Voice of action. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1933-1936, 1934-10-19

tional economy. All this is good.
But as soon as Roosevelt or some
other captain in the modern
bourgeois world wants to under
take anything serious against the
foundations of capitalism he will
inevitably meet with complete
failure. For Roosevelt doesn't
own the banks, industry, the big
enterprises, the big farms. All
this is private property. Rail
roads and shipping are all in the
hands Of private owners. And fl
nally the army OF skilled labor,
engineers, technicians, are also
not with Roosevelt, but with
private employers and working
for them.
I'VE must not forget the func-
lions of the state in the bourge-
ois world. This Is an institution,
an organization for the defense
OF the country, an organization
for safeguarding order, an ap-
paratus for collecting taxes. Ec-
onomy in the real sense of the
term has little to do with the
state. Economy is not
in it's hands. On the contrary, the
state Is in the hands of capital
list economy. Therefore, l fear
that despite all the energy and
ability of Roosevelt he will not
achieve the aim which you men.
ton even II he had this as his
aim"
Wells further developed his
theory Of socialism in the Anglo
Saxon understanding of this
word" He said, IF we begin with
state control of banks, then pro
coed to control over transport,
heavy industry, all industry,
commerce, ETC., such all-embrac-
ing control will be equivalent to
state ownership of all branches
of national economy This will be
a process of specialization. For So
cialism on the one hand and in
on the other are not
absolute antipodes like black
and white. Many intermediate
stages exist between them. There
is individualism bordering on
banditism, and there is discipline
and organization which is the
OF socialism.
Bringing about planned econ.
omy depends to a great extent
on the organizers in economy, on
the skilled technical intelligent
STA, who can be won step by step
to the side of socialist principles
OF organization"
STAIN: There is not and can
not be an irreconcilable contrast
between the Individual and the
collective, between the interests
Of the separate idividual and the
OF the collective body.
1t cannot be, because COLLECTIVE
ism, socialism, does not deny, but
combines, individual interests
with the interests of the collect
i've body. Socialism cannot disre-
gard the interests of the individ.
ual. Only a socialist society can
give the fullest satisfaction to
those personal interests. Further,
socialist society gives the only
stable guarantee of safeguarding
the interests of the separate per-
sons. In this sense there is no ir-
reconcilable contrast between in
and socialism.
But can you deny the contrast
between classes, between the
class of the wealthy, the class of
and the class of toll
ers, of the proletarians? On the
other hand, the wealthy class,
possessing banks, factories, trans
port, mines, and plantations in
the colonies. These people see no
thing but their own interests,
their striving toward profit. They
don't subordinate themselves to
the will of the collective body,
but strive to subordinate any
group to their own will. On the
other hand, the class of the poor,
Of the exploited, owning neither
nor mills, nor banks,
who are compelled to live by
their labor power to the
capitalists, and who are deprived
of the possibility of satisfying
their most elementary needs.
How can such directly opposite
and strivings be recon-
ciled? As far as l know, Roose-
welt has not succeeded in finding
the path towards reconciliation
with these interests. Moreover,
experience shows that this is i'm
possible.
However, you know the stu
alton in the United States better
than l, because l was never in the
U.S.A.. and follow American az
fairs principally through litera-
ture. But l have some slight ex-
periences in the field OF struggle
for Socialism, and this experience
tells me that II Roosevelt really