EHI - 01 (6th Part)

Sixth Part

Q.  In what ways does a socialist society differ from a capitalist society?

A.  All societies prior to socialist societies were class societies, based on antagonism of class interests, between those who own resources and those who work on those resources to produce wealth. Socialist society destroys this antagonism, because, now the people who work are also the people who own the resources. Therefore, in a socialist society there is no exploitation of one class by another, and, it is a society based on the equality of all men. This equality is not only political and legal, as in capitalist societies, but also social and economic, because private property, which is the root of all inequality, is abolished in a socialist society.

Socialist society is, therefore, a society characterized by social justice. This does not mean, however, that people cannot own anything individually. In a socialist society people do have the opportunity to own their personal belongings - house hold things, vehicle, house, bank account from their savings etc. Only, they cannot own those things, means of production - which they can use to deprive other human beings of the fruits of their labor. In fact, as wealth increases in a socialist society as a result of increased production, everyone owns more and more personal belongings, not just a few people. The increase in production in a socialist society comes about through planned production ex. Five year plan . Socialist democracy ensures certain social rights to all people - the right to employment, rest and leisure, health protection, security in old age, housing, free and equal education, apart from the right to participate in administering the state and public affairs.

                   A socialist society promises complete separation of religion and politics. This does not mean that people cannot hold private beliefs. It means only that they cannot make religion into a public affair, or use it politically, or propagate it in schools etc. A socialist society also grants complete equality to women. It creates the material bases for this equality also through shorter hours of work for women with small children, creches at places of work- so that women can feed their children during the day, canteens and public kitchens at places of work etc. Advanced capitalist countries also have these benefits, but they have to be heavily paid for individually. They are commercial enterprises for profit, and only the rich can afford them. A socialist state guarantees these benefits to all women. With minimum cost. It gives allowances for children, who are considered a responsibility of society as a whole.

Q.  Who were the Utopian Socialists?

A.  Utopian socialists are the ones who wanted the end of capitalism. They wanted its end not only because it was exploitative, but also because they recognized that it was not a permanent stage in history. They thought it was bound to end because it was unjust, and because of the problems and contradictions inherent in it. They saw history from the perspective of the interests of those who were oppressed and: therefore, uncompromisingly opposed capitalism. They were also opposed to private property as a source of profit. Therefore they wanted a common or social ownership of means of production.But they did not know how to bring into being this new kind of society. This is because they belonged to a period when capitalism had developed enough for them to see the misery it caused to the working people. But, as yet, the working class, whose interests are most directly and uncompromisingly opposed to that of the capitalists, had not developed sufficient class-consciousness and organization for independent political action. Also, the workings of the capitalist system were not yet clear, and it was not yet known that capitalism as a system had inherent in it inevitable crises. Their theories, therefore, reflected the undeveloped or early stages of capitalism. They did not understand what the historic role of the working class would be. They did not recognize that class

struggle between the workers and capitalists was a necessary feature of capitalism, or that the interests of the two were irreconciliable. In fact, they did not really understand the working of the capitalist system. They did not take into account the fact that the profit of the owners depended precisely on the exploitation of the workers - and that is why the interests of the workers and the capitalists could not be reconciled. But they thought otherwise. The solution for them, therefore, lay in a change of heart and development of a new morality. This new morality could be achieved through a new and correct education, through propaganda and through experiments which would serve as examples for others. They did not understand that economic changes form the basis for changes in political institutions and social life. That is why they were known as Utopian Socialists.

Q.  How is capitalism just not an economic system?

A.  Marx and Engels made an important contribution to economic theory. They proved that under capitalism a worker spends one part of the day covering the cost of maintaining himself and his family (wages), while for the rest of the day he works without remuneration, because now he is producing over and above what he would be paid for. It is through this, that he creates surplus value, which is the source of profit for the capitalist and the means whereby the worker is denied the fruits of his labor. Thus capitalism is not just an economic system, it is also a certain set of social relationships, i.e., a specific relationship between the capitalist and the worker, which is against the interests of the worker, and which is socially unjust. The worker is a necessary part of the system because without labor nothing can be produced, and the worker cannot produce alone, so there is a certain social organization of labor. But this social organization is dominated by capital or wealth which is owned by the capitalist, and which the worker does not have.

Q.  How did the capitalist get profit under capitalism, and how was the worker exploited?

A.  The workers are not paid the full amount for what they produce. The factory owner pays to the worker for the number of hours the worker works in his factory. But the goods the workers collectively produce in the factory have more value and are sold at a higher price in the market, and this amount the factory owner keeps, for himself. This is the factory owner's profit with which he becomes rich, while the worker who is the real producer remains poor.

          This relationship of inequality is of tremendous importance in a capitalist society, and it is this that makes the capitalist society an unjust society. One class lives by owning, the other class lives by working. One lives without working, the other cannot live unless it works.

Q.  What was the main contradiction of capitalism?

A.  Capitalism itself creates the conditions for the overthrow of the capitalist society, i.e., in the womb of the old society are created the seeds of the new society. While capitalism produces more and more, the people become more and more poor and are unable to purchase what is produced. This leads to, what Marx called the crises of over production and under consumption, and also, the irreconciliability of the interests of the capitalist and the worker. This is also the main contradiction of capitalism. In order to obtain more profit, the capitalist pays as little as possible to the workers, but in order to sell his products, the workers must have more and more money to buy i.e., he must pay them more because they have no other source of income. Obviously, he cannot do both at the same time. For a time capitalism can overcome these crises by searching for new markets i.e., colonies, or by

waging wars for the redivision of markets, or by taking over some welfare measures for the workers to appease them. But this cannot go on endlessly, because the contradiction lies in the system itself. Therefore, from the economic analysis of capitalism Marx and Engels drew the political conclusion that the overthrow of capitalism is inevitable.

Q.  What were the political conclusions that Marx and Engels drew from their economic analysis of capitalism?

A.  From the economic analysis of capitalism Man and Engels evolved their political theory. They pointed out that capitalism itself creates the conditions for the overthrow of the capitalist society, i.e.,in the womb of the old society are created the seeds of the new society. While capitalism produces more and more, the people become more and more poor and are unable to purchase what is produced. This leads to, what Marx called the crises of over production and under consumption, and also, the irreconciliability of the interests of the capitalist and the worker. This is also the main contradiction of capitalism. In order to obtain more profit, the capitalist pays as little as possible to the workers, but in order to sell his products, the workers must have more and more money to buy i.e., he must pay them more because they have no other source of income. Obviously, he cannot do both at the same time. For a time capitalism can overcome these crises by searching for new markets i.e., colonies, or by waging wars for the redivision of markets, or by taking over some welfare measures for the workers to appease them. But this cannot go on endlessly, because the contradiction lies in the system itself. Therefore from the economic analysis of capitalism Marx and Engels drew the political conclusion that the overthrow of capitalism is inevitable. The class which, they said, will overthrow this system will be the working class or proletariat. They pointed out that as large factories are established, there also emerges in them a working class i.e. a proletariat, which owns nothing except its ability to work and earn. Therefore, this class has no stake in a system based on private property such as capitalism. Therefore, in the fight against capitalism, it has nothing to lose, except its chains.

Secondly, the proletariat is also the most exploited section of society under capitalism. and for this reason the most interested in its overthrow. Thirdly, there was no other long term choice for the proletariat except to fight the system which exploits him for how could a worker be independent and live a meaningful life. Therefore, the overthrow of capitalism becomes a necessary task for the proletariat, and also a desirable one because on it would depend his right to shorter hours of work, leisure, culture, equality between men and women and access to good health and education. Marx and Engels also pointed out that with the emancipation of the working class will come the emancipation of all other sections of society, as it was the working class which formed the bottom most layer of this society. Also, given its situation, the working class could be the only uncompromising class in the struggle for the overthrow of capitalism. Thus, the second major political conclusion which Marx and Engels arrived at from their economic analysis of capitalism, was that it is the working class which will lead the struggle, and be the vanguard of the socialist revolution.

Q.  Could the struggle against capitalism be a peaceful one?

A.  Marx pointed to the history of human society through the ages. Nothing had been gained by people except through fighting for it, nothing had been given up by the privileged section of society, except when, confronted with a fight. Therefore, the emancipation of working class can come only from the class struggle of the working class. According to Marx, the entire armed forces and the state machinery are in the hands of the ruling class and they use them precisely for protecting their dominance.There cannot be a peaceful transformation from capitalism to socialism. The working class has to capture state power by revolution and guarantee the building of a socialist state by creating a new state, which will be the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Q.  Name the countries involved in the triple alliance. What was the purpose of the alliance?

A.  A secret Triple Alliance was forged in 1882 between Germany, Italy and Austria, explicitly defensive, in part against France, in part against Russia. After the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 in which France was humiliated by Germany, a system of the secret alliances started in Europe pioneered by Bismarck of Germany who with great efforts won the war and wanted the status to maintain as he feared war will ravage Germany .From 1871 to 1890 Bismarck was the arbiter of European politics. As the Chancellor of the new German Empire he wanted peace and declared that Germany was a "satiated" country. He knew that war, which had brought to Germany power and international prominence, would, if risked again, bring her only destruction. Bismarck thus stood for the maintenance of status quo and the preservation of the new Balance of Power which he had created by his system of alliances. He knew that France was Germany's irreconcilable enemy, particularly after the ignominy of 1870. So Bismarck's diplomatic skill and political insight were employed in building up alliances for the protection of Germany. The enemy of Germany was France, and Bismarck's achievement was the diplomatic isolation of the country. In pursuit of this policy, Germany entered into an alliance with Austria in 1879 with a commitment of reciprocal protection in case Russia should attack either Power. Three years later in 1882, Bismarck fomented the Franco-Italian rivalry over Tunis and persuaded Italy to forget her hereditary enmity towards Austria. A secret Triple Alliance was forged in 1882 between Germany, Italy and Austria, explicitly defensive, in part against France, in part against Russia.

Q.  What was the impact of militarism on European Countries.

A.  Militarism was actually closely connected with the system of secret alliances and was the second important cause of the war. This system of maintaining large armies actually began with the French during the Revolution and was later continued under Napoleon. It was extended and efficiently developed by Bismarck during the unification of Germany.After the Franco-Prussian war in 1870 the military and naval armaments of all the Great powers tended to grow larger and larger. It created fear and suspicion among the nations. If one of the countries raised the strength of its army, built strategic railways, its fearful neighbors reciprocate quickly .So the mad race in armaments went on in a vicious circle, particularly after the Balkan wars of 1912-13. Anglo-German Naval rivalry was one of the

contributory cause& the war. Thus, one of the impact of militarism was war.

Q. Write a note on the social and economic changes brought about by the world war in various countries.

A.  Social changes - War led to the acceleration of the process of providing rights for women in many European countries, the process which supported before 1914. Women over 30 were granted parliamentary vote in Britain in 1918. It happened because the war required a national effort with equal contribution and participation from every section of the society .Women participated in all activities and worked on factories, shops, offices and voluntary services, hospitals and schools. Women worked hand in hand with men and so won their claim of equality with them. It became easier for them to find working industry and business, as traditional impediments were removed. Even the barriers of class and wealth were weakened to quite a great extent during the war. Social ethics changed quite significantly and the 'war profiteers' became a special subject of scorn and hatred.

Economic changes - As compared to the previous European wars, the cost of war was this time was astronomical. It was estimated that the total loss inflicted on warring nations was about 186 billion dollars. Huge money was spent on destructive purposes causing the other social sector to suffer enormously like human welfare, health or education etc.The war had undermined the foundations of Europe's industrial supremacy and after a gap of four years was lagging far behind other counties. The U.S.A. made considerable progress in its exports, and in South America and India, new home industries came up and developed. Japan entered the textile trade and flooded the Chinese, Indian and South American markets with its goods. The pattern of international trade was completely changed by the time war ended. After the war, Nations with infant industries wanted to protect them and old

industrial powers like Britain and others felt that it was necessary to safeguard their shattered economies against the competition of new rivals.

Q.  Name the 2 subordinate bodies of the League of Nations.What were their functions?

A.  Two important subordinate bodies of the league were the International Court of Justice and the International Labor Organisation (ILO). The former was supposed to deal with disputes between the states and the latter with labor problems. Both these bodies form an important part of the structure of the United Nations today.

Q.  Impact of war on India.

A.  India didn’t directly participated in the war, still could not escape the effect of the war. The world war affected the Indian society and economy very profoundly. The war had a different impact on different section of the population. Among the poorer class of Indians it meant increased misery and impoverishment. It also brought heavy taxation on the people. War demands created a scarcity of agricultural products as well as other daily necessities of life. As a result there was a phenomenal increase in their prices. Driven to desperation the people became ready to join any movement against the government thus giving an upsurge to nationalist forces . Consequently the war years also became years of intense nationalist political agitation.

             On the other hand the war brought fortunes for the industrialists. It created an economic crisis in Britain and for the war demand they had to depend on Indian industries. Jute industry, for example, flourished in this period. In this way the war promoted the industrial advance of India. The Indian industrialist took the maximum advantage of the opportunities offered. They made fortunes and wanted to preserve it, even after the war came to an end. For this reason they were prepared to organize themselves and support the organized nationalist movement.

Q.  League of Nations . Why it failed to preserve peace .

A.  The League of Nations was a world organization formed to replace the old system of 'power politics.' It was a machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes and arbitration which replaced the old methods of secret diplomacy and separate alliances and quest for a balance of power. The scheme of the League of Nations was sponsored with great fervor by President Wilson. The league was not at all a government but was a sort of facility to be used by all governments to maintain peace. The league was not at all a government but was a sort of facility to be used by all governments to maintain peace. It was a very well meaning and sensible body but could be successful only if certain assumptions about the post war world proved correct The major assumption was that all governments would want peace, a reasonable one due to the resolve against slaughter and destruction. This assumption sounded reasonable Because there was growth of democratic states which were supposed to be more peace loving than the earlier autocracies and dynastic empires. However these democratic

constitutions proved fragile and interest in pursuing democracy was short-lived. So in view of these believed assumptions, the League of Nations could not acquire the vitality and vigor of action which it required. The failure of USA to become a member of the League and exclusion of Germany and

Russia were other reasons . Japan was also lukewarm in its response. Only the British Commonwealth, France and Italy were its members. Italy soon defied it through its aggressive policy under the Fascist leader Mussolini. Thus ,the League failed in its supreme task of preserving peace.