Abstract

© Dr M D Magee, Contents Updated: Monday, 13 January 2014

Introduction

There are various views of the world and of men and women in society. They are expressed in everyday discussions between people. Philosophers have worked out theories to explain the world and human beings. Religions embody ideas which seek to explain the purpose of our lives and our origin.

In this series of discussions we will be considering what distinguishes Marxism from other theories of society and of the world we live in and how Marxism helps in the struggle for social change.

The themes for discussion are:

1. Marxism And The Development Of Society
2. The Marxist World Outlook
3. The Nature Of Capitalism And Imperialism
4. The State, Class Struggle And Revolution
5. Socialism As The Basis For Communism

While Marxist theory assists us to understand the processes at work in human society and in the world, it is not something static and completed, but develops as society is changed and as our knowledge of the world and the universe expands. Its approach is essentially creative.

Just as Lenin enriched Marxism in the period of the growth of imperialism and in the preparation of the first Socialist Revolution in 1917, Marxists today have a responsibility to further enrich Marxism in the course of analysing and grappling with the problems of this latter part of the 20th Century. For we live at a time when many new problems are emerging and when old problems have to be examined in changed settings.

The purpose of these discussions is to provide an outline of our Marxist/Leninist theory, so that those who take part in them are helped to read and study and to approach the day to day questions of the class struggle.

As this is an introductory. course it outlines only some of the main aspects of Marxism. At the end reading material is indicated togeth~r with suggestions for conducting the discussions.

For Tutors and those Opening Discussions

While this course treats with five main themes, the way it is used can be varied depending on the number of discussions planned and on the people who will be attending:

• A selection can be made if there are going to be only two or three discussions
• One particular theme can be made the basis for several discussion
• A longer series can be planned where this is possible.

Those tutoring should try to relate the main theoretical points to people’s experience and introduce illustrations which are of current interest. The questions should be varied, depending on the political experience of people taking part in the discussions.

Tutors should encourage those taking the course to read it in preparation for the discussions. While some reading is suggested below, the tutor should help in making a selection and also in recommending other material.

Copies of this Introductory Course can be freely printed.

Reading

1. Introduction to Marxism—Emile Burns
2. The Communist Manifesto—Marx and Engels
3. Wage Price and Profit—Marx
4. The State—Lenin
5. The State & Revolution—Lenin
6. Communism and Human Values—Maurice Cornforth
7. The Future of Man—James Klugmann

CPGB Education Department, January 1974. Lightly edited to update a little.

Marxism And The Development Of Human Society

What distinguishes the Marxist theory of the development of society, of historical change, from non-Marxist theories?

There are a variety of theories, of explanations, of why society has changed, of what and who is responsible for the working out of history.

One of there theories is that the action of kings and rulers, some “good guys” and some “bad guys” have been the decisive factor in historical development. The idea governing this approach is that outstanding individuals determine human history. Many history books have been based on such an interpretation.

There are views based on a fatalistic approach, that everything is predetermined. We find popular expression of this in the phrase “If your number’s on it” you’ve had it.

Some regard everything as being brought about by “accidents”, claiming that there is no pattern in history.

Then there are theories based on the idea of a mind, or spirit, separate from and outside human beings and the material world we live in. For example, Hegel saw changes in history as the realisation of the “absolute idea”. Many different religions—Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism—have the common conception of a supreme being influencing or governing what happens to mankind.

In contrast, Marxism makes its starting point the material world we live in and sees human society as part of that world of nature. To discover what makes for historical change Marxism examines human society and the processes at work in its development. In so doing Marxists are guided by our world outlook, which we shall discuss in the next session and therefore will only briefly touch on it now.

Marxist world outlook, philosophy, is called Dialectical Materialism. By “dialectical” is meant that its approach is one of seeing that nothing in the world is really static, that everything is moving, changing.

These changes do not take place haphazardly, nor in a smooth, continuous way, but through the conflict between opposing tendencies in every process in nature and society.

By “materialism” is meant a recognition of the world, of the universe, as an objective reality, composed of matter which is expressed in a great diversity of forms, inorganic and organic. For example, the sun, the earth, seas, plants, animals, human beings. The origin of men and women in society is to be found in the development of organic matter, from previous forms of animal life, in the course of whose evolution thought and consciousness has developed.

This philosophical approach applied to the study of the development of human society is called the materialist conception of history, or more usually, Historical Materialism.

The method of Marxism is scientific, that is it studies the facts about human society and its development to discover what processes are at work in society, what causes change. In other words to find out the pattern of history, the laws of trends governing it.

In doing so it is important to grasp the distinction between the laws of the natural sciences and of social change. In the latter human consciousness is an integral part of the historical process and influences the class struggle, as we shall see.

What then are the driving forces in social change?

The enemies of communism often present the class struggle as if it is the “invention” of communists. Take for example, the tirades against the miners, or building workers, or dockers when there is a strike and the efforts to give the impression it is all caused by communist militants.

There has been class struggle throughout history—long before Marx and Engels wrote in the last century. What they did was not to “invent” the class struggle but to analyse the part class struggle plays in historical change. In the Communist Manifesto they said:

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggies”.

Section 1, The Communist Manifesto

They were referring to all written history.

To understand why it plays this role, it is necessary to examine human society, its material basis and how that material basis changes. In making this examination, Marx was able to uncover the character of society and the laws of its development.

What are the main features of society?

Production—the Basis of Society

To survive, men and women must wrest from nature the means of survival—food, clothing, shelter. And they obtain these means of living by working together on nature. This activity is called production and the outcome of it the products. While the way production is carried out and the use and ownership of the products changes in the course of history the common features throughout all society are that production is:

• essential for the continuance and development of human society
• a social activity in which the labour of people is linked with others.

The Two Sides of Social Production

If we examine the total production process in society, we find that it has two main aspects:

1. men and women using tools or machines work on material to produce. The kind of implements they use reflects the level of technique of the particular stage of society. For example, the stone tools of the stone age or the complex machinery of present day automation. The producers, the implements they use and the natural resources are what Marx called the Productive Forces
2. the other main aspect of production stems from the fact that it is social in character and therefore involves Relations between People.

The kind of relations between people is determined by the form of ownership of the means of producing. In other words by the property set up of society.

Let us look at this historically.

Primitive Society

In the period called “primitive communism”, which is a long way back in history and can only be traced schematically, what was produced was owned in common and relations between people were based on equality. However, this period was based on a low level of technique which meant that all labour activity went on producing for the immediate needs of the day. Under such conditions it was not possible to produce a surplus.

As men and women developed their use of tools in the course of working on nature, gaining skill and knowledge from their use and learning to control nature, changes began to take place which had far reaching consequences. From relying on food gathering and hunting to eke out an existence human beings began to produce food by cultivating land with primitive tools. Animals were captured and herds bred.

These changes made it possible to begin to produce a surplus over and above the immediate needs of the producers. The process of bringing about a higher and more complex level of production involved a division of labour between the producers.

The outcome of these developments was a break up of the relations between people of primitive communism. In the place of the common ownership of the tribe private property arose, vested in the heads of families who were able to gain control of agricultural surplus and to become the owners of animals.

The emergence of private property and the new conditions of production had profound social consequences. The position of women changed from that of equality under primitive communism to oppression. The ownership of the means of production began to be concentrated into the hands of a few. Through this ownership it was possible to live off the labour of others. Thus society became divided and classes emerged.

These changes in productive forces and the new relations of production led to a further division of labour. The fact that a surplus was produced made it possible to maintain specialists and craftsmen concentrating on using metal to advance tools, making means of transport and mastering irrigation.

The privileged position of the class who owned and lived off the surplus which was produced resulted in some individuals devoting themselves to the conduct of war and others to priesthood, thus acquiring considerable power and influence in society.

Classes and Class Society

The central feature of this historical development was that the producers no longer owned the means of production or controlled what they produced. Private ownership took the place of social ownership, resulting in the emergence of classes and the great divide between those who owned and lived off the labour of others, and those who produced but did not own. From this time society was based on classes with antagonistic interests.

It is important to grasp what is meant by classes, because the word is used loosely in contemporary society and in a way that confuses. There are politicians, tory and right wing labour, who would have us believe that classes have ceased to exist. There are those who measure class by the size of wages or salaries.

What then is a class?

The starting point in defining a class is to see how people relate to the means of production. The word class is used by Marxists to denote a grouping which has a common relationship to the means of production. Approached in this way it is possible in each stage of society to pinpoint classes. For example, the slaves in ancient society had a common relationship to the means of production, which was quite distinctive from the slave owners, who were the ruling class. Similarly, in capitalist society those who own the factories, the businesses, banks and land, have a different relationship to the means of production to those who live by selling their power to work for wages or salaries. Hence the term capitalist class and working class.

From the time when society became divided into classes with antagonistic interests, arising out of the private ownership of the means of production, the social relations have been based on exploitation and oppression. The form of exploitation has changed. For example, the exploitation of the slave in ancient Egypt or Greece or Rome was different from the form of exploitation of the serf in feudal times, and so too is that of the worker under capitalism. But throughout the history of class society the common feature is that of productive relations based on private ownership of the means of production, the exploitation of the labour of those classes in society who do not own, and class struggle.

Modes of Production

The two aspects of social production—the level productive forces and the relations of production constitute what is called the mode of production.

In the course of the development of human society we can trace a number of modes of production—primitive communism, asiatic, slavery of ancient society, feudalism, capitalism and, from the 20th Century, socialism.

It does not follow that every people has had to go through each stage in turn. For example, there are peoples that have not had slavery. Nor does it mean that each mode in the past has been clear cut. For example, feudalism and capitalism have existed side by side, and slavery continued in many parts of the world even after the development of capitalism as the southern states of America showed.

The socialist mode of production represents something qualitatively different from the various modes of production that have existed since primitive communism. By ending the private ownership of the means of producing and replacing it by social ownership, it ends exploitation and begins the transition to a classless society.

Ideas and Institutions

If we consider any stage in the development of human society we will find forms of managing society—laws, customs, state institutions, moral obligations—and ideas and theories about society and the world. These may be relatively simple as in earlier societies, or they may be the complex set up in a developed capitalist country like Britain.

How do institutions, customs and ideas originate?

Marxism shows that they do not come out of “abstract principles”, but that they arise from and express the productive relations, class relations in society. In other words, their origin is “to be found in the material conditions and the relations between people in that society. They represent what Marx called the “superstructure”.

Thus, the superstructure reflects the class divisions in society. On the one hand, the dominant ideas in any given society are those of the ruling class. These ideas and the established institutions of that society help to conserve it, to preserve the power of the ruling class. A glance at the role of television, the radio and the monopoly press today illustrates the function they perform in maintaining capitalism.

On the other hand, there are the ideas which express the interests of the class which has grown out of changes in the productive forces and is challenging the existing social relations. These ideas are important in developing the consciousness of that class and its organisation. The nearer that such a class comes to bringing about a revolutionary change in society, the more its ideas exert a mass influence, playing an indispensable part in the overthrow of the existing system.

The relationship, therefore, between the superstructure and the material base of society is not a mechanical one, of the former passively reflecting the base, but there is a dynamic interconnection. This is brought out clearly by Engels in a letter he wrote:

“According to the materialist conception of history the determining element in history is ultimately the production and reproduction in real life. More than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. If therefore somebody twists this into the statement that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms it into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure—political forms of the class struggle and its consequences, constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc. forms of law—and then even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the combatants: political, legal, philosophical theories, religious ideas and their further development into systems of dogma—also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cao’s preponderate in determining their form.”

Letter to Bloch, in Letters on Historical Materialism, (1890), Selected Works Marx and Engels 1

Changing Society

How does change take place in society from one mode of production to another?

The starting point of change is in the productive forces, arising from the fact that men and women gain knowledge and skill from the use of tools. They advance technique, invent new tools, new methods of producing. These bring about changes in the productive process. You have only to contrast primitive methods of agriculture, using stone and wooden tools, with the mechanisation of modern agriculture and automation in industry, to see how much human beings have advanced their knowledge and technical skill.

However, it would be a mistake to think that in human history technical progress has been universal and uniform. In fact there are societies which have not advanced beyond primitive techniques. There have been long periods in the life of peoples when technical progress has been slow or has stagnated. But taking the broad sweep of history there have been tremendous changes in the technique of production and in mastering nature.

Advances in the productive forces reach a point in an existing mode of production where they come into conflict with the property set up, with the existing social relations. Since productive forces on the one hand and the maintenance of existing social relations on the other are linked with the interests of different classes, this conflict is expressed in class struggle. The exploiting class tries to prevent the social relations from changing as these are the basis for their privileges and their position as exploiters. The class whose interests lie with the further development of the productive forces is the revolutionary class. If it is to realise the possibilities for fuller development of the productive forces, it needs to overthrow the existing social relations and replace them by social relations which conform with the changed productive forces.

This conflict gives rise to ideas which express what is new and developing in the productive forces and reflect the interests of the revolutionary class. These ideas are a necessary element in bringing about a change in social relations. The forms in which they are expressed are diverse and not usually direct. For example, in Britain the rising capitalist class in struggling to end the social relations of feudalism, expressed its fight through religion and through demands such as “no taxation without representation”.

How changes in the productive forces come into conflict with property relations is clearly demonstrated by the capitalist system today.

As capitalism developed it necessitated a greater and greater division of labour, so the character of the productive process has become more social. Not only does it depend on the combined labour of thousands within a vast enterprise—such as British Leylands—but also on other enterprises, such as Lucas for lights—and in turn electricity, transport and so on. In other words it is impossible without the co-operation and interdependence cf thousands. But while the productive forces have become more social, the relations of production have remained on the basis of private ownership of the land, the factories, the banks, and private appropriation of the products of workers’ labour, by the capitalist class. This contradiction can only be resolved by changing the relations of production so that they correspond to relations based on social ownership. In other words to match social production with social ownership.

Why is the working class the revolutionary class?

The working class in capitalist society, is the revolutionary class, that is the class whose interests are bound up with realising the possibilities for the fuller development of the productive forces, by ending private ownership of the means of production and replacing it by social ownership.

To achieve such a change depends on advancing the class struggle, developing consciousness of the need for new social relations and on building the revolutionary organisation of the working class—the Communist Party.

In the 20th century the working class and its allies succeeded in establishing new social relations, first of all in the Soviet Union and then in one third of the world, thus ending class exploitation for the first time in recorded history since primitive communism.

The Marxist approach to history brings out the dynamic role of class struggle in changing society. Far from an approach of mechanical determinism, it sees the importance of people and their ideas and consciousness in the historical process. This is brought out by Marx when he wrote:

”Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past.”

18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, 1

Questions:

1. To what extent do men and women make their own history?
2. How do you see the battle of ideas contributing to changing society?
3. How would you argue with someone who says that the class struggle is out of date?

The World Outlook Of Marxism

Many people think that philosophy is something that is the concern only of academicians. But, in fact, everyone has some kind of philosophy, even if it is not fully articulated. Everyone has some views about the world, about human society, about thr place and destiny of men and women in the world. These views might be based on the conception that the be all and end all of existence is to make profit, to be part of the rat race. They might be based on the belief that the world is the creation of a supreme being, and that what happens is the working out of the will of god. They might be based on a socialist outlook. Usually, they are not clear cut and contain contradictory features.

As we saw in the previous discussion, ideas, philosophies, do not come “out of the air” but arise out of the material conditions of society and out of the relations between classes in that society. This means that ideas both reflect the level of the productive forces at any given stage of society and the class divisions, the interests of different classes and the struggle between classes.

What philosophers have done is to express these ideas in a systematic form. Though the outcome may appear abstract and separated off from ordinary life, they are in fact connected with the character of society, reflecting class relations in it. Consciously or unconsciously, these ideas are not “unbiased” as many would have us believe, but partisan, taking sides, either helping to conserve the existing society or helping to change it. They thus exert an influence on the historical process, an influence on the class struggle.

In the course of the development of human society there have been a variety of philosophical systems, but the great dividing line in the various systems has been between materialism and idealism.

What is the essence of this division?

The popular use of these two terms—idealism and materialism—is different from the use in philosophy. In everyday expressions, materialism means being concerned with material gains, and idealism means being concerned with things of the spirit, with aspirations.

Used in the philosophical sense, the central point about the difference between Materialism and Idealism in philosophy is that:

• Materialism regards nature, the world, the universe, as a reality, existing independently of human consciousness. It regards matter in its various forms as primary. Men and women are part of nature, and the mind, thinking, consciousness has developed in the process of mankind’s evolution from the animal world. The mind is the functioning of highly developed organic matter, the brain. It is thinking matter. In other words the human mind and what is called spirit cannot be separated from matter, does not have a separate existence outside the body.
• Idealism is based on the opposite view. It sees the mind and spirit as the primary reality, not matter, not nature. In other words, it believes that the mind and spirit existed before nature, and that nature is in one way or another the creation of spirit. That the mind, spirit, have a separate existence from the world of matter.

While this is the central difference between the outlook of idealism and of materialism, there are a variety of schools of thought expressing these opposed philosophical outlooks.

What we are especially concerned with in this discussion, is to consider the Marxist standpoint and its implications, not only in helping to change society, but also in approaching all phenomena in the world and universe, of which we are part.

Marxism is based on the materialist conception of the world and is distinguished from mechanistic materialism of the 17th and 18th centuries which saw fixed properties in matter and change in terms of mechanical action. In criticising mechanical materialism Engels wrote:

”…the world is not to be comprehended as a complex of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things apparently stable, no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away …”.

Ludwig Feuerbach, 4

Dialectical Materialism

Marxism examines these processes to uncover the laws which govern the world and human society as part of the material world. This approach to the world, this examination of it, reveals certain features of how change takes place and these are expressed in the term dialectical materialism, which is the name given to the Marxist world outlook.

What is dialectical materialism?

How does change take place?

The dialectical approach looks on the world about us, the universe and human society, not as a collection of independent things, but as interconnected, all forms of matter having a relationship one to the other. Therefore, within the enormous diversity and richness of matter, there is a unity and relationship.

It regards everything as knowable, even though there is an infinite amount that is unknown, that has not yet been discovered. Therefore, its standpoint is the opposite of those who think that there is a mysterious world which is outside the ken of mankind, a world of the spirit.

While men and women cannot change laws of nature, as they expand their knowledge of them, they can more and more make nature serve human society.

For example, by understanding the law of gravity, it has been possible to develop the science of aerodynamics and to fly. Similarly, knowledge of laws of chemistry and physics has made it possible for human beings to conquer diseases, and reach outer space and the moon.

If we recall what we were discussing previously about historical development, we pointed to laws of trends in history and made a distinction between them and the laws of nature. Engels expressed this when he wrote:

“In one point, however, the history of the development of society proves to be essentially different from nature. In nature—in so far as we ignore man’s reaction upon nature—there are only blind, unconscious agencies acting upon one another, out of whose interplay the general law comes into operation… In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals. Nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an intended aim. But this distinction, important as it is for historical investigation, particularly of single epochs and events, cannot alter the fact that the course of history is governed by inner general laws.”

Feuerbach, part IV

The more people become conscious of, understand, the processes at work in history, the more they can shape it. For example, the more clearly the working class understands the character and development of capitalism, the need for socialism, and becomes conscious of its role as a revolutionary class, the more rapidly will it bring about fundamental change.

The second feature of dialectical materialism is that it sees everything in change, nothing is static, all matter is in action. This movement takes place in time and space and it is a process of growth and development and decline and dying away. This is easy to see when looking at nature around us—plants, trees, animals. It applies too to human society as we saw when we considered changes in modes of production—for example the transition from primitive communism to class-based societies.

The third feature of the dialectical approach is that change does not proceed in a straight, smooth, uninterrupted way. Changes build up gradually and reach a point where there is a break. This break marks the emergence of something qualitatively new. The illustration which is often given of this in inorganic matter is the change from water to steam at the boiling point of water.

In plant life changes take place in a seed that has been sown and a point is reached where a green shoot, something qualitatively new, emerges.

In society, a similar process is at work, though it is much more complex, not so apparent and may take hundreds of years to build up. It took a long time for capitalism to develop within feudalism. And when a change is made from one mode of production to another, the revolutionary break is not as simple as in examples from the world of nature. For example, the butterfly emerges from its crysallis and flies off without the encumbrance of the crysallis. But when the working class takes power and establishes social ownership it does so under conditions of struggle to defeat the old capitalist class and its influence.

The fourth feature of dialectics uncovers the causes of development in nature and society, showing that the driving force in change is by contradictions which are inherent in processes. There are opposing tendencies within each process. Together they form a unity, the existence of one depending on, being bound up with, the other, like the obverse and reverse of a coin.

Expressed in terms of capitalist society, there is a contradiction between the social character of the productive forces and the productive relations, based on the private ownership of the means of production. This contradiction is expressed in struggle between the working class and the capitalist class. The capitalist class is the dominant class but the developing class, the working class increasingly challenges that domination through struggle. The contradiction can only be resolved by the working class overthrowing the capitalist class and establishing social ownership.

Understanding Nature and Society

The Marxist world outlook of dialectical materialism is not some magical wand, which just has to be waved to clarify the most complicated question.

Its approach helps us to understand nature and society. Because its method is scientific, it calls for an examination of all aspects of any process or situation and a readiness to discard conclusions which have become outdated by developments, a readiness to see what is new and to respond to it.

Writing about the dialectical method in relation to society, Lenin commented:

“What Marx and Engels called the dialectical method is nothing more or less than the scientific method in sociology, which consists of regarding society as a living organism in a constant state of development, the study of which requires an objective analysis of the relations of production which constitute the given social formation and an investigation of its laws of functioning and development”

What the Friends of the People Are, Part 1

Through understanding these laws, men and women can influence the development of society. Therefore, in contrast with other philosophies, Marxism is a revolutionary theory helping to change the world. And this idea was expressed by Marx when he wrote in the Theses on Feuerbach:

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.”

Questions:

1. What is the value of the dialectical method in approaching problems of the class struggle today?
2. How would you challenge the statement that “You can’t change human nature”?
3. Why is revolutionary theory important in the struggle of the working class?

The Nature Of Capitalism And Imperialism

Our first discussion on Marxism and the development of society showed how advances in the productive forces led to far reaching changes in the character of production and in relations between people. From the low level of subsistence in the period known as primitive communism, developments in the productive forces led to conditions where it was possible to produce a surplus over and above the needs of the day, out of which private ownership of the means of production emerged and the division of society into classes with antagonistic interests.

The essence of this change was from that time on relations of production were based on exploiters and exploited. In other words those who by virtue of their private ownership of the means of producing the goods were able to live off the labour of others. And the great majority of people who did not own the means of producing goods and who laboured for the class or classes who owned.

Here we want to consider the main features of the capitalist mode of production, in particular the way in which exploitation takes place, and how capitalism has developed to its highest and final stage called imperialism.

What are the main features of capitalist production?

Commodity Production

Capitalism is a commodity-producing economy. In previous class societies the surplus was disposed of for immediate consumption by the ruling class—whether it was the slave owners or the feudal lords—and also to keep alive the working force—slaves or serfs. Capitalism is a new form of production and the surplus is disposed of in new ways.

Goods are produced for sale on the market, not for the direct use of, or immediate consumption by, the capitalist who owns them. It is this production of goods for sale, for exchange, that is called commodity production and only when the goods are sold and paid for is the profit realised. But the profit does not come out of the simple process of selling. It is already contained in the product, arising out of the form of exploitation of working people under capitalism.

Production for private profit is the hallmark of capitalism. We see this going on around us every day in Britain. It is visible. What is not so visible is the way exploitation takes place.

To make production for private profit possible depends on two conditions:

• Wealth concentrated in the hands of a class, through its ownership of the means of production, such as machinery, factories, land and accumulated money
• Large numbers of people whose only means of getting a living is by selling their power to work for wages or salaries.

Exploitation Concealed

In previous class societies—slavery, feudalism—exploitation is visible. The slave is the property of the slave owner, subjected to the total control of his master. The feudal serf had to labour for so many days a year for nothing, in return for the use of his land. But under capitalism exploitation is masked. On the surface it looks as if the worker is “free”. It is true that he is not the personal property of an owner, nor is he tied as under serfdom, but he is propertyless, has no means of production, and can only live by selling his power to work.

Labour Power Becomes a Commodity

The fact that the worker has to sell his power to labour to exist means that under capitalism labour power has become a commodity to be bought and sold on the market in a similar way to the buying and selling of other commodities. The workers sell their labour power to the capitalists, who use it to produce the goods for profit. The conditions which gave rise to the development of the working class were the driving off the land of peasants by the Enclosures in Britain. That is, the taking over by the landlords of land worked on by peasants and the common lands where they grazed their cattle and gathered their wood. Separated from the land, they were forced to depend for their livelihood on working for the emerging capitalist class for wages.

Where does the capitalists’ profit come from?

How is the worker exploited?

There are a whole lot of false ideas spread about where profit comes from. The image is built up of the industrious capitalist who makes profits and gets to the top by his hard work. Profit is presented as his reward for the contribution he has made. But present-day monopoly capitalism gives the lie to all this, as witness the financial operations of many firms which have hit the headlines over past years.

The truth, as Marx showed, is that the source of profit is to be found in the value created by the application of labour power to the machines which turn raw materials into a product for sale on the market. For example, steel turned into refrigerators, or nylon fibre turned into cloth, or wood turned into a chair.

How is profit derived in this process? First of all, it is necessary to see that the factor which is common to all production is expenditure of human energy, labour power, and this is the determining factor in giving a commodity its value. Marx showed how the value of a commodity is arrived at by the socially necessary labour time in its production. The price for that commodity circulates around this value. If there is a big demand it might rise above, if there isn’t, it might fall below.

Since labour power is also a commodity, its value is determined by the socially necessary labour time needed to keep that worker in existence—food, clothing, housing, education and training, and producing a family to provide future labour. And this value is expressed in terms of wages. But the wages may fluctuate around this value. For example, strong trade union organisation can push up wages. Mass unemployment can be a means of pushing down wages.

The source of the profit the capitalist makes is to be found in the fact that the worker, by using his or her labour power, creates a greater value than is returned in wages. In other words the worker spends part of his or her working time creating value to pay wages and the rest of the time producing a surplus for which he is not paid. This is what Marx called “surplus value”. And this is the root of exploitation under capitalism and the economic basis of the class struggle.

Suppose workers in a workplace work 9 hours a day. Surplus value arises because the workers create the value of their wages in the first four hours—so they have earned their day’s pay in just 4 hours, in this example. For the remaining five hours the workers are creating value over and above what they are paid in wages. This is surplus value.

The employers’ actual profit is part of this surplus value. It is arrived at when the goods are sold and when costs—raw materials, rent, interest on borrowed capital, etc—have been deducted.

Crisis Inbuilt in Capitalism

Capitalism has developed, not in a straight ascending line, but through periods of expansion—booms or overheating—followed by periods of contraction—busts or slumps—and these recurring economic crises are a feature of capitalism.

It is not the purpose of this discussion to analyse the complex factors making for the up and down of the trade cycle as it is called, or to go into the current aspects of capitalist crisis in present conditions of state monopoly capitalism. This is the subject of a separate course on Political Economy, which includes the way the state intervenes to modify the effects of cyclical crisis.

Since the motive force of capitalist production is to make Profit, each capitalist is forced to accumulate capital, that is to invest part of his profit in new machinery. He does this to expand production, to compete with rivals, and by using new techniques to increase the productivity of labour and above all to scoop as much of the market as he can, thus increasing his profits. This results in an unplanned system of productipn, because every other capitalist is doing the same thing. Marx called this “the anarchy of production” under capitalism, the tendency to produce as if the sky was the limit.

The other aspect of this process is that the drive to make the maximum profit means that the capitalist is constantly trying to keep down the wages of all working people. Yet, if the product is to be sold, the bulk of the buyers are the mass of the people, not the minority class of capitalists.

Therefore there is a deep contradiction between the total mass of products on the market and the ability of the market to absorb them.

Imperialism—the Monopoly Stage of Capitalism

When Marx made his profound analysis of capitalism in CAPITAL, it was in its earlier stage, before it developed into monopoly capitalism and imperialism, though he brought out the tendency to monopoly.

How then does “free competitive capitalism” move into its higher and final stage which we are familiar with today?

As we saw, the drive for profit obliges the capitalist to accumulate capital to expand production, produce more efficiently and compete more effectively with his rivals.

This leads to the concentration of capital and production in larger and fewer enterprises. In this process the stronger and more profitable mop up the weaker, making for giant monopolies with enormous economic power. This trend takes place not only in industry, but in banking, finance and insurance. The growth of monopoly does not eliminate competition between the giants, but intensifies it. Their drive for the maximum profit is not contained within a particular country but reaches out to the world as a source of investment, and exploitation.

This stage of capitalism is called imperialism. Imperialism is not necessarily the possession of colonies. In fact a country can be imperialist without colonies as witness the United States of America. Though the possession of colonies has been an important factor in the development of imperialist powers, and Britain is a case in point.

What is Imperialism?

What are its specific features?

Lenin made a major contribution to an understanding of the character of imperialism. In his analysis of it he summed up the main features:

“Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development in which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established, in which the export of capital acquired pronounced importance, in which the division of the world among the imperialist trusts has begun; in which the division of all territories of the globe amongst the biggest capitalist powers has been completed”.

Imperialism—the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 7

In contrast with the earlier stage of capitalism, where the emphasis was on the export of commodities, under imperialism the export of capital becomes supremely important. Through investment of capital overseas greater and greater profits were made by the exploitation of other peoples and their natural resources. Monopolies spread beyond national frontiers and became international, sharing the world. Industrial capital and banking capital merged, to become finance capital, as the operations of the city of London and other financial centres demonstrate.

With a world shared out among imperialist powers, the only way to bring about any re-division of spheres of influence, of colonial territories, was through military power. And one of the main features of Imperialism has been its thrust to war—world war and local wars. The fact that capitalism develops unevenly, has meant cont1nuous r1valry between the powers, with the emerging powers challenging the established ones. All this has brought terrible sacrifice and suffer1ng to millions of people. For example in the world war of 1914-18, colonial wars in Asia, Africa, South America, the Middle East.

Imperialism intensified all the contradictions of capitalism—that between the workers and capitalists, between the colonial peoples and the imperialist powers, between the rival powers themselves. By doing so imperialism opened up the possibilities for its overthrow. That is why Lenin characterised it as the “eve of the proletarian revolution”.

What is the General Crisis of Capitalism?

The term the “General Crisis of Capitalism” is used by Marxists to describe the political and economic crisis of the system following on the socialist revolution of October 1917. The essential feature of the general crisis was that imperialism had ceased to be the single economic system of the world.

With the establishment of the new system of socialism in the Soviet Union, a new contradiction emerged, a contradiction between imperialism and socialism. This has had far reaching repercussions in further changing the world. It has sharpened the already existing contradictions, which we have already described.

In the period from 1917 to the present, socialism has grown, and at one time, before the arms race defeated the Soviet Union, embraced one third of the world. It thus proved that it is a higher social system, where rapid economic advance contrasts sharply with deepening economic crisis in the capitalist countries.

Through the struggle for liberation, political independence has been achieved in country after country which was under colonial rule. These changes have dealt powerful blows to imperialism. But the latter fights back to maintain an economic grip on the newly independent countries, and through this to exert a political influence. This is the meaning of Neo-Colonialism today.

The growth of the socialist world, of the national liberation movement and of the workers and progressive movement inside the capitalist countries has opened up possibilities of preventing the outbreak of world war between the two systems. But the wars in Vietnam a dn the Middle East show how powerful the struggle for peace needs to be if the imperialist and reactionary forces are to be defeated.

State Monopoly Capitalism

The growth of monopoly, which was a feature of the period between the two world wars, has accelerated enormously in the past decade. Not only do giant firms merge, but we have been witnessing the development of multinational and international firms, straddling frontiers, with plants and employees in many parts of the world. Here just the 20 largest UK companies are worth over a £trillion...

Today we use the term “state monopoly capitalism” to describe capitalism, to denote a new stage in it.

In what way is it different from the earlier stage of capitalism?

It marks the enormously increased intervention of the state in all aspects of economic, political and social life in the interests of the great monopolies. One of its features is the intertwining of the state with representatives of the monopolies.

The background to its development is the general crisis of capitalism dating from the first world war, and the first socialist revolution. To cope with the sharpened contradictions of the system, which we have already referred to, the state is forced to intervene more and more directly. It does so to contain these contradictions, to prevent them from exploding, to protect the interests of monopoly capitalism, within the framework of maintaining the capitalist system as a whole.

This intervention takes many forms. For example, the protection of monopoly interests in the world market, legislation to curb the strength of the trade unions and to control wages, providing financial assistance for technological development, rationalisation of certain industries, promoting mergers, Government policy to regulate the economy, taking Britain into the EU in the pursuit of monopoly interests.

A feature of this extension of state intervention is the trend towards authoritarianism and the attack on democratic rights. It is marked by the sharpening of the political and ideological struggle, with the ruling class spreading divisive ideas, like racialism, and the hotting up of propaganda against the growing militancy of the working class.

From the working class and progressive forces there is a many sided challenge to monopoly, not limited to economic issues but increasingly making political demands and fighting on democratic issues.

Why is state monopoly capitalism the “threshold of socialism”?

Lenin once described state monopoly capitalism as the “threshold of socialism”. He meant by this that it created conditions for the rapid building of socialism, once the socialist revolution had been achieved. He put this idea when he wrote:

“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state capitalist monopoly. Or in other words socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly. There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies without advancing to socialism”.

The Impending Catastrophe

By the socialist revolution the working class and its allies end the basic contradiction of capitalism between the social character of production and relations, which are based on private ownership’ of the means of production. From then onwards the relations of production are social and so too is the ownership social.

Questions:

1. How would you explain what the meaning of “surplus value” is in a discussion with another worker?
2. We speak of the political and economic crisis of British imperialism. What does this mean?
3. In what ways does the development of state monopoly capitalism create conditions for socialism?

The State, Class Struggle, And Revolution

On few questions have so many false ideas and theories been spread as that of the state. This is not surprising because the state is a central question as far as the capitalist class is concerned for maintaining its rule.

An understanding of what the state is and why it exists is also a central question for the working class if it is to change the system, replacing capitalism by socialism.

A widely held view, which has been propagated by the capitalist class and by right wing Labour leaders, is that the state is “neutral”, that it stands “above classes”, running the country in the “interests of the community”. Thus the picture is built up of the laws, the police, the judges, the armed forces and those at the head of various ministries operating impartially for the whole of society.

Marxism cuts through these false ideas and shows how the state came into being and what function it serves. Its origin is connected with the emergence of classes in society, classes with antagonistic interests.

How and why did the state come into being’?

There was a time in primitive communities where there was no state apparatus. The entire community was involved in the decision making and the observance of customs and codes necessary to the life of the people.

Once classes developed based on exploiters and exploited, with interests that were diametrically opposed, an apparatus became necessary which could ensure and maintain the power of the exploiting class. In an important book The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels traced its development. He showed how what appeared to be a force “over and above” society, responsible for “governing”, with armed forces and prisons as an indispensable part of maintaining rule, took shape.

Its function is to maintain and perpetuate the economic and political power of the dominant class in society, to contain the antagonisms between classes and to prevent them from exploding.

If we examine every class-based society that has existed—for example slave, feudal, capitalist—we will see that all have had an apparatus for ruling which has been moulded by and serves the interests of the class which, by virtue of its economic position in society, has been able to exploit other classes. What has made a state apparatus especially important for these societies is that in each case the class that has ruled has been a minority.

Forms of State Differ but Function is Common

The forms of state vary in each stage of society and even within a particular stage, but the function is common. For example, under capitalism forms range from the democratic republic and constitutional monarchy, where there are representative institutions and democratic rights to extreme forms of repressive rule, illustrated by Hitler’s fascism in the 1930s, by the dictatorships of Portugal and Spain, and the military juntas in Greece and Chile.

But whether the form is a democratic republic or a military junta, the state under capitalism expresses the rule of the capitalist class. As Lenin put it, the state in essence is “the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”—the means by which it exerts its power over the working class. It does this by controlling the key positions in the apparatus of the state.

The modern capitalist state, such as we have in Britain, is a complex set up, combining the directly coercive organs of power like the army and police, with the less directly coercive, more persuasive forms, which nevertheless exert a powerful influence on people. These are expressed through the control of the educational system and through the radio and TV. They are buttressed by the part played by the monopoly press. All these help to get people to conform, to accept the system. The ideological aspect of the power of the capitalist class is extremely important in preserving the status quo and in disguising the class nature of the state.

A major feature of the stage of capitalism under which we are living—that is of state monopoly capitalism—is the increasing tendency for the state to intervene in all aspects of economic, political and social life. Underlying this trend towards increased state intervention is the economic and political crisis of capitalism and imperialism.

The tightening grip of the state is illustrated in a variety of ways. For example, the acts which restrict the trade unions, acts to control wages, acts which increase government control over local government, acts to make courts secret and allow superinjunctions, anti-terrorism acts, etc. Together with new legislation there is the recurring use of emergency powers and the resurrection of laws which have not been used for decades.

What, therefore, stands out in this period of state monopoly capitalism is the trend towards authoritarianism and the curtailment of democratic rights, gained from previous class struggles.

Marxists are not indifferent to the forms of capitalist state power. Therefore, they do not merely analyse and register trends to authoritarianism, but point to the great importance of challenging and defeating attacks on democratic rights and the laws which are passed to increase the grip of the state on the lives of the people.

State Power

A central conclusion to be drawn from the Marxist analysis of the state is that there cannot be a fundamental change in the social system, a change from capitalism to socialism, without taking state power from the capitalists, and replacing it by the state power of the working class. This idea is especially important to grasp in Britain where for generations right wing Labour leaders have preached that capitalism will slide into socialism and have always dodged the question of state power. In practice Labour Governments have left the existing state apparatus intact and by doing so have not challenged the political power of the monopoly capitalists.

What is Revolution?

The kernel, the heart of revolution is the taking of state power by the historically more progressive class and establishing its rule in the place of the class that has been ruling.

There are different kinds of revolution. For example, in the bourgeois revolutions in Britain, France and other countries, the capitalist class took power from the feudal lords. In the socialist revolution the working class takes state power from the capitalists. The taking of state power is the central feature of revolution, not whether or not there is bloodshed.

The Socialist Revolution

Marx and Engels studied revolutionary experience in the 19th century and developed their approach both to forms of revolution and to the content of the new state power of the working class. Lenin built on their work on these problems in the period leading up to the Hussian Revolution of October 1917, and was able to carry it forward in the light of the rich experience he had of leading the struggle for the establishment of the first socialist system.

On the forms of achieving the socialist revolution, Marx and Engels, and later Lenin, considered the possibilities of winning power with or without civil war, depending on the relationship of class forces and the specific internal and external conditions. Their approach was to analyse all the factors in a given situation and country and not to take up dogmatic position on the precise form of the revolution, without examining the conditions.

The experience of the Paris Commune of 1871, led Marx and Engels to draw most important conclusions about the need to overthrow the old state apparatus and about what should replace it. Here, too, Lenin developed on and enriched their theoretical work in State and Hevolution.

What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?

A central idea in all their work is that the working class must construct a new state apparatus, one which will be a vehicle for its power if it is to defeat capitalism and establish the new social system of socialism. The scientific term which Marxists use to express the concept of working class power is “the dictatorship of the proletariat”.

This needs explaining because the common use of the word dictatorship and its association with fascist forms of capitalist power, confuses the question in the minds of many people.

What has to be understood is that under capitalism, the monopoly capitalists dictate through a combination of their state political power and their economic power. In other words they exert their domination over the working class and the majority of the people and they do this whether the form is one with constitutional rights or extreme authoritarianism.

The reverse is the case under socialism. The working class and its allies exert their power against the old order of society and in the interests of the great majority. Lenin spoke of the dictatorship of the proletariat as being “democratic in a new way” because it expressed the power and interests of all working people, and “dictatorial in a new way” because it was directed against the capitalists.

Explaining what it is Lenin wrote the following:

“If we are to translate the Latin, scientific, historical-philosophical term ’dictatorship of the proletariat’ into simple language, it means just the following—only a definite class, namely the urban workers and the factory industrial workers in general, is able to lead the whole mass of the toilers and exploited in the struggle for the overthrow of capital, in the struggle to maintain and consolidate the victory, in the work of creating the new, socialist, social system, in the whole struggle for the complete abolition of classes”. Collected Works, 29, 1120, “A Great Beginning”

The purpose of this new state power is to end capitalism, build the higher social system of socialism, and create conditions for the future classless society of communism. In making this transformation the state becomes unnecessary, “withers away”.

Strategy for Socialist Revolution

Marxists have been guided by these concepts of state power in approaching problems of strategy for the socialist revolution and its achievement under the conditions of today.

In doing so they take into account the class struggle in this stage of state monopoly capitalism, the specific conditions in each particular country and the world conditions. The latter are greatly influenced by the strength of the socialist system and increasingly affected by the way the national liberation movements in various countries are breaking from imperialism.

Which class leads in the Socialist Revolution?

As we have brought out in an earlier discussion, the working class is the revolutionary class under capitalism. This is not primarily due to the fact that it is exploited, but because its interests are served by bringing about a higher form of social production. In other words, its interests are bound up with replacing private ownership of the means of production with social ownership. While the objective position of the working class is revolutionary it does not follow that at all times in the class struggle it fulfils its revolutionary role. For that depends on the extent to which class and socialist consciousness is developed, and on leadership.

Why allies?

Historical examination of revolutions shows that while a particular class plays a leading role, revolutions which have established a new social system have never been undertaken by a class on its own. The class leading the struggle for a new social order has always drawn in all classes and strata that are oppressed in a challenge to the existing order. This was demonstrated in the French Revolution of 1789 where the peasantry and artisans were drawn in. Similarly, in the English Revolution of 1640, and especially in the October Revolution of 1917 and the Chinese Revolution of 1949.

The question of allies in bringing about a revolutionary transformation of society is seen by Marxists as one of major importance and this is borne out by the attention given to building up an alliance between the working class and all those oppressed by capitalism and imperialism.

Lenin developed a strategy for an alliance between the working class and the whole of the peasantry in the process of the struggle to overthrow Tsarism and between the working class and the poor peasantry in the socialist revolution of October 1917.

If we look at this problem in terms of the situation in Britain and a number of Western European countries today, we will see that the development of monopoly capitalism brings about a differentiation in the capitalist class. On the one hand there is the growth of industrial and financial giants with enormous economic power, absorbing other capitalist firms and making it increasingly difficult for the smaller enterprises to survive—small shopkeepers, small businesses, small farmers. Monopoly, therefore, constitutes a threat to their future and puts sections of them in a position where they can be won for policies which challenge the power of monopoly and can be drawn into an alliance with the working class.

At the same time the technological changes, which are part of the development of capitalism, are bringing new forces into the working class, enlarging it numerically. This is reflected in the increase in trade union membership among salaried workers in various technical, scientific and clerical grades in the production process.

All these changes have had a big impact on the class composition, the numbers and the social destination of students and this is reflected in the growth of the student movement and their increasing challenge to the status quo.

An important development is the way thousands of women are fighting for their rights, for equality and an end to their centuries old oppression.

In its strategy for the socialist revolution in Britain, our Communist Party envisages an alliance between the working class, which has enormous potential strength, students, the middle strata and the small capitalists.

What changes in the class struggle are necessary to make possible a socialist revolution?

The most elementary form of class struggle is economic. Workers are forced to protect and to improve their wages and conditions in a society where they are being exploited. The development of trade unions is the organised expression of their struggle for better conditions. While this aspect of the class struggle is essential and of great importance, on its own it will not change the system. It is mainly a struggle for better terms within the confines of the existing system.

Marxists stress the three aspects of the class struggle—the economic, the political, and the ideological. Their combined effect is the means by which workers ano other people are able to see the need to take political power from the capitalist class and to establish the new social system of socialism.

Such a development politically and in outlook does not arise automatically out of experience of day to day economic struggles. It has to be fought for consciously and fused with the struggle on issues. For this to be done the working class and people need a political party based on the revolutionary theory of Marxism/Leninism, a communist party.

In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels said of communists, “They have no interests separate and apart from the proletariat as a whole”, and went on to show that they are…

“…that section which pushes forward all others; on the one hand theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement”.

Manifesto, Section 2

Lenin both developed on their theoretical concepts and succeeded in establishing a party of a new type capable of leading the workers and people in the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by socialism.

In fulfilling its revolutionary role today in Britain, the Communist Party works to bring about a united working class in alliance with all people oppressed by monopoly capitalism, which can challenge the present rulers and take power from them. Essential to such a development is the defeat of the reformist influence in the Labour Party, the Trade Union and Co-operative movement. In other words the defeat of capitalist ideology in the working class, which preaches class collaboration and coming to terms with capitalism. Therefore, hand in hand with the struggle on issues is the battle to extend the influence of the revolutionary ideas of Marxism, to impart understanding of the socialist alternative and enlarge the Communist Party.

The growth of militant movement and the important leftward changes in many Trade Unions are laying the basis for the triumph of the left over the right wing in the Labour Party and the entire Labour Movement.

Such changes in outlook, unity and leadership would make possible a powerful challenge to monopoly capitalism and open the way to working class power.

Questions:

1. How does your own experience illustrate the view that the state is not “neutral”?
2. What is the importance of the struggle today to defeat attacks on democratic rights and to extend them?
3. How do you see the winning of working class power? Is it possible without civil war?

Socialism As The Basis Of Communism

The word “socialism” and what it signifies has been misused, distorted and vilified since the socialist pioneers opened up the vision of it and since Marx and Engels developed the theory of scientific socialism. The point of these distortions is to cloud workers’ minds about what socialism really means, to hold back the struggle for it, and therefore to give capitalism a longer lease of life. That is why the socialist countries, and in particular the Soviet Union, have been the target of attack of our ruling class over the years.

Among the many distortions is the favourite trick of the Tories of identifying nationalisation today in Britain with socialism and of calling the policy of right wing Labour governments “socialist”. Another is to create the impression that under socialism everything is drab and uniform, without individuality and variety. Often, the statement is made by both Tories and right wing Labour leaders that Britain is the “finest democracy” in the world and that under socialism there is “no democracy”.

What are the main features of socialism?

Marx envisaged two stages of communism, the lower stage and the higher stage and he distinguished between them in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Today we speak of socialism as the first stage and communism as the higher stage. Socialism is, therefore, a transitional period, creating conditions for the future classless society of communism in which it will be possible for men and women to develop fully as human beings.

That transition is not easy. For socialism is not built in “model” conditions, but on the background of the old capitalist society. Therefore, the imprint of the past is both in the fabric of the new society and in the thinking of people. In addition, building socialism is a process and everything does not happen overnight.

Let us look at some of the main features of socialism and see how they make possible the transition to communism.

Social Ownership of the Means of Production

With the social ownership of the factories, the mines, the land, the banks and financial apparatus, the basis for economic exploitation is step by step rooted out of society. Instead of a class living off the labour of the majority of the people, the latter now get the fruits of their labour. Collectively they own the means of production, and what they produce comes back to them either directly in wages, indirectly in social benefits, or through ploughing back funds to expand production further. Classes still exist under socialism, but the ending of exploitation means that a society is being built without antagonistic classes, and these are the prelude to a future classless communism.

Producing to Satisfy Needs

Whereas the motive force of production under capitalism is private profit, under socialism it is to satisfy needs. To do so is only possible under social ownership and it necessitates planning. That is why a feature of all socialist countries is economic planning.

Achieving planned production is not a simple question and there are many problems to overcome in the course of it. For example problems of tendencies towards over centralisation, which restrict initiative at the “grass roots”, problems of imbalance which make for shortages. But the over-riding feature is that production is on a new basis, aimed at satisfying needs. A stable economy is built, without the economic crises of capitalism, without mass unemployment, and with a steadily expanding growth in the productive forces. The contrast between the deepening crisis of capitalism and the growth of socialist economies becomes more marked as socialism advances.

In the period of establishing and expanding socialism, all needs cannot be immediately satisfied, as that calls for a great development of the productive forces and for production in abundance. Marx spoke of this stage being based on “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work”. This applies to all but the old, the young and the infirm for whom special provision is made.

Because of the diversity of conditions in which socialism is built the rate of advance of socialist economies varies, and the more countries in the world take the socialist path the more rapidly will it be possible to solve insufficiencies and shortages. Technological developments today open up tremendous potentialities which can only be fully realised under socialism.

As these potentialities are realised, so it becomes possible to produce in abundance with a minimum of human labour and conditions are created for moving into the higher stage, communism when, as Marx described, society will “inscribe on its banners—‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ ”. The preparation for this is not only in material conditions, but changes in people themselves.

Educational and Cultural Advance

The needs of men and women go far beyond “bread and butter” ones, though sufficient food, clothing, housing and social amenities are necessities. But the arts, science, sport—in fact all aspects of mental and physical culture—are necessities. And one of the distinguishing features of socialism is that it opens up the educational and cultural development of all people, sweeping away the class and wealth barriers, which under capitalism limit opportunity for the majority of the people. Such educational and cultural advance is an essential part of the transition to communism. It is part of the process of people changing themselves, getting rid of the hangovers of previous capitalist society and the divisive effects of thousands of years of societies based on exploitation. For example, rooting out old reactionary ideas such as racialism and superior attitudes to women. It is part of developing a socialist ideology and ethics which value people.

Socialist Democracy

When we were discussing the state, we brought out how working class power is necessary to establish socialism and how this is expressed through a new kind of state—one which represents the interests of all working people.

What makes it qualitatively different from all past states?

Whereas the latter have been the rule of an exploiting minority, the new socialist state is the rule of the majority for the first time in history. This majority uses its power to end exploitation. In this sense it represents a new and higher form of democracy. But that is only the beginning of socialist democracy, the foundation for its development.

The purpose of the state under socialism is to defend the socialist countries from capitalist attack, both from without and within. To bring about a closer unity and alliance of the working class with the people. To guide the construction of socialism and open up conditions for the development of people themselves.

The state, therefore, helps to carry through the transition from capitalism to communism. It moves towards a situation where the need for a state will have ceased to exist. Whereas the movement of a capitalist state is towards an ever more complex state machine, towards tighter control over people. Lenin brought out the transitional character of the socialist state. When referring to Marx’s conclusions he wrote…

“…the state was bound to disappear, and that the transitional form for its disappearance—the transition from state to nonstate—would be the proletariat organised as the ruling class”.

State and Revolution

What then is the process which makes the state unnecessary?

What is the dynamic of the development of the new social system?

With the ending of the exploitation of capitalism, socialism develops on the basis of non-antagonistic classes, with the working class leading in alliance with other classes and social groupings. In the course of building socialism changes take place in classes and social groupings and the way is opened to a future classless society. The outlook of people also changes, becoming fully social.

How does this come about?

It is the expansion of socialist democracy, unleashing the creative initiative of people, drawing them into the struggle to solve the complex and difficult problems of building socialism, which is at the heart of changing society, creating conditions for communism. In this struggle, people both change conditions and change themselves. Making the contrast between capitalism and socialism Lenin wrote:

“The bourgeoisie admits a state to be strong only when it can, by the power of government apparatus, hurl the people wherever the bourgeois rulers want them hurled. Our idea of strength is different. Our idea that a state is strong is when the people are politically conscious. It is strong when the people know everything, can form an opinion of everything and do everything consciously”.

Concluding speech, Discussion on Report on Peace

This development of socialist democracy, of people running their society, people who “know everything, can form an opinion of everything and do everything consciously” creates the economic, political, ideological and cultural conditions for communism. It is this process which step by step renders a state apparatus unnecessary, leads to its “withering away”.

Therefore, in building socialism and preparing for communism, it is important and necessary to overcome problems in the functioning of socialist democracy, distortions of it, injustices and crimes against people, tendencies towards bureaucracy.

On many occasions Lenin brought out the importance of grappling with problems which impede the full development of socialism.

For example, in speaking of bureaucracy, inherited from the past he said:

“The continuation of the struggle against bureaucracy, therefore, is absolutely necessary, is imperative to ensure the future socialist development”.

Draft programme of the RCP(B), (1919)

And again…

“the emancipation of the workers must be performed by the workers themselves… by their own struggle, by their movement, their agitation, must learn to solve a new historical problem;”

Fourth Conference of Trade Unions and Factory Committees, (1918).

Because socialism marks the transition from capitalism—with all the effects of exploitation, oppression and the stunting of people it is a struggle to build it. Great difficulties have to be overcome both in material conditions, attitudes and outlook. As well as advances, there are problems and mistakes. These, too, are overcome through struggle. Because socialism represents a higher social system it has already changed the world, and will change it further.

Towards the Future

While socialism has common features, the fact that it is built under different conditions means that there will be a great diversity in its development. Each country builds socialism on a specific background. Therefore, the historical circumstances, the class forces, the traditions, the world situation, influence its development. The measures adopted to build socialism and the forms of socialist democracy will vary from country to country.

Socialism opens the door to communism, when men and women will live creative lives under conditions where the human personality will fully develop. This does not mean that there will be no problems, they will be of a different order. With production in abundance and with changes in people themselves, the energies of men and women will turn to further conquest of nature, to the expansion of their knowledge, to the development of their creative capabilities.

Questions:

1. How would you argue for socialism in Britain?
2. Does socialism fully liberate women?
3. How do you see the role of the Communist Party under socialism?

Skeptical Resources—Internet infidels | Jesus Never Existed | Steven Carr’s Website | Christianism | Early Christian Writings | God is Imaginary | “Religion Detoxification” | Our Judaio-Christian Heritage | Archaeoastronomy | No Deity | No Beliefs | Evil Bible | Bible God | ex-Christians | Jesus Police | Islamic Faith Freedom | Atheist Experience | American Atheists | Jovial Atheist | Askwhy! books
Other Resources—Early Christian Docs | Resources for Study | Traditional Bible-History | Traditional Bible World History | Traditional Bible History | about.com biblical history | Apologetics web sites | Advent Ch Fathers | Orion center links | Wikipedia | Traditional Jewish History