THE OTHER SIDE : Ill HERE is so much of
interest—and indeed to us of I. the Labour movement so much of hope—in your article under the above heading in last week's issue that you will perhaps permit a Socialist, though a very unim- portant one, who speaks only for himself, to try to define the answer which Socialists of to-day might give to such an article as yours. The kernel of the article is contained in a single sentence. " Socialism is not a definable policy agreed upon by those who, either by conviction or for convenience, accept the label of Socialism."
Here is a grave charge. Our answer is, I think, that Socialism is not only " a definable policy," but also something far greater and broader than that. It is a theory of life—a comprehensive and definite theoretic system accounting for present phenomena and indicating methods of modifying them. Thus, like every other theory Socialism can be divided into two distinct halves. It has first a descriptive analysis of the social system of to-day—its destructive criticism of capitalism. Secondly, it lays down a new series of principles and on it builds a series of proposed reforms—its constructive programme of socialization.
In brief I shall try to show that if its second and con- structive proposals have in part been modified, and are in process of modification in the light of experience, yet the analysis of the present state of things on which they rest has not been shaken, but rather confirmed and established by experience and research. But we must not exaggerate the change which has taken place even in the methods which Socialists propose for the attainment of their ideal and the remedying of the conditions which they deplore. It is quite true that we Socialists of to-day do not entertain the somewhat dismal design of enrolling the entire nation in an all-embracing Civil Service. Nor do we envisage a State responsible for every function of human life from the enforcement of an ethical code to the manufacture of safety pins. But then have any Socialists ever desired these things ? I confess that I have not a sufficient knowledge of Socialist history to deny categorically that none of them have ever done so. But at all events for the last twenty years the idea that Socialists advocated this sort of thing has been wholly confined to the alarmed imaginations of harassed pluto- crats, and to the people who believed them. However, to-day even those classes appear to be feeling dimly that they may not have got a quite accurate conception of Socialism. [This is the element of hope in your article to which I have already referred.] Hence, like the writer of your article, they are asking, " Well, if this is not Socialism, what is ? " Your leader writer answers unhesitatingly, " Nothing." " Socialism no longer exists." Let us see then. I will try to put out the axioms of the party. If he accepts them as indis- tinguishable from his own individualist, Capitalist axioms, then I will agree that Socialism is dead.
The Socialist believes that those people who own " the means of production " have the power of withholding from those who do not own these essential " tools " (in the word's widest sense) anything above the means of subsistence. We believe that the whole of the surplus commodities created over and above what are required to keep alive the workers (that is, those who do not own the means of production) are now the property of the " owners " to do as they like with. But we realize that *these " owners " cannot themselves make use of these commodities. If one of them manufactures boots he cannot himself make use of 50,000 pairs. If another has the power to make 1,000 bedsteads yet he can sleep in only one. Another who has a great estate may be able to raise 100 tons of bacon a month, yet he cannot eat appreciably more than one of his labourers. Thus the only thing that our owning class, our capitalists, can do with all the surplus goods they have created is to sell them to someone—that is, to convert them into purchasing power which can give them command over the services and resources of other individuals. But by hypothesis they cannot sell their surplus goods to the workers (those who do not own the means of production) because they only have that surplus as a result of denying to these workers more than a subsistence level of commodities.
Hence the only way that our capitalists can convert their surplus goods into surplus purchasing power (which will give them command over the lives of others) is to export them, i.e., sell them abroad. This is, in fact, what they do. But there is an obvious limit to this activity.
As more and more countries develop a capitalist system they will all wish to export their surplus goods. But who will buy them ? The markets begin to contract.
There is a rush for the remaining ones. Huge pressure is exerted to beat down wages at home, so that goods may be sold cheaply abroad and " capture the market."
Thus the world is kept in that ferment which, we believe, is one of the most important, though usually quite indirect, causes of war. Further, we believe that when a certain Karl Marx first put forward this theory he started economics as a science—that is, he introduced the usual scientific method to this new field. For up till then the economists had based their theories on certain axioms that they had evolved from their inner consciousness. Marx, on the other hand, condescended to look around him. He noticed that those who did not own the means of production were, in fact, on a bare subsistence level. On the other hand, he perceived that those who did own the means of production had a large surplus of purchasing power ; they were engaged in selling abroad their surplus of commodities. They had command over the lives of the " non-owners:" Having noticed these facts he evolved the theory which I have so crudely outlined to account for them. Thus by introducing the great inductive method into economics he created a new science.
This, then, is the Socialist analysis of the Capitalist system. If the writer of your article replies, " Oh, but .yes, we quite agree, we have known this all along," I have nothing more to say. Otherwise he must admit that at any rate on the analytical side, Socialism is still a distinct, definable theory.
. The Socialist remedy for this state of things is clear. It is simply the substitution of universal co-operation in the satisfaction of our material wants for the present system Of allowing that satisfaction to be obtained (or for most people barely obtained or not obtained at all) as a by-product of the desire for gain' and power in a few. individuals. The principal means of doing this is undoubtedly to make it clear that the means of pro- duction—the great essential natural resources, such as coal, land, &c.. the great " Tools " of civilization, such as transport of all sorts, factory, plant, &c,—are not and never can be the private property, of any individuals, but are the common heritage of the whole people, to be used for the satisfaction of their material, wants.
This is the great constructive proposal of Socialism. It is exactly the same to-day as it was when it was first started.
Lastly we come to the actual practical, detailed question of how these " means of production " are to be administered. And here let us clearly and readily admit that Socialist schemes have been, are, and will be continually changed and modified in the light of experi- ence and increasing knowledge. But to say this is to say that Socialism is alive, not dead.
I must apologize for having trodden once again these well-worn paths of Socialist fundamentals, but your leader writer showed at once so genuine an ignorance of them, and so unprejudiced an attitude of mind, that I felt that a statement of these might be of possible interest to him and also to some of your readers. I. L. P.
["I. L. P." writes earnestly and sincerely and he makes, no doubt, a statement of consistent faith. Its potency depends, however, upon whether or not there will be a sufficient incentive, apart from coercion, to work and to produce. Ile appears to assume that the incentive can be found in State ownership of the means of production. It may be so, but experience hitherto of State production has not been encouraging. See Bagehot's account of the output of the National Workshops in 1848. Again, Lenin's experiments were a failure and he had to adopt the New Economic Policy. Again, has land nationalization in India proved the parent of large crops ? The fact that " I. L. P." can proclaim a creed does not prove that it is true or that it has won men's minds. It is easy to be discontented with the existing state of society —the discontent we strongly share—but to be sure of the remedy is another matter. Certainly, the Labour Party shows no unanimity here.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
