MIA > Archive > Bax > Catechism
Apart from this question of sex, are we to understated that Socialism champions and allies itself with every movement for class and race equality, and for the improvement of the present condition of the working classes?
That depends entirely upon the character of such movements. All which tend in the direction of Socialism are encouraged and assisted by Socialists. All which, no matter how reasonable or attractive they appear on the surface, are essentially antagonistic to Socialism, Socialists are bound to oppose as misleading and dangerous.
Can you give some illustrations of these various movements?
To begin with, Trade Unions call for the support of Socialists, in so far as they are manifestations of the class struggle, and represent an organised effort of the working class to prevent or restrict their exploitation by the capitalist class. The Co-operative movement, again, to the extent to which it aims at organising industry independently of the capitalist class, has the sympathy and support of Socialists. On the other hand, so-called Thrift and Temperance movements, and Malthusianism, in so far as they aim at reducing the standard of living for the workman, training him to work for a lower wage, and so cheapen labour and increase the margin of profit of the capitalist class, are essentially antagonistic to Socialism. Once the choice is given between sensual pleasures and sports and intellectual and artistic enjoyments, the regeneration of the working class will evolve without exciting coercion.
Surely Trade Unionism, as the one organised expression of the working class in opposition to the capitalist class, is the essential embodiment of working-class ideas, and should everywhere not only command the support of the Socialists as representing the class movement, but should be recognised as paramount in that movement?
The English Trade Union organisation is in a sense a survival of an earlier stage than the present in the class struggle. The tendency is for that struggle to become more and more political, and in so far as trade unions ally themselves with the political working-class movement, they retain their place as active factors in the conflict. In so far, however, as they allow themselves to be dominated by old ideas and abstain from any participation in political life, they become useless and even reactionary.
Is there, then, an antagonism between Socialism and Trade Unionism when the latter becomes, as you say, useless and reactionary?
There is no antagonism between Socialism and Trade Unionism except when the trade union becomes politically retrograde, Even in that case it is a question in the main of policy and methods, which will be altered as Socialist influence makes its way in the union. The trade unions generally must sooner or later become – they already in some instances are to-day – part and parcel of the working-class Socialist movement, or must cease to exist, as class organisations.
But surely the Co-operative movement is essentially Socialist?
Co-operation is in its inception Socialist. That is to say, that all co-operation implies co-operative effort and social union. But the general practice of co-operation to-day is of a joint-stock enterprise, on the part of a number of petty shareholders. Modern industrial co-operation is, therefore, little more than playing at capitalism. Under existing conditions no business enterprise can succeed except on competitive lines, and so the co-operative societies of to-day simply represent co-operation to compete, with capitalist concerns, on capitalist conditions. They must successfully compete or go under. Thus, while conferring some slight advantage on their members, co-operative societies have little connection with the present working-class movement, except where they are subsidiary to that movement and serve to help supply it with funds; as in the case of the co-operative societies of Belgium.
You referred to the “So-called Thrift and Temperance movements” and “Malthusianism “ as being antagonistic to Socialism. Are they not generally regarded as agencies for the improvement of the moral and material conditions of the working classes?
It is quite true that these schemes are generally so regarded, but as a matter of fact they afford excellent examples of what may be described as bogus working-class movements. Under present circumstances the more frugal, thrifty, and abstemious, working people, as a class, become, the more cheaply they have to live, the more cheaply they have to sell their labour power to the capitalist class. Wages being determined by cost of subsistence, the lower the standard of life of the workman the lower are his wages. This applies to all the various nostrums (including Malthusianism) which aim at reducing the cost of living to the workman.
Previous chapter – Top of the page – Next chapter
Last updated on 16.6.2004