passed, the greater the productivity of machinery the more workers will be thrown out of work whose labour has been “saved.” How will they stand in the division of wealth? As they will not be receiving any wages they will have no means with which to buy—unless it is the unemployment dole. So that the future of the industry would appear to present a picture of growing prosperity in which wage earners tend to decline and dole receivers tend to increase.
Modern capitalist society depends upon the individual and collective effort of the workers. The sum total of all these efforts results in the production and distribution of all those things which provide the comforts and wants of modern civilisation.
The millions of unemployed workers throughout the world are perfectly conscious of a desire to use their energies, their abilities, to this end, but they are unable to find a suitable opportunity. It is obvious that, in order to live, mankind is forced to make such efforts as will wrest from mother earth those things which will satisfy his needs. The earth is ready to hand—but the unemployed worker finds oneself obstructed by a code of laws and regulations which says, in effect, that the land belongs to various individuals—a distinct and separate class in society. It is the nature of this legal code, this property right in the private ownership and control of the source of the means of life which the workers have to enquire into. It comes to this, society can be divided, in the main, into two classes:
1. The class who possess but do not produce—the property-owning master class, and
2. Those who produce but do not possess—the propertyless working class.
The socialist, therefore, may be said to vary from the rest of the members of his class, as a result of a consciousness of this division of society into classes. Let us now examine in what way such variation makes for the ultimate survival of himself and his class.
The socialist, being class-conscious, recognises that there is a constant struggle going on between the two classes referred to. We probe into the nature of this struggle, and as a result of the study of the economic conditions and the political history of capitalism, is forced to the conclusion that it is through their control of the political machinery of the state that the master class—the owners of the means of life—are able to subject the working class to their wage-slavery position.
The long history of the struggle which has taken place between these two classes is admirably expressed in the life-long labours of Karl Marx, in whose writings is revealed the nature of the struggle and the historical mission which confronts the working class, so far as the future reorganisation of society is concerned.
Inherent in the capitalist system is an antagonism, a conflict of interests—the class struggle. Leaving aside for the moment periods of trade depression, when such conflicts of interests between the workers and the masters are glaring and need a little illustration, let us examine the conditions when so-called peace prevails. Even then the struggle still goes on; the struggle on the part of the worker to obtain as much by the sale of his labour-power as he can get, and the struggle on the part of the master to buy that labour-power at the lowest possible rate. Employers of labour compete for the world’s markets. To do this successfully, up-to-date machinery, the very latest equipment and industrial organisation, efficient workers, are essential for this success.
Further, the workers also compete with one another for jobs. Non-unionised all tend to keep the workers’ wages, in the aggregate, down to the bare cost of subsistence. The fundamental principle of socialism is based on the recognition of the class struggle. The workers will prove their fitness to survive by associating themselves with the work of the Socialist Party. That work consists in resolutely organising for the dethronement of capitalism and the establishment of socialism. Naturally, this work falls upon those who will benefit i.e., the working class.
Help to prove the fitness of your class to survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment