The Socialist Vision

 

A function of the World Socialist Movement is to support any action of the working class against the capitalist class. But to participate in such a way that the workers are educated and have a better understanding of society. By socialism, we mean a system of society where the basis is production for social use carried on by the organised community for its own use collectively and individually. Socialism means a complete change in society in all its aspects. Socialism is essentially revolutionary, politically and economically, as it aims at the complete overthrow of existing economic and political conditions. Capitalism thrives on exploitation. Its logic is that of profit. Its morality is that of self-interest. Socialism, on the other hand, stresses the cooperative rather than the selfish nature of human beings by eliminating the conditions that promote the self-centered thirst for property.The primary contradiction of any capitalist order is between the social character of production and the private appropriation of surplus. Socialism resolves this contradiction through the socialisation of the ownership of the means of production. Its thrust is the development of productive forces so as to accomplish the eradication of both poverty and inequality.

Production is carried on today purely in the interest and for the profit of the class which owns the instruments of production. Socialism would substitute common ownership of these things for class ownership, and this would also involve the abolition of classes altogether. Socialism does not mean government ownership or management. The State of to-day, nationally or locally, is only the agent of the possessing class. The democratic society contemplated by Socialists is a very different thing from the class State of today.

 When society is organised for the control of its own business and has acquired the possession of its own means of production, its officers will not be the agents of a class, and production will be carried on for the use of all and not for the profit of a few.  The Socialist Party has for its conscious and definite aim the common ownership and control of the whole of the world’s industry. The entire means of production thus being common property, there would no longer be a propertied class to make a profit out of the labour of the working class. The division of society into two classes being and classes themselves would disappear.

Socialist conception of ethics is not brotherly love in the Christian sense, although it may, superficially, seem to bear some resemblance to it. Socialism does not presuppose a complete change in human nature and the entire elimination of selfishness, as has been so often asserted. Socialism only calls for enlightened selfishness. But the fact that this selfishness is enlightened, and recognises that it can serve itself only by serving the common interest, will completely change its character, so that it will cease to be the narrow selfishness of to-day, which so often defeats its own ends. Socialism is essentially international. It recognises no distinction between the various nations comprising the modern civilised world. “My country, right or wrong,” the expression of modern patriotism, is the very antithesis of Socialism.

Socialism is being attacked in every country where it is a growing force with the weapons which the reactionary knows have been dipped in the poison of untruth, but which he does not scruple to use until the average person shies away at the very notion of the cooperative commonwealth being established.

A socialist society must be based on common ownership. A regime of private ownership serves as a means for exploiting others.  Common ownership of the means of social production does not mean absolutely no form of personal property or having to borrow each other’s toothbrushes. Personal property is respected, but not ownership of property that is used to exploit others and to create wealth only for personal consumption. 

All we claim for socialism is that it is the next summit which has to be attained in man’s progress onward and upward. This summit hides from our view all that may lie beyond. The goal of socialism once has been attained, and the ground gained will never more be lost.

 What further developments in human social organisation, beyond those socialist forms which we can conceive of at the present time, maybe in store, we do not know. It is enough for us to work for our ideal — the Socialism we can foresee; in which we know must be realised the nearest approach, since man first appeared on this planet.

The Socialist Conception of History.

 

Has there not always been the aggregation of wealth in the hands of a few in all stages of human society?

Certainly there has been a tendency, to such concentration throughout history, if by history be understood the period when civilisation in Egypt and in Asia supervened upon primitive barbaric or tribal society, up to the present time. In its earlier stages this tendency took the form of usury in its crudest phase. Efforts were made in the early Greek democracies to prevent this usury, and to some extent it was mitigated, but its ultimate result was to bring the land, hitherto common property, into the hands of a comparatively few wealthy families.

You speak of primitive barbaric or tribal society, but in what did tribal society differ from civilised society?

Briefly, it differed in that its underlying principle was that of social solidarity and communism, at least in the then principal means of production, the land. As to the tribal solidarity, the individual was of no importance; nay, he was scarcely recognised apart from the social whole to which he belonged. Personal rights as such were unknown; for rights, as such, within the society, only existed between groups, between one clan and another, and one tribe and another, or between federations of tribes. The communism of this primitive society did not, of course, preclude the personal possession of tools, weapons, or other articles of personal use, although this did not enter into the actual structure of the community. The sporadic appearance of private property in a society based on primitive communism no more constituted that society individualistic than the sporadic appearance of phalansteries and such-like communistic “experiments” in a society based upon individualism constitutes that society Communist or Socialist. In both cases we have to consider the essential structure of the social system in question, and not its accidental phenomena.

How do you know that earlier human society was constituted as you say? Where are the proofs of this primitive communism?

To fully answer that question would require a treatise; there are treatises on this subject which may be consulted, but as evidence of the constitution of primitive society being as stated we may instance such examples as survived in the village communities of India before the establishment of British institutions; in the Russian mir, in its older form; in the Arab tribal organisation, and the Javan village communities; in fact, all over the world where the old tribal arrangements of human society, have not been entirely displaced by civilisation in one form or another, may be observed traces of the original primitive communism.

What are the treatises on this subject to which you have referred?

The standard work on this question is the late Emile de Laveleye’s book on “Primitive Property.” Other works which may be referred to on this matter are those of Sir Henry Maine on “Ancient Law,” “Village Communities,” “Early Law and ‘Customs,” Lewis H. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” also Gomme’s “Village Communities,” and several of the writings of the late Professor Robertson Smith. We here only refer to the works on this question which are accessible in the English language; but in other languages there are innumerable treatises on the same subject.

Assuming, then, that your view of early social organisation is the correct one, and that originally the whole of society was based upon group communism, when and how did the change from this primitive communism to civilisation take place?

This change took place at different times in different parts of the world, and a variety of causes have played their part therein. Briefly the change from primitive society may be said to have been generally brought about through the institution of slavery as a consequence of the conflicts between the kinship groups, tribes, or gentes into which primitive human society was divided. Between the tribes — each of which was bound together by real or assumed family ties — there naturally existed considerable hostility, and from this state of things resulted continuous conflicts which necessarily produced slavery. This slavery assumed two more or less distinct forms. Where a migratory tribe or people conquered a settled population, it would, after the fighting was over, allow the vanquished to live on a portion of the conquered lands, on the condition of rendering service to their conquerors, whose serfs they thus became. On the other hand, frequent raids by the tribes or clans on each other produced another kind of slaves; the captives taken in battle were no longer slaughtered on the field when their captors discovered that their labour might be made use of to produce wealth for themselves and these captives became chattel slaves, as much the property of their masters as their horses or their oxen. With chattel slavery or serfdom, as the case might be, thus established, the production of wealth soon outstripped consumption, and with this increase of production, and of the power of production, came inequality in the distribution of goods. The chiefs or leaders were permitted more than their proportion of the general wealth, and thus individualistic or class society began to be established, the first representatives of this class society being usually the chief men of the tribe and their immediate relatives. In the meantime, nomadic peoples had settled down into villages, surrounded by arable and pasture land enclosed by a stockade, and dominated, in hilly countries, by a fortress built on the most prominent height, called in German communities the “bury” or “burg.” Such villages were the beginnings of the “city,” which at first consisted simply of a federation of tribes living within a given area of limited extent, and thus constituting a people.

How do you regard the Middle Ages? Would you describe the system of society of that tine as individualistic or communistic, barbaric or civilised?

The structure of society during the Middle Ages, the basis of which was what is known as the feudal system, cannot properly be described by any of these terms. The society of the Middle Ages partook to a certain extent of the character of both the primitive barbarism and the later civilisation. It retained many of the features of the older system of society, but these were modified by the new conditions. The idea of common property in land still prevailed to a large extent, with the lord of the manor as in a sense trustee for the general body of the local rural community, but also in a degree as lord and owner. In the latter character he claimed service from the villeins for the use of the land which they held, but they on their side could claim his protection as their military chief. The services rendered included military services, and the lord, although asserting or usurping the rights of ownership, was rather the military head of the community, claiming and rendering service as such, than the owner of the soil with rights and privileges but no duties. Under the feudal system we find, therefore, the land still regarded in a sense as the common property of the inhabitants of each feudal manor, subject to certain restrictions and the superior rights of the lord. The common land of a feudal manor was divided into three parts: the pasture, the arable, and the fallow; the pasture was absolutely common to all the inhabitants, and we find the traces of this common pasture land in our “commons” of to-day; the arable land was parcelled out among the various families, and the fallow was that portion of the arable which was allowed to lie idle from one year to another. In addition to these three divisions of land practically held in common there was the forest or woodland — the unreclaimed land, constituting the actual “waste,” from which timber was obtained, firewood was gathered, and into which the pigs and other animals were turned to feed.

But this explanation of the conditions in the Middle Ages only refers to the rural districts; what was the state of things in the towns at that time?

Practically speaking, there were no towns in the earlier period of the Middle Ages. Round certain strongholds collected peasants and handicraftsmen, and these aggregations of industrial life formed the markets which were the centres for such trade as then existed. This, however, does not refer to the towns, numerous in Italy, but few in other parts of Europe, which had continued their existence and had preserved their urban constitution from the period of the Roman civilisation. These, of course, retained the framework of their old industrial, as well as municipal organisation in the narrower sense; hence it was that Italy took the lead of the rest of Europe throughout the Middle Ages in the matter of industry and commerce.

Then did the modern town grow up out of these aggregations of peasants and handicraftsmen around the feudal strongholds to which you have referred?

Yes. The mediaeval towns mostly grew up out of these conditions, and these towns rose to an independent position in the thirteenth century, and reached their zenith in the following century as civic politico-industrial organisations.

How and when, then, did the MEDIAEVAL SYSTEM break up?

It is difficult to assign precise dates for the beginning or ending of any great historical period. But, roughly speaking, the mediaeval system began to show signs of decay in the second half of the fifteenth century, and the process went on rapidly for the next hundred years, till, by the middle of the sixteenth century the change had proceeded so far that the mediaeval system may by that time be regarded as closed, notwithstanding that as survivals many of its institutions continued to exist until long after that period.

What were the causes which brought about this break-up of the mediaeval system?

The institutions of modern capitalism lay in germ in the conditions of the mediaeval system, just as, we Socialists say, the institutions of the future Socialism lie in germ in the conditions of modern capitalism, and it was the growth of these capitalist germs which burst asunder the forms of the mediaeval system, already become old and effete. Various actual and immediate causes may be assigned; among these may be mentioned the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, the invention of firearms and of printing; the discovery of America and the Cape route, and the sudden influx of the precious metals into Europe. The effect of these events and discoveries was to bring about enormous changes in social relations, and to transform the whole conditions of human society.

What form did these changes take?

The first effect of these changes was the opening up of the world market; the aggregation of large accumulations of personal wealth in the hands of individuals; the substitution of money payments for barter, and the rise of the wage system. This aggregation of wealth in the hands of individuals led to the formation of trade or merchant companies or syndicates to exploit the newly opening world market, which were necessarily opposed by the feudal class. As a further consequence of these changes there arose the grouping together of large bodies of wage labourers working for a single employer, and for his profit. This naturally led to the division of labour and the decay of the old trade guilds, whose organisation was a hindrance to this division, and stood in the way of the capitalistic exploitation of labour by this means.

But were these material causes the only ones which operated to bring about the downfall of the mediaeval system and the beginning of commercialism?

There were other causes, certainly, but these we shall have occasion to touch upon later. Those to which we have referred were the chief and primary, although they were reacted upon by other, secondary, causes.

When, then, did the MODERN capitalist system begin?

The modern capitalist system cannot properly be said to have begun before the middle of the sixteenth century. At this period large workshops, in which considerable bodies of workmen were grouped together under one employer for production for profit, began to be organised in the non-chartered towns, or outside the chartered towns themselves, where they were free from the restrictions of the guilds. In the meantime money payments had definitely superseded barter, a change considerably facilitated by the influx of the precious metals from the New World into Europe. By the grouping together of large bodies of workmen under one roof, which was impossible under the guild system, the division of labour was introduced. This paved the way ultimately and by slow degrees to the introduction of the earlier forms of machinery, while the substitution of money payments for barter meant the introduction of a universal equivalent for commodities in all the exchanges in the world market, which was now developing.

In what did the conditions of that time — the middle of the sixteenth century — differ from those of to-day?

The difference is that the forms which then were in their embryonic or primitive stages have now become fully developed At that time, although the labourers were grouped together and their labour began to be sub-divided, this division of labour was as yet in a very primitive stage, and very different from what it is now, and the labour performed was hand-labour assisted by tools or machines worked by hand, instead of the huge, complex, steam-driven machinery of the great industries of to-day. At that time, too, the political power was still almost entirely in the hands of the feudal, or landed aristocracy; the capitalist class had not yet achieved its emancipation from the domination of the older governing class, the bourgeoisie was not then all-powerful, economically, socially, and politically, as it now is.

When and how did this change take place in the conditions of the capitalist system?

Roughly, the beginning of the industrial change may be traced at the commencement of the second half of the eighteenth century, and by the beginning of the nineteenth century it may be said to be fairly established in a number of industries. The political change, which made the capitalist class the dominant political factor, was largely achieved in England in the seventeenth century, with the success of the Cromwellian revolution, carried further by that which placed William of Orange on the throne of England, and fully accomplished with the passing of the Reform Act of 1832. On the Continent of Europe this change may be said to date from the French Revolution.

May we say, then, that the present organisation of society retains the same form in every essential which it assumed at the end of the eighteenth century?

By no means. Society has in the century which has intervened passed through enormous changes on all sides; not only industrially and commercially, but politically, intellectually and morally. Industrially, the grouping together of men in factories and workshops has been followed by the grouping together of factories and workshops, and the aggregation of various industries, simultaneously with the concentration of capital in large masses and the development of railways and other huge industrial enterprises. Commercially there has been still greater concentration of capital in the formation of trusts and syndicates, representing not merely trading, as did the syndicates which grew up towards the close of the feudal system, but the grouping, for commercial profit-making purposes, of a large number of great industrial undertakings, generally allied to each other in some way, but frequently entirely dissimilar. This development has culminated in our own day in the formation of the giant octopus-like combinations which promise to bring all the industrial businesses of the world under the control of a mere handful of enormously wealthy capitalists.

Belfort Bax and H. Quelch 1903

A New Catechism of Socialism

 

A New Catechism of Socialism by Belfort Bax and Harry Quelch (marxists.org)

 

 

“The Kenmure Street Three”

 On 13 May 2021, Glasgow’s southside diverse community came together in their hundreds that day to block a raid by UK immigration officials. Their action was celebrated internationally and became a byword for community spirit and activism. The successful action saw the two detained Indian men – Sumit Sehdev, a chef, and Lakhvir Singh, a mechanic, suspected of overstaying their visas – released to rapturous cheers after an eight-hour standoff.

Police Scotland  arrested and charged a 23-year-old woman and two men, aged 31 and 32, for public order offences and sent a report to the procurator fiscal. The state intends to proceed with prosecutions, with trial dates set for early August.

One protester, who witnessed and filmed the arrests, explained, “The protesters who got arrested did absolutely nothing different to the rest of us,” they said. “It seemed like the police just picked a few people at random to remind everyone that they could, and very much would, arrest us. It seemed unnecessary and brutal as the whole thing was completely peaceful.” 

Anger as protesters who blocked UK immigration raid face day in court | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian

The Socialist View of Economics.

 

In the first place then what has socialism to say with reference to purely economic relations?

Economics divides itself into pure or abstract economics and economics as developed in the concrete in the course of historical evolution. Abstract economics takes no account of the modifying influences of the human mind, whereas in dealing with economics historically full consideration is given to these.

In which category do you place the economic relations of to-day?

While these necessarily have their place in the historical development, they also lend themselves to be treated in the abstract, and we will now proceed to so consider them.

Will you, then, define some of the terms we so often find in treatises on political economy? For example, how do you define WEALTH?

Wealth comprises all material things which serve to satisfy human wants and desires. Economically wealth may be defined as such of these things as are practically limited in quantity or are the result of human labour. Thus all land, cattle, machines, houses, furniture, corn, food, and all products of the land, are included in the economical term wealth, because these are all either practically limited in quantity or are the result of human labour; air, on the other hand, could not be described as wealth, because, useful and necessary as it is, it is practically unlimited, and is not the product of human labour.

How do you define LABOUR, economically?

Labour, economically, means productive labour, or labour employed in producing useful objects, i.e., wealth, as above defined.

What is the distinction between wealth and CAPITAL? Is all wealth, capital or is all capital wealth?

Capital means wealth which is employed by its owners, not merely for purposes of production, as, for instance, a hand tool may be by its owner, but which is used, by those possessing it, for the purpose of profit by the labour of others, or as a natural monopoly to tax the consumers.

Then Robinson Crusoe’s wheel-barrow or canoe could not be regarded as capital, as is alleged by some economists?

Certainly not, unless Robinson used the wheel-barrow as a means of making profit out of the labour of Man Friday, that is to say, employed the latter to dig out gold or to grow grain and afterward wheel it down to the coast, there to be taken to the markets of the world to be sold for the profit of Robinson himself.

Does, then, the use of the means of production for the employment of the labour of another person constitute those means of production capital?

Strictly speaking, yes, although the mere direct employment of one man by another, as in the case of Robinson and his Man Friday, is of itself but a very rudimentary form of capitalism. The terms CAPITAL, CAPITALIST, and CAPITALISM, as generally used, imply considerable concentrations of the means of production in the hands of one person or a comparatively small number of persons, and the payment of wages for the labour employed in the use of these means of production, in such wise that the total product remains the property of the possessors of the capital used. Thus capital and capitalism imply the existence of a whole series of social conditions in which the users of the tools, the means of production, have no ownership or control over the tools which they use. The terms of the bargain between capitalists and non-capitalists are, therefore, the following: We are the proprietors of the whole produce of our property, our tools, and we agree to pay a small proportion out of this product to you, the actual producers.

What is the meaning of the term VALUE, as used by economists?

A variety of meanings have been given to the term value, but the meaning we attach to it is that of the classical economists, Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others, i.e., value represents the relative amount of average social labour embodied in any useful article.

But does not the usefulness, rarity, or other quality of an article constitute its value?

To some extent, yes; as before stated, various meanings are attached to the term, both by certain economists and in common phraseology. For instance, value is often confounded with the useful quality of an article, its rarity, or even its price in the market. But on examination it will be found that these definitions merely refer to the forms in which value manifests itself, and not to that permanent clement which constitutes value at all times and places where exchange takes place — in other words, that which is its essential character.

But do not people when they speak of value mean the useful quality of an article rather than the amount of labour embodied its that article, or its cost of production its labour?

That is, undoubtedly, the popular idea, but it is a mistaken one. The true economic value of an article is not determined by its usefulness at all, but, except in cases of a monopoly, by the actual amount of socially-necessary labour embodied in it. This applies to all articles the production of which can be carried on to a practically unlimited extent. Even in cases where value might be supposed to be due to scarcity, as with gold and silver and precious stones, it will be seen on examination that the value is really determined by the amount of average labour expended in producing these things. It is only in the case of articles which cannot be reproduced, such as rare pictures, etc., or where there is a complete monopoly, that the element of scarcity enters into value.

You assert that the basis of all value is the amount of labour embodied its an article, but how can you show that this is the case?

It is quite clear that the production, that is to say, the making or even the finding, of any useful article involves a certain amount of average labour, and it is equally clear that two persons, exchanging two articles, would seek to get value for value. Say, for instance, one man has a pair of boots, which he wishes to exchange with another man for a quarter of wheat; it is quite clear that as articles of use there is no duality in common between the boots and the wheat, and the only way in which the two parties to the exchange can determine if they are getting value for value is by taking into consideration the amount of labour each article has cost to produce. Wheat and boots are alike the product of labour, that is the one quality which they have in common, that is the one quality by which they can be measured the one against the other, and thus it is clear that it is the amount of labour each article contains which gives it value.

That sounds very well in theory, but as a matter of fact people do not judge of the value of the things which they buy in that way, and besides they have no means of judging. How can the man with the wheat tell how much the boots cost in labour to produce, or what does the man with the boots know about the labour-cost of the wheat? Both are in the dark, So is it not more than likely that one or the other gives more value than he gets?

This may be, and as a matter of fact it is very seldom indeed in the actual exchange of commodities that each one exchanges for precisely its value, but what is lost on the one hand is gained on the other, and so over the whole area of exchanges, the gains and losses cancel each other, and the basis of the total sum of value of all the commodities exchanged would finally resolve itself into the amount of labour they have cost to produce.

But admitting that is so, and that it is the amount of labour put into any article which gives it its value, is it not more than likely that two men making precisely the same kind of things will require a longer or shorter time to make the same article; and thus one article of the same kind will contain very much more labour than another?

That is quite true, but it is clear that it is only the necessary amount of labour which can give value; therefore it is always essential, in speaking of labour as the basis of value, to bear in mind that it is average labour, or socially necessary labour, which is meant.

You have used the term COMMODITIES once or twice; what do you mean by commodities? Is a commodity the same thing as an article of use; that is to say, are all useful articles commodities?

Commodities are articles of use produced for exchange. The chief object of practically all labour to-day is the production of useful articles, not for use, but for the market; to be put upon the market for exchange. The owners of the means of production are not greatly concerned with the utility of the articles which they are engaged in producing; a boot manufacturer, far instance, has no special interest in the production of boots, as boots; what he is concerned with is the production of boots as a commodity, as something to sell, in order to make a profit.

Is the profit of the manufacturer, then, made its the course of exchange on the market?

No. If that were so it would be necessary for each manufacturer or dealer on the market to sell above the cost of production, and that, as we have already pointed out, is impossible. The sellers are also buyers, and although some may buy or sell above the cost, while others may buy or sell below the cost, still, as we have already said, these differences necessarily balance each other, and in the total of exchanges there is neither loss nor profit, although generally the whole body of those engaged in exchange participate in it for the purpose of profit, and generally make a profit.

But if the profit is not made in exchange, how is it made? You say the capitalist only enters into production in order to produce commodities to put upon the market for exchange and that he does this for the purpose of profit, and that he usually makes a profit in the process; yet you say that the profit is not made in exchange. If not, where and how is it made, and where is it? “If Peter Piper picked a peck of pepper, where is the peck of pepper Peter Piper picked?”

In the answer to that question lies the kernel of the whole capitalist system of production for profit, with its exploitation and impoverishment of the proletariat. Profit is not made on the market, but in the workshop, in the mine and the factory. Profit is derived from the surplus value which is wrung from the unpaid labour of the workers.

What is this SURPLUS-VALUE, and how is it created?

Surplus-value is the difference between the cost of labour-power to the capitalist and the amount of labour-power he is able to extract from his work-people.

What do you mean by LABOUR-POWER?

Labour-power is the capacity for labour inherent in the workman, and it is this capacity or quality which the capitalist buys in the labour market as a commodity. We are assuming a modern capitalist society in which there are no slaves, and the workmen are free. Consequently the capitalist does not buy the workman, neither does he buy labour; that is to say, labour actually expended or in operation. What he buys, when he engages a workman for a given time, is the power to labour contained in the body of the labourer.

You, speak of this labour-power as being bought by the capitalist as a commodity; do you then mean to suggest that it is subject to the same laws as govern other commodities?

Precisely. The labourer and the capitalist meet on the market, the one as seller the other as buyer, in the same way as do the buyers and sellers of other commodities.

Does labour-power, then, exchange according to its cost of production in labour as do other commodities?

Certainly. The exchange-value of labour-power is precisely the same as that of any other commodity, determined by the amount of socially necessary human labour expended in its production; in other words, and in the language usually employed by economists, the return to labour — WAGES — is determined by the cost of subsistence of the labourer. For it is by this subsistence that the labour- power is continually reproduced.

But if the value of labour-power bought by the capitalist is determined by its cost of production in labour, and the commodities this labour-power is employed to produce have also their value determined in the same way, i.e., by the amount of labour incorporated in them, how is this surplus-value of which you have spoken created?

The capitalist buys labour-power at its cost of production in labour, but the amount of labour which the workman expends, that is to say, the capacity for labour, or the labour-power, which the capitalist buys, and which the workman incorporates in the commodities he produces, is a very much greater quantity than is expended in the production of that labour-power, and it is this difference, a difference which the capitalist gets for nothing, which constitutes surplus-value.

But how does the capitalist secure this surplus-value without paying for it? If the workman is free, why cannot he insist on receiving, not the mere exchange-value of his commodity, “labour-power,” but the full value of the labour he expends for the capitalist?

The capitalist obtains this surplus-value owing to his monopoly of the means of production, which enables him to extend the working day, beyond the hours necessary to produce the subsistence of the labourer; by the employment of machinery, by which the labour of the workman is made more effective; and by the organisation of labour, which has the effect of intensifying the expenditure of labour. The labourer cannot, as a rule, command more than the actual exchange-value of his commodity, that is to say, his cost of subsistence, in return for his labour-although his wages, like the prices of all commodities, sometimes rise above this and sometimes fall below — because, although apparently free, he is really not free. He must sell his labour-power in order to live; he has no other commodity to dispose of, and, having no ownership in or control over the means of production, he cannot employ himself. Consequently, he has to find a purchaser for his commodity and must accept the terms that purchaser will offer — subject only to two conditions, his own cost of subsistence and the fluctuations of the market. This principle, that the return to labour is determined by the cost of subsistence of the labourer, is generally known as the “Iron Law of Wages.”

But has not this law been discarded even by some Socialists?

There have been attempts in some quarters to demonstrate that this law does not actually operate with the rigidity at first claimed for it; but, in truth, it stands as firmly to-day as when insisted upon by Lassalle. The variations or modifications in its operation no more destroy its validity as a general economic law, than the fact that no bodies ever proceed in a direct line, owing to disturbances due to friction, disproves the first law of motion, or the law of gravitation.

Does not the machinery to which you just now referred as being used to make the labour of the workmen more effective, itself produce what you describe as surplus-value?

No. This machinery itself is the product of labour, and is, as we have pointed out, used for the purpose of exploiting labour; but of itself it creates no value. The sum total of the value of a commodity represents the sum total of the average labour employed in its production, including that involved in producing the raw material and the amount of the wear and tear of the machinery used up in the commodity, but the surplus-value comes from unpaid labour only.

Then this surplus-value, as you call it, is merely the profit of the capitalist. Why, then, do you use the term surplus-value, instead of simply speaking of it as profit?

Because the profit of the immediate capitalist employer only forms a portion of the total surplus-value. Out of that total the landlord draws his rent for the land upon which the factory is built; the owner of the factory takes a share himself as rent for the factory; as do also the middleman, the dealer, and all those who handle the commodities for the purpose of making a profit. The fees of the lawyer who maybe engaged in drawing up the deeds, etc., the tithes of the clergy, the salaries of public officers, and in short the rewards or payments of all those who are not themselves engaged in the immediate work of production, these, as well as the remuneration of the contractor engaged in the building of the factory or repairing the machinery; the profit of the broker who sells the raw material, and so on, are all derived from the surplus-value wrung from the unpaid labour of the workers.

But, surely, there are some among the functions even of the State of to-day, as, for instance, the administration of public affairs, which must be paid for from some source, and which, benefit the whole community including the workers themselves; how are these to be remunerated if there is to be no profit at all, or no surplus-value and the workers are paid in full?

It is quite true, as regards the State of to-day, that certain functions are useful and necessary, but many of these functions would be abrogated in the industrial organisation under Socialism. The whole of the administrative work of society would then he necessarily very much simplified, and that which was necessary would, of course, have to be borne, directly or indirectly, by the whole of the members of the social body. Practically, all useful functions then would be public functions — not only those of administration — which would be comprised in the useful work of the community, and each would have to bear his share. This, obviously, involves neither profit nor the capitalistic exploitation of labour.

Then are we to understand that Socialists do not accept the theory of the division of profit, as stated by the orthodox political economy, into Wages of Superintendence, Indemnification for Risk, and Reward of Abstinence (Interest on Loan)?

We certainly do not accept this theory, which is a very lame attempt to explain and justify the profit-making system. Although a portion of profit is spoken of as Wages of Superintendence, it is clear that in so far as such wages are strictly a return for the useful work of management, they are not profit at all, and it is only by a misuse of terms that profit can be so described. The term Wages of Superintendence, however, is generally only a fancy phrase applied by the capitalist to a portion of his profits, and bears no relation whatever to wages in any shape, or to any useful service which the capitalist may perform. As to Indemnification for Risk, the capitalist might so describe a portion of his profit, but as a matter of fact this is purely speculative, as there is no relation between his profit and his risk; while the less said about the abstinence for which he claims to be rewarded the better.

Do you mean to say, then, that the capitalist does not perform a useful function in running a risk for the profit he receives?

For the profit he receives, no. In so far as he exercises the function of management and receives remuneration for this, his remuneration is, as we have already pointed out, not profit at all, but wages of superintendence, and the functions of management would be undertaken by the organised society of the future through its appointed representatives. As to any necessary risk, all individuals would be relieved from this under Socialism, as it would be borne by the whole of society.

But admitting all you say with regard to present conditions, and the exploitation of labour; and granting that some such organisation of society for production for use, as you suggest, were realised, is it not a fact that the total amount of wealth is insufficient to provide anything more than a very poor standard of comfort for all, even if it were equally divided? Admitting that the extremes of squalid poverty and luxurious wealth which we see now were done away with, would it not result in a dead level of mean and sordid existence for all, at best equal to that of the modern artisan or petty clerk?

That is by no means the case. Even under present conditions the total wealth produced would, if equitably divided, amount to a value equal to more than £200 per year per family, which represents a much higher standard than that referred to. But to suppose that any mere distributive readjustment is what is meant by Socialism is to entirely misunderstand what Socialism really involves. Socialism means the complete reorganisation of production as well as distribution. With production scientifically and socially organised, the productivity of labour would be quintupled, and the amount of wealth would be increased in proportion.

But how would the social organisation of labour, as you say, increase its productivity so enormously?

To begin with, by the saving of the tremendous waste of labour which goes on to-day. All the labour employed in advertising, canvassing, travelling for orders, all the printing, railway, warehouse and other work connected with this, is so much wasted labour; it is entirely unproductive, so far as useful wealth is concerned, and would be quite unnecessary if wealth were produced for use. Then there is the waste of labour involved in the use of obsolete methods, and in the employment of men and women to do work which could be more expeditiously performed by machines, simply because more profit is made by employing the men and women, owing to their labour being cheaper than machinery. And further, there is the inevitable waste of wealth under present circumstances due entirely to the system of production for profit, which makes it often more profitable to destroy wealth or to limit its quantity, rather than, to preserve or increase it. All this would be changed, and the vast mass of labour now wasted would be transferred to useful production, were society organised on a Socialist basis.

But might not this greater productivity be to some extent counterbalanced by greater waste in consumption?

On the contrary, with society properly organised there would be, with the unrestricted enjoyment of wealth, very much less waste — in both labour and material — in consumption. That is to say, the consumption or enjoyment of wealth would be more organised, more social, and less individualistic than it is to-day, with the result that while being the reverse of niggardly it would be infinitely less wasteful than now. For instance, with socially organised enjoyment of wealth it would be possible to have much better food, with the best cooking, serving, etc., for all, and that would be more economical than under the individualistic life of to-day. So with other departments; locomotion would be more economical when social than to-day, where the individual has his own horse or his own carriage; washing would be better and more economically done if socially organised; large dining-halls might take the place of the innumerable little dining-rooms of the present; while the fifty little drawing-rooms of the fifty suburban villas, attended by the fifty “slaveys” of the present time, might be replaced by splendid salons, in which people would meet with much more ease, pleasure and comfort than our present social life affords; and all this without in any way trenching upon the reasonable privacy of individual life. Here it must be distinctly understood that we are not dogmatising as to what will be, but simply suggesting what may be done, in at least one way, to economise consumption by a proper organisation.

Talking of the higher standard of living of the future is it not a fact that the standard of life nowadays, in consequence of the greater productivity of labour through the development of machinery, is very much higher, even among the working classes, than it was, say, fifty or a hundred years ago? Has not it been shown by figures?

In a sense that is true, but only to a very limited extent. A certain proportion of the working-class, i.e., the skilled workers, have probably attained a higher standard of living than those of fifty or a hundred years ago; but these are only a very small minority, and the difference between them and the great mass of the working class, whose position has not been improved at all, is proportionately greater. Furthermore, the improvement, even so far as this minority is concerned, has to be discounted by the fact that labour is much more intense than formerly, in consequence of machinery, so that more is taken out of a man in a day’s work, and in consequence better living is required in order to keep him in a fit state for working; added to which, employment is, generally speaking, much more precarious, and in a bad season he is worse off than ever before. Then, again, the purchasing power of money has decreased to a very great extent, so that the same nominal wages are not really worth as much as formerly. Figures only go to show that the number of those paying income-tax has increased, from which he appears to conclude that the general body of the people must be better off. But the increase in the number of income-tax payers is fully accounted for by the ordinary growth of population; their proportion to the rest of the community is the same as formerly, and thus the mere increase in their numbers is no evidence at all that the general standard of living is higher.

Is not this fact of the increase is the number of income-tax payers often adduced to show that the Socialist theory, that wealth and capital tend to concentrate into fewer mid fewer hands, is fallacious?

Certainly this is often attempted to be done by those who have never taken the trouble to understand what the Socialist theory of the concentration of wealth and capital really means. But as a matter of fact the increase in the number of income-tax payers proves nothing of the kind. The concentration of wealth and capital into the hands of a comparatively few people, and the corresponding augmentation of the mass of misery, is a fact too glaringly obvious to be disputed, and it is easy to see that the number of people paying income-tax might increase considerably without any increase in the total amount of wealth shared among the general body of these, at the same time that the aggregation and concentration of wealth increased enormously and the masses of the people become still more impoverished. The same argument applies to the statements that are sometimes made with regard to the deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank and similar institutions, and the evidence these afford of the increased well-being of the mass of the people. As a matter of fact, most of these deposits are pitifully small and their owners miserably poor; it is only the few who possess considerable sums, or are much above beggary. So far from these deposits proving the well-being of the workers, they are monuments to their patience in misery. They have been laid up against the ever-threatening “rainy-day,” and as soon as that rainy-day comes these small hoards are swept away at once.

Belfort Bax and H. Quelch 1903

A New Catechism of Socialism

 

A New Catechism of Socialism by Belfort Bax and Harry Quelch (marxists.org)