MIA > Archive > Bax > Catechism
What do you understand by SOCIALISM?
By Socialism we understand the system of society the material basis of which is social production for social use; that is, the production of all the means of social existence – including all the necessaries and comforts of life – carried on by the organised community for its own use collectively and individually.
But is not society at the present time organised, and does it not now carry on the production of these things for its own use and advantage?
By no means. Production is carried on to-day purely in the interest and for the profit of the class which owns the instruments of production – by which we mean the land, the mines, the factories, the railways, canals, ships, docks, machinery, and, in short, everything the main object of which is production in the economic sense, i.e., the creation of things for human use.
Is it not just, then, that the means of production should be used in the interest of the class which owns them?
Certainly, so long as class ownership exists – which is the same as saying so long as classes exist. Therefore Socialism would substitute social ownership of these things for class ownership, and this would also involve the abolition of classes altogether.
You speak of classes, but surely it is individuals who own the instruments of production?
It is true that individuals are the owners, but these individuals form a class bound together by common interests, as against the rest of society.
Now does the ownership of the instruments of production constitute a class? Are not members of all classes in a greater or less degree owners of these things, as, for instance, the workman who owns a spade, or has a few pounds in the bank, as well as the middle-class millowner or the aristocratic landlord?
The word class is used in many ways. For instance, we speak of the professional class, the clerical class, the military class, the leisured class, the artisan class, the labouring class, &c., as well its of the upper and the lower classes. But this does not alter the fact that society is separated into two main divisions or classes, one section which, for all practical purposes, possesses all the material means of production, and another section which has no effective ownership in, or control over, these things. The possession by a workman of a few small tools, such as a spade, a sewing machine, or a typewriter, for his own personal use does not take him out of the working class, as, in the present stage of industrial development, such things are so infinitesimal in comparison with the great means of production enumerated above as to be of practically no account. The other senses in which the word class is used refer only to subdivisions of one or other of these two great classes.
But are these the only senses in which the word class cans be use?
There is another more technical sense in which the word is used, but this also will be seen on examination to merely designate the historical phases of the two main classes referred to. The great distinction between classes in the past and those in the present day, is that in the past, men were born into a certain status of society, involving subjection or dominance as the case might be, whereas now class is for the most part a question of the possession or acquirement of wealth. The class-ship into which a man is born is sometimes called his “status”; the class-ship conferred by wealth, which is necessarily much more fluctuating than the former, has no technical name.
But, admitting that society is, as you say, divided into two great fundamental class divisions, do not these two sections imperceptibly shade off into each other, and are they not inextricably mixed?
Superficially, yes; but on examination it will be found not to be so. The question as to which of these two divisions a man belongs to may easily be determined by whether he possesses or does not possess effective control over the labour of others through the possession, or if not the actual possession, the control of the means of production. We do not deny that at the point of contact between these two classes it may not be always easy to draw a sharp line, any more than it is easy for a naturalist at the point of contact to draw a line between the animal and the vegetable kingdoms; although no one doubts the validity of the distinction in general.
Then do you propose that all these means of production which are now owned by individuals, by this class, as you say, should be made the property of the Government, like the Post Office and the telegraph system are in this country, and the railways as well in some others, or that they should be owned by municipal bodies, as water-works, tramways, gas-works, and so on, are in many cases already?
No, Socialism does not mean mere Governmental ownership or management. The State of to-day, nationally or locally, is only the agent of the possessing class; the Post Office and the other State-owned businesses are run for profit just as outer businesses are; and the Government, as the agent of the possessing class, has, in the interests of its employers, to treat the employees just as other employees are treated. The organised democratic society contemplated by Socialists is a very different thing from the class State of to-day. When society is organised for the control of its own business, and has acquired the possession of its own means of production, its officers will not be the agents of a class, and production will be carried on for the use of all and not for the profit of a few.
But how does the possessing class, as you term it, derive a profit from business enterprises which are State-owned?
In many ways. In the case of concerns administered by the National Government, the profit generally takes the form of relief of taxation. In the case of businesses conducted by municipal bodies, on the other hand, the propertied classes make their profits by way of interest on loans advanced to the municipality for the purchase of these businesses, and in being relieved of the rates which, otherwise, they would have to pay.
But if Socialism does not mean Governmental, or State, ownership of the means of production, and if, as you say, such ownership is generally in favour of the class whose ownership of these means you object to now; what do you mean by Socialism?
We mean the establishment of a political power – in place of the present class State – which shall have for its conscious and definite aim the common ownership and control of the whole of the world’s industry, exchange, &c. The entire means of production thus being common property, there would no longer be a propertied class to make a profit out of interest on loans or in any other way, and the property qualification which now divides society into two classes being thus swept away, classes themselves would disappear.
But as a beginning might not the nationalisation or municipalisation of some industries be made use of for the common benefit?
Yes, this can be done, but only to a limited extent, and even to that extent it is very difficult; because the propertied classes being in power take care that as far as possible all national or municipal businesses shall be managed in their interests.
Do you, then, oppose the nationalisation or municipalisation of any industries under existing circumstances?
By no means. In any case even under the present class State, the national or municipal ownership of any business helps, as do also the trusts, to prepare the way for the complete socialisation of all industries.
Then, are we to understand that this common ownership and control of all industries is all that is meant by Socialism? In a word, is Socialism merely an economic theory?
No. Socialism is an economic theory because the economic conditions form the material basis of human society; but Socialism is much more than that, it embraces all the relations of human life. The establishment of Socialism means a complete change in society in all its aspects. The economic conditions directly determine the political conditions; less directly, but none the less certainly, the ethical conditions; still less directly, the aesthetic – although, since art expresses itself in material things, and works through material processes, it here also must exercise a powerful and even a dominating influence. In the region of purely intellectual theory and speculation the influence of the: economic conditions is not directly felt at all, but often considerably so indirectly, seeing that these conditions are the source of many distorting influences, which under present circumstances powerfully affect men, and prevent there seeing the truth in logical, philosophical, and scientific matters. In short, although we do not deny that human intelligence can influence or modify its environment, yet such influence or modification has hitherto usually coincided in the long run with an equal (and often a far greater) influence of the environment upon itself. Action and reaction are inevitable, and are never separated in this connection, although one side or the other may be the predominant factor. We will, therefore, now proceed to elaborate in greater detail the points raised here.
Previous chapter – Top of the page – Next chapter
Last updated on 16.6.2004