Socialism replaces a capitalist system that has served its
purpose and no longer meets the needs and requirements of the people. The goals
of socialist society is a life free of exploitation, insecurity, poverty; an
end to unemployment, hunger and homelessness, an end to all forms of
discrimination, prejudice and bigotry. Socialism is the creation of a truly
humane and rationally planned society that will stimulate the fullest flowering
of the human personality, creativity and talent. The apologists of capitalism
hold that such goals are utopian; that people are inherently selfish, greedy
and evil. Others argue that these goals can be fully realised under capitalism
by reforms. The Socialist Party say that such goals can be realised only
through a socialist society.
Why Socialism? Capitalism’s inherent laws - to maximise
profit on the backs of the working class - give rise to the class struggle. History
is a continuous story of people rising up against those who exploit and oppress
them, to demand what's theirs. The ideals of justice and equality have inspired
peoples for centuries. Socialists say that capitalism won't be around forever.
Just like previous societies weren't around forever either. Slavery gave rise
to feudalism and feudalism to capitalism. So, too, capitalism gives rise to
socialism. Political and economic power would be in the hands of the people. It
eliminates forever the power of the capitalist class to exploit and oppress the
majority, replacing their control with the participation of the people which
will harmonise the interests of all, ending all the conflicts arising from
exploitation of workers, ending dog-eat-dog competition. Poverty will be ended
quickly with the recovery of the vast resources now wasted in poverty will be
ended quickly with the recovery of the vast resources now wasted in accumulation
of profits and war production. With capitalism gone, crime will also begin to
disappear, for it is the vicious profit system that corrupts people and breeds
crime.
By what stretch of the imagination is capitalism really
successful? Is it because this wonderful system has eliminated the scourge of
war? Of nationalist hatred and neo-colonial exploitation? Of racial, gender,
and class inequality? Is capitalism successful in Haiti? Or the Democratic
Republic of the Congo? Actually, even in the midst of staggering poverty and
failures of economic policy, for a privileged few it is. And that is the
problem. Even in the best of times, capitalism really only works for a minority
of people. This is how capitalism works. If you happen to be a capitalist it’s
a charmed life. Indeed, even when things go bad, they turn out good.
We say that it may be possible to bring socialism through
peaceful means through the ballot box. One thing is clear, there won't be
socialism until the majority of the people want it. Socialism is a vision
winning more and more people because it is the next inevitable step up the
ladder of human civilisation. Despite endless grounds for cynicism, there are
reasons to be hopeful. In cities across the country now we are witnessing a
rebirth of dissident activism, as tens of thousands protest the culture of
institutionalised, sanctioned brutality shown by police and the criminal
justice system. In many places we see examples of spirited, courageous
resistance. If the future is not guaranteed, at least the fight is on. Our
vision is of democratised workplaces and communities and for an end to the
top-down, authoritarian capitalism. Our vision is of a world free of the
scourge of militarism that torments modern life, and instead one in which the
weapons of warfare have been transformed into the proverbial plough-shares of
peace and prosperity. This is a socialist vision of a society guided by the
deepest values of human solidarity, equality and concern for others, one that
values the community over personal gain.
Given the nature of the capitalist system, unable to offer a
better life to present and future generations there is little doubt that out of
present turmoil and struggle new forces will emerge to create new ideas and new
forms for building working class unity. We need to be open to learning as well
as teaching when we discuss politics with others. After all, we are asking people
to reconsider their most basic assumptions when they think about politics, and
we should be committed to doing the same. We can choose to be part of the
social discourse by helping to shape it and being shaped by it.
A great many regard nationalised property, government
ownership under a State Central Plan, controlled by the “vanguard” Party, as
socialism, or at least as the basis for a transition to socialism and many on the
Left have been complicit in this crisis of socialist thought. They have failed to articulate a liberatory
alternative an immediate demand thus offering private- and state-capitalism the
ideological room to dominate. Is it now possible
to make the vision of a new socialist society more concrete? According to
critics, it is not viable, and instead we must continue with half-measures and
palliatives. The pragmatists argue that to define the character of the new
society is premature and can only be fixed by practice alone, in the course of
trying to remake society. Those who believe that there can be no change in the
foreseeable future will put up with almost any degree of suffering. One
important reason why socialists reject utopian schemes is simply that they are
not “utopian” enough and some are actually obsolete. People demand greaterdetail
about socialism. How do we satisfy this
real movement from below? Given the
direction in which the peoples’ thinking is moving, hasn’t resistance to presenting
a blueprint of what socialism may be like also become obsolete? Of course our
basic tenet that working class liberation must self-emancipation means that the actual details about the nature of
our future society is to be decided by the liberated working class itself, not
by a clique of intellectuals. Andrew Kliman, a Marxist scholar, writes:
“All proponents of workers’ self-emancipation agree that the
policies of the future economy are to be decided upon by the working people
themselves, but thinking simply cannot be shoehorned into the old problematic
of “who decides?” Once again, a
well-meaning attempt to posit spontaneity as the absolute opposite of
vanguardist elitism ends up by placing the entire burden of working out a
liberatory alternative to capitalism on the backs of the masses. And the newly liberated masses must somehow
do this from scratch, having been deprived of the ability to learn from the
theoretical achievements and mistakes of prior generations.”
He points out that there are limits to what can be worked
out in advance. In part, we face limits
because we are the products of this society, not the new human beings that
might emerge in a free society. But this
does not imply that concretization of the vision of the new society is a task
that can be foisted onto future generations.
Because there are limits to how concretely the vision of the new society
can be worked out in advance, we cannot give a blueprint for the future. He then approvingly quotes Raya Dunayevskaya, “The fact that we cannot give a blueprint does not absolve us from the task. It
only makes it more difficult.”
No comments:
Post a Comment