Capitalism is cancer. Capitalism must die

“A lot has changed in three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of ‘things’. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions…The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in the 24th century… The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.” Captain Picard, Star Trek

We humans have made considerable advances in science and technology over our brief existence on this planet. Yet it still hasn't made us happy for the most part. Billions of us go to bed hungry and/or homeless every night and despite our scientific knowledge and all our technology, we seem powerless to help them. We are in the process of destroying the ecosphere to such an extent that we are now in the middle of a "mass extinction" event. Some blame science itself, but science is neither good nor evil. It is not a problem with science or technology. Neither is it a problem with "human nature." It is a problem with the basic structure of our economic system. If the economy doesn't serve our needs, then why do we serve the economy?

The idea of socialism is not that this is very complicated, or hard to understand, but for many it just simply sounds too good to be true. We have been so ground down living under capitalism that we become convinced that nothing as rational and beneficial as socialism can possibly be possible - life just isn't like that, so there must be a catch somewhere. But socialism is a perfectly reasonable and practical way of organising society and all the various objections are based on the implanted bias of the prevailing capitalist ideology. The terms "socialist" and "communist" have been defined in a bewildering variety of ways. Likewise, the word "capitalism" can mean a great many and sometimes contradictory things to different people. When reading them it is always important to know what the writer means by them. When the Socialist Party talk of socialism, we are referring to the economic and political system most people know as communism.

Genuine socialism is an economic system in which all of the industries and services (stores, restaurants, hospitals, mines, farms, etc.) are socially owned, not privately owned, as in capitalism, or state owned, as in Leninism/Stalinism (i.e., often referred to as "state capitalism" due to its similarity to "pure" capitalism). The industries would serve the needs and wants of everyone, not just the profit interests of the few. In fact, production is carried out exclusively for the needs of everyone, and not for private profit. The object or service itself is what counts, how these impact the consumer, society and the planet. What matters is the purpose and effect of the thing in question, not that someone can use it as a vehicle to obtain more of something else: money. We’ve stripped away everything but its utility and its impact on individual who receives it, the society and the ecosystem.

The premise of socialism is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource and our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to our survival. Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care. We can develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. No money. No private property. Socialism is very similar to that of the anarchist vision: a stateless society in which central government had "withered away," local, ground-up control of all affairs by strictly democratic processes based at the place of work, abolition of the market system (no money, no buying and selling) and its replacement by a system according to which people would voluntarily work for the common good to the extent they were able under the understanding that they could receive whatever they needed for free ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). National boundaries and governments having been eliminated, war would cease.

The most common rebuttal of socialist society is that it is impossible to achieve because "you can't change human nature." What Marx set out to prove was that not only had "human nature" changed many times in the past: there is no such thing as a static human nature. We are products of our environment, particularly of the economic system in which we live. People living under feudalism are motivated by feudal motives and think them natural and fixed, just as people living under capitalism are motivated by capitalist motives and mistakenly think those natural and fixed. Capitalists think money solves everything, when it is actually the cause of many social ills. Capitalism isn't working, so what is the alternative? Some people think that socialism sounds great but will never work in practice. They say it would only work in a world with perfect people. The Socialist Party challenges that view. Many people fall back on the argument Human Nature. Trouble with that is, the argument supports our position. Human beings lived for 200,000 years communally, and as recently as the 19th century in North America, Native Americans lived that way. They shared pretty much everything. It’s natural for us to do so. It’s natural for us to work together for the betterment of the family, the neighborhood, the tribe, cooperatively. We evolved in that way, knowing we needed each other to survive and then building from there. The vast majority of us do not want to rule over others. We want to get along and live in harmony and cooperate with our fellows.

“From each according to ability, to each according to needs” will be the guiding precept for people.  Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance. The means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly without any use for money. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made possible by advances in technology and is predicated upon a condition of material abundance. There are no political leaders; the people govern themselves directly. People who don’t agree with the majority are free to participate in general assemblies, make their case, persuade their fellow citizens that things should change. They are unconstrained in this regard. They wouldn’t have to worry about being locked up like Occupy protestors. Police wouldn’t have the right to kick them out of meetings. They can protest and petition and rally people to their cause all they wish, freely using all the resources available. This, in fact, would be encouraged. A socialist education system would encourage civic participation and free thinking. It would encourage critical thinking and help develop critical thinking skills.

In socialism, no money or system of currency would exist.  Instead, people would work according to their abilities, and take according to their needs. Society would be one of free access, where no items were held from those who need them due to lack of ability to pay. We would live in a truly free society, with no political state to control our actions, and none would be needed in a system without the material conditions that breed crime and violence, thus making it "necessary" to pass laws to control our behavior. We would be free from want, with no poverty or unemployment. As a result, crime would virtually vanish altogether, and we will have a society that functions with far less friction than any previous system in existence. We would be free from the violent and disturbed individuals that are bred by a capitalist society, which fosters ruthless competition among people, both within and across nations.

Poor people even blame themselves for being poor. They can have problems with self-worth, self-image and self-esteem. Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing. Unemployment has become part of our culture and we all know what it means, because if we can't find a job, we don't get much money, and life gets to be difficult with people looking down on the unemployed. A slave dislikes another slave not doing as much work as they themselves have to do, or worse, not working at all. This hatred is encouraged in the propaganda and it's an easy thing to get people to hate the poor and/or unemployed.  One answer the unemployed could give is "Yes. I can find work. There's work all over that needs doing. But what I can't find is paying work." Or to point out that workers never get paid what their work is worth, because somebody else is taking the profits from that work. The basic principle is that if someone else can sell the fruits of your labour at a profit, then you don't get paid what the labour was worth. The work that rich people pay to have done is not really that big a portion of the work that needs to be done. Without profit, we can cut our work hours down significantly. We’re no longer working to make a few people rich like rajahs, and our work hours become much more aligned with actual production, as opposed to production plus multi-million dollar CEO salaries plus shareholder dividends plus advertising and sales departments, etc. We make what society needs, instead of what the 1% tells us to. Work hours are dramatically shortened, because we no longer work our day to create profit for ownership and shareholders. We work to provide for ourselves and society alone. No profit. No money. No political parties. No corporations. Again, all of us own the means of production, so power over the economy can never be concentrated. It remains dispersed and obviously diverse. Zero private ownership of the means of production. There would be no “ruling class” or “technocratic class” or “management class.” We’re all the managers, technocrats and rulers with no one having any more weight than anyone else.

Socialism works. We all know this first hand. A family operates as a form of socialism. From each of us came goods and services according to our abilities. To each of us, those goods and services were provided according to need. One or both parents went to work and provided the housekeeping budget. The kids did no outside work yet ate well every day. Everybody shares the domestic chores the best they could. Everyone pitches in, does their share. Parents bring home food and share it out equally. They strive to make sure each child has a fair equal shares of clothing, gifts for their birthdays and Christmas. Family members care about taking care of each other, and the system worked. Families help out other families being good neighbours. When they invite friends over, they share their food offering the guest first choice and they don’t charge prices for it. They don’t ration our advice and wisdom according to who can afford it. At work, throughout the day, we work cooperatively with our co-workers. We give of ourselves, our knowledge, sharing our skills, without asking for money in return, expecting nothing more than a “thank you”. So why don't we apply these rules to society at large? In fact, in various forms we have. Free access to health care for all via the NHS. Free primary and secondary education. Free access to libraries, museums and art galleries for all. Free access to parks and beaches and recreation areas (although we are losing much of this free access). This is natural for the vast majority of us. This is our frequently decried “human nature”.

In the socialist “family” we must still do “planning”, if we’re going to achieve social justice and prevent ecological catastrophe. But it doesn’t have to be centrally planned. We do this locally, primarily. Local control, with integration into larger areas; neighbourhoods, towns, districts, regions and the world as a whole. As we get further away from the local, the “planning” becomes more and more generalised, with specifics left up to local economies. Within the plan, or more accurately, the plethora of linked plans basic questions are asked and answered. . How can we grow the widest range of crops in a sustainable fashion? How can we have the widest range of foods in a sustainable fashion? How can we do all of this and treat animals in a humane, compassionate manner? How to make sure our water supply is always safe, clean, Does the product serve the social good? Is the product environmentally safe? Is it safe for individuals, kids, the elderly? Is it sustainable? Does it work and play well with others, with other locales, regions, the planet? Do we actually need it? Broad guidelines create the umbrella, the boundaries, the general goals and pathways and all localities are represented in all other bounded areas. Localities are then free to implement the specifics according to what works for them, as long as these also fit in holistically with the rest of the communities. One family pulling together. Synergy. And that one family owns the means of production. As in, all of us, together.

Socialism removes the need for competition and the need to have losers in order that there be winners. Cooperative economies are designed to be win-win situations. Everybody can be a winner together. Implementation of a cooperative economy would establish the basis for a more humanistic relationship among the members of society and give us all greater access to, and control over the real economy. Everyone would have the opportunity to contribute to the economic policies and to share in each other's wisdom and guidance in the formulation of those policies. This clears the way for "real" progress. This gives us true economic equality. This means that nice people don't finish last. This is nothing less than the next stage in our economic evolution, as a species. We need to embrace socialism. This is where our society is heading and there’s no point fighting it.  We are in this economic struggle together.  Let’s help out our comrades today. A latent potential power rests with the working class which if liberated will mobilise the creative energies and talents of tens and hundreds of millions and socialism and a better world for all people will move from being a possibility to being a reality. The prime requirement for that evolution is a profoundly free society, which is not controlled by force, authorities, leaders, or government, but which volitionally changes itself.

The Socialist Party seeks create a healthier, happier, better-educated and more cohesive society and this we say we can sustain. Sometimes socialists can be justifiably accused at looking back at the past but what we should remember is simply because others failed at their own, unique projects. To-day, we have totally different context, variables, resources, people, methods, and dreams. We can make educated guesses about our own situation to provide sensible launching pads but if we don’t take into account our radical difference from other times and places, it’s a huge mistake when attempting radical change. EVERYONE will have equal say and equal power. The only people who will be “discriminated” against are those who want to be predators and accumulate riches unto themselves. And the only thing those capitalists will be barred from doing is capitalism. They’ll too will get to enjoy the fruits of a society that protects the environment, offers free education, free health care to all, with open access to the Commons which stretches virtually everywhere. They get to enjoy our parks, schools, libraries, museums and cultural venues, at no charge. Clean water, clean air, verdant land as far as the eye can see, safe, organic food supplies, safe, renewable energy created by society for society — even capitalists can enjoy all these things. The only thing they need to give up is their capitalism.

If capitalism is “natural” then we are indeed lost. With the capitalist system everyone is in it for themselves, their own wallet, there’s no way possible to get it right. Businesses don’t check with their competitors regarding their orders and unsold orders, and they have no control, obviously, over what their competitors do. They don’t get together with them to prevent saturation and waste (unless there’s a monopoly cartel, a cartel of monopolies.) There is NO plan of coordination to prevent duplication of effort and of products. Already have 100 sugary cereals on the shelves and more being added. Already have enough deodorant to last us centuries. We don’t even have managed chaos. Everyone for themselves. If they think they can make a profit, they’ll flood the market with garbage. Doesn’t matter if umpteen other businesses are trying the same thing at the same time. Within their first four years, 44% of all businesses fail. That’s primarily due to the “free for all” nature of our economy.