An alternative to capitalism means ending production for profit and establishing a new non-state form of administration and decision-making and building free associations of producers.
Since the fall of state-capitalism in Russia that falsely called itself “socialism” advocating this alternative to capitalism has become even more urgent. We oppose capitalism regardless of its particular property form and regardless of whether the economy is a “market” or “planned” one. We expose the misconception that state-capitalism is or can become socialism.
We have to give shape to what is possible in a new, post-capitalist society and provide the vision of a new society in which every man and woman control their own lives. The necessity for a new society is clear. It falls upon socialists to prove that a libertarian alternative to capitalism exists and is possible by showing that socialism can be achieved.
We reject the concept of the elitist, vanguard party-form of organisation for fighting the class struggle or constructing a new society. Our form of organisation may not be a model for all movements under all circumstances, but it reflects the democratic non-leadership principle that movements have continuously tried to embrace. We are not trying to lead workers, who will create their own mass organisations to transform society (of which we may the embryo or might simply be a contributory part) , The emancipation of the working class must be their own act.
We have seen that spontaneous actions alone are insufficient to usher in a new society and that a permanent and structured political party is necessary to act. The entire membership of the Socialist Party is the highest decision-making body of the organisation. All our policy decisions are made by a vote of the membership, based on the principle of majority rule. The interests of working people as a whole guide our thoughts and actions, as well as our structure and rules. We have no interests separate and apart from these.
Not all “alternatives” to capitalism are genuine alternatives and many of the proposed “solutions” offer a cure worse than the sickness. We must present a socialist future as the most viable option for the working class to choose. People everywhere, today, are looking for a new way of life under which they can be free to guide their own destiny: to determine their own way of living, own conditions of work, and own forms of association with each other. We believe that the working people are the only force in the world today capable of changing present-day society and of evolving the forms and the shape of future society.
2 comments:
I disagree that socialism is a economic system. Socialism is socialism.
Socialism, being based on the common ownership of the means of production by all members of society, is not an exchange economy. Production would no longer be carried on for sale with a view to profit as under capitalism. In fact, production would not be carried on for sale at all. Production for sale would be a nonsense since common ownership of the means of production means that what is produced is commonly owned by society as soon as it is produced. The question of selling just cannot arise because, as an act of exchange, this could only take place between separate owners. Yet separate owners of parts of the social product are precisely what would not, and could not exist in a society where the means of production were owned in common. -- “The Alternative to Capitalism” by Adam Buick and John Crump
Your point is well taken, mea culpa
Just to elaborate and to quote Adam Buick further from a discussion list.
Stuart;- “To say that socialism won't have an economy is surely just to start piddling around with words. Socialism, like every other economic system, will have to produce goods and services, distribute them, consume them. The way in which this is done is known to most people who speak English as an "economy".
Adam:- “You're right, Stuart, that whether we refer to socialism as an "economy" is a matter of definition of the word "economy". You may well be right that most people wouldn't regard the term "socialist economy" as a contradiction, but that would probably be because they envisage "socialism" as having the familiar features of today's "economy", i.e. production for the market, monetary incomes, etc.
My point was that this is not how Marx and many in the Marxist tradition (including us) would describe socialism. For instance, in her series of lectures later published as What is Economics? Rosa Luxemburg concludes that it is the study of the impersonal economic laws that come into operation as if they were natural laws when there is generalised production for sale on a market with a view to profit. The subject of "economics" is "the economy" that comes into being under these conditions.
In other words, "economics" is not the study of the production and allocation of resources as such but the study of this when there is an "economy". Economics only arose with capitalism, as in previous societies, where there was production and distribution (and, in most, exploitation) for direct use, there was no need for a special branch of science to study this: it was transparent. For the same reason, there will be no role for "economics" in socialism, precisely because socialism won't be an economy.
OK, this is just a definition, but it's the Marxist one. Having said this, I don't think it's a capital offence to talk of a "socialist economy" when arguing with people who have a different definition of economics (usually the conventional one that it's the study of the allocation of scare resources to competing ends -- rather than this only where's there's production for sale and profit). I must have done it myself.”
Post a Comment