Understanding society

The system of society today, under which workers suffer, is known as Capitalism. This form of society had not always existed but was the product of a previous system known as Feudalism. Feudalism had been preceded by a system known as Chattel Slavery and Chattel Slavery in turn was the product of the first form of society we know of – Primitive Communism. The different forms of society have expressed the changes which have taken place in the mode of production of society’s necessities of life. The basis of Primitive Communism was common ownership of the means of production with social distribution of the product of food, clothing and shelter. No member of society then had too much of the good things of life and others with too little. Each form of society contains within it the seeds of its own destruction and in the course of time private property was the seed that destroyed Primitive Communism. From the fall of Primitive Communism until the present day, the ownership or non-ownership of property determined one’s position in society. Under Primitive Communism equality existed and all the people had the same rights and privileges; a relationship of freedom existed which has been lost to the human race since private property was established and can only be recovered by the establishment of Socialism.


In the system known as Chattel slavery the relationship was Master and Slave, under Feudalism Lord and Serf and in modern Capitalist society it is Capitalist and Worker. Between these divisions of people or classes in society a struggle went on. This struggle was known to all Socialists as a class struggle. The modern struggle is between Workers and Capitalists and the reason is not difficult to understand.

The means of production today are privately owned, that is to say, a section of society own all the factories, mines,  workshops etc., through which ownership they are able to live a life of ease and luxury. The other section owning nothing are forced to sell themselves as workers to the owners of property in order that they get food, clothing, shelter for themselves and their wives and children. The mode of production being commodity production for profit, the return to the worker takes the form of a money wage. This wage is the money expression of the value of the particular worker’s labour power. A navvy and a civil engineer received different amounts of money as wages but both of these workers received the value of his particular labour-power. This value was determined by how much it cost to produce his kind of labour power. All commodities, labour-power included, had their values determined in the same way, by the amount of socially necessary labour embodied in them.

In the process of production the worker produced a surplus over what as returned to him in the form of wages. This was the reason his master the Capitalist employed him and was the sole aim of the Capitalist System.

The worker found through experience that his wage enabled him to purchase only the cheapest necessities of life and to maintain even this he had to continually struggle with his master. To assist him in his struggles he formed Trade unions some people advocated the formation of industrial unions but there were no difference between them fundamentally), but in spite of all his efforts his conditions gradually became worse and he was able to see that his life was one long story of poverty, degradation and misery.

Many political organisations professed to exist only for the purpose of assisting the working class. The Conservative Party, Liberal Democrat Party, Labour party and a host of others drew up programmes of social reforms which they all guarantee will, if the workers would only trust them and vote for them; solve all the ills which afflicted the working class. The Socialist Party of Great Britain has no reforms on its programme and is opposed to all parties who ask the workers to support a reformist policy. Reform of capitalism would still leave workers in their slave position. Reforms, apart from the fact that in many cases they had proven worse than the evil which they set out to remedy, were but the normal features of Capitalism. Capitalism and their representatives had been busy reforming the capitalist system since it had been established but in spite of all their reforms the condition of the working class was worse today than ever it was in its history. It was the boast of such outstanding defenders of capitalism  that “Reform is the antidote to Revolution” and they were correct. The various left-wing parties, with their ever-changing lists of reforms should be an example to the workers of the futility of wasting valuable time and energy attempting to reform a system which could not be reformed in the interests of the working class.

The mere ownership of wealth is not enough for the capitalist class. They require the means to protect that ownership. This means was the armed forces of a society and were under the control of whichever political party having a majority of representatives in Parliament. Whoever had control of these forces were masters of the situation. If the workers had not this force to contend with it would be an easy matter for them to dispossess their masters. In 1926 with the General Strike we had an example of the ruling class using their political control to smash discontent among the workers. History as a matter of fact is full of such examples. So long as the workers leave this potent weapon in the hands of the employers they were helpless.

Social reform being no solution to the ills suffered by the workers the Socialist Party points out that all the evils can be traced to the one cause and to this one cause only – Private Property. When we looked around us we saw notices such as “This is Private Property” or “No Admittance”. To the Socialist these were advertisements of the cause of poverty, slums, disease, crime, prostitution, war and all the other curses of the human race. Having found the one cause for all our troubles we find the remedy almost automatically - Socialism. Abolish private property with production for profit and establish a new system of society based on common ownership with production for use. This is what socialism means. Under such new conditions would he be lifted above the sordid animal stage of existence such as he finds himself at present. This was something worthwhile fighting for and the way to achieve such a new system of society was by the workers first of all getting to understand their enslaved position in present day capitalism, to organise with others, in order to take revolutionary political action to control the State machine in order to transform society from the basis up. This means the action of a class conscious majority of the workers. Minorities are of no use. We have a class conscious minority today yet it is helpless. That minority have to go on broadcasting the principles of Socialism until the majority accepted them. The S.P.G.B. advocates that the workers must organise on the political and economic field on class lines before they can abolish capitalism.

Political action is necessary to end the system, and the act of revolution is political. Will we merely put a cross on our ballot papers in order to get socialism, and the kind capitalists will then hand over? No. when the workers understand Socialism and take the action necessary to obtain it, the capitalists will not be asked to “hand over”. The workers will take over and the bosses’ opinions on the matter won’t matter a tinker’s curse.
Much is said of the case for political action advanced by the S.P.G.B. to blur its meaning. Marx and Engels made it quite clear that political action meant that action which had for its object the control of the governmental powers which controlled the armed forces of the State. Engels pointed out that the workers would have to be in a majority, and thoroughly understanding the necessity for such action before they could establish Socialism.

Misunderstanding exists as to the Socialist Party’s attitude regarding Trade Unions. The Socialist Party has always made it quite clear that the workers must organise on the political and economic field on sound class lines. Such organisation could not be accomplished by un-class-conscious workers, hence the S.P.G.B. carried on socialist propaganda everywhere it was possible to do so.

On the question of “Economic power” so much beloved by the Syndicalists and Industrial Unionists, if they mean the ownership of wealth, then history has much to say on this point which disproves the idea that mere ownership in some miraculous manner confers power on the owners. In England, from the 11th to the 14th century, the woollen merchants were the most economically important class, with all their wealth they were helpless and were fleeced right and left by those who had political power – the feudal aristocracy. The history of every country has been the same in this respect. The capitalist class, under Feudalism in spite of all their wealth were helpless until they wrested political power from the then dominant class in society. If we study the issues raised at a General election in modern times we see, plainly, the struggle between sections of the Capitalist class to get political power in order that their particular interests may be served. “Economic power” is another of the dangerous illusions that the workers must get out of their minds before they can win their emancipation.

Industrial Unionists claim that the Industrial Union has to be organised on a class-conscious basis, but it is quite clear that non-Socialists (even anti-Socialists) must be recruited into the Industrial Union. Experience of the shop steward movement on the Clyde showed that the officials, mostly S.L.P.ers were just as reactionary and treacherous as the ordinary trade union officials. These individuals were outstanding as job-seekers.

Another illusion of the Industrial Unionist is, that when we get economic unity we shall automatically obtain political agreement. But what are the facts? In America, we witnessed the two outstanding champions of Industrial Unionism, namely E. V. Debs and Daniel DeLeon, whilst in agreement as to economic organisation were deadly enemies on the political field. They were at daggers drawn all during their lives, one in the reformist Socialist Party of America and the other in the Socialist Labour Party. So much for the unity theory.

Industrial Unionism is essentially no different from Trade Unionism in so far as it, like the Trade Unions breeds its own scabs and, on occasion hands out definitely reactionary advice to the workers. During the miners strike in 1921, the advice offered by the S.L.P. in their paper “THE SOCIALIST” was: “Miners do not strike, seize the mines”. Fortunately for themselves the miners paid no attention to such nonsense, if they had done so they would have felt the weight of the Capitalist State. During the industrial troubles of 1926 the British Section of the International Socialist Labour Party circulated the miners not to strike and this at a time when a savage attack was launched against the miners’ wages and working conditions.

 The state will not commence to “wither away” until it is in the hands of the revolutionary workers who will slowly but surely build up the new order of society thus abolishing the State functions. The state is a necessary evil, as Marx shows, which is transmitted to the workers through revolution. All through their writings of Marx and Engels we find the position put quite plainly that a class conscious majority of workers, in order to establish Socialism, must get control of the State machine.  Political power is the power to rule. The Capitalist Class have that power to-day and the Working Class give them that power at every election. When the workers understand and desire Socialism they will organise in the socialist party in order to raise themselves to the position of ruling class, by capturing political power. With that power in their possession they will set about the task of building a new order of society which will conform to the interests of all."

Adapted from a debate held a workers open forum in the 1930s