The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-10-10
Continued from Page y

tCohttn0ed from Page u
economy. All this is good. But as
soon as Roosevelt or some other
captain in the modern bourgeois
world wants to undertake anything
serious against the foundations OF
capitalism he will inevitably meet
with complete failure. For Roose-
welt doesn't own the banks, indus
try, the big enterprises, the big
farms. All this is private property
Railroads and shipping are all in
the hands of private owners. And
finally the army of skilled labor
engineers, technicians, are also not
with Roosevelt but with private en-
ployers and working for them.
I'VE must not forget the func-
tons of the state in the bourgeois
world. This is an institution. an
organization for the defense of the
country, an organization for safe
guarding order an apparatus for
collecting taxes. Economy in the
real sense of the term has little to
do with the capitalist state. Eco
nomy is not in its hands. On the
contrary, the state is in the hands
of capitalist economy. Therefore
1 fear that despite all the energy
and ability of Roosevelt he will not
achieve the aim which you mention
even if he has this aim"
Wells further developed his theory
of socialism in the Anglo Saxon
understanding Of this word" He
said, IF we begin with state con-
troll OF banks, then proceed to con-
troll over transport, heavy industry,
all industry, commerce. ETC., such
all-embracing control will be equiva-
lent to state ownership of all
branches of national economy. This
will be a process of sociahzaticn.
For socialism on the one hand and
individualism On the other are not
absolute antipodes like black and
white Many intermediate stages
exist between them. There is in
diyidualism bordering on banditism,
and there is discipline and organi-
cation which is the equivalent of
socialism.
Bringing about planned econ
omy depends to q great extent on
the organizers in economy, on the
skilled technical intelHgentsia who
can be won step by step to the, side
of socialist principles of organize-
ton"
STAIN: There is not and can
not be an irreconcilable contrast
between the individual and the
collective, between the interests Of
the separate individual and the
interests of the collective body. 1t
cannot be, because collectivism, So
cialism, doesn't deny, but combines,
individual interests with the in
terests Of the collective body. So
cialism cannot disregard the
interests of the individual, Only a
socialist society can give the fullest
satisfaction to those personal in
terests. Further, socialist society
gives the only stable guarantee OF
safeguarding the interests of sep
arate persons. In this sense there
is no irreconcilable contrast be-
tween 'individualism' and socialism.
But can you deny the contrast
between classes, between the class
Of the wealthy the class of cap
italists, and the class Of the toilers
of the proletarians? On the other
hand, the wealthy class, possessing
banks, factories, mines, transport,
and plantations in the colonies,
These people see nothing except
their own interest, their own striv-
ings towards profit. They don't
subordinate themselves to the will
of the collective body, but strive to
subordinate any group to their own
ordinate any group to their own
will On the other hand, the class
Of the poor, of the exploited, own
ing neither factories, nor mills, nor
banks, who are compelled to live
by selling their labor power to the
capitalists, and who are deprived of
the possibility of satisfying their
most elementary needs. How can
such directly opposite interests and
strivings be reconciled? AS far as
I know, Roosevelt has not sue
ceeded in finding the path towards
reconciliation with these interests