It is time for socialists to speak out when others fall silent

The Socialist Party comes before you as a body advocating the principles of revolutionary worldwide socialism; that is, we seek a change in the basis of society—a change which would destroy the distinctions of classes and nationalities. The world is at present divided into two classes of society—the one possessing wealth and the instruments of its production, the other producing wealth by means of those instruments but only by the leave and for the use of the possessing classes. These two classes are necessarily in antagonism to one another. The possessing class can only exist on the unpaid labour of the producers—the more unpaid labour (surplus value) they can wring out of them, the richer they will be; therefore the producing class—the workers —are driven to strive to better themselves at the expense of the possessing class, and the conflict between the two is ceaseless. Sometimes it takes the form of open rebellion, sometimes of strikes, sometimes of crime; but it is always going on in one form or other, though it may not always obvious. The relation of the possessing class to the working class is the essential basis of the system of producing for profit.

Having used the term “class” it is perhaps necessary to define it more precisely. In the first place, a class is not merely a question of social origins. An individual born in the working class may enter the capitalist class and vice versa. Nevertheless, a class tends to perpetuate itself along the lines of its social origins. It is also true that individuals are influenced by the ideas and attitudes of the class to which they belong. But ideas and attitudes do not determine a class structure. Nor as is popularly supposed is a class made up of people getting near enough the same income. Some highly paid workers may get as much or more than some small capitalists. It does not mean therefore that they have an identity of interests. A civil servant and an aircraft mechanic may both earn the same amount but it does not give them a class affiliation as against those who earn double or half of that amount. Although differences of income are a feature of classes, it is not the size of the income but the source of income, common to a number of individuals which is more important for the purpose of analysis. 

To discover the real nature of class structure one must go to the roots of a social system and that must be sought in the social relations of production i.e. the way one set of individuals stand to another set of individuals in the process of producing wealth. Using this criterion we can say that social classes are characterised by those who own the means of production and those who work for them and who provide above the general cost of their maintenance, surplus labour for the former. The appropriation of surplus labour has always exemplified class society of which capitalism is historically the last form. In capitalism, the social groups consist of the ruling section who own the wealth-producing agencies and the subordinate class—non-owners—who work for them and the surplus labour takes the form of surplus value. The essence of class privilege being the appropriation of unpaid labour, the individuals who make up the ruling section will have a common interest in perpetuating a social order upon which the survival of its privileges depends. An antagonism of interests is then a feature of class society.

It is true that people can be classified in innumerable ways, dependent upon the purpose in view. But if we wish to know from whence profits are derived, what determines wage levels and the impetus of capital accumulation, in short, what makes the system tick, then only the Marxist classification is relevant for such purposes.

Production of surplus value is the life blood of capitalism. It provides capitalists with their personal incomes and is the source of extended capital accumulation. In a society in which two classes face each other as owners of the means of production and wage workers owning only their working capacities, the way control is exercised over the agencies of production is evident. That is why capital is not just another name for means of production, as some woolly-minded Fabians think. For the capitalist, the means of production represent a sum of values which take the form of investment. The capitalist is not concerned with means of production as such, but as capital and the only function capital has for him is to expand. In a world where monopolistic, quasi-monopolistic, or free market competition is the order of the day(plus capital depreciation due to technical changes which tend to depreciate capital values) the self-expansion of capital becomes the essential condition for the successful survival of the capitalist or combination of capitalists. Capitalism is a social organisation where production and distribution of wealth have to follow certain rules. Capitalists, and the management must conform to these rules on pain of elimination. 

The Socialist Party is often reproached for providing no detailed description of the type of society which would follow on the end of the capitalism, a system of waste and war. The Socialist Party's answer is  that we have not set ourselves to build up a system to please our organisation’s members’ tastes, nor are we seeking to impose it on the world in a mechanical manner, but rather that we are assisting in bringing about a development which would take place without our help, but which, nevertheless, compels us to help it; and that, under these circumstances, it would be futile to map out the details of life in a condition of things so different from that in which, we have been born and bred.