All wealth is created by the labour of the working-class
alone which produces wealth by expending their labour upon natural resources. Therefore,
it should be owned and controlled by the community. The working-class can
abolish classes altogether and bring into being a class-free society, which
will democratically own and control the means of life in the interest of the
whole community—not in the interest of a class which has ceased to exist.
The essential thing
is that the member of the working-class has to sell his or her labour-power in
order to live. Beside this salient fact all else pales into insignificance. The
differences of dress, pay, education, habits, work, and so on that are to be
observed among those who have to sell their working power in order to live are
as nothing compared with the differences which mark them off from the
capitalists. No matter how well paid the former is, or how many have to obey
commands and has a master. He or she has to render obedience to another, to
someone who can inflict the torments of unemployment. Because we have to sell
our labour-power, our whole life must be lived within prescribed limits. The
release from labour is short and seldom and we have no security of livelihood
for there is always the fear that a rival may displace us. The Socialist Party does not question the
need for organisation in industry. What we do question is that capitalist
argument that industry is, and must be, directed by capitalists. It is, in the
main, already directed by salaried employees, members of the working class.
Only in the field of financial operations do we find capitalists themselves
normally engaged and even these operations are more and more being performed by
paid employees. The capitalist class own and control industry. They do not
direct it. Men who boasted how much personal interest they took in the control
of their business were pushed aside, crushed or swallowed up by the men who had
a finger in hundreds or thousands of different businesses and who took no
personal interest in manufacture. Personal control and personal supervision
played a good part in the early days of the business, but the time arrived in
economic competition when mere personal control, brains and knowledge of an
actual industry, no longer decided who was victor in the world of industry.
There is the lesson—ownership of wealth and more wealth is
the winning card. Finance buys up the personally-conducted businesses and
becomes the ruler of more and more workers. Shall the octopus grow or will the
men and women who do the actual work in business and industry learn that they
can run society without the parasite—financial or industrial? The Socialist
Party has always warned against workers following leaders, even if and when the
leaders seemed people of some quality. Workers must do their own thinking. But
how much more sensible does our advice appear when it is obvious that the
famous names who monopolise the media and make sure that a socialist voice is
almost never heard, are such obvious nincompoops. Wake up, ye wage-slaves. You
can’t possibly be as blind as the moronic specimens who lead you. There would
be no leaders in a socialist society, since leadership implies the blind
following by a majority of a minority and under socialism the majority would be
politically conscious and mature. The leaders of capitalism will be replaced by
the delegates of socialism. Those with a flair for administration might well
become the servants of socialism in the work of distributing wealth and organizing
services in the interests of the world society.
"Is there enough wealth for all?” is a common question
put by anti-socialists. The existence of luxury all round us and the stored-up
wealth that cannot find a market to-day is one aspect of the answer. In modern
society the ease with which wealth can be produced means lack of work for the
worker but only to assure the maintenance of owners’ profits. More wealth could
be produced but it does not "pay” the owners to allow that to be done. But
what would be the possibilities of wealth production in a society where the
workers had access to the raw materials and the machines?
On the introduction of socialism millions of people will be
released from currently useless, harmful and degrading jobs to undertake all
kinds of useful work of their own choosing. There will be no shortage of labour
in the form of interested minds and willing hands liberated from such
occupations as the armed and police forces, the armies of insurance and other
salesmen, accountants and income-tax workers, to mention just a few, necessary
under capitalism. Accountants would no longer have to spend most of their time
balancing the books of capitalism’s looting systems. Men and women good at
figures would be required to calculate the needs of society and to make sure
that the outputs of the various industries were always in good supply
everywhere and that all resources were most efficiently used. Architects in socialist society would find their scope infinitely extended, presented with a free
and full horizon open to them to produce beautiful and functional buildings to
meet the varying wishes and needs of people. Currently a doctor’s calling
involves patching up the workers so that they can continue to supply it.
Research workers seeking the cure for today’s incurable diseases have to
tolerate the painfully slow progress of their efforts because of lack of funds,
whilst watching enormous resources being expended in military and space
research. In socialism all the achievements of medical science would be devoted
to the enjoyment of good health by all. Workers in hotels and restaurants would
choose their job because they enjoyed rendering that particular service. There
would be no servility nor class distinction about this, no ingratiation, no
bitterness caused by “inadequate tipping” and the worker would enjoy the same
good living as the diner. Even the most basic contribution to creative work
would enrich and alter the lives of so many so radically. One could multiply
indefinitely such examples of the fruitful and satisfying work open to men in a
sane order of society. Only socialism can offer this
The Socialist Party has a clear view on what socialism is,
and how it will be achieved. Socialism will be a society in which all the means
by which wealth is produced and distributed will be under the common ownership
and democratic control of the whole community. Of necessity, it will be a
worldwide system because the means of production and distribution are
worldwide. There will be no wage or price system as things will be produced
solely for use and not for sale. People will work to the best of their ability
and take according to their needs. The nature of socialism shows that it can
only be achieved by the conscious and independent action of a clear majority.
It is the job of the Socialist Party to help build that majority. We do not
deprecate the struggles of workers but we insist that they must understand the
class basis of those struggles. Without that consciousness all their efforts
will eventually be futile. Once socialists are in the majority, they will have
to get hold of the state machinery to prevent it being used against them.
Socialist delegates elected to the various assemblies of the capitalist
nation-states by a socialist working class would have this control, and would
leave any recalcitrant capitalists in a virtually helpless position. The
capitalist class only maintain their order with the active support or
acquiescence of the workers. Once they lose this and are faced with an organised,
uncompromising working class it will be plain to all what they are—a socially
useless, parasitic minority living off the backs of the workers.