“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable.
But then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and
changed by human beings.” Ursula Le
Guin, novelist
When the Socialist Party declares that it stands for
abolition of capitalism and that we advocate ending wages, prices and money,
people think we are being unrealistic. Even people engaged in protest
movements, people who concede that the current economic system is flawed, voice
their critiques of it but always seem to add, “But it’s all we have.” For all of its ability to analyse, the Left
has become rooted in “what is” and have forgotten to envision “what could be”.
People no longer remember the past that show us how we can live in other ways
in the future.
Socialist ideas allows us to imagine possibilities outside
of what exists today. The only way we know we can challenge the divine right of
kings is by being able to imagine a world where rulers do not even exist.
Socialism offers social justice movements a process to explore creating a new
world. When we free our imaginations, we question everything. The Socialist
Party talk about a world without crime and prisons; a world without violence; a
world where everyone has food, clothing, shelter, education; a world free of
racism and sexism. We are talking about
a world that doesn’t currently exist but that doesn’t mean we cannot bring its
existence about.
We are not fighting for single-issues —we are fighting against a world system of oppression and so our response must be all-encompassing. We should
not assume and try to replicate the trappings of the current social system
which will never protect those who are exploited. We cannot simply continue the
present mind-set. The Socialist Party seeks to reshape the world, to create a
just place for all to live in. That is the reason why the Socialist Party carry
the title “socialist” proudly; it binds us to the visionary liberators who want
to abolish wage slavery and connects us to building new futures.
The trouble with the economic system we've lived with for
the past three centuries - capitalism - is that the better it works, the more
it destroys the world - it has consistently delivered on creating a more
unequal society. All the technology
developed by capitalism has not provided clean water for 1.2 billion people or
food for the 841 million who are seriously malnourished. Under capitalism it is
the blind forces of profiteering that are in the driving seat. Governments bow down
before the rule of capital. Nowhere is this clearer than on the issue of the
environment. In the 300 years or so of
its existence capitalism has transformed the planet over and over again and capitalism
is threatening the very existence of the planet. Capitalism has enormously
developed the productive forces but it is controlled by the unplanned and blind
play of those very productive forces. It is a system where the only driving
force is the need to maximise profits. Capitalism is incapable of fully
harnessing the science and technology it has brought into being. It is
incapable of providing for the needs of humanity or of protecting our fragile
planet.
The world is rightfully ours, but like the word “socialism”
it’s been stolen from us. “Socialism” is used as a catch-all term meaning any
form of government intervention in the market whatsoever. Socialism does NOT
mean a state-run economy, let alone Soviet-style tyranny. Socialists aren’t striving
to simply tinker around with capitalism and inflate the power of the government
to regulate it. What we socialists really dream of is … socialism. Socialism,
is not capitalism under control of the state (like the late USSR’s command economy
of central planning), or government intervening in the market with
nationalisation. On the contrary, it consists of a completely different system
of ownership – common ownership.
If you want to imagine socialism, imagine every company,
factory, office, and level of government functioning as cooperatives. The administration
of production and would be delegated evenly among everyone, in the form of committees,
councils or cooperatives. That’s it. There’s no other blueprint. We’re not
advocating equal pay for everyone, or everyone living in the same kinds of
houses or driving the same kinds of cars, or everyone wearing the same drab
clothes, or everyone giving up their possessions and sharing each other’s
toothbrushes, etc. (These are all misconceptions of socialism that we’ve heard
over the years.) Socialism means economic democracy.
One of the biggest intellectual blunders of our time is the
insistence that the resounding historical example of socialism is Russia (or Cuba
and China, or more recently, Chavez’s Venezuela). Indeed, the sole reason for
the popularisation of this idea was that it acted as mutual propaganda for both
sides in the Cold War. The US rulers were able to brand the USSR as Marxist and
radical (i.e. un-American) and ruling elites was able to brand themselves as
being the populist “leaders of the people.” Both perceptions were patently
false. The popular perspective about collective ownership and direct democracy
is still clouded by these Cold War absurdities but they still affects the
average person’s world-view. Declaring that one is a Marxist, or even that one
has read Marx, is still considered political suicide almost everywhere in
America. “Socialist” remains a dirty word; it’s used as an insult as we witness
when Fox TV accuses Obama of being such.
The workers who first built the trade unions in the 19th
century, and emblazoned on their banners words like “Peace, Education,
Solidarity” and so on, just like the many workplace activists of today, did so out
dedication to the workers’ cause, solidarity and vision of something better,
not just to get themselves a wage rise. Is it possible to understand why masses
struggle just on the basis of urgent material need? Could any long strike be
sustained solely on the calculation that the prospective wage-rise would more
than compensate for the sacrifices made? Is it not essential that those who
struggle believe that they are on the side of right, or at the very least that
their opponent deserves defeat? Isn’t it undeniable that every truly
significant social struggle is sustained by a "spiritual" component which is
every bit as essential as cold calculation of what is to be gained and what can
be lost? Human life is in fact impossible without ideals. There is no such
thing as a direct relation between person and person or of a person to Nature,
that isn’t mediated by ideals. Ideals take the form of words and signs, objects
and actions vested with meaning by social and historical experiences, and
internalised in our social practice with them. Knowing and using these ideals
is essential not only for political practice, but even for day-to-day
existence.
“We will need writers
who can remember freedom.” – Ursula
Le Guin
No comments:
Post a Comment