Human need, not capitalist greed

The meaning of socialism is fairly wide and often open for interpretation. Today, both "socialism" and "communism" have been wrongly associated with false definitions. The most commonly misconstrued definition of socialism is it a form of government that owns, regulates, and administrates the production and distribution of goods and services or it is a government that attempts to reduce social, economic, medical, and political inequalities among people by reform legislation. Thanks to the so-called social democrats, or reformist "socialists" (for example, the Socialist Party in France or the Labour Party in Britain), many people have come to equate "socialism" with any industry or program that is administered by the capitalist political state, be it a nationalised health service, the postal service or a welfare programme.

Frequently dictionary definitions will support such an answer yet many of those make ideological use of the terms "socialism" and "communism" based more on definitions derived from Soviet-era Russia and Maoist China, neither of which have much to do with Marxist political philosophy. "Communism" has come to be associated with the system of bureaucratic state despotism, run by the so-called Communist parties, which once prevailed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, and now unraveling in China and Cuba. Further adding to the confusion is the false idea presented by those Communist parties and other Leninist organisations -- the concept that a post/capitalist society first goes through a lengthy "socialist" stage, before arriving at the classless society of "communism."

What is the difference between "socialism" and "communism"? The two terms are interchangeable: both describe the classless, stateless society of free and equal producers advocated by socialists. Marx and Engels themselves used the two terms interchangeably. The Socialist Party has established a history of fighting to uphold the correct meaning of socialism or communism. In defending and advocating Marx's and Engels' conception of the future classless society, though, we have focused on winning over workers by using the term that Marx and Engels preferred in their later years -- socialism.

Socialism as proposed by genuine Marxists and real socialists argue that workers – not "the government" -- should own everything in the community collectively; kind of like co-operatives writ large.  Governments in a socialist system would be dissolved -- they being tools of the ruling class to subjugate the oppressed subject class, after all. Contrary to popular misconception, the goal of socialists and communists is to abolish the State altogether. Basic socialist theory holds that the purpose of "the State" is to enforce social and economic disparity. According to Marxist thinking the State developed as a weapon for a minority of people to oppress other people. Socialism is NOT about the dominance of the State.

A socialist economy would replace the anarchy of the market with rational and democratic planning. For a socialist society to succeed, abundance must be the norm.  Capitalism is based on market competition between rival capitalist firms--which, in the rush to edge each other out, unavoidably embark on an irrational and breakneck expansion of production. Socialism harnesses the immense productive capacity that capitalism has brought into existence and gives the power to decide on what and how much to produce to the people who actually do the producing--the workers whose labour is essential to running every farm, factory and office. The immense technological advances in production over the last couple centuries have made such a world feasible--a world based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

But without money or some other mechanism to limit what people consume, won't there be chaos with people hoarding goods or wasting food and other resources? Water is readily available for free, or virtually free of charge. Though there may be slight waste this costs less than implementing rigorous methods for controlling its use--which itself would require significant expenditure of resources. The world can already produce more than enough cars, water, food, telecommunications capacity and shelter to meet needs. It's clear that the chief barrier to such an economic arrangement is that the social surplus is controlled by capitalists, who only have an interest in producing things if they can be sold for a profit. The people who do the work in the world's workplaces could--through a process of voting and surveys about consumption desires--decide whether they were interested in working fewer hours or having more consumption choices, or whether they'd like more ability to travel or larger places to live. One workplace or community might choose one mix of work and leisure, and another might chose differently. After all, equal access to resources doesn't mean conformity. The hallmark of a socialist society itself would not be the similarity of the individuals who comprise it, but the greatest diversity within it. The goal of socialism is the fullest possible development of the unique personality of each individual.

Under capitalism, the majority of people are coerced to work, we have no choice otherwise we would starve! We are compelled by capitalism to sell our labour and, as such, capitalism calls the shots, not the people who produce the wealth in society. In socialism, people would of course be expected to work, but for very different reasons. Instead, workers would be encouraged to work for the benefit of society and not just reasons for of survival. Despite the arguments of conservatives, socialists believe that humanity is basically good but is shaped by the society it lives in. Therefore, I believe that people that believe in a society that works for them, and is, ultimately, run by them will make sure it works. As a socialist society is run by the working class it is in our interests to make sure it works. Every effort will be made to make people’s lives easier and it stands to reason that innovation will still be needed under socialism. The technology exists for environmentally-friendly cars but capitalism will not allow this to happen on a mass scale because it cuts into its profits. Production would be based on human need not personal greed. This only touch’s the surface of the possibilities available to mankind if production was run by and in the interests of the majority rather than the minority. Of course, none of this would be possible without genuine democracy – where working people are involved at every stage of production

Human need, not capitalist greed. Socialism would use the vast resources of society to meet people’s needs. It seems so obvious--if people are hungry, they should be fed; if people are homeless, we should be housed; if people are sick, the best medical care should be made available to them. A socialist society would take the immense wealth of the world and use it to meet the basic needs of all society. There’s no blueprint for what a socialist society will look like. That will be determined by the generations to come who are living in one. But it seems obvious that such a society would guarantee every person enough to eat and a roof over their heads, free education and reorganized so that every child’s ability is encouraged, free health care accessible to all, and likewise would all utilities like gas and electricity. Public transportation would also be made free.

Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time. To win the struggle for socialist freedom requires enormous efforts of organizational and educational work. It requires building a political party of socialism to contest the power of the capitalist class on the political field, and to educate the majority of workers about the need for socialism. You are needed to end poverty, racism, sexism and to avert the still potent threat of environmental apocalypse or a catastrophic nuclear war.