Why socialism must prevail

 Since capitalism came into existence, it has had its many evils. Moreover, these evils have weighed heavily upon the mass of the people, upon those who do the work, the working-class. Hurriedly constructed hovels, unemployment for some and excessive toil for others, malnutrition—these are just a few of the evils that capitalism generates and which must be borne by the working-class only. Not for the rich employing class are these evils, for they all spring from the poverty which afflicts those who must work.

Now for many years, in fact since the early days of capitalism, efforts have been made to make the lot of the worker more bearable, to ease the chafing of his chains. The reformists who busy themselves with this task start with the assumption that capitalism will remain. Any changes they advocate are to be brought about within the framework of capitalism. This is the essence of reformism. Capital and wage-labour, the two bases of capitalism, they leave fundamentally untouched. They do not seek to eradicate these roots of capitalism. They merely try to lessen the pains inflicted on society by the capitalism system.

Herein lies the weakness of reformism.

Capitalism cannot be so modified by reform measures that it becomes “the best of possible worlds” for the working-class. All reformist efforts to solve the fundamental problems of the workers are bound to fail. An analysis of capitalism will show why this is so.

Capitalism, it must be understood, is a system of a society organised so as to provide profit to the owners of industry, the capitalist class. To do this, the wage-worker is set to work, and what he produces belongs to the employers, the capitalists. The wage-worker is given back, in the form of wages, only a portion of what he produces; the rest, the surplus, the capitalist owner retains. Thus is the worker exploited and kept on the poverty line, for the portion he receives as wages is just about sufficient to keep him fit enough to perform his particular job and reproduce his kind—future wage-slaves for the service of the capitalist class. Hence the worker is born poor, he lives his life in poverty and dies still poor.

Frequently, to increase his profit (part of the surplus we spoke of), or to compete more successfully in the markets of the world, the capitalist cuts down his production costs. Then he seeks to enforce wage reductions, or he may replace workmen by labour-saving machinery or by adopting a new technique. Moreover, the growth of the unemployment problem has been particularly favourable to the capitalist class in its attack upon the workers’ standard of living, for as soon as there is a reserve army of unemployed workers, the keeping down of wages becomes a more simple matter for the owners of industry, since the workers compete with each other for jobs.

The motive power of capitalism being the lust for profit, any wage increases won by the workers are, if possible, offset by the employing class, for wage increases mean an attack on profits. Hence wage increases are usually the signal for the introduction of more labour saving devices, of more machinery. Thus, very frequently, more production is squeezed out of fewer workers. The exploitation of the worker becomes more intense.

From the foregoing brief examination of capitalism we can see why reformists must fail to solve the workers’ problems. Whatever reforms are introduced, so long as the present system remains, the following evils will persist: —

1. The bulk of what the workers produce will be taken from them.

2. They will be kept on or near the poverty line, and will be thus forced to continue in a slave position, dependent on the capitalist class for a living. They will still stand in need of doles, old age pensions and all the other accessories of poverty.

Just one other point about the weakness of reformism. It is an important point. Often reforms carried to improve the lot of the worker prove but of short duration. Should they be of inconvenience to the capitalist class in whose interests present-day society operates, they are, as soon as a favourable opportunity arises, either abandoned altogether or modified to the disadvantage of the workers. All that is necessary is for an industrial crisis or a war to arise—and both these come crashing in on us with regularity—and years of effort for reform measures are as nothing. Then we must say good-bye to the reforms “for the time being,” or at least the reforms are drastically altered. It will suffice if we remind the reader of the crisis of 1929-31 with all its cuts. The impermanence of reforms, therefore, is a fundamental weakness of the reformist position.

The lesson the Socialist Party has learnt from all this is that the ills afflicting the working-class are due to capitalism, with its profit-making motive. We have just shown why the Socialist Party is opposed to reformism. But we have heard it uttered that the Labour Party ought not to be so opposed because really it isn’t anti-working class.

 

The Socialist Party, on the other hand, must point out on all occasions that if the present system is maintained with its problems of wages, profits, prices, currency, etc., poverty will always be the workers’ reward.

Because no salvation is possible for the worker under capitalism, we are out to abolish it and to replace it by socialism. We aim at nothing less because we know nothing less will satisfy the needs of the class to which we belong. It is also for this reason that we are opposed to all other parties, all of which, at the most, aim merely at modifications of present-day society.

The workers should study socialism. That is the first step towards their salvation. We are confident that a little study will convince them that only by going to the root of their problems can their position be permanently improved. They will realise the need for abandoning reform movements. They will realise the need for revolutionary action, for replacing capitalism by socialism, that is by a society wherein there will be no private property, no profit making and no wages. Socialism is, in fact, a social system wherein the means of life belong to all society and wherein, consequently, production is carried on to satisfy the needs of society. Socialism, having no “ulterior motive,” will make unnecessary the present-day strivings for “a living wage” (which still leaves the workers robbed of the bulk of what they produce). Let the worker, then, change his motto. With Marx, we say, “Instead of the Conservative motto, ‘A fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work !’ they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wages system !’ ”

The Socialist Party stands for the revolutionary transformation of society. Because of this and because history has proved that a party for revolution cannot be built up on reform programmes, the S.P.G.B. does not seek to win support by advocating reforms.

We do not expect, therefore, to gain the support of people still unconvinced of the need for socialism—nor do we desire to be supported by non-socialists. Until the majority desire and are prepared to organise for the specific job of establishing socialism, the achievement of the new society is an impossibility. Our task now then is, to propagate socialist principles, to make socialists. Non-socialists, people interested in the reform of capitalism, would hamper us in that job.

Then, again, as  Karl Liebknecht showed long ago in his “No Compromise,” once a revolutionary party begins to compromise with capitalism and is willing to help in its administration and reform, such a party is doomed as a weapon for socialism. It ceases to be revolutionary.

The reason for this is plain to see. Once a party adopts reform programmes, it appeals to many kinds of people who are anything but socialist. The result is that the socialists are swamped, and socialism is pushed further and further into the background on the party programme; socialism ceases to be the object of the party.

Workers desiring socialism should, therefore, remember these things and study the case of the S.P.G.B.. They should refuse to give their support to any party which, while claiming to be socialist, fights elections on a reformist programme. Such parties could not introduce socialism even if they won power. Their mandate would be for the reform of capitalism, not for socialism.

It should be obvious that such left-wing parties which use plenty of revolutionary jargon but which have suitable reform programmes ready for time and place cannot bring to an end the workers’ wage-slavery. Socialism alone will do that, and such parties are merely reformists.

Let the workers, then, reject reformism, and embrace revolution. Let them cease to spend their forces on reformist futilities. Let them concentrate their strength in the S.P.G.B.—the weapon for socialism that will not falter.

 

The Real Brain Drain (video)

 

Socialist Answers

 

Turning our attention to the species homo sapiens, we see a creature possessing various emotional tendencies, such as love, fear, joy, etc., which, if freed from the effect of economic repression, would enable a full and varied existence to be lived.

Now it should be noted that there is no biological distinction between working people and the capitalist class. The distinction between the worker and the capitalist is one of property ownership. The capitalists own the means by which life is sustained—i.e., the land, factories, workshops, etc.—while the workers possess only their ability to work.

Arising out of this class ownership of the means of life, the worker finds oneself condemned to spend most of his or her waking life either toiling as a wage-slave or looking for the chance to become one. This sordid existence robs the worker of any initiative as well as the fruits of one’s labour, strangles emotional life, and tends to reduce us all to the level of a beast of burden.

The cure for this condition lies in the abolition of the private ownership of the means of living. This in its turn will bring us freedom from the curse of wage slavery. Therefore, let socialism become the aim of a politically enlightened working class. Keep the goal of socialism ever before us; do not lose sight of it in squabbles over such things as a bonus system of payment, etc.

Notwithstanding the hopes of some worker-optimists and the fears of some capitalists, capitalism will not disappear of its own accord. It will change some of its features but it cannot disappear until such time as the working class of the world is ready to establish socialism, and that cannot be until much more has been done to propagate socialist ideas.

Nevertheless, there will be changes. It is a fairly safe assumption that there will be re-grouping and that in place of the present multiplicity of States the world will be effectively controlled by a smaller number of large Empires and Federations. There are, however, two things that we can see clearly enough, first the continuance of the main capitalist rivalries in international trade, and secondly the ideas which will guide the efforts at reform on the part of various interested parties.

 Beyond urging every effort to safeguard democracy they have no practical proposals to offer; in which respect they are like all the other non-socialist planners of the New Order. It is a problem to which there is no solution short of Socialism here and in the world as a whole. Proponents of a New Order insist on the desirability of raising the standard of living of the world’s population. But before human welfare can be the aim and object of international policy that aim and that object have got to be adopted by those who control the government and that cannot be while capitalism is the established order of society. The aim of the capitalist, whether individually or through capitalist trading and industrial associations or through governments, is and must continue to be the production and sale of goods for profit. Governments may come under the control of men or parties which profess other aims, but so long as they have the task of administering capitalism it will be the profit motive, not the idealistic aim, that will and must determine their conduct and policy at home and in the international field.

There will be no essential change until all the means of production and distribution are brought under common ownership and democratic control with production solely for use and the complete elimination of rent, interest and profit.

The workers will decide. Changes are needed! For the present, at any rate, everybody seems to agree on that point. We ask the workers to consider carefully these questions: What kind of a change is it going to be? Is it to be only the reform of present-day society, capitalism? This is the kind of change the capitalist class and their supporters envisage. Or will the workers act in their own interest, and perform the revolutionary act of abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism?

We ask the workers these questions because the nature of the change society undergoes will depend upon their choice. This is a point too frequently forgotten in these days when the world has so many so-called “great men.” Yes, the choice rests with the working-class. If they want reforms, mere modifications of capitalism which will still leave them fundamentally in the same position as they occupy to-day, they can have them. On the other hand, should they decide to have done once and for all with capitalism, its private property, profits and privileges for the few and its wage-slavery and poverty for the vast majority, there is no one who can prevent them.

The lesson is plain, therefore; in highly developed capitalist countries the workers, the bulk of the population, can decide how society is going to be changed. Should the workers support plans for the reform of capitalism? Or should they take matters into their own hands, abolish the present system, and establish socialism?

Who Are Really Revolutionary?

There is a real class division and a recession brings it out more clearly than ever. There is a small minority who own substantial capital, which is applied to live off the backs of the others. The people who have got it have always got it. It is the state, with its machinery of coercion which holds the conditions condemning the workers to sell themselves piecemeal into lifelong slavery. It is the state that repels every attack upon the property rights of the master class by starving strikers or unemployed, and which, by doing so. makes the workers’ struggle a political one.

Capitalism itself develops the means whereby human society can produce the abundance of wealth which is essential for socialism but also hampers this process because its priority is profit, not human satisfaction. Humanity possesses the knowledge of how to harness natural resources so as to have produced enough to adequately feed, clothe and shelter the entire world’s population. But it doesn’t happen, of course.The aim of capitalism is not to satisfy people’s needs or raise their standard of living. The driving force of capitalism is to make a profit for those who own and control the means of living so that they can further increase their wealth by accumulating it in the form of additional capital. This does lead to an increase in productive capacity and, in some parts of the world, has led to increased living standards. But nobody can claim that capitalism has been able to produce and distribute enough so that every man, woman and child on this planet is adequately fed, clothed and sheltered. Is it not more than time that they organised to replace the chaotic, unplanned, society of capitalism with one in which rational planning, and the satisfaction of needs, social and individual, are paramount?

Reforms are justified on the grounds of expediency; they are, it is claimed, the strategy of revolution. The “revolutionary reformist” position is found generally in Trotskyist circles. Superficially the idea that workers can be led to socialism seems plausible. Why is it proposed to engage in time and energy in order to organise the majority of workers behind a reformist programme. The answer given by inference and direct statement is that a majority of the workers are incapable of reaching that socialist understanding necessary for them to organise for socialism. Certainly “revolutionary reforms” and “demands” have had a long vogue, alongside of other “revolutionary” nostrums, such as the “day-to-day struggle,” particularly since the days of the Bolshevik revolution, out of the experiences of which event directly arose much of the “revolutionary” theorising of recent years. Now this is what the position of the “revolutionary reformist” comes to. Workers who reject socialism now because they are not capable of understanding it would, at some time in the future, allow the right leaders to lead them to it. Further, the workers would allow themselves to be led to socialism after having rejected it in favour of reforms. Truly our revolutionary reformists are modern political miracle pedlars. Examine the “trade union consciousness” argument. It damns our opponent who used it; for it was used for nothing if not to show that these workers (who, be it remembered, have reached a fairly ripe stage of historical consciousness) are interested as trade unionists only in wages and conditions of work and not in socialism, and that the workers generally could not rise above this level; that workers’ minds being dominated by the petty details and haggling over the wages system, they are incapable of understanding society being organised without the wages system and all that it means. Yet our “revolutionary reformists” are going to lead workers whose lives and conceptions are bound up with the wages system to a system where there will be no wages. If it is their position that the workers could be led to something they do not understand, and therefore do not want, without resistance, they have to explain why it is that workers (with a “trade union consciousness”) tenaciously hang on to the wages system now and reject that to which at some time in the remote future they will, showing less than sheep-like qualities, allow themselves to be led. To be logical, the saviours who are going to lead unwilling workers to socialism should hide the promise from them—or surely the fascinating little game would be spoiled.

The only way for humanity is to step aside from the vicious deception of leaders and their telling us what we need. For that to happen the majority need to become conscious of their real interests. A socialist revolution, a democratic revolution without leaders, is an urgent necessity—before leaders lead us nowhere, or worse.

The phrase, revolutionary socialism, to use a bookish term, is, strictly speaking, tautological, justification for its use occasionally is the necessity to distinguish between what we stand for and the mixture of reformist proposals which are labelled socialism. The day will come when the term socialism will be understood to involve revolution: it will not then be necessary to emphasise the fact that socialism is revolutionary by using a term which places the emphasis on revolution : and what we now allow to be implied when we use the term socialism will be understood and taken for granted. Until that happy state of things is here much of the time of the Socialist Party must be taken up in exposing the false ideas and unsoundness in the policies of those organisations which speak in the name of socialism. 

We are revolutionaries because we are socialists. We can only sustain our claim to either or both whilst we reject uncompromisingly all reformism of whatever variety. There is only one solution for working class problems, and that is in organising for socialism alone. Any deviation from that fundamental aspect of our policy in favour of reformism would rob the Socialist Party of its socialist and revolutionary character and bring it support from people not interested in socialism but in reforms as an end in themselves. We leave it to others to join the scrap heap of well-meaning reformists which working class history has produced by such folly. Not for us the immediate demands of the day to day struggle as a basis for policy. Our policy always is socialism now. Not for us the policy of ”self-determination for the colonial peoples,” blah, blah and blah; but a socialist working class as the first and essential step for getting all social problems in their right perspective. “Self-determination” for the colonial peoples means the right of the colonial capitalists to exploit their workers freely and without the interference of the Imperialist overlords. Our message to the workers everywhere is—away with all exploitation. Socialism is the only hope for the workers. A change of masters offers no escape from their problems. 

We are socialists and revolutionaries. Unlike the reformist left-wing we do not present the inane spectacle of blazing headlines for socialism Now in our journal whilst at the same time asserting in debate that the workers can never rise to an understanding of what is involved, now or at any time. Nor do we aim to lead the workers. We leave that to those self-appointed leaders in the working class movement in the confidence that whilst the workers as a class retain a modest intelligence the sheep and donkeys who would follow such leaders would be few in number.

For ourselves, as workers, revolutionaries, and socialists, we never lose confidence that the idea of socialism which is taking shape in the working class mind will reach the point of understanding which will prove the workers capable of the self-conscious, organised and intelligent act of establishing socialism.

Create a sane society

 

Capitalism rests upon the ignorance and the apathy of its people. It requires only a few to be sensitive and learned; the mass is expected and encouraged to absorb only as much knowledge as will fit them into their place in the routine of exploitation. Capitalism promotes a ruthless competitive urge, and all manner of conceits, It instils nationalism into the working class, and it sets its own example by living out its disputes in violence. Periodically, capitalism glorifies brutality—it makes heroes of military murderers, it ennobles the men who organise the mass killings of wartime. In this situation, one type of ignorance breeds another. Capitalism divides the working class and set them against each other. They deny the unity of workers’ interests, which overrides all barriers of nation, skin colour, language, and which joins all workers everywhere in the need for socialism. In some ways, humankind now resembles a blind, wounded beast, picking its way over a wilderness of smouldering ignorance. But human beings have eyes to see, and they are whole. There is massive hope in those who hang on and work for enlightenment, for the day when man ceases to wander like a tormented beast and starts to live like a man and woman. It is surprising how little we sometimes know about what goes on just down the road where we live. Capitalism, with its jungle law of every man for himself, tends to make social relationships impersonal and, even in overcrowded cities, to make people live in isolation. Capitalism created the social conditions for the spread of nationalism by alienating sections of the population from the old order. It is among this section that nationalists were to be found. These set about agitating among those they considered their fellow nationals in order to awaken their national consciousness.

The Socialist Party’s case is that the only rational system for the future of humanity is one based on common ownership and democratic control of the means of production and distribution which necessarily involves the elimination of all property incomes, whether in the form of rent, interest or profit. On this issue, all sections of the propertied class have a common attitude—one of opposition. Charity, whether organised or unorganised, exists because some folk have more than they need and others need more than they have. In a world where labour applied to natural objects can produce more than sufficient for everybody, such a state is unnecessary as well as unjust. In the socialist society, where the industry is organised for the benefit of all, where all perform their share of the necessary labour and where all enjoy without stint the results of the organised effort of the whole community, neither want nor charity needs to exist. But the perpetuation of the capitalist system and not the establishment of the socialist society is the object of the charity-mongers.

Better far to have a party, however small, with common principles and a common end, than a party, however large, which is bound by no tie save party interest. We, therefore, who differ from these other parties in essential principles—inasmuch as we accept the principle of the class struggle while they do not—cannot consent to unite our forces with theirs. It would weaken both parties—and the weakening would he more disastrous to the uncompromising section than to the revisionist. We are all for unity, but it is for a unity firmly established on a common aim, and a common method. Any other unity is but a delusion.  Workers with a common aim and agreed about the necessity of organising to achieve socialism will naturally want to unite their efforts, and will do so unless something prevents them. Distance and difficulties of communication may make it convenient to have separate organisations in different areas, but cannot be a reason for having two organisations with the same object working separately in the same area. Also, capitalist laws may make it necessary or at least advisable and convenient to have separate organisations for different countries, but here again, the members will naturally wish as far as possible that the separate organisations shall keep in touch and work together, as illustrated by ourselves and our companion parties abroad in the World Socialist Movement.