The Socialist Case
The Socialist case is really quite simple, and easily understood by anyone of normal intelligence. However, its very simplicity may make it difficult to accept.
Modern capitalism is a very complex social system. The average person, confronted with economics, banking, currency, accountancy, the Law, etc., seems to be overwhelmed and finds great difficulty in understanding. He also believes that these are permanent and indispensable attributes of society, and therefore it is best that they are left in the hands of the highly trained specialists, the “great” men, to be safely operated. When Socialists claim that this economic superstructure, while it is necessary to capitalist society, is so much lumber in a sanely organised society, they are looked upon as people not quite sane. The simple proposal that the land, the factories, transportation and so on (the means of production) should be owned commonly and democratically controlled and operated by and for the benefit of the people, appears to the average person to be impossible. Our task, which is to convince a majority of the workers of the correctness of our case, is not therefore an easy one.
In the course of many centuries, private property based societies have evolved in several forms. Chattel-slavery, feudalism and modem wage-slavery, have been in existence; the lease of life of capitalism is not yet ended. But though the life of capitalism may be indefinite it is, fortunately, not infinite. Sooner or later its end must come.
The Socialist proposition has been arrived at after very careful investigation and analysis of the economic, social and cultural history of mankind. This proposition is that the freedom of man from economic bondage, poverty, insecurity, and so on, can only be realised by abolishing the present social system and establishing a Socialist society. Our case is very strongly supported by the facts of social evolution and the practical experience of the consequences of the operation of capitalism in all parts of the world.
Irrespective of the stage of man’s development, or the particular social system, the production of food, clothing and shelter must be accomplished by man. His continuity of life and the reproduction of the. species depends upon his successfully doing this job. In common with all other animals he must obtain the essentials of life. In the course of time the method in which he accomplished this task has varied in accordance with the type of tools he has fashioned and the circumstances in which he found himself. In modern capitalism he obtains his food, clothing and shelter through the medium of wage labour.
Capitalism is a social system in which the privately owned means of production take the specific form of capital. Capital is therefore a social power which is personified in the capitalist class. The mode—or method—of production in society is the production of commodities for sale in order to realise profit. It should be noted that the primary object of producing wealth is profit, not need. Capitalist society divides people into classes. On one hand, the capitalist class who own the means of production, but do not produce; on the other, the working class who are the sole producers, but do not own the means of production. As a consequence of this class division of society a struggle between the two classes takes place over the division of society’s wealth. It should be self evident to anyone that we have a social basis here in which the interests of capitalist and workers are never likely to be reconciled. An interminable class war, or struggle, of a somewhat grim character is a permanent feature. Also, as the economic keystone is profit the owning class will only permit the productive machinery to be used when they feel fairly certain of realising this profit.
It is obvious that this owning class, the capitalists, by virtue of their ownership and control are in a position to control the lives and destinies of the population. Capitalism can only function in the interests of the capitalist class. It was never intended to do otherwise.
As a result of these social circumstances the workers’ access to food clothing, and shelter, is through the medium of wage labour. In days gone by, man’s struggle for survival was between himself and nature, but now he is confronted with his fellow man, the capitalist, the exploiting animal. In the industrial field, the worker is looked upon merely as an appendage of capital, a productive essential. The worker enter here in order to sell his mental and physical energy—as an engineer, labourer, etc. This energy in capitalist society is a commodity, capitalist and worker therefore meet as buyers and sellers of labour power. An agreement having been reached, the worker enters the factory where he finds ready for him machinery and raw materials. He expends his energy in producing, obtains his wages, and departs.
On the surface all appears to be quite fair and honest. No one seems to have taken advantage of the other. However, Socialists are very emphatic in their claim that the working class are robbed, enslaved and exploited. Although this claim is very true it is not quite evident from a superficial survey. A little deeper penetration is necessary. It should first be made quite clear that commodities have definite values. The amount of value contained in any commodity is determined by the quantity of abstract human labour, socially necessary and of generally average skill and intensity. We always express this value in terms of cash.
The value of the commodity, labour power, which the worker sells is determined in the same way. For example, a given quantity of food, clothing and shelter is required in order to reproduce the expended energy and to reproduce future workers. This amount may vary slightly according to circumstances. But if we take five shillings an hour as the approximate value of craftsmen’s labour power, a forty-hour week would yield a total wage of ten pounds. If we now enter the factory and observe, we shall find that in the first twenty hours of labour the worker has produced new values amounting to ten pounds. Of course, he continues his work for an additional twenty hours and produces another ten pounds. Thus our capitalist has doubled the variable capital invested (wages). His ten pounds is now twenty. This is the sole source of profit, rent and interest, which cannot be obtained from any other source.
What the worker receives is the value of his labour power, not the value of his labour. His labour has yielded twice the quantity, in new values, that his labour power cost to buy As a seller in his field, the worker has nothing other than his labour power to sell. His labour in the process of expending his energy in production and is embodied in the new merchandise produced. Together with the products, it belongs to the capitalist, who sells the goods and realises his profit. The size of his profit is the difference between what the worker produces and what he receives in wages. This is surplus value, the amount of the wealth of which the worker is robbed.
Another factor of social and historic significance arises here. In former societies where commodity production took place in a small scale, it was generally accepted as a principle that men were entitled to own whatever they had produced by their labour. Modern society has enthroned its opposite. In society today the working class who are the sole producers have no control over what is produced, nor over what is done with the product. The capitalists—the non-producers–decide, direct, control and dispose of society’s wealth in the manner which suits them best. In this regard the productive effort of society is in constant conflict with the form of ownership.
Our organisation for the production of wealth is social in character. It involves the constant activities of the great majority. The socially produced wealth, immediately and exclusively, is owned and controlled by a social minority. Social or common ownership of the means of production and distribution is the sole solution to this anomaly. Society as it stands is divided against itself. Private property in the means of production produces this class conflict of capitalists against workers. It places this vast productive equipment in the hands of a few and subordinates its operation in their interests. As a consequence it enables the enslavement and robbery of the producers to take place and also permits the almost complete domination and social degradation of the great majority of society. There is no prospect now, or later, of the present social mode of production being made to serve the need and interests of society as a whole.
J. H.