Published on The Socialist Party of Great Britain (

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Published on The Socialist Party of Great Britain (https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb)"

Brendan Lucas
6 years ago
Views:

1 No. 576 August 1952 A Denunciation of Nationalism The Indian, M. N. Roy, who was at one time prominent in the Communist International, but later broke away and took a line of his own, recently wrote for the Manchester Guardian (21/6/52) an article "Asian Nationalism: Its Roots in Race Hatred." In it he puts the case that the Asiatic nationalist movements are not just movements to secure independence from the foreign governments that kept them in colonial subjection, for even after achieving independence they continue to preach the same anti-foreign doctrines as before. He quotes Mr. Nehru, Prime Minister of India, and advocate of Indian nationalism, as having admitted that he does not know what nationalism is: "What exactly is nationalism? I do not know, and it is extremely difficult to define. In the case of a country under foreign domination it is easy to define what nationalism is. It is anti-foreign power. But in a free country it is something positive. Even so, I think that a large element of it is negative or anti-, and so sometimes we find that nationalism, which is a healthy force, becomes maybe after liberation unhealthy, retrogressive, reactionary, or expansive." Yet though Mr. Nehru could not define nationalism he went on to declare that it "warms the heart of every Asian" and that "any other force that may seek to function must define itself in terms of this nationalism." Mr. Roy says this is nonsense and that what Mr. Nehru's explanation really means is that nationalism is "race hatred kept alive artificially." Asia nationalism is an unmixed evil. It has not got the saving grace of a cultural and idealist origin as in the case of earlier European nationalism." Although Mr. Roy notices that between the wars European nationalism developed into fascism, and quotes the statement of the late Lord Acton that nationality sacrifices everything "to the imperative necessity of making the nation the mould and measure of the State," he does not appreciate the simple fact that nationalism has been and is everywhere the form in which each capitalist group tries to carve out a place for itself in the world of warring capitalist states. If he did he would not be at all surprised that the politicians who have used nationalism to gain independence from a colonial power need it just as much afterwards in order to persuade the workers to go on fighting capitalism's battles. If it is an illusion to think that nations can be friendly in a capitalist world provided that they are all "independent," it is equally an illusion on the part of Mr. Roy to think that the Powers, great and small could dispense with nationalism. At least one thing Mr. Roy has correctly summed up. Discussing the disappointing results of national independence from the worker's point of view, he says that when India and other countries achieved independence, "absolutely nothing changed except the personnel of the State machinery." On one thing we can put Mr. Roy right. He says of the "reforming Liberals and the revolutionary Left: in the Western countries" that, disregarding the bitter experience and irony of history which had shown them nationalist movements starting with men like Mazzini and ending with regimes like Page 1 of 5

2 Mussolini's, they "vied with each other in patronising colonial nationalism." Whatever the Liberals and Labourites did, the S.P.G.B. certainly did not fall into this error but always condemned nationalist propaganda whether at home or abroad, in Europe or in Asia. Common Questions Answered: (2) Incentive to Work Q: Since there will be no money and no payment of any kind under Socialism what will be the incentive for people to do the necessary work? A: It s true that most of us at present have to go to work to get money, but this is not an end in itself being only the means of obtaining some of the things we produce. Capitalism puts a price tag on everything, including workers energies which are bought by the employer for wages. To the capitalist class having money means having the means of exploiting the labour of others. Far from ensuring that all necessary work is done. Capitalism sacrifices the needs of human beings to the demands of markets. Textile mills are not closed because nobody needs textiles, but because not enough have the money to buy what they want. In contrast under Socialism the incentive for all to work will be the direct satisfaction of human needs. Everybody will have equal access to the wealth of the world, to which they will contribute to the best of their ability, and they will need no incentive other than the knowledge that they will be helping themselves and others to live full and happy lives. Q: If people weren t forced to work if they didn't want to wouldn't most of them very quickly give it up and just take what they want without putting anything in? A: The mistake you make is in thinking that work under Socialism will have the same objectionable features low pay, long hours of boring routine, needless risk to health and limb, etc. that employment has under Capitalism. When freed from conditions associated with exploitation work will not be looked upon as a necessary evil but as the normal activity of mankind. Hobbies, voluntary work and often an unwillingness to be pensioned off disprove the theory that people will only work for money. The cash incentive may now be strong but it is also very anti-social, since it results in many useless and harmful acts, from the stupidity of ticket-clipping to the monstrosity of world war. Under Socialism only useful work will be done and those whose labour is now wasted or employed for anti-social purposes will be free to help. In those circumstances it is difficult to imagine anybody refusing to put something into the common pool, though individual contributions will neither be forced nor will any attempt be made to relate them to consumption. Q: Under Socialism we should presumably all choose the work we like doing, if any. But suppose a lot of us decided to do one job and nobody would do another? A: What makes you think such a state of affairs would exist? It's true there will be the need for organisation and division of labour, but the scope for utilising all the varied human talents will be far greater than exists today. More people will be able to do more things and will be free to express themselves in ways which property society denies them. Of course if the work is harmful to doer then society will either go without the product or find some other way of obtaining it. Remember that Socialism is only possible when a majority of people understand the need for it and what it entails. The fact that people will be free to do the work they like means that there will be nothing to make them do otherwise but, being sensible folk, they will not insist upon doing something the result of which nobody wants. Since everyone will be encouraged to use his particular abilities to meet society s needs, the question of certain social-needed work not being done will not arise. Q: Who s going to decide how much of everything each of us needs'? Wouldn't there be difficulties in allocating those things which are bound to be short occasionally? A: Who will decide how much you need? The answer is you will! Nobody can tell you now how much food will satisfy you since you are the best judge of that. Even capitalists do not keep on eating just because they can afford to. Under Socialism the whole productive and distributive machinery will be Page 2 of 5

3 geared to satisfying self-expressed human needs. It s very unlikely that people who have succeeded in building a society free from war, poverty and the other evils of Capitalism will be baulked by the problem of distribution. A temporary shortage of a certain type of goods or service will be the cue for those who are willing and able to change their contribution to the work of society, to do so. Q : What incentive would there be for the ordinary hard-working chap to produce things which a few anti-social types could monopolise. Wouldn't he refuse to do so mid so wreck the whole system? A: Your views on what Socialism will be like are coloured by your accepting capitalist standards, which prevents your understanding what the world will be like when they are replaced by socialist ones. There will be no anti-social behaviour such as you suggest because there will be no incentive to it. Nobody wants to monopolise what is freely available capitalist markets are only cornered to make a profit, not out of greed for the commodities themselves. We've never met one of these antisocial types (it s always the other chap ) who wants to stockpile free goods. Even if there are a few human magpies when Socialism is in its infancy, the novelty of hoarding will soon wear off. Q : Knowing people as they are today, with all their faults, do you really think they will in fact work for the good of society even though they agree to have Socialism? A: Your question assumes that in a socialist world people will have the same anti-social habits and tendencies that are bred in a capitalist one. To question that they will do the work required to meet all reasonable needs is to question their understanding of Socialism. But why doubt the willingness of your fellow-men to shoulder burdens which will be far lighter than those they shoulder under any form of Capitalism? What really stands in the way of the growth of socialist understanding is not this question of incentives, but the fact that most people accept Capitalism as the only possible system. The incentive socialists have is that they are helping to build a world which will at last be for the greatest good of the greatest number. Stan Parker Film Review: "Death of a Salesman" Page 3 of 5

4 Death of a Salesman, directed by László Benedek (1951) This film version [1]of the successful play was recently generally released (though not to the main circuits) and is well worth a visit to one of the few cinemas that will show it. Its theme is somewhat different from the conventional Hollywood dramas and it has a social significance that is all too rare in films. It is the story not merely of Willie Loman, ageing merchandise salesman, but of the whole business of buying and selling in a highly competitive society. Usually, screen characters are shown as wholly good or bad and undergoing no significant change in outlook as a result of what happens to them. For once we see, in this film, recognition of the fact that men are largely made what they are by the sort of environment in which they have to live. Willie Loman, superbly played by Frederic March, is portrayed as a failure who refuses to believe that he is not the success that he thinks he should be. At sixty-three, having been on the road all his working life, he is worn out, more mentally than physically, through having tried to make himself well known, well liked and remembered by his customers. He makes a fetish of the power of personality as a factor in business success. He is, in Hollywood jargon, all mixed up and is shown as re-living past episodes and talking in his imagination to people he knows. In one scene he wonders if he has brought up his two sons to believe in the right things, and has an imaginary conversation with his dead, but successful, brother about them. Brother Ben, to show that you must be tough to make your fortune in this world, invites one of the boys to take a punch at him, and after a short struggle the boy is on the ground with a cane pointing in his face. Then come words which should haunt the memories of all who have lauded the merits of the scramble for wealth and power "Never fight fair with a stranger in the jungle." The film pulls no punches in depicting the sort of behaviour and situations that result from the condition of cut-throat Capitalism, though unfortunately (but not unexpectedly) it does not refer to the system directly. It has presumably been given an X certificate (adults only) because of the suicide, and its failure to disguise the prostitute as the usual barmaid or hostess. Other touches of realism are the references to the hand-to-mouth existences of the vast majority of people, even in the prosperous cities of America. Faced with the problem of meeting the last payments on his car and refrigerator, Willie remarks, It seems they make these things so they re worn out just when you finish making the payments on them. Page 4 of 5

Part of the story deals with the efforts of his two sons to earn their hirings on the basis of their father s teaching about success, and the importance of being well liked as the royal road to it.

5 Part of the story deals with the efforts of his two sons to earn their hirings on the basis of their father s teaching about success, and the importance of being well liked as the royal road to it. One of them has had a number of jobs, most recently working on a farm, and is keen to become an executive with the firm for which he once worked as a shipping-clerk. The fatherly advice includes Don t tell him you worked on a farm say you were in business in the West typical of the fantasy and deception that abound in the whole business world. When, having lost his job, Willie makes it obvious that he intends to commit suicide, his uncle tries to talk him out of it by saying that no one is worth anything dead. But Willie, whose life is insured for 20,000 dollars, knows otherwise. At his graveside his uncle says, Willie was a salesman and as a salesman he traded in dreams." Yet nobody, no matter how accustomed to the almost ritual happy endings, could really believe that with the death of one salesman had died the evil which was the underlying theme of the film. The purpose of this review is not to prove that such films as Death of a Salesman are a form of propaganda for Socialism. Not for one moment does this particular film hold out the prospect of a world in which the necessity to buy and sell would not exist. But it does, at any rate, constitute a powerful criticism of the capitalist way of life and reinforces the arguments of socialists against prolonging it. Stan. Source URL: Links: [1] Page 5 of 5

Foundations of Economics: A Christian View

148 FAITH & ECONOMICS Foundations of Economics: A Christian View Foundations of Economics: A Christian View is both a text and a treatise combining various scriptures with the philosophical contributions