Economics of Socialism Reconsidered, by Henry Smith

[p041] The Economics of Socialism Recon- sidered. By Henry Smith. O.U_P., 225 pp., 30s. Although the blurb to this book, by the Vice-Principal of Ruskin College, Oxford, hails it as a ‘major contribution to the theory of social- ism’, Mr. Smith has little new to say. His thesis is that the Marxian system of political economy is riddled with contradictions and weakness; this despite the fact that the analysis may have reflected quite closely the workings of 19th century capitalism, and despite Marx’s undoubted talents. Instead, the analysis presented by Alfred Marshall and others and supplemented by Keynes represents much more accurately the real func- tioning and development of capital- ism: rising standards of living, more equitable distribution of income and lessening of class conflict are a testi- mony to the correciness of such models, it is suggested. — Having rejected Marx, Smith is quite helpless in working out a perspective for socialists. Look at Russia, where a new class has arisen! Or Western Europe, where capitalism has enjoyed such prosperity and stability for a longish period! What are socialists to do? ‘Socialist poli- tical action will be restrained to the expression of a point of view, a civilizing one, at once conservative and radical, within the Labour movement’ (p. 216). And if this is not stimulating enough we can always go back to the early ideas of the 19th century and start rebuilding socialist communities, along the lines of Robert Owen! There is nothing of great import- ance about this writer. But he does show in a clear way the position of the whole social stratum to which he belongs. An intellectual either sinks his future with that of the working class or else he becomes an abject tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie, spreading ideas of helplessness which disarm the proletariat and strengthen the hands of the imperialists and their agents within the Labour movement. Abstract theorizing, the comparison of this model of analysis with that, is utterly useless if divorced from action. If Marxism has been shown to be inadequate and ‘wrong’ why does it still evoke so much fear for the ruling class? Why are the social science departments in the Universities increasingly becoming places for the distortion and rejection of Marxism? Why does Smith him- self spend so much time over its refutation? These questions remain unanswered. This is not, of course, to accept the ‘Marxism’ of Stalin and his followers. One tragedy of Stalinism, as this study illustrates once more, is that the historic achievements of 1917 can be turned into weapons of anti- working class propaganda. But once more, despite the fact that Smith claims that nationalization does not bring a flood of new wealth to man’s disposal, he offers no explanation for the rapid advances achieved in the Soviet Union over the last 40 years. One of the clearest indications of the author’s separation from the real 119 movement of the working class comes mid-way through the book. After discussing the advances made since 1945—the rising living standards of the workers, the stability of em- ployment and so on—he asks: ‘ Why, in these circumstances, has such a large body of anti-capitalist feeling remained: sufficient in Britain at least to render a Labour government a possibility to be taken seriously at each general election?’ (p. 121). Again a question which he cannot answer. The working class, as the dominated and exploited class in this society, is forced to grope instinc- tively towards the question of poli- tical power in answer to its funda- mental problems. No sophisticated text-book _ re- jection of Marxism, no ‘new thinking’ by Crosland and his friends, can prevent the revival of the European Labour movement and its striving for power. That such a new upsurge was taking place at a time when this book must have been at the printers is perhaps the best commentary one can make upon the ideas it contains. GP. Income revolution?