MIA > Archive > Bax > Catechism
But is not this attitude towards these reform movements somewhat in contradiction to the Socialist approval of State and Municipal enterprise such as involves cheap transit, improved and cheaper dwellings, free education and free maintenance for the children, etc., all of which imply reduced cost of living to the workman?
It is quite true that to some extent such measures as you have mentioned would have the effect of reducing the cost of living to the workman, and so far they are on all fours with the “reform” movements which we have condemned as antagonistic to Socialism. Nevertheless, they are supported by Socialists because they would materially improve the conditions of the working class, and are, besides, stepping-stones towards Socialism, and restrictions and limitations of capitalist exploitation and domination.
Does this apply to all State and Municipal enterprises which may be undertaken under the name of “Social Reform”?
Certainly not. There are many so-called “Social Reforms,” State and Municipal, which are not distinctly of advantage to working-class interests, and may even be inimical thereto. There are, for instance, proposals for taxation reform, which would mean mere burden – shifting – lifting the burden of taxation from the shoulders of one section of the dominant class and placing it upon another, but affording no benefit to the worker. Thus, what is called the taxation of land values would afford relief to those capitalists who derive their profits directly from industrialism, at the expense of those who draw their incomes from land, but would not in any way reduce the amount of surplus-value taken from the working class.
But do not the working class pay the rates and taxes?
No. Rates and taxes are paid out of the surplus-value taken from the workers by their exploiters. As already explained, the return to the workers – their wages – is determined by their cost of subsistence, regulated by competition in the labour market; consequently they have nothing wherewith to pay taxes, and whether these be high or low, or whoever has to pay them directly, the position of the worker remains the same. He gets, on the average, his subsistence, that is all.
Does this hold good with regard to municipal enterprises, such as municipal gas, water, tramways, electric lighting, etc., the profits of which are used to reduce the rates? Is not such a reduction of rates of special benefit to the working class and to the community generally?
No. Generally speaking, the reduction of rates is of no benefit whatever to the working class. Rates are levied upon property, and to devote the proceeds of municipal undertakings to the reduction of rates is simply to use them, as we have already stated, as means for making profit for the propertied class.
What, then, is the position of Socialism generally towards the extension of municipalism and municipal enterprise?
Socialism is distinctly in favour of the extension of the municipalisation of those services which are municipal, as of the nationalisation of others. But this municipalisation or nationalisation must proceed on right lines, and for a practical object.
What, then, should be the object of municipalisation and nationalisation?
The primary object should be the most economical provision of the best possible public services. The general well-being should be the first consideration to be served, having due regard to the welfare of each and all engaged in these services. The idea of profit either in the shape of interest on loans, or of reduced rates and taxes, should be eliminated altogether. National and municipal enterprise is to be encouraged in every way in which the foregoing principle is kept in view, in which it involves the extension of public property, and in which it serves in a practical form the improvement of the condition of the working class.
Previous chapter – Top of the page – Next chapter
Last updated on 16.6.2004