Demand the Impossible

“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