Socialism is the protest against the waste of human life. Socialists are often accused of holding the delusion of a world in which all men and women will be equal but the socialist idea is not at all incompatible with the development of individual genius and character. On the contrary, until we wish to socialise all the opportunities for healthful living, so that they are the common heritage of all. Socialism is not aiming a level playing field of mediocrity but at the equality of advantage and opportunity for every child born full and free access to every social gift, so that he or she may develop all his or her gifts. Poverty must be abolished, because it is anti-social, and denies millions an adequate opportunity to develop their abilities. Child labour must go, because it stunts the body and the mind, destroying the physical, intellectual and spiritual forces which are essential to the highest development of a human being.
To-day the production and the exchange of wealth are functions carried on with an anti-social object, namely, the profit of a class of non-producers. That is the fundamental wrong of capitalism. That is the source of its poverty, its crime, its inefficient lives, its inequality of opportunity. No one is poor because there is not enough for all. No child suffers hunger because there is a dearth of food . No child wears rags or goes without shoes because good clothes and shoes cannot be made in sufficient quantity to supply all. Machinery and labour and raw materials are plentiful. Those who make the bread of the world cannot eat the bread their hands have made.
If our economic activities were inspired and controlled by a social purpose, no human want would remain unsatisfied so long as there still remained productive powers. All our resources and our skill and might would be combined to meet the needs of every human being. If we found ourselves incapable of producing plenty for all, we should, if we were truly social, see to it that all shared in the dearth due to the lack of productive capacity. On the other hand, finding ourselves capable of producing infinitely more than we need, we should, if we mere truly social, see to it that all shared the advantages of our triumph as producers. We should aim to make life better, richer, happier and more beautiful for all. We should see that the result of our triumph was more beauty in the homes of all and larger leisure for all to enjoy the beauty. Inspired and controlled by the ideal of social well-being, we should see that no human being performed in pain a task which might have been performed in joy; that nothing ugly was produced which might have been made beautiful; that nothing was made which was unworthy of our best power; that our work was the worthiest, and performed under the worthiest conditions, of which we were capable.
So long as the prevailing capitalist system lasts this social ideal will remain unattainable. For capitalism is essentially anti-social. Its entire structure rests upon the production of things primarily for sale to the end that a ruling class may profit, instead of upon the social principle of production for use, for social gain, for the common good and joy of all. The only reason why men who are capable of building beautiful homes – as is shown by the palaces they build for the rich – build ugly, prison-like, gloomy tenements for themselves and their wives and children to dwell in is the fact that their labor is governed, not by the desire to attain supreme usefulness, but by the desire for profit. The only reason which explains the wanton destruction of the food for which men, women and children pine, and for lack of which they starve and die is that same anti-social thing, profit.
Production for use instead of profit, for the common good instead of for the gain of a few at the cost of the many, can only be made possible through the collective ownership of the resources of nature and the principal means of production. Common ownership of the means of production, with democratic management, is the central demand in the World Socialist Movement.
Millions of people have practically no private property at all to-day. They do not own the things they produce. When sickness, accident, or other misfortune, compels them to be idle for a few weeks they are reduced to dependence upon a state hand-out or private charity as the only alternatives to starvation. Even in the most prosperous times millions of people are so divorced from property of all kinds that they never have enough good food to eat, enough good clothes to wear, or decent homes in which to live. Socialism would make it possible for every human being to have and own all the private property (common ownership) which that human being could use to advantage and without imposing any disadvantage upon another human being. The collective ownership of the principal means of social production–that is, the natural resources, the mines, factories, railways, machinery, and so on–would not take away anything from the great majority of people. True, the worker would not himself own the machine used by him, but that is his condition to-day. The workers in our great factories and workshops do not own the tools with which they labor. They do not own the raw materials upon which they labor. They do not own the places in which they labor. They do not own the things which they produce by their labor. All these are owned by an exploiting class of non-producers, whose interest it is to see that the producers get in the form of wages as little as they can manage to live upon, and produce as much more than they receive as possible. This is the inevitable interest of the owning class, because its own income is derived from that which the workers produce over and above what they receive in the form of wages.
Common ownership and democratic control of the means of production would not give the ownership of the tools of labor to the individual worker. That was once possible, in the days when production was of necessity carried on by hand labour. It is not possible with machine production, which is only carried on by the organised labour of masses of workers. But collective ownership would make it impossible for the idle few to exploit the industrious many. It would make it possible for the workers themselves to exercise an effective control over the products of their labor and their distribution. It would make certain a fuller enjoyment by the producers of the wealth they produce.
Every person can see that the principle is the same as that which governs the home. The ideal home is, indeed, only a microcosm of the ideal society - the family of Man. In the well-regulated home there is equal care for the collective interest of the family as a whole and for the individual interest of each member. The comfort and advantage of each individual member of the family depends upon the denial of the power to monopolise many things in the home, and maintaining them as the common property of all the members, sharing. No one member could assert and exercise a right to the sole ownership and control of these things without injuring every other member of the family. On the other hand, there are many things which must be regarded as belonging to individual members, if harmony is to prevail. Every family member understands the philosophy of distribution upon which it is based. If there are things essential to the welfare and happiness of all the members of the family, the control of which by a single member would give that member a power to rule all the rest, and to deny them comfort and happiness except upon irksome and humiliating conditions, the safety of the family is only assured by making those things common to all. But things which the individual needs to own and control for the attainment of personal happiness and well-being, the ownership and exclusive use of which does not subject other members of the family to discomfort, properly belong to the individual, and the happiness of the family depends upon the ability of each individual in it to secure all such things necessary to the satisfaction of his or her wants.
The message of socialism claims for every child all the advantages of healthful and beautiful environment. It would destroy the dread fear of want. It would bestow upon every child, as its rightful heritage, opportunity to develop all its powers. It would apply the principles of the family to the society as a whole. It would end the waste of human lives by poverty, and make true wealth possible for all . It would put an end to war–the war of classes as well as the war of nations. Socialism is the enrichment of life for all and the realisation of human brotherhood. We will no longer be the slaves of fear.
For a' that, an a' that,
It's comin yet for a' that,
That man to man, the world, o'er
Shall brithers be for a' that.
Robert Burns
No comments:
Post a Comment