The ABC of Capitalism

 

In dealing with present-day society, certain basic features have to be borne in mind. These are the fact that society is divided into two classes—those who, by virtue of their non-possession of wealth, are compelled to sell their labour-power to some firm or organisation which is willing to buy it, and those who, by virtue of their ownership of the factories and the general means of production and distribution, are able to buy the energies of the first group for so many hours per week. In relation to the second group, the first group stand as slaves—wage-slaves. Perhaps they might even be termed “free slaves,” because they have the theoretical right to terminate their employment by a week or a month’s notice. But should they do this, they are not entitled to unemployment pay and being without wealth, they are compelled immediately to seek another employer. This is the extent of their “freedom.”

Every society has a very definite basis, and every class society a very definite method of exploiting its subject class. This exploitation was not veiled in slave society; one person owned another and made him or her work. The master gave the slave the necessities of life and retained for himself what was produced over and above the slave's maintenance. The exploitation and slavery of present-day society are to some extent veiled. They are there all right, none the less. The capitalist does not own the worker, but still the worker is dependent on the capitalist class for a livelihood. And how is the worker exploited? Before production takes place today we have capital. This is money invested, for the purpose of profit, in the purchase of machinery, raw materials, factories, etc. But these things are useless without workers, so capital engages too the energies of the worker. The energies of the worker are used up in producing articles for sale, commodities, but the worker is not paid for the produce of his or her work for the whole duration of the day. In a working day of eight hours a worker may receive wages equivalent to, say, four hours' produce of his work. The other four hours are given free to the capitalist. It is thus that the worker is exploited under capitalism. Were he or she paid for the full produce of eight hours' work there would be no profits for the capitalist class. Whatever minor modifications present-day society may undergo, this is, simply and briefly put, an explanation of the productive process. It is plain to see that wage-labour and capital are the roots of the whole system. Machinery, in simple or complex form, may be employed in any social system—but WAGE-LABOUR AND CAPITAL ARE PECULIAR TO CAPITALISM, and it is by their presence or absence that we can decide whether a society is capitalist or not.

In "Wage-Labour and Capital" Marx rightly points out that the two are complementary. The one does not exist without the other. He writes: "Capital and wage-labour are two sides of one and the same relation. The one conditions the other in the same way that the usurer and the borrower condition each other. As long as the wage-labourer remains a wage-labourer, his lot is dependent upon capital".

And again: "Capital therefore pre-supposes wage-labour; wage-labour pre-supposes capital. They condition each other; each brings the other into existence." (Emphasis by Marx.)

It is true that with the development of capitalism and in different countries the form of ownership and control of capital may differ. But the form of ownership of capital is not the vital question. It may be owned by the small private trader, the large owner, the trust or by the state—"the executive committee of the capitalist class." But in all cases its presence proves the existence of capitalist society.

Socialism can be established only when the working class are ripe for it. The development of capitalism creates a world-wide working-class with identical interests, and presents it with problems the solution of which requires the abolition of capitalist society and the establishment of socialism. Not for any other class is the task of accomplishing the socialist revolution. But to achieve socialism, it does need, not a handful of workers, but the majority of them, class-conscious and with an understanding of what socialism is. Marx and Engels dealt with this point in their “Communist Manifesto,” when they wrote: 

“All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the conscious movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority.” 

 Socialism means economic equality. It involves the abolition of the wages system, and the creation of a society wherein every member has free access to the means of life. It is the socialist slogan, “from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.” 

There are those on the Left who propagate that socialism is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialism never had this meaning until the Bolsheviks found it convenient to foist it into the word.

For Marx and Engels socialism and communism were synonymous terms. Hence the title of Engels’ masterpiece, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” In his Preface to “The Communist Manifesto,” written in 1890, Engels makes it clear that he nor Marx had in mind what the Bolsheviks mean when the term “socialism” is used.

Why then did the Bolsheviks give another meaning to word? In the first place, they doubtless wished to attract support of the workers at home and in other lands and therefore used phraseology which appealed to workers. The Nazis did the same with their “National Socialism” Then, again, it was obvious to the Russian people after 1917 that not yet had the millennium arrived. With the impossibility of abolishing poverty it was necessary to hold out hopes of better things to come.

 In effect they said: “This, you will get, Comrade Worker, when communism is possible. But you cannot have communism yet; we must finish building up socialism first.”

In this respect, they have succeeded in adding to the confusion which already existed in the worker’s mind as to what socialism means.

Those who wish to improve the housing conditions of the working class have always received considerable vocal support. For a century the housing problem has provoked prolonged debate and intensive efforts from reformists to get something done. Despite these efforts, many workers still live in unhealthy slums and in overcrowded conditions. Basically, there is no such thing as a housing problem. The problem for the workers is poverty, and that will remain so long as capitalism remains. Before the war we witnessed the erection of great buildings for the use of the capitalists, either for homes or for commercial purposes. Colossal quantities of material and thousands of hours of labour were required to do this work. There was no problem—the places were needed by the capitalists, who could afford to pay, so they were built. The needs of the workers are more pressing, but the barrier is insurmountable—the barrier of poverty. Nothing will be built unless it is required by the capitalist or a profit is expected from them. Again we stress the workers live in slums and hovels because they are poor and can afford nothing better.

Are we Stalinists?

 

One of the more concise and accurate descriptions of Capitalism and future socialist society was written by Joseph Stalin.

" What is proletarian socialism?
The present system is a capitalist system. This means that the world is divided up into two opposing camps, the camp of a small handful of capitalists and the camp of the majority -- the proletarians. The proletarians work day and night, nevertheless they remain poor. The capitalists do not work, nevertheless they are rich. This takes place not because the proletarians are unintelligent and the capitalists are geniuses, but because the capitalists appropriate the fruits of the labour of the proletarians, because the capitalists exploit the proletarians.
Why are the fruits of the labour of the proletarians appropriated by the capitalists and not by the proletarians? Why do the capitalists exploit the proletarians and not vice versa?
Because the capitalist system is based on commodity production: here everything assumes the form of a commodity, everywhere the principle of buying and selling prevails. Here you can buy not only articles of consumption, not only food products, but also the labour power of men, their blood and their consciences. The capitalists know all this and purchase the labour power of the proletarians, they hire them. This means that the capitalists become the owners of the labour power they buy.The proletarians, however, lose their right to the labour power which they have sold. That is to say, what is produced by that labour power no longer belongs to the proletarians, it belongs only to the capitalists and goes into their pockets. The labour power which you have sold may produce in the course of a day goods to the value of 100 rubles, but that is not your business, those goods do not belong to you, it is the business only of the capitalists, and the goods belong to them -- all that you are due to receive is your daily wage which, perhaps, may be sufficient to satisfy your essential needs if, of course, you live frugally. Briefly: the capitalists buy the labour power of the proletarians, they hire the proletarians, and this is precisely why the capitalists appropriate the fruits of the labour of the proletarians, this is precisely why the capitalists exploit the proletarians and not vice versa.
But why is it precisely the capitalists who buy the labour power of the proletarians? Why do the capitalists hire the proletarians and not vice versa?
Because the principal basis of the capitalist system is the private ownership of the instruments and means of production. Because the factories, mills, the land and minerals, the forests, the railways, machines and other means of production have become the private property of a small handful of capitalists. Because the proletarians lack all this. That is why the capitalists hire proletarians to keep the factories and mills going -- if they did not do that their instruments and means of production would yield no profit. That is why the proletarians sell their labour power to the capitalists -- if they did not, they would die of starvation...
...There can be no doubt that future society will be built on an entirely different basis.

Future society will be socialist society. This means primarily, that there will be no classes in that society; there will be neither capitalists nor proletarians and, consequently, there will be no exploitation. In that society there will be only workers engaged in collective labour.

Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed -- there will be only free workers.
Future society will be socialist society. This means, lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage-labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists -- there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc.
As you see, the main purpose of production in the future will be to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Where there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc.
It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room whether for scattered production, competition, crises, or unemployment.
Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power..."

Anarchism Or Socialism ? (marxists.org)

Stalin, 1907

This pre-revolution article he wrote puts paid to the idea that Stalin had no idea what socialism was. He fully understood it. But like Lenin, he had to change his Marxism to fit in with the reality of what Russia was and what it was to turn into.

World Socialism - Global Solidarity

 Europe stands on the verge of the abyss. The danger of war is growing from day to day. Feverish armament preparations are in progress everywhere. All human activity is overshadowed by the menace of war. It is obvious that the state of tension and all-round mobilisation now prevailing throughout Europe cannot be maintained indefinitely. But it can be ended only in two ways: By sliding into the catastrophe of war or the emancipation of the working people. The Socialist Party has all along pointed out the impossibility of the capitalist powers attempting to solve and patch up their differences through conferences and negotiations. The problem of war remains as ever the problem irrespective of sham conferences. Its solution lies in the destruction of this system of exploitation and war. A  study of the nature and causes of modern war is sufficient to prove that war is an essential part of capitalism. The inner conflicts of capitalism lead and must lead to war.

For the Socialist Party, there are no foreigners. We want all men and women wherever their place of birth, whatever ethnicity they may be derived from, whatever language they speak, to consider themselves as brothers and sisters and to come together freely and cooperate together for the well-being of all. The Socialist Party seeks the harmonisation of all interests in a vast unity of humankind and it favours the free development of all individuals and all groups. This is still an aspiration in today's harsh reality; given that we are still divided into oppressed and oppressors, and some live exploiting the work of others.  Workers carry the weight of all society’s burdens and are reduced to the most squalid misery.

 We are, whatever our nationality or colour for the oppressed against the oppressors, for the slaves against their masters. If one wants to speak of foreigners, then it is not the one who was born beyond some border and speaks a different language, or has a different coloured skin — the foreigner is the exploiter and anyone who, in whatever country, subjugates another.

 Socialists can feel solidarity with both the worker in a distant country and the one who works alongside us, we can hate foreign governments as much as our own national government.

We are against the capitalist class, we stand against the State — and we urge fellow workers to do the same — both in peace and in war. We want to overturn the current social system and we are not content with simple improvements or palliative.

War and violence do not produce civilisation, but barbarism, slavery, hatred, and misery: it oppresses the loser, and corrupts the winner.

They Betray Us With A Lie

 

We are living in a very complex world full of rapid changes. The widespread confusion about the problem of war is in large measure due to ignorance of the past. Unfortunately, people are slow to learn and slow to forget, Some people learn slogans by heart, but before they have succeeded in memorising them the slogans are out of date – they then keep on repeating these. The imminence of another global war is no longer considered even by the sceptical as a fantastic prediction of panic-mongers, and it makes it vital that class-conscious workers, study and assimilate the real lessons of previous wars.  

Friends of peace believe that world peace and disarmament can be achieved within the framework of the present social order, whereas the Socialist Party base itself on the materialistic conception of history and is convinced that war and militarism can only be abolished from the world with the end of the capitalist system.  Its energies have been directed towards the elimination of the causes of war. War and armed peace are a logical result of capitalism. The pacifists invent all manner of projects to challenge war yet all have failed.  There can be no permanent peace between the capitalist states. A capitalist peace is only one step short of capitalist war. War and the danger of war are always present in capitalism, such conflicts cannot be eliminated from the capitalist system.

 Wars arise from the constant struggle between the powers for increased spoils in the world economy. All powers today feel the consequences of the economic crisis. The vast expansion of their productive forces presses them onward inexorably and irresistibly in the struggle for new markets and new colonial fields where they can tap the sources of raw materials, invest surplus capital and extract new and greater profits. On every continent, they are openly advancing for new conquests. The financiers, the speculators and gamblers feel free to engage in a continuation of the conflict for increased economic advantage by military means.

The socialist movement may not be as yet sufficiently strong to thwart the militarism of governments but by exposing the cause as plunder for booty we shall at least have educated fellow workers to some extent in the cruelty and greed of the capitalists.  Only class war can successfully oppose war between peoples. There is only one struggle against war: the revolutionary struggle against the system that breeds war, the struggle for world socialism. The struggle against war is nothing other than the class struggle for workers’ power. it is the exploiting class—those who, owning the land, machinery and tools of production - who decide when and where wars shall be made.  However, it is the workers, who pay in blood, in suffering, for every war that is waged. The only way to fight militarism is to fight capitalism. When things are no longer produced for profit, but for the use of those who make them, then there will no longer be any necessity for a capitalist army. It remains as true as ever that only the working class can prevent war. Karl Liebknecht warned that the enemy is at home; and, in this respect, nothing has changed since. The capitalist class is looking for ways and means to change the whole economy of peace in such a way that it may be transformed at a moment’s notice to meet the exigencies of war. Therefore the duty of the Socialist Party is clear. It is the irreconcilable struggle to overthrow capitalism as the only way to do away with war. The understanding that the fight against war is the fight for a socialist society is the key to all the “anti-war” activities. It is the Marxists, participating actively and constantly in the class struggle, who is carrying on the only genuine and effective fight against war. All the fine phrases and noble sentiments and even the deep sincerity of pacifists are powerless against war. Capitalism demonstrated that it will fight to the death with every weapon at its disposal to settle its sectional differences.

They tell us we must defend our country but we have no country. They said it was to “save democracy” to “protect national self-determination”. They urge us to sacrifice ourselves for the motherland and the fatherland. The war was not started by the sinister will of the robber capitalists, although it is fought in their interests, and is not enriching anybody else. The war was the consequence of the development of international capitalism.

The Great Dictator Speech (VIDEO)