Are we Utopians?
We publish the following extract front a letter received from a reader in Nigeria, together with our reply
“. . . . I have expressed the view that the stand of the S.P.G.B. in certain issues appears rather Utopian. I have arrived at this conclusion because, whilst I do appreciate the fact that in Socialism lies the hope of the world, I feel that some of the remedies prescribed in our 20th century world of conflicting ideas and firmly entrenched forces of smug conservatism may only aggravate the disease.
The Labour Party claims to be Socialist in outlook. Before it came to power it advocated fundamental changes and propagated policies which to-day it cannot implement, or finds difficulty in implementing. The pages of the SOCIALIST STANDARD bristle with these one-time militant policies which to-day litter the sombre path of the Labour Government only to remind us of the broken pledges and frustrated hopes.
I think we can be charitable enough to concede that many, if not all, of these pledges were made in good faith and that the advocates of the changes were sincere. The same, I believe, can be said of Russia. What, if I may ask, is the assurance that the S.P.G.B. will not find itself in the same position were it to gain power to-morrow?
The British Nation, like any of its counterparts in our crazy world, does not live in a vacuum, nor can it live’ in a vacuum if it so desires. Russia’s resources and skill, originally directed or intended to be directed, to the production of food, raiment and shelter for her people, had to be diverted in the main to the production of armaments in order to make the future comparatively safe for her people to plan and live their own lives. Russia’s uphill struggles are well known. If to-day her economics and politics have not measured up to expectation, we may at least agree that, having regard to the tremendous, and at times, almost incredible difficulties which she encountered, she has certainly achieved something compared with her mostly self-righteous neighbours.
What is Great Britain to do in the face of threats to her very existence? Wait until she is invaded, or on the verge of being invaded, and then begin all over again the dirge of having been caught napping? How else can the Labour Party, with things as they are, get the men and materials for maintenance and defence without acquiring and using extra powers?
We can deplore the situation; but can hardly evade it. Trouble is not of the Labour Government’s making. They have inherited an unenviable legacy which is a universal phenomenon of our age. Since Great Britain cannot live in isolation from her neighbours in this atomic age, she cannot but reflect the pattern of her environment—however indistinct the nature of the Government may make the reflection. As I see it, any government, whatever its colour, would have to do the same thing or collapse in the ruins it would create by insisting on its ideological pound of flesh.
I admit that a display of more imagination is required on the part of a government which lays claim to Socialism; but feel that there is a limit beyond which it can with safety go unless it is determined to achieve its goal even if everything crashes in the process.
On the question of Nationalisation, I see that the S.P.G.B’s views are clear-cut and admit of no com-promise. The interests of the common people must prevail over the interests of the bigoted minority who grow rich and indolent on the tears, blood, and toil of the common people. There should, therefore, be “Nationalisation without compensation.” This, I will concede, is an ideal situation.
But have the forces of 20th century Capitalism been underestimated? . How will these very desirable things come to pass without creating situations which may be immeasurably worse in their repercussions? Russia in the pre-atomic age tried it and it may not be far wrong to say that some at least of the heartaches in the world to-day can be traced to that honest attempt to make the world comfortable for the common man.
These are points over which I stumble in the Socialist Philosophy. Will you be good enough to deal with these also in the SOCIALIST STANDARD for the enlightenment of those, like myself, who do not understand those things…..”.
Yours sincerely,
A. E. Howson-Wright.
Those who consider that Socialism is Utopian can be divided into two classes: (a) those who reject the Socialist case on the grounds that it conflicts with human nature, and (b) those who try to imagine certain aspects of Socialism operating within Capitalism. Our correspondent appears to be in the latter group. This arises from a failure to appreciate what Socialism really implies, as do the remainder of his problems. Critics in group (b) are usually aware that Socialism will be a moneyless, classless, wageless society in which each will contribute according to his ability and will receive according to his needs. They try to fit these ideas into the framework of Capitalist society. They look for alternatives to money and for wages.
The first thing to be borne in mind is that Socialism means that the means and instruments for producing and distributing the things we need to live by must be commonly owned. Not “publicly owned,” not owned by the State, but owned by society as a whole. This means that they will be owned by everybody or owned by nobody, whichever way one cares to express the idea. When this is firmly grasped, the ideas of a wageless, moneyless, classless society follow logically.
This is not Utopian, it is the result of a scientific study of society.
History is not just a collection of unrelated events. It is the study of an evolutionary and revolutionary process. New, and ever newer, inventions cause continual changes in the instruments for producing the necessities of life. This, in turn, causes a continuous evolution of the means and methods of production until they are finally out of harmony with the social structure. Social problems and contradictions are the result. The evolutionary process is slowed down. A social revolution is necessary to adjust the social structure and to allow the process to continue.
Social revolutions are the result of the clash of class interests arising from changes in the economic basis. New and virile class interests finally overthrow old and reactionary ones. This is a process that we can trace through all history. It did not stop short with the advent of Capitalism any more than it did at the Feudal or the Chattel Slave periods. Capitalism is evolving at an exciting rate. We can reflect on terrific changes during- the space of a few years.
Economics is the study of the manner in which society produces and distributes its wealth. From this study we can learn the nature of the present social system, the laws which govern it, an d its limitations. Private property is the base of the Capitalist system; wage labour and capital are its roots. Whilst the base and the roots remain, wars, insecurity, poverty and all the attendant evils will flourish. To cure these evils we must abolish the system. Merely to reform it is useless, as that means we retain it and its inseparable evils.
Here, briefly, is our case. Society evolves and gives rise to conflicts between classes. To-day, the interests of the working class are opposed to those of the Capitalist class, and a struggle ensues. The working class, being the subject class, suffer from the problems that arise—housing, malnutrition, unemployment, threat of war, poverty, overwork, etc. To remedy this, the working class must abolish Capitalism and substitute a new system. As the basis of Capitalism is private ownership of the means of wealth production, the only alternative basis for the new society will be common ownership of these means.
There is nothing utopian there. Nothing!
Now let us examine the points raised by Mr. Howson-Wright. He says that the Labour Party claims to be Socialist in outlook and before it came to power it advocated some fundamental changes, Many political parties have claimed to be Socialist, but claims alone do not make them so. The changes advocated by the Labour Party were not really fundamental. By its advocacy of superficial changes, the Labour Party set out to gain working-class support in order that it could achieve political power. With this power in their hands, some Labourites had the half-formed notion of being able to usher in Socialism— ultimately. But they are the Utopians. To think that with an un-class-conscious, un-revolutionary, non-Socialist working class, they could usher in Socialism, is definitely utopian. If they gave a little time to a study of economics instead of so much to the efforts to solve the problems of the Capitalists, they would realise that the Capitalist system determines the limits of their reformism and that they would not be able to implement many of the vote catching pledges that they freely gave in order to ensnare working-class support at election time. Whether they were well intentioned or not has no bearing on the correctness or otherwise of their words and actions.
The S.P.G.B, will never be in the same position because it does not strive to “gain power” in the same sense or for the same purpose as the Labour Party. The S.P.G.B. does not aim to gain control of political power in order to remodel Capitalism and call it Socialism. The socialist revolution will require the conscious effort of the majority of the working class, it cannot be achieved by the seizure of power by a minority, however well intentioned. The S.P.G.B. offers itself to the working class as the nucleus of the organisation that must be built up by the working class for the achievement of their task.
When the class nature of society is realised, one does not fall into the error of personifying countries or of thinking of nations as homogeneous, common-interest units. In all parts of the Capitalist world the interests of the workers and of the Capitalists are diametrically opposed. To ask, “What is Great Britain to do in the face of threats,” etc., and to refer to Russia as “she,” denotes a process of thought that will solve no class issues. This is where Mr. Howson-Wright finds his stumbling blocks. The various problems he refers to are the problems of the Capitalists of the respective countries, disguised as the problems of the people of those countries as a whole. This is an old and effective illusion and it prevents many workers from understanding their class status.
True, as our correspondent states, the problems are not of the Labour Party’s making. They are of no party’s making. They are “the unenviable legacy” of Capitalism. A Socialist party will never be faced with such problems.
Mr. Howson-Wright is in the same plight as many, many other workers. They see the evils of the present system and they are human, and want to remedy them. They also see political parties promising to effect the remedies and pulling their cures “Socialism.” They give allegiance to these parties only to find that the cures do not work, frequently they aggravate the ill. So, they either turn their acks on Socialism or else, as does our friend, they seek a cause.
Whilst Capitalism remains the workers must struggle over wages and conditions, they will remain a subject, exploited class. We can be as militant as possible within this system, but we cannot escape until the majority of our fellows understand and desire the alternative to it,
Mr. Howson-Wright’s view that ” . . . . any government, whatever its colour, would …. collapse into the ruins it would create by insisting on its ideological pound of flesh” is a good one if he is visualising a minority party with political power trying to impose Socialism on to a society that did not yet desire it. The instances that he gives, the Bolshevik government in Russia and the Labour Government in Britain are evidence of our case. The Bolsheviks claimed they were going to impose Socialism on to a society that had not evolved to the stage where it was an historical or economic possibility. That policy was fallacious and has collapsed and they have settled down to adapt themselves to the running of Capitalism. Those of the early Bolsheviks who did not settle down have certainly collapsed—in front of a firing squad.
The British Labour Government did not aim to introduce Socialism, only to reform Capitalism, despite what it may claim to the contrary. They aimed to make Capitalism “comfortable for the common man.” There is little comfort for working men in capitalist society whether it is operated by a Labour Government or by any other. Even so, the Labour Party has had to amend its reformist programme at the dictates of the system. That is why we reiterate, nothing short of a socialist revolution will solve the problems of the working class.
Then Mr. Howson-Wright says that he agrees that there should be Nationalisation without compensation. But he is not agreeing with us. We do not say that. Nationalisation changes nothing to the advantage of the workers. It is not Socialism. The taking over by the State of an industry, without the payment of compensation to the previous owners, is usually termed confiscation. But the industry still remains capitalised and the workers in it are still exploited. The instance of the Bolshevik government’s confiscations are no exceptions.
The idea that the attempt to introduce Socialism may result in situations which “may be immeasurably worse in their repercussions” is inconceivable to those who understand Socialism.
W. WATERS.