A Plebs Publication

WHAT IS MARXISM?By A. L. WILLIAMS

NONE ARE SO BLIND- -

Th.OrthodoIEcooomils:-"B.isn'I~Th.rel!"

Publishedby

THE N.C.L.C. PUBLISHING SOCIETY LTD.(Publishers for the National Council of Labour Colleges)

15 SOUTH HILL PARK GARDENS, LONDON, N.W·3

~=r.>':...~g

I HAVE YOU H I~ EVER ~ISTOPPED !I~2yo~~~~~?the II

Trades Union, Labour and Co- ~

~~~~ti~e ~:~~e~~d ~~~~} ~• your education? :'f

Education, in the ordinary S

s b~tta~f~s:~~~~~c1~~~n't\~~k~~"'-~ §S want education in the Social Sciences-the §

I sciences which treat of the basic principles on 8which the Labour Movement is built. ~

S WHY ;;~::u~n ~;;;/. ~'::~yor ts: h~;~';d;a~~:~ g~ ~=~~~ 1e~ !:ecn::1s~~e classes and courses, but inany §'" WHY not get the PLEBS, the organ of the National Council of 2§ ~~:u:aC:~~~f:,/?t;':~=f~or~~%eJj:f;::;:~':fe~ ~~ :r- ;;:'~e~~)~oons costs only 3d.monthly C4d· post free, ~

§ WHY ';p~e:o:=:' 0~:;fu~7t:::s :;XJ;/:::::,ej; 1J:g~~i4 §~ ~~~'A~iO~~~f/~hYpsy~zo?o~(n;lt 0~r;~::;re~;S;:h~? ~

8 ~~~ 3E~;j~;)t":6i~~o~i~~:cf~1"/.~~~:;,ci~t:~~ S§ x.c.t.c.', work. ~8 Write: J. P.M. MILLAR, Gen. Sec., National Council of~ Labour Colleges, 15 South Hill Park Gardens, London, N.W.3 ~

b~~.I:lr.<:..=~..<:r~g

WHAT IS MARXISM?By A. L. WILLIAMS

l'ublished by

THE N.C.L.C. PUBLISHING SOCIETY LTD.(Publhh~u (or the National Council of Labour College_)

15 SOUTH HILL PARK GARDENS, LONDON, N .W.3

Introduction

W H O, to-day, has not heard of :\Iarx and :\Iarxism? Is itnot safe to say that :\Iarx's name is much better knownthroughout the world than, for example, the titular

head of capitalism's greatest cmpire ? The Russian Revolutiondrove the words Marx and Marxism into the consciousness ofmillions. Fascism and Hitlerism have advertised them to millionsmore.

\"ho was this man Marx? What is this Marxism that sets theworld by the ears and has aroused a frenzy of madness in a greatstatelikeGermany?

It is true that unnumbered university professors and publicistsand statesmen of many varieties have demonstrated the so-calledfallacies of Marxism. vet the remarkable fact is that Marxismto-day plays a higge; part in world politics than it has everplayed before.

It is the purpose of this pamphlet to explain in a short andsimple fashion who Marx was and what Marxism is. The manwho does not understand Marxism is only half educated. The manwho does has in his possession one of'the greatest intelleetualtools ever forged by the human mind. We hope that this pamphletwill arouse a sufficient interest in :\Iarxism to encourage manyworkers to get down to serious study of the subject. For thispurpose at the end of the booklet the renders will find a usefulbibliography.

J. P . 1\1.MILLAH,General Secretary, National Council of

Labour Colleges, ]5 South Hill ParkGardens, London" '.\".3.

I.-Marx the Man

K AR L MARX, socialist thinker and revolutionary working­class leader, was born into the middle class, and thecontradiction between his bourgeois origin and the

implacable warfare he carried on against bourgeois society duringthe greater part of his life requires explanation. He was born atTreves, an old town in Gennany, on May 5, 1818. Both the dateand the place of his birth are significant. Not many years beforeMarx first saw the light of day, the revolutionary annies ofrepublican France had swept over Europe carrying with themthe highly contagious ideas of bourgeois democraey; ideas aboutliberty, equality and fraternity.

The defeat of France at the battle of Waterloo and the victoryof the European reaction did not destroy the influence ofrevolutionary ideas in the backward countries of Europe.Politically and economically, Gennany was a backward country,and consisted of no less than thirty-six semi-independent statesand principalities in which a feudal aristocracy held power. Thewhole of Germany was dominated by the arch-reactionary statesof Austria. and Prussia, Industry and commerce had created II

strong bourgeoisie, but the aristocracy, jealous of their own power,were not prepared to share it with the bourgeoisie, and were firmsupporters of the absolute forms of government then existingthroughout the German states.

In these circumstances the bourgeoisie were naturallyrevolutionary, and demanded the setting up of a democraticgovernment over the whole of a unified Gennany, which was to becompletely separated from the evil influence of Austria. Con­ditions thus made revolutionaries of nearly all middle-classyouths in Gennany, and it is not surprising that subsequentlymany of them beeome revolutionary socialists.

The parents of Karl I1Iarx belonged to the Jewish rnce. Hisfather was a lawyer, a highly educated man with progressiveideas; his mother was a Dutch .Iewess of a family of rabbis andscholars. In order to safeguard his family against the unfairdiscrimination shown against Jews, the freethinking father ofMarx had formally embraced Christianity. Karl was the only oneof the Marx children who exhibited any outstanding intellectualability. After some years at the local high school he went toBonn University at the age of sixteen, and later from there to theUniversity of Berlin. Apparently, it was the intention of hisparents that he should study law with the purpose of preparingfor a legal career. I1Iarx, however, was impatient with the ordinarymethods of study, and was for some time in a turmoil of indecision ,

(5)

He wrote poems, projected a great work on the Philosophy of Law,and engaged in other diverse literary aetivity.

The main influence among the students of Berlin was then thephilosophy of lIegel, which they used to criticise the existingregime. After many attempts to resist its doctrines Marx finallysuccumbed, and became not the least important of a brilliantband of" Young lIegelians." He now decided upon an academiccareer, and in 18H had conferred on him his doctor's degree for athesis upon the Natural Philosophies of Democritus and Epicurus,and hoped to become a lecturer at Bonn University. This hopewas dashed to the ground when his friend and teacher BrunoBauer was prevented from occupying a professorship because ofhis criticism of the official theology.

THE RHINE RADICALS.\ glOUp of radical industrialists in the Rhine provinces decided

to start a paper to express their views and defend their interestsagainst the reactionary state. Marx was offcred and accepted theeditorship. This paper, the Rheinische Zeitllng, was carried onunder great difficulties, the police paying its editor the com­pliment of imposing a double censorship. In the editor's chair~Iarx for the first time came up against questions of economicsand socialism, with which he found it impossible to deal becauseof the inadequacy of his academic training, and this caused himto study these subjects when the opportunity presented itself.The opportunity soon came. Timid backers of the paper, hopingto save it from police suppression by the adoption of a less radicalpolicy, were able to force Marx from his position as editor.

It was at this time, when he was without any immediateprospects of employment, that Marx married Jenny vonWestphalen, a daughter of an old friend. Shortly afterwards thenewly married pai r moved to Paris, where Marx had been offeredemployment as editor of thc Franco-German Year Book. Herehe came into intimate contact with Friedrich Engels, who becamehis life-long friend and disciple.

:\Iarx engaged in active revolutionary work, chiefly among theGerman exiles living in Paris. He acquainted himself with thenumerous trends of thought existing in the revolutionary move­ment and steeped himself in a study of socialism and economics.When he became editor of the Rheinische Zeitung Marx was anextreme radical democrat, but his studies in Paris completed histransformation into a communist. With the political changeoccurred a philosophical change. :\Iarx became a Materialist. Atthe instigation of the Prussian Government, Marx was forced toleave Paris and took up residcnee in Brussels.

In 1847, hc gavc a series of popular lectures on economicsbefore the German Workingmen's Club of Brussels, The purposeof the Iccturcs was to show thc economic conditions which formedthe real basis for the struggle of classes, and in the lectures lIIarx

(6)

demonstrated in an incomplete form his Theory of Surplus Value.In the same year was published his book The Poverty of Philosophy.This book was levelled at the great French Utopian Proudhon,and in his criticism of Proudhon, Marx indicated the fundamentalsof what later became known as scicntific socialism.

A WORLD-FAMOUS MANIFESTOIn thc majority of European cities there were groups of re­

volutionaries in exile from their own countries. Among themcommunism had gained many supporters, and Marx worked hardto win them to the views he had recently formed. In Paris,London and Brussels communist groups were set up, whichmaintained contact with one another by means of correspondence.In 1846, a conference representative of these groups met in Londonand in 1847 two furthcr conferences were held. They adoptedthe name of the Communist League. Marx and Engels were giventhe task of drawing up a declaration of principles, and this waspublished in 1848 as the Communist Manifesto:"

Revolution broke out in Paris, and Marx, expelled from Brussels,accepted an invitation from thc revolutionary government ofParis and returned to that city. Shortly afterwards the re­volutionary wave spread to Germany and, with many otherGerman emigres, Marx and Engels moved back into their owncountry. They started in Cologne a newspaper named the NeueRheinische Zeitung of which Marx was thc editor. The paper was aradical democratic paper, but in it Marx put forward his view thatit was only the proletariat which could be relied upon for steadfast­ness in thc revolution, that the bourgeoisie who were the leadersof the movement would seek to check it halfway as soon as itsfull potentialities became clear. Marx's Brussels lectures werepublished as a series of leading articles in the paper, and thesearticles were later to be published as a pamphlet entitled TVageLabour and Capital.*

Marx's view of the role of the Oerman bourgeoisie was provedcorrect, and thc revolution in Germany collapsed. The NeueRheinische Zeitung was suppressed and Marx himself arrestedand tried for high treason. A friendly jury acquitted him, butMarx was forced back to Paris. \Vith the defeat of thc revolutionthere, expulsion again faced him, and he travelled to London,where he spent the remainder of his life.

The early years of their life in London were extremely hard forthe growing Marx family. A period of European reaction set inafter the collapse of the revolutions of 1848; the CommunistLeague broke up, and Marx was forced to provide for his familyby journalistic work from which he received a very poor income.Despite his extreme poverty Marx continued his social studies,making extensive use of the reading room of the British Museum.

* ·l<l.postfreefromtheN.C.L.C.

(7)

THE FIRST INTERNATIONALIn 1859 was published the Critique of Political ]l;conomy,

which was intended to be the first instalment of a completetreatise on political economy. In 1867, however, was publishedvolume I of Capital, which superseded the Critique-a muchless detailed work. The writing of Capital involved enormouswork, Marx reading over 1,300 volumes in connection with it, butduring this period he was in constant touch with the leaders of theworking-class movement. When in 1864 an International Asso­ciation of Working Men was formed lIIarx was elected to theGeneral Council and was asked to write the inaugural address.

In the European countries working-class organisations of variouskinds had grown up and many of these became sections of theInternational. Though the views of Marx embodied in theinaugural address had been aecepted by the General Council, theInternational as a whole was by no means willing to accept theirpractical implications. Existing in countries that had reachedvarying levels of development, the sections of the Internationalhad many different views of its purpose and tactics. As a resultof persistent efforts Marx finally gained the leadership, andexercised a rather precarious control over the organisation.

In 1871 an insurrection took place in Paris, and the workmenlind small shopkeepers set up the Commune in which participatedmembers of the French section of the International. The Inter­national gave as much support as it could to this first attempt toestablish the rule of the workers, but was unable to prevent theFrench bourgeoisie from drowning the Commune in the blood ofthousands of the heroic Parisian proletariat. Vile calumnies wereflung at the valiant Communards. And at the instruction of theGeneral Council, Marx wrote his famous address, The Civil Warin France,* in which he pictured the French workmen as " stormingheaven." With the crushing of the Commune violent dissensionsbroke out in the International. Its most important sections hadbeen those in France and England, and the destruction of theFrench workers' movement, and the desertion of the Englishtrade unions after the Commune's fall, reduced its membershiptoa small figure.

A serious challenge to Marx's leadership came from Bakuninwho had been successful in organising a following in the morebackward countries, and another challenge came from the followersof Blanqui who had recently joined the International. At thecongress held at the Hague in September, 1872, Marx fought hislast battle with his opponents in the International. Bakunin andhis followers were expelled, and to prevent their influence againgrowing strong in the International Marx was able to get thecongress to agree to the rem val of its headquarterstoNew York.The Blanquists withdrew from the organisation as a protest

* 2s.8d.c!oth,lB.2d.papel',postfreefl'OmtheN.C.L.C.

( 8)

against the decision to remove its headquarters from Europe.Both the Bakuninists and the Blanquists were anxious to capturethe organisation so that they could turn it into an insurrectionarysociety. After their expul~ion the .Bakuninist~ w~re succes~ful inmaintaining some form of international organisation of their ownfor many years, and their views still find expression in agrariananarchist-communism and syndicalism, but the Blanquist Partywas ultimately absorbed in the French Socialist Party. Many ofits views were later revived by the German Spartaeists.

Shortly after the congress at the Hague the International died,but it had done its work, for in the majority of capitalist countriesthere were nuclei of Marxists and from these at the end of thenineteenth century evolved Social Democratic Parties, chiefamong which was the great Social Democratic Party of Germany.

After the death of the International, Marx tended to withdrawfrom active participation in politics and to busy himself withliterary work, though he kept a critical eye on the developmentof the German Labour Movement. In 1875 he wrote TheCritique of the Gotha Programme, * which was a criticism of theprogramme adopted by the two sections of the German movementwhen they fused together to form a united Social DemocraticParty at a conference held at Gotha.

The financial position of lIIarx greatly improved towards the endof his life. An old comrade left him a small legacy, and Engelswas able to give him considerable assistance, but prosperity cametoo late. His constitution undermined by years of over work andprivation, Marx began to suffer from continuous ill health. InDecember, 1881, his wife died, and thirteen months later hiseldest daughter Jenny died. lIIarx was never able to recover fromthese blows; his illness became worse, and it soon becameapparent that his end was ncar. On :\farch H, 1883, Marx, whohad been left dozing in his study chair, was found by Engels tohave passed away. He was buried at Highgate Cemetery. At thegravesideEngelssaid:-

uBecause he was an active revolutionist, Murx was the best hatedand most calumniated man of his time. lIe was shown the door byvarious governments, republican as well as absolute. Bourgeois ultra­democrats, as well as conservatives, vied with one another in spreadinglibels about him. He brushed these aside like cobwebs, ignored them,only troubled to answer them when he positively had to. Vet he hasgone to his death honoured, loved and mourned by millions of' revolu­tionary workers all over the world, in Europe and Asia as far eastwardas the Siberian mines, and in America as far westward as California.Lean boldly assert that, while he stil1 may have many adversaries, hehas now hardly one personal enemy. His name, and his works, will liveon through the centuries."

*3s.Sd.cloth,2•• 2d.paper,postfreefromthe.'.C.L.C.

(U)

II.-Historical Materialism and theClass Struggle

T H E foundation question of all philosophies is connectedwith the relation between ideas and things, and thetreatment of this question sharply divides all philosophies

into two contending schools-the Idealist and the Materialist.The point of view of the Idealist school is that. ideas are primaryand that matter is secondary; that the material world experiencedby the senses is illusory, that mind alone is real. The point ofview of the Materialist school is directly opposite. The Materialistcontends that matter is primary and ideas secondary; that mindis a function of matter, and that ideas arc a reflection of materialthings.

lIIarx had arrived at the lIIaterialist viewpoint quite early inhis career, but he lifted it to a higher plane by combining with itthe dialectical method of Hegel. The dialectic was not new, infact it originated among the Greeks, but Hegel, by his universalapplication of it, had invested it with an entirely new andrevolutionary significance. In order to understand this method,it is necessary to contrast it with the method of forma l logic .Logic is the science of reasoning, and attempts to describe thelaws of thought. Formal logic, the system of logic which owesits origin to Aristotle, is founded upon a static conception of theuniverse, and sees things existing in and for themselves. Becauseof this, its basic laws arc those of identity, i.e., laws of thoughtwhich allow us to identify things by their essential properties.These laws arc the law of identity, the law of contradiction, andthe law of the excluded middle. The first law lays it down thatA is A; water is water. The second law affirms that A cannotbe A and not A; that water cannot be water and steam . Fromthis law follows the third which says that A is either A or non-A;there can be no middle term. Using th e example of water thismeans that water is either liquid or not water.

It is obvious that the growth of the conception of evolution,of the recogn it ion of the fact that the universe is not static butin constant motion, caused Hegel to provide a new logic, thedia lectic, which was an attempt to formulate not only the lawsof thought, but also the laws of universal evolution. In contrastto forma l logic dialect ic logic sees things as existing only in theirrelat ionship with other things. ' Vater exists as water only incertain relationships of temperature. A change of temperatureresults in water ceasing to be water with its essential liquidproperties, and it becomes either steam with the properties ofgas, or icc with the properties of solids. As the relationships oft hings are constantly changing, things are constantly changing

tID)

also, and so the laws of identity, therefore, cease to be so im­portant. As A is constantly ceasing to be A, and is constantly

::,~.~~te~t~r'y~gDtht~~t~; ~h~~ ~~~~n~~allo~~o~e~~;s~obe~:a~li~~establish laws which show how things lose their properties andacquire new ones.

To Hegel the universal flux, the constant change, was the out­come of the conflict of opposites; all things possessed con­tradictory forces, the germs of their own negation. The partplayed by th e negation in the process of change is of extremeimportance, and as a rule is overlooked. The struggle betweenthe thing and its negation comprises the dialectical movement,and results in a new thing.

A good illustration of this process is given by Max Beer inhis Life and Teaching of Karl Marx. He writes :-

"In order to understand this morc distinctly, and to visualise it, le t

~iuclt~S~~:k:~i::f~ Ii::, ;r:d~a~1~i~;n~:~~~V{I.e~~:g~ti~Oe~;a;: c~:te:;.;ofthcegg. This negation is, however, no mere destruction and annihila..

~~fl~' ~~~:'~~~1~~n~h~~g:~:li~~~~:ff~::~~::iI~~!:~~~~~~h~~f1iiarisen something organically higher than an egg."

EXPLAINING SOCIAL MOVEMENTS1I1m'x made masterly use of this method in his historical,

economic and political studies. He believed that only by layingbare the contradictory forces contained in society at all stagesof its development was it possible to give any scientific explana­tion of social movement. But he used the dialectical methodin a different way from Hegel. Hegel was an Idealist, and tohim the process of evolution was only the outward manifestationof the development of the absolute idea, which developedaccording to its own laws. To Marx, on the other hand, "theideal is nothing other than the material when it has been trans­posed and translated inside the human head." In other words,the dialectical method of thought is a reflection of the dialecticalprocess in material life.

Combining the dialectical method with Materialism andapplying it to the problem of social change, Marx produced anentirely new conception of the historical process, the MaterialistConception of History. Hitherto, historians had explained changesin social life and institutions in terms of the growth of ideas.These ideas frequently became personified in great men andhistory was usually regarded as being the story of the activityof great men. Where and how the ideas originated was a questionvery conveniently ignored in the main by the historians. ToMarx, ideas were a mental reflection of material things. To him,therefore, changes in social life were not to be explained funda­mentally by changes of ideas, but conversely changes in ideas

(11)

were to be explained by changes in social life. In the introductionto the Critique of Political Economy Marx writes: "I was ledby my studies to the conclusion that legal relations as well asforms of the state could neither be understood by themselves,nor explained by the so-called general progress of the humanmind, but that they are rooted in the material conditions oflife...."

WHAT CAUSES SOCIAL CHANGE?The material conditions of life include man's physical environ­

ment and his physical nature, but as changes in the physicalenvironment and in man's own physical nature are hardly per­ceptible, they cannot explain historical changes. From a physicalpoint of view both the world and man arc much the same to-dayas they were 200 years ago, yet during the last two centurieschanges have taken place which have revolutionised man'ssocial life. Another most important material condition of lifeis the social production of the means of satisfying man's needs.The method of producing thc material means of life, food andclothes and so on, does change, sometimes very rapidly, and this:lIarx considered to be the eausc of changes in thc structure ofsociety generally. In other words, it explains, for example, therise of new classes, e.g., the capitalist class, and the fall of old,e.g., the feudal lords.

In order to carryon production man has to enter into relation,i.e., co-operate, with his fellows. The social relations of productionarc independent of man's will-he has no choice in thc matter.To-day, a person is born a wage-worker or a capitalist, in thesame way as in the Middle Ages a person was born a serf or afeudal lord, or in ancient times a slave or slave-owner, Thesocial relations-thc relations between men and economic classesof men--existing at a given time correspond to a definite stagein the development of the powers of production.

The powers of production consist of the tools, machines, kindsof motive power, methods of organisation, discoveries of science,&e., used in production, in short, the technique of production.The primitive technique of ancient times had corresponding toit the social relations of slave and slave-owner, patrician andpleb; feudal technique, the relations of serf and feudal lord,handicraftsman and merchant; while capitalist technique hascorresponding to it the social relations of worker and capitalist.

The social relations of slave and slave-owner could not existwith modern technique. A revengeful slave practising sabotagecould do more damage to a modern machine than would beequalled by the value of a hundred slaves. Modern machinery,delicate, complex and valuable, is in the charge of free wage­earners; people possessing social rights, having a measure ofeducation, with an interest in the efficient running of the machine.

(1:1)

Living at n certain stage of technical development, belongingto a certain class, a man absorbs the ideas of his timc and of his

~~:~\l ~ :.;t~~_~~~~;e~_a~o~oO~I~u~~~~~~i~~ :x~~t:71~:~{: but;llarx called the social relations and the technique to which

they correspond the economic foundations of society, upon whichrests the legal, political, moral, religious, ethical, artistic, in a

~IE~~E~~l;:~:;~~~~~1~f[1~~~g,:~~~~g:::and institutions resting upon this economic foundation arccorrespondingly transformed. Though changes in society arcbrought about by the evolution of the technical basis, socialdevelopment is not a mechanical process, but works throughmen organised in classes. At a certain stage in thcir developmentthe technical forces of production come into conflict with theexisting social rclations. The interests of the ruling classesdetermine that they should endeavour to keep in existence theprevailing state of things, and that they should attempt toprevent any further development of the productive forces, whichis, of course, what thc capitalist class is doing to-day byrestricting production. The interests of the lower classes, on theother hand, lie in the direction of changing the existing state ofthings, of rovolutionising society, and of allowing frec play tothe development of the productive forces. To-day that meansdepriving the capitalists of the control over industry. Thencomes the period of the social revolution when men consciouslyidentify themselves with the interests of thc classes to which theybelong, and when they consciously fight to further those interests.If the fight results in the victory of the lower classes, as in theease of the French Revolution, the reactionary ruling classes arethrown from power, the state machine and all other institutionsare transformed to serve the needs of the new ruling classes, andthe productive forces are freed from all obstacles placed in the wayof their development. For a time, economic development proceedsrapidly, producing new classes, new social relations, and newideas. Ultimately, the time again comes when the technicalforces of production come into conflict with thc existing socialrelations. Thc ruling classes, once revolutionary, now becomereactionary, again a social revolution is at hand.

THE CLASS STRUGGLESince the days of Marx, historians have been forced to direct

attention to the "economic factor" in history, and various"Economic Interpretations of History" have been offercd forpopular consumption, and very frequently the ;llaterialistConception of History is confused with these economic inter­pretations. The greatness of ;\[arx as an historian was not only

(13)

that he drew attention to the economic basis upon which societyrests, but also that he recognised the struggle of classes as thevehicle society used for moving from stage to stage. " Thehistory of hitherto existing society has been the history of classstruggles," wrote Marx and Engels on the first page of theCammunist Manifesto, and in the following pages is given thedescription of the struggle of the capitalist class against itsopponents, and its subsequent rise to power. The capitalistclass had its origins in the town burghers of the ~Iiddle Ages.Mediteval society was in the main a society of self-sufficing corn­munes, the manorial villages, but with the rise of towns, tradeand industry developed which undermined the position of thepeasants and their overlords, the feudal aristocracy. The feudallords struggled to retain their privileges, which enabled them totax and in numerous other ways to place burdens on the urbanpopulation. The town burghers, sometimes in alliance with theCrown, as in England, were able to break the power of the feudalclasses, and to remove the regulations, taxes and other barriersthat hampered the extension of economic activity, The discoveryof new sea routes and of the" New 'Vorld " enormously increasedthe wealth, size and political importance of the bourgeoisie, andby the end of the seventeenth century in England, and in Francea hundred years later, they were able to defeat the last remnantsof feudalism. The English bourgeois revolution in its two phasesof the Puritan Revolution of 16n-1660 and the Whig (or" Glorious ") Revolution of 1688-90, and following it the French

Revolution of 1789, resulted in the victory of bourgeois societyover feudal society. In an article which appeared in the NeueRheinische Zeitung Marx appraised these revolutions in thefollowingworrls:-

UIn HUS the bourgeoisie allied itself with the new nobility, againstthcmonarchy, thefeudalnohilityandtheestahlishedchurch. In 178\1

~l~tit~~r~~~is;~ea~;:~b:i~~~~ ~~:r:~.c %~p~~v~!f~~f~~ ~~e1~~n~~~hr~rtft~prototype, at least in Europe, only the revolution of 1648. In bothrevolution, the bourgeoisie was the class which actually found itself atthe head of the movement. 'I'he proletariat und fractions in the townsnot belonging to the bourgeoisie had still no interest apart from thebourgeoisie,astheyformedas~'etnoreaUyindepcndentclassordeveloped

section of a class. \Yhen they fought, as for example in France, 1793-',they fought only for the interests of the bourgeoisie, even if they didnot fight according to the ways of the bourgeoisie. The whole FrenchTerror was nothing but a plebeian way of dealing with the enemies ofthe bourgeoisie : absolutism, feudalism. The revolutions of 1648 an d178Uwere not English or French revolutions, they were European revolutions.They were proclamations of political order for the new European society.The bourgeoisie triumphed in them, but the victory at the timc wasthe victory of the new social order; the victory of bourgeois propertyoverreudal,nationalismoverprovinciaiism, competition over the guilds,division over primogeniture, the rule of the proprietors of the soilover

~~i~i~e l"r:d~~:J'ro::::";~m~~ti~gfdf:;e:~il'a~dli~~':~i~:~t~;~~.su~;~;medieval privilegea.'

(14)

The progressive opening of new markets in the period followingthe English Revolution created a demand for an ever-increasingproduction of goods. Methods of production were continuouslyimproved until, finally, with the application of steam-drivenmachinery at the beginning of the nineteenth century, they were

~~:~~t~yr~~~~~~~l~~li~~'\:a~~~~~~IU~~~~t)~n~~od,:;~: ~1~~h~tJbourgeoisie there grew a new class of industrial capitalists, andfrom the domestic workers and peasants there grew a new classof factory workers, the industrial proletariat. The proletariat,chained to the new machinery, exploited and oppressed by thecapitalist class, began to struggle for emancipation. The classstruggle had reached a new stage and a new phase of history hadeommeneed.

THE STATE AND PROPERTYThe origin of the workers' struggle against the capitalist

is economic; the workers strive to maintain and improve theirstandard of life and this struggle itself soon assumes politiealform. With the aid of legal enactments and of the police, thestate enters the struggle as the protector of the property interestsof the capitalists, and the workers find themselves not onlyfighting employers, but also the capitalist state. When, withthe development of trusts and combines, the local labour disputeis displaced by disputes of national dimensions, the state moreund more openly appears as the executive committee of theruling class. Among the workers there grows the realisationthat their economic problems can be solved only by their con­quest of political power and the overthrowing of capitalistproperty relations. Previous revolutions had placed a minorityof society in a position to exploit the majority, but the labourrevolution is a revolution of the majority, and can achieve itspurpose only by the abolition of all classes and the ending of allexploitation. With the ending of class conflicts the way isprepared for harmonious social progress, in which the blind playof economic forces is replaced by the conscious direction ofeeonomically free men.

(Hi)

III.-Marxian Economics

T o Marx, the capitalist method of production is merely aphase of economic development having its own specialfeatures and its own laws. Capitalism is a system of

commodity production, and commodities are the units ofcapitalist wealth. The Marxian analysis of capitalist productioncommences with the analysis of the commodity. A commodityis a use value, produced, however, not for its usefulness to itsproducer, but for exchange. Masses of commodities arc thrownon to the market, where they are exchanged for one another.The equation of commodities with diverse usc values in exchangeimplies the possession of some common quality, for otherwisean equation would be impossible. All commodities, whatevertheir differences of use or appearance, are products of labour;all of them embody a certain amount of human labour, and socan be equated with one another. There are many differentkinds of labour, such as the labour of the tailor and the labourof the miner, but all kinds of labour arc but different ways ofexpending the mental and physical energy needed for the pro­duction of social wealth. Commodities not only exchange, butalso exchange in definite quantities, so that two tons of coalmay exchange for one suit of clothes and not two suits of clothesfor one ton of coal. The quantitative exchange relationship ofcommodities is determined by the relative values of the com­modities exchanged. A commodity has value to the extent thatit has crystallised in it social labour. In the illustration just used,a suit of elothes is twice as valuable as a ton of coal becausethere is contained in the suit twice as much social labour asthere is in the ton of coal.

A valuable commodity, such as gold, is valuable because aconsiderable amount of social labour is taken to produce only asmall quantity. If gold were produced with the same amount ofexpenditure of social labour as is taken to produce bricks, goldwould have no more value than bricks. As labour is measuredby time, the length of time taken to produce a commodity deter­mines its value. If a suit of clothes is produced in sixteen hoursand the suit is exchanged for two tons of coal, then it followsthat the time taken to produce one ton of coal is eight hours.It must not be imagined that Marx argued that the time takenby an individual to produce a commodity determines its value,for that would mean that otherwise identical commodities,produced in different times, would have different values. Actually,Marx showed that it was the socially necessary labour time takento produce it that determined the value of a commodity. Thatmeans to say, the time taken in a " given state of society under

( HI)

~~~~~~~~1~i~~i~~~~f:~~have the same value. The usc of money, in exchange, does notalter the fact that commodities exchange in quantities that arcdetermined by their value. If the value of a suit is the same asthe value of two tons of coal, then the amount of money requiredto purchase a suit will be the same as the amount required topurchase two tons of coal."

THE CAPITALIST DOES NOT BUY LABOURThe capitalist system of production is a system of profit­

making. The capitalist expects to, and usually does, receivemore for the commodities he sells than they cost him to produce.If, as has been stated, commodities arc exchanged at their value,the commodities sold by the capitalist must have a higher valuethan the commodities purchased by him, and the increase invalue must take place during the process of manufacture, whenthe commodities he has purchased (raw material, machines, &c.)arc being turned into the finished product he sells. The increase invalue implies the addition of labour, but does not the capitalistbuy this labour as a commodity at its value? Marx answeredthat the capitalist docs not buy labour at all: the commodityhe buys from the labourer is labour-power. The distinctionbetween labour and labour-power is not a mere quibble : it is afundamental distinction. Labour-power is a peculiar commoditybecause it has the power to produce a greater value than its ownvalue. The value of labour-power is the value of the commoditiesnecessary for the production of labour-power, e.g., a labourerby consuming commodities containing four hours' labour canwork, say, for eight hours and by so doing creates twice the valueof his own labour-power. Because the capitalist has monopolisedthe ownership of the whole of the means of production, theworkers in order to live arc forced to sell their labour-power tohim and he is able to exploit the peculiarity of labour-powerdescribed above, and to take from the workers the surplus valuethey create in production.

The existence of a free working class is a necessary conditionfor capitalist production. Before the workers could be turnedinto wage-earners, they had to be " freed" from the soil and theimplements of labour-they had to be property-less. In Englandthis was accomplished by the forcible ejectment of the peasantryfrom the countryside and the seizure of common lands. There

. ; ~,,~~:\ric~~o~;~(~d.t~.:r~~~ :~:~ ~:~u:/r;o~~fr~:).e thing, See

(li)

was thus created 8 class with no other means of existence thanthe sale of labour-power to the capitalist employers.

Once there exists the relationship of wage-earner andcapitalist, it tends to perpetuate itself. By spending his wages,as he must, the wage-earner is forced continuously to resell hislabour-power. The capitalist, because of his monopoly of themeans of production, is able continuously to buy labour-powerand appropriate the surplus value to his own use. The surplusvalue taken by the capitalist is divided up into rent* paid forland and buildings, interest paid for loans of money, taxes paidto the state for services performed on behalf of the capitalists asa whole, and profit which he retains as his reward. Part of thisprofit the capitalist consumes, and part he reinvests in production.

The rate of reinvestment of profit is not determined by thewhims of individual capitalists, but by social forces over whichthcy exercise no conscious control. Competition makes itnecessary for the capitalist to lower the prices of the commoditieshe sells. To do this without reducing his profit the capitalistenlarges his business so that he may reduce costs of productionby the introduction of machinery and by effecting othereconomics possible with large-scale production. If he does notdo so he is unable to compete with those who do, and is forcedout of business. The growth in the size of businesses makescompetition more severe. Firm after firm fails, and usually onlythe largest and best equipped are able to survive the struggle.Competition by annihilating the small and inefficient concernsconcentrates control into the hands of relatively few largecapitalists, and causes a continuous improvement in techniqueand an increase of productive capacity.

This growth of thc forces of production creates many newproblems. At first, the growth in production does require anincrease in the number of workers employed, but with increasingtechnical improvements thc rate of increase becomes a fallingone, whereas the rate of increase of thc working class is a risingone. There is created an army of unemployed, an army of miserywhich, with ups and downs, must grow larger as the systemdevelops. The unemployed are used by the capitalists as ameans of reducing the standards of those employed, so theincrease in the producing capacity proceeds along with a decreasein the consuming capacity of the masses. The capitalists findthemselves possessed of enormous quantities of goods whichthey cannot sell, and from time to time crises of "over pro­duct ion " occur with devastating effects. New markets are, ofcourse, sought in non-capitalist countries, and finally the wholeworld is brought into the stream of capitalist economic life.

CONSTANT AND VARIABLE CAPITALTechnical improvements change the composition of capital.

.A.larger share of the capital is invested in means of production* See Outline of Economics for further detail •.

(18)

(machines, raw materials, &c.) called by Marx the constantcapital, and a smaller share in the purchas? .of labour-power, orvariable capital. This changed composition produces veryimportant results. The ~apitalist recko~s his profit on the wholeof his capital and any increase of capital that does not resultin the corresponding increase of the labour employed resultsin a fall of the rate of profit. A capital of £100 of which £80represents constant capital and £20 variable capital producesa surplus value of, say, £20, and a rate of profit of 20 per cent.A capital of £200, of which £180 represents constant capitaland £20 variable capital, with the same degree of exploitation ofthe labourers as given in the case of the first capital, will stillonly produce a surplus value of £20, which means a lower rate ofprofit, i.e., 10 per cent. As more and more capital is assumingthe shape of machines (constant capital) and in proportion lessand less is being invested in labour-power (variable capital) itnaturally follows that the rate of profit is a falling one. In theadvanced countries, despite the intensification of exploitationby speeding up and other methods, there is a distinct fall in therate of profit. To overcome this fall capitalists export capitalto the backward countries where the proportion of labouremployed in relation to the total capital is high, and where asthe result the rate of profit is also high.

As the capitalists' industrial system spreads over the worldthe crises of capitalism become wider in extent and more severein their effects. To protect themselves the capitalists formtrusts and endeavour to eliminate competition and to restrictproduction to the needs of the market. Though the mainpurpose of trusts is the abolition of competition this is neverfully accomplished. Trusts are usually national or only semi­international in scope, and though all the producers supplyingthe home market may be completely organised in trusts, thecapitalist market is the world market, and there the nationalor semi-international trusts struggle against each other. Thecffects of such international competition are infinitely moreharmful than the effects of competition between numerous smallconcerns, The reduction of the number of workers employedper unit of capital and the growth of the machine's productivecapacity are rapidly increased. The contradiction betweenthe order and efficiency of the capitalist industrial machine andthe anarchy of the capitalist market becomes irreconcilable, andthe economic crisis becomes a permanent feature of capitalist life.

The contrast between the increasing misery of the workersand the increasing powers of producing wealth, between thesocial character of production and its private ownership, becomesgreater. Workers, driven to action by the inability of capitalismto give them the means of life, organise for the abolition ofcapitalism and for the introduction of socialism, a system inwhich production is socially owned and is consciously plannedto satisfy social needs.

(HI)

IV.-Marxism and Politics

SOCI ALISM is usually regarded by the non-Marxian socialistsas the best and most moral way of organising social life, a waythat has not yet been universally adopted, because the major­

ity of people have not realised this truth. According to this viewthe duty of socialists is to convince people, particularly impor­tant people, by education and propaganda, of the superiority ofsocialism over capitalism. The socialist appeal is an appeal toreason, and the socialists take care to make their proposals asreasonable as possible. This explains the detailed descriptions ofthe future society, the Utopias so often described, and the practi­cal policies pursued. Such socialists appeal to people of goodwill in all classes, and hope by concrete examples to prove thetruth of the socialist case. When education brings sufficientsupport, reforms of a socialist character are introduced. Thesereforms, by their innate reasonableness, gain general approval,and win consent for an extension of the reform policy. A suffi­cient number of reforms will ultimately bring socialism intobeing-so it is argued. Labour disputes are to be discouraged,because they arouse passions and cause bad feelings betweenclasses, and prejudice the introduction of socialism by consent.

The Marxian view of socialism is entirely different from thatof the Utopians and the reformists. Marx regarded socialismas the outcome of social development, and visualised socialismevolving from capitalism in the same manner as capitalism hadevolved from feudalism. The abolition of the private owner­ship and control of industry, and the institution of social owner­ship and control, is possible only when industry is alreadyprepared by large-scale organisation and high technical develop­ment. Capitalism, by wiping out or reducing to impotence thesmall producer, by concentrating production in giant concerns,by accelerating technical development, and by creating anenormous propertyless" working class, has prepared the ground forthe building up of socialism. This was the task history had setfor capitalism, a task no other social system could have performedso well; and having done its work, capitalism should make wayfor socialism.

No social system, however, has disappeared in a mechanicalfashion, out of a recognition of historical necessity as it were,and there is 110 evidence for the belief that capitalism is an excep­tion. The class position of the capitalist makes it impossiblefor him to understand that his social usefulness has ended, andhe is completely deaf to all socialist appeals, because in essence

* Propertyless in the sense of owning no means of production.

(20)

they are appeals to him to commit social suicide by giving uphis wealth and power. T!te gro~ving pov.erty of the people,economic crises, and financial pamc.s cont~In no le~son for thecapitalists, who use all the me~ns In th~Ir possesslO~. to keepcapitalism in existence. E:,p~ctmg only violent OpposI~lOn fromthe capitalist class, the SOCIalIst~u~t turn to the workIn~ class,a class which suffers under capitalism, and a class which hasnothing to lose by a cha?-ge in the system; but has ~verything

to gain, the only class .whlch can ~ake a .soCIalrevolution. .The working class IS already In conflict at numerous points

with capitalism, but this conflict lacks conscious direction anda sense of its historic purpose. It is the duty of the socialist tomake the worker conscious of his role and to direct the conflictwith socialism as its goal. Instead of discouraging labour dis­putes, socialists should do all in their power to encourage them,for out of these disputes comes the organisation of the workersand their preparation for the struggle for political power. Theworkers do not need to be convinced of the necessity of socialismby Utopian experiments, as capitalism itself gives many practicallessons of what socialism would mean, at the same time as itdemonstrates its own bankruptcy. The detailed arrangements ofthe socialist system on which the Utopians love to dwell are in­significant problems in face of the major problem of gainingpolitical power. The Communist Manifesto, the first opendeclaration of the aims of the communists, contains only thebare outlines of an economic programme; its main concern is themeans of bringing about a proletarian revolution. The "Com­munists," i.e., socialists, are to be the vanguard of the workingclass, organising the sporadic struggles of the workers into adirect assault against the bourgeois state.

MARX AND THE INTERNATIONALBecause of his views, Marx associated himself with working­

class organisations (even if they were not socialist in character,and in his day few workers' organisations had a socialist policy).Belonging to the International Workingmen's Association, whichMarx helped to form, and which intellectually he dominated,were English Liberal trade unionists, French Proudhonists,anarchist followers of Bakunin, and other groups of differentkinds. By drawing lessons from the struggles of the differentsection s of the International with the bourgeois governments,Marx hoped to win the various groups to his point of view andmould them into an international socialist party. On the GeneralCouncil of the International, at its international congresses, andin its publications, Marx worked hard to realise his hopes. Aninstance of this is an address, now published as a pamphletentitled Value, Price, and Profit,* in which Marx dealt with thc

*ls.2d.postfrccfromthcN.C.L.C.

(:n)

question of the trade unions and the revolutionary struggle. Amember of the General Council had argued that increased wageswere illusory gains for the working class, because the increasedmoney wages were eaten up by the increased prices of goodswhich accompanied them. Wage struggles and trade unionorganisation were, therefore, useless from the revolutionary pointof view. In his reply to this argument Marx showed that pricesof commodities did not necessarily rise with rises in wages, andthat increased wages represented real gains for the workers asthey were won at the expense of the employers. His conclusiongives his estimation of trade unions in the following words :-

"Trade unions work well as centres of resistance against the encroach­ments of capitaI. They fail partially from an injudicious use of theirpower. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerrilla waragainst the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously

}~i~~etOfh~~la~~~a~~i~~~~~~doCft~~in~o~t~::g o~fa~~~s~~a~o~,:stoass:~'~c~~~

ultimate abolition of the wages system."

SOME MISCONCEPTIONSBesides his struggle with the Utopians and the reformists

Marx carried on an energetic battle with the insurrectionistfollowers of Blanqui, Weitling, and Bakunin, who consideredthemselves to be the only serious revolutionaries. The Blan­quists believed that capitalism could be overthrown by an in­surrection made by a well organised secret conspiracy of com­munists, to be specially picked for the task because of theircourage and revolutionary devotion. They also believed thatthe people were ready to rise at any moment, provided that thesignal for the rising was properly given.

Blanqui was a Frenchman who had made several insurrection­ary attempts, and who because of their failure spent the greaterpart of liis long life in prison. He was in prison at the time ofthe Commune, when the people of Paris had overturned thebourgeois government, and so the Commune was robbed of histremendous energy and undoubted organising ability. Weitling,a German communist, was greatly influenced by Blanqui's ideas,which he imperfectly understood, and had hopes of an insurrec­tion of 20,000 thieves and others of a similar kind to be releasedfrom prison for the purpose. Marx, in his earliest associationswith the communist movement, came into violent conflict withWeitling, and was successful in destroying his powerful influenceamong the German workmen.

Later, in the International Workingmen's Association, Marxagain came into conflict with insurrectionist ideas, expressed notonly by the French followers of Blanqui, who were for a shorttime members of the International, but also by Bakunin, aRussian political exile with a large following among Europeanrevolutionaries. Like Weitling, Bakunin too looked for support

(22)

of an insurrection to the dregs of the slums, the "lumpenprole­tariat," who he believed would naturally ,support any n:ovementwhich led to disorder and the overthrowing of authority. TheBlanquists and Bakuni~ists looked with ~isd~in upon the M~x!anconception of revolutlOD:ary work, which m:,ol:,ed aSSOcIatIOnwith the organised working-class movement, III ItS ~truggle foreconomic and political reforms, as a means of preparmg the wayfor a social revolution. Marx had no illusions about the role ofthe lumpenproletariat. In the Communist Manifesto he wrote ofthem: "The 'dangerous class,' the social scum (Lumpenprole­tariat), th~t passively rotting mass thrown o~ by the layers ofthe old society, may, here and there, be swept mto the movementby a proletarian revolution; its conditi~ns of life, howeve:, pre­pare it far more for the part of a ,bribed t?Ol of reactionaryintrigue." He understood that an insurrection, however wellorganised it might be, would be bound to fail unless it had thesupport of the organised working class.

THE WORKERS' STATEFrom the attempt of the Parisian workers to set up a prole­

tarian government, the Paris Commune, Marx drew many impor­tant lessons in the address, The Civil lVar in France, written byhim and published by the General Council of the International.The Commune lasted only for a short time, but it lasted longenough for Marx to see in it the form of the future proletarianstate. The capitalist state WIlS the executive committee of thebourgeoisie-their means of keeping the workers in subjection tocapital, by the use of both physical and spiritual forces. Thestate employees formed a class apart from the rest of the people,and were in opposition to them. The separation from the peopleof the armed forces, the police and other state employees madethem willing tools in the hands of their capitalist masters.

In direct antithesis to the capitalist state stood the Commune.The Commune was a government of the working class, not anorgan of repression used by the few against the many, but apolitical means of bringing about the economic emancipation oflabour and destroying the foundation of all forms of repression. Itdid not attempt to rise above the people, but by its very firstdecrees fastened itself to them by numerous links.

itlilfltiiit~li\'(23)

tion. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public servicehad to be done at workmen's wages .... Having once got rid of the

~~~s~i~~~:f::i~}~~:q:;i~;i~i~~;i~;~~~~;t;i~~~~:Y*}~~1educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and atthe same time cleared of all interference of church and state...•Like thc rest of public servants, magistrates and jndges were to bcelective, responsible and revocable."

The errors of the Commune were object lessons to Marx. TheCommune did not use its power with the ruthlessness and de­cision that the situation demanded. It left key positions inthe hands of the enemy (e .g ., the banks were not seized by theCommunards), and it allowed the bourgeoisie to prepare withoutinterference the army which finally suppressed the proletarianregime . The Commune should have completely broken theresistance of the reactionaries at a time when that was possible,should have taken the offensive against the bourgeois forcesgathered at Versailles before these had organised themselves tostrike back, should have taken over the banks and other keyeconomic positions, and generally should have endeavoured tomake the proletarian dictatorship impregnable.

The nature of the workers' state received further considera­tion from Marx in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. Thecapitalist state, despite the variety of forms it assumes in thedifferent countries of the world, is an organ of class repressionused by the capitalists against the workers. A classless societywill have no need of a state, but between capitalism andsocialism there will be a transitional period in which classes willstill continue to exist. During this period of transition "thestate can be nothing else than the revolutionary dictatorship ofthe proletariat." The destruction of the bourgeoisie as It classis the task of the workers' state, and when it is accomplished,not only will the bourgeoisie have been destroyed, but alsotheir antithesis, the proletariat. With the disappearance ofclasses the state will wither and die. *

Though Marx did not live to realise his hopes of building upan international socialist party which, under his leadership;would conquer political power by bringing socialism down fromUtopian heights, by fusing it with the economic struggles of theworkers, and by making the complete overthrow of the capitaliststate the essential means of its achievement he forged a powerfulweapon which was to be most effectively wielded by a latergeneration.

o Evcn the future class -less society will havenecdof a machine to carryout administrative functions on behalf of the complete social 0 rganisation ,but this machine will have no political functions and will notbea state,80

that it will be clearly distinguished from the political state. Engels sug­gestcdforitthetitleof"Commune".

(:let)

V.-Revisionism

THE theories of Marx have been the subject of much hostilecriticism some of which is important. The bulk, however,is not wort.hy of serious consideration. The most serious and

important critici sm was that of the so-ca!lcd revisionists, firstlybecause it showed a knowledge of Marxism uncommon amongcritics of Marx; secondly because it arose in the socialist move­ment itself, and in that section of it which considered itselfto be the guardian of the heritage left by Marx; and thirdlybecause the conclusions reached by the revisionists constitutethe only alternative to Marxism in the world labo~r movement.The revisionist leader was Dr. Eduard Bernstein, who hadspent some years in England as correspondent of the centralorgan of the German Social Democratic Party. In EnglandBernstein became acquainted with the ideas of the Fabians, andon his return to Germany used those ideas in an attack onMarxism, the theoretical foundation of the party.

The general criticism of Bernstein and his fellow revisionistswas that the conditions of the twentieth century were vastlydifferent from those of the nineteenth century. German SocialDemocracy, by keeping to the theories of Marx which arose outof the troublesome times of the middle of the nineteenth century,was possessed of an intellectual stock in trade which was out ofdate, and which was in need of a complete overhaul. The specialcriticism concerned the economic and political theories of Marx.

Commencing with the theory of value, the revisionists main­tained that the labour theory of value was metaphysical andunscientific, and was incapable of application in an understandingof prices. Modern economists had been forced to discard theclul?sy labour theory of value of the classical economists, andtheir work had caused them to develop a new theory, the theoryof Marginal Utility, which could be of service in the solution ofpractical economic problems.~he the.ory t~at the development of capitalism led inevitably

~~:n~:~~~dlc:~e~f~~ethaect::fef:~;:ers,I~~:e~~vi~~O~~sc~e~::~~misery, the workers were experiencing continual improvement intheir standard of living. Nor did the actual facts substantiatethe theory that the small business was disappearing with thegrowth of the large concern. Statistics for Germany showed thatthe contrary development was taking place, and that though largefirms did tend to grow even larger, the growth was not at theexpense of the small businesses, as small businesses had increasedm number. In agriculture, the small peasant proprietor had not

(25)

been displaced by the large capitalist farmer, and peasant culti­vation continued to be the general method of farming in voguethroughout the world. The Marxian theory that uncontrolledcompetition resulted in crises that would grow deeper and morelasting, and that capitalism would collapse in a final crisis, was,no longer true. The organisation of trusts had abolished theevils of unrestricted competition, while improved statisticalinformation made possible the exercise of conscious foresight bythe capitalist in planning his productive programme. Thiselement of conscious organisation was being strengthened by theintervention of governments in economic affairs. Not only wasthe capitalist learning to control himself, but governments wereadopting a policy of wider control of capitalist activities. Theorganisation of capitalism was proceeding so effectively thatcrises would ultimately be abolished.

THE POLITICAL CRITICISMRegarding Marxian political theories, the revisionists pointed

to the far-reaching social changes that had taken place since thedays of Marx. Then, there had been a wide disparity betweenthe position of the proletariat and that of other classes, but sincethen the gap between the classes had tended to close up. Theworking class itself had grown more prosperous, and the creationof a large middle class, recruited in no small measure from theworking class, bridged the distance between the proletariat andthe bourgeoisie. The growth of a new middle class had dis­proved the Marxian view that the middle class would disappeasinto the proletariat as large-scale industry superseded small-scaleindustry. The new middle class had been created by the needof capitalism for officials, technicians, and other professionalpeople. The conflict between classes was becoming less acute,and the gaining of socialism by the victory of the workers in theclass struggle was no longer a feasible proposition.

Furthermore, as autocratic governments had been displacedby democratic forms of government in all the advanced countries,it was now possible to gain socialism by constitutional means.The inclusion of the workers in the franchise by the adoption ofuniversal suffrage had stripped the state of its class character,and it had become a social institution. This change was clearlyillustrated by the new functions the state had assumed. Itspolitical function was being overlaid by these new functions whichincluded the protection of labour, the regulation of industry, theprovision of social services, such as health and education, andthe management and ownership of public utilities, and so on.

Revolutionary methods were now out of place, however neces­sary they may have been in the nineteenth century. Thetwentieth century called for more effective if less spectacularmethods. Social Democracy should cease to declare itself a re-

(2l'1)

volutionary party, and should ad?p! an "evol~tionary" policy,encouraging the ,growth of the s?clahst tenden~les already firmlyrooted in capitahsm, by advocatmg the extension of state owner­ship and control of industry, and the development of social ser­vices. This policy would receive the support, not only of manualworkers, but also that of the professional, workers and, te~hnicians.Together these two groups formed the ~mense maJority, of thepopulation and had the nece,ssary votmg strength to Imposetheir wishes on the rest of society, It was, therefore, necessaryto cement them together by the adoption of a policy acceptableto both.

At the congresses of the German Social Democratic Party, therevisionists suffered defeat, but their theories had a tremendousinfluence upon the practical policy of the international socialistmovement. The Marxian answer to the revisionist criticism isat the same time a restatement of Marxian theories in the lightof twentieth-century developments.

THE ANSWERIn answer to the general criticism that Marxism is out-of­

date, it must be stated that Marx attempted to discover thegeneral laws of social change, not only from a study of societyin the nineteenth century, but also from a study of socialdevelopment from the beginnings of human history, and it isquite possible that his conclusions are as true of the twentiethcentury as they were of the period in which he arrived at them.The critics' task is to discover to what extent modern conditionsdo disprove the Marxian conclusions.

The displacement of the labour theory of value by the theoryof marginal utility is unjustified because the latter theory is nota theory of value, but merely an attempt to explain certainprice movements. Marx was fully conscious that the theory ofvalue stated by him in Volume I of Capital was highly abstractin character and needed qualification when applied to the actualconditions of the capitalist world. This needed qualificationwas provided in Volume III of Capital, published after his death.A scientific theory of value provides the foundation for an under­standing of all the intricate relations of economic life, and thelabour theory is the only theory yet formulated that has. pro­vided such a foundation. The origin of surplus value, fromwhich is derived rent, interest and profit, can be explained onlyon the basis of the Marxian theory of value. The marginalutility theory ignores this problem, which is plainly the mostimportant problem of economic science, and this evasion explainsthe reason for the popularity of the marginal utility theoryamong orthodox economists.

The Marxian theory that capitalist production generallytended to depress the working-class standards of life certainly

(27)

is not disproved by wage movements during the past decade.Even if it is true that during the latter part of the nineteenthcentury the European workers' standards did improve, thatimprovement did not disprove the general theory advanced byMarx . Special conditions obtained during that period for theEuropean countries. Vast areas of land in America, Africa andAsia had been opened up for capitalist exploitation, and Europeenjoyed great prosperity, in which the workers had some share.The inevitable development of capitalist methods in the newlyopened lands reacted on the old capitalist countries, and beforelong the "old countries" found that their industrial monopolywas lost and their workers discovered that their favoured positionhad gone with it. With the disappearance of the special con­ditions the general tendency is again observable, and increasingmisery becomes the lot of the workers. Compare the giganticarmies of unemployed.

SMALL VERSUS LARGE BUSINESSES

The growth in the number of small businesses does not con­tradict the theory that capital tends to concentrate into fewerhands, for though there may have been an increase in the numberof small businesses, their share in the total of production hasdeclined and giant concerns dominate the productive field. Thcfollowing figures given by Lenin in his book Imperialism clearlyindicate that as far as Germany was concerned in pre-war dayslarge concerns were the only ones that rcally mattered. In1907 9 per cent. of the firms employed 39.5 per cent. of themanual labour, used 75 per cent. of the steam power and 80 percent . of the electrical power. The other 91 per cent . of the firmstogether were not as important as the 9 per cent.

Modern statistics show that throughout the capitalist worldbig concerns are gaining a larger and larger share of the totalproduction and that the share of the small concerns is decliningin proportion . Furthermore, many small businesses are allowedto continue in existence because they perform the menial tasksof big businesses, which supply them with markets, rawmaterials, power, and all other means of continued existence.Peasant proprietorship does still 'hold its own in agriculture, butthe peasant has ceased to be an independent producer disposingof his produce at will. He is now completely subservient tocapital, bcing at the mercy of banks, railways, and of dis­tributing firms, upon whom he is dependent not only for theprovision of the means of production, but also for the distri­bution of its fruits. The peasant has ceased to "work forhimself," and merely performs such services as it suits thecapitalists to leave in his hands on such terms as these samecapitalists choose to impose.

(28)

Since Marx wrote Capita! tJhere have certainl~ been im~ort~ntdevelopments in the directIOn of the more effiCl7nt or.g~msatlOnof industry. In practically all fields of e,?on~mlc activity asso­ciation s, tru sts and other forms of combination l~ave been set

~~t ~~fy ~;St~~U~a;~~fi~;oour;a:~a~?::~olr!~~~~~~:; c~~:::e~~but by the capitalist governments also. But these developmentswere foreseen by Marx, and do not in any way upset his theoryof crises; rather th.ey. confirm. it. The cons~io.us organisati~nof capital is very limited, as It has a very limited purpose mview namely, that of enabling the capitalists of one countryto fight more effectively the organised capitalists of others. Themodern organisation of industry has not eliminated competition,but by changing its character and transferring it from the nationalto the international field, has actually intensified it. Nationaltrusts, or groups of national trusts, backed by their respectivegovernments, struggle for world dominion. The competitivestruggle becomes an imperialist struggle, and leads directly toopen warfare. The usual disorganisation caused by economiccrises is made infinitely worse by the effects of modern warfare,and after a war capitalism finds it exceedingly difficult to recoverits stability. The ending of the World War commenced a periodof instability which shows no sign of passing away, and theuse of the phrase "the collapse of capitalism" has becomecommonplace. Even conservative thinkers are of the opinionthat another world war would be fatal to the system, yet allindications point to the outbreak of such a conflict.

"SUPERFICIAL JUSTIFICATION"The objective conditions existent at the time of the revisionist

movement did provide some superficial justification for thecriticism it made of the Marxian economic theories, but evenbetter grounds were provided for the criticism of the Marxianpolitical theories. Politically and socially the middle of thenineteenth century would hardly bear comparison with thecommencement of the twentieth century, yet to-day, after onlya quarter of the new century has passed away, there is the returnof many of the features which characterised the period ofcapitalism's early growth. In face of Fascist and other dictatorialforms of government the revisionists' arguments appear to haveno relationship to reality, while the growing movement backto the political ideas of Marx is an indication that those ideasare charged with life and are full of meaning for the labourmovement.

The gap ?etween the classes is wider than ever. At its highestthe prosperity of the working class was always over estimated~nd no~ all trace of it has disappeared as the result of years ofindustrial depression. The new middle class in no way bridges

(29)

the rapidly growing gap between "the masses and the classes" .This new middle class bears no relationship to the old middleclass, which, as Marx predicted, has in the main disappeared.The new middle class is not a class of independent producers,but is a class of salaried employees, which is driven nearer andnearer to the manual workers as the machine is introduced intothe office and as the educational institutions continue to supplyan already overstocked market with a widening stream oftechnical and administrative workers.

Class conflicts are not being blunted, but are becoming keenerthan ever before in history. Hardly a year has passed since thewar ended without recording political and industrial strugglesof major importance, from mass strikes to armed insurrections.

DICTATORSHIP AND REVOLUTIONThe possibility of gaining socialism by peaceful means gets

proportionately less as the number of capitalist countries whichopenly discard democratic methods of government increases.The modern tendency is to question democracy, lind thistendency is observable not only in the ranks of the capitalistsbut also in the ranks of the labour movement. Among theworkers grows the belief that the democracy of capitalism is onlya passing fashion which has tended to beguile them with theshadow of power, while their masters were consolidating theircontrol over the economic machinc-the source of real power .Adherence to Marxism, however, does not imply a belief in thelise of physical force as the only means of winning power . Thequestion of physical force is one that can be determined only inthe light of the circumstances that exist in a given country at II

given time. The main issue is that of the winning of politicalpower by the proletariat and the overthrow of the capitaliststate machine as a preliminary to the introduction of socialism.At a speech delivered at the Hague in 1872 Marx made hisposition perfectly plain. In the course of his remarks he said :-

"Some day the workers must conquer political supremacy in orderto establish the neworganisntion of lnbour ; they must overthrow theold political system whereby the old institutions are sustained. If theyfail to do this they will suffer the fate ofthc early Christians who neglectedto overthrow the old system, and who, for that reason, never had akingdom in this world. Of course, I must not he supposed to implythat the means to this end will he everywhere the same. \\~e know thatspecial regard must be paid to the institutions, customs and traditionsof vnrious Iands ; and we do not deny that there are certain countries,such as the United States and England, in which the workers may hopeto secure their ends by peaceful means, If I mistake not, Ilolland bclongsto the same category. Even so, we have to recognise that in most Conti­nental countries force will have to be the lever of the revolution. It isto force that in due time we will have to appeal if the dominion orlabour is at long last to be established."

The assumption of new functions by the state dot's not makeit any less a capitalist state acting on behalf of the capitalist

(30)

~~~i~a~~t aco:~~;~' fr~~b~~: !;~~~:~:?,n c~:~ti~r~~e~~s t~~e~~:fl:as the small concern can frequently compete only wheJ:.llt canemploy its workers under the conditions that are consid erablyworse than those that obtain in the large concern. The stateregulation of industry is frequent.ly a means of furthe~ entrench­ing vested interests by the ereatron of I:gal mO~lOpohes aJ~d theprotecting of profits by law. Recent ~llustratlOns of thiS , ~recontained in the London Traffic Combme and the ElectricityBoard.

The concern of the state with public health services ismotivated by the interests of the capitalists in their own health(for once disease epidemics start they do not confine themselvesto the workers) and also by the need of capitalist industry fora supply of healthy labourers. The education of the workersby the education authorities is planned to serve the capitalists.Modern technique requires educated workers, technicians andspecialists, and the state provides the means of satisfying therequirement. It must not escape notice though that as capi­talism becomes hard pressed it tends to reduce the socialservices.

The ownership of public utilities by the state is not a signof socialism. The public utilities tJhat are state-owned are workedin the interests of the capitalists. The provision of cheap servicesby the state in the form of electricity, for example, is oftenof more importance to the big capitalist consumer than to thedomestic consumer, and it often happens that such services areprovided at exceptionally cheap rates to the capitalist consumeras a result of subsidies provided by charging dear rates to thedomestic consumer. Again, state-owned concerns are financedwith borrowed money, and the first charge that they have tomeet is that of interest payment.

The state set up by the workers must have a differ ent purposefrom that of the capitalist state, otherwise it will function inthe interest of capital .as opposed to that of labour. The .Marxian view of the nature of the state st ill withstands allcriticism, despite the changes and modifications that have takenplace, and it is becoming increasingly plain that socialism canbe introduced only when the workers, organised as a class, capturepolitical power, destroy the capitalist state with its capitalistpurpose, and institute a workers' state with a socialist purpose.

Marxism which the revisionists thought they could bury ismore vigorous than ever. Each year adds to its adherents.It inspires the organised workers of the world; it haunts thecapitalists and guides the destiny of one of the world's largeststates.

(31)

Reading ReferencesChapter I.-Marx the Man

Karl Mare by William Leibknecht.Life and Teaching of Karl Marx by ~[ax Beer.Karl Marx by R. W. Postgatc.2~larx and Engels by Ryazanoft.Karl Mar» by Ryazanoff.Revolution and Counter Revolution in Germany (actually written

by Engels, though it carries Marx's name).llistory of the First International by Stekloff.

Chapter H.-Historical Materialism and the Class StruggleThe Communist Manifesto by ~Iarx and Engels.Feuerbach by Engels.Landmarks of Scientific Socialism by Engels.Socialism, Utopian and Scientific by Engels.Fundamental Problems of ilIarxism by Plekhanov.Materialism and Empirio-Criticism by Lenin.Poverty of Philosophy by Marx.Critique of Political Economy by Marx.Life and Teaching of Karl Marx by Beer.The Origin of the Family by Engels.Marxism and History by John S. Clarke.

Chapter HI.-Marxian EconomicsWage Labour and Capital by Marx.Value, Price and Profit by Marx.Poverty of Philosophy by ~Iarx.

Critique of Political Economy by Marx.Capital. Volumes I, 2 and 3.The Plebs Outline of Economics.The Plebs Outline of Finance by A. Woodburn.

Chapter IV.-Marxism and PolttlcsThe Communis! Manifesto by Marx and Engels.Socialism, Utopian and Scientific by Engels.Revolution and Counter Revolution in Germany by Engels.The Ei~hteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon by Marx,Civil JVar in France by ~larx.

Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx.

Chapter V.-RevisionlsmEvolutionary Socialism by Bernstein.State and Revolution by Lenin.Imperialism by Lenin.

This is not an exhaustive list, but it includes mosl of theimportant works available in English. The above books may beobtained from the N.C.L.C. Publishing Society Ltd., 15 South HillPark Gardens, Londons, N.W.3.

Printed by the London Caledonian Preee Ltd., 74 Swtetc.i Strut. W.C.'1. 31268

ooks forKER-S I:DENTS

Of" : ~~::·OODBl R. ' ) Cloth 36 3,9

H rd Boards 2 6 2 8OGR PHY Cloth 3 6 3 9

l :tABI. ') Hard Boards 26 28ISTORY (.1. II. DOBB) 2,6 2,8

GY 2,6 2 /8CS - - Cloth 36 3"9

Hard Boards 2 6 2 8

lebs Books:RT STORY OF THE BRITISH

RK RS (R. \Y. POSTGA1 E) 1 6 1 8XISM AND HISTORY Limp Cloth 1 6 1,8

(1. S. CL.\HKE) Paper 1r 1/2ORKER LOOKS AT HISTORY - 1;6 1/8

(. L\HK STARR)" LEBS" ATLAS(J.F.lIORRABL') 1/- 1/3

ORT HISTORY OF THE BRITISH.MPIRE (J . F. HORHABI1J) 1 /- 11

I S AND HATE IN EDUCATION 2/- 23RK STARR)

Pamphlets:RAINED MIND - - TRAINEDWHAT? (J. P . . 1. )IILLAR) 2d. 3d.YS ERY OF MONEY - - 3d. 4d.OODBUR. ' )OW AND WHAT TO READ - 2d. 3d•

.-CrTHBERT)o IONISM (... lARK STARR) 6d. 7d.

h'eliest ~Iouthly:

LEBS " 3d. 4d.

. r, PI BLISHI G SOCIETY Ul\llTED1 '1H HILL P R K <... DE NS, LO,'OO." ...·.W .3

What doyon think

of this£artoon ?

-+-It's only a small re­production of one ofthe many hundr edsof cartoons that have

made the

PLEBSfamous throughout the International Labour

Movement

I'LEBsCartoonsare80goodthat they go round the world.So do PLEBS Articles,for they too a re frequently repro­duced. If you can lind a livelier Labour Monthly buyit. 'Ve are certain you won't. So place an order withyour newsagent to-day, or post the following to the PLEBs:

16 SOUTH HILL PARK GARDENS, LONDON, N .W.3

Please send me the PLEBS for * months. A

remittance for..._........ . is enclosed.

Name.

Address._ _ _._ __ _ _ ..

*6 months 2/-; 12 months 4./-, post free.