People are capable of running society themselves but we
cannot fully control what we don’t own. It is the aim of the Socialist Party to
create a society in which poverty will have disappeared, wars will be but evil
memories, a society in which, and in which democracy will have become the prevailing
order of society for all, a society of peace and abundance. We in the Socialist
Party believe that this can be attained peacefully. Nor do we need to go green to
save the planet - the people need to go red.
Capitalism in the past was a relatively progressive system,
which developed science, technique and labour: the means of production. The
engine of the system was the creation of profit through the labours of the
working class. However, capitalism reveals today that it has reached a dead
end. It is no longer a progressive system as capitalist ownership of industry,
and thereby the domination of society, exercises an enormous drag on the
further progress of society. Capitalism cannot fully utilise even its own
creations, such as new technology. In other words, capitalism today has become
completely parasitic. Capitalism means the blind play of the productive forces
and is, by its nature, incompatible with real planning. Like inequality, which
is woven into the very foundations of capitalism, the chaos of the system
cannot be magicked away or fully controlled, even by the government, not even
by Cameron or Osborne. They are slaves, forced to carry out the demands of the
capitalists. The capitalists, no matter how some may be ’sympathetic’ to the
plight of the working class and poor, in the final analysis, seek the
maximisation of ’profit’ as their central goal. Occasionally, in an economic
upswing, they can then allow a few crumbs from their rich table to trickle down
to some sections of the working class. Now, however, is not one of those
periods.
Profit is “unpaid labour”, that portion of the wealth which
working people create but that they don’t receive in wages. This ’surplus
value’ is then divided into rent for the landlords, interest for the bankers
and the rest pocketed by the industrial and other capitalists. We are permitted
to work only so long as a market exists for the goods we produce. When there is
no profitable market for our products, plants close down, and we starve. In socialist
society there will be no private ownership of the land and the industries. When
we say this, we are not talking about; your house, or your clothes, or your
car, or any of your personal belongings. What we are talking about are the
factories, the mills, the mines, transport - in short, the means of production
and distribution of goods. We say that these must belong to society as a whole.
In socialist society since we shall collectively own the factories and means of
production, we shall have full and free access to the means of wealth
production and distribution. In socialist society, there will be no wage system
where the workers receive in wages only a fraction of the value of the goods
they produce. Instead, we shall produce for use, rather than for sale with a
view to profit for private capitalists. We shall produce the things we want and
need rather than the things for which a market exists in which the goods we produce
are sold for the profit of the private owners. We shall collectively produce
the things we want and need for full and happy lives.
The world is a mess with poverty, exploitation and war now
part of the daily lives of billions round the globe. At the root of this
suffering is the economic, social, and political system of capitalism, a system
of cut-throat competition, where corporations single-mindedly pursue short-term
profits, power, and resources, regardless of the human cost.
Capitalism stifles the innovation and creativity of the
majority of the population. There is nothing less motivating than being forced
to do the same repetitive job for 8 or 12 hours a day, day after day, just to
pay the bills. People do not shrink from work, but from wage-slavery. Shortening
the working-week, sharing out the work and providing for people’s basic needs
would liberate women and men to finally take control over their lives and
pursue all forms of creative and intellectual endeavors, unleashing humanity’s
vast creative potential. Decisions would be made democratically by working
people making decisions themselves through mass meetings and direct elections.
People with power, such as administrators and spokespersons, would be elected, delegates
who are accountable and can be recalled. In socialism the appeal to work with
diligence is based on the justifiable ground that it is society as a whole
which benefits. Not so under capitalism. There the result of extra effort is
not public benefit but private profit. One makes sense and the other doesn’t;
one inspires the worker to give as much of himself as possible, the other to
give as little as he can get away with; one is a purpose that satisfies the
soul and excites the imagination; the other is a purpose that entices only the
simple-minded. The objection is raised that while this may be true of the
average worker for whom the incentive of profit has been largely illusory
anyway, it does not hold for the man of genius, the inventor, or the capitalist
entrepreneur for whom the incentive of profit has been real. There is little
evidence to support that opinion. On the other hand there is ample evidence to
support the argument that inventive genius seeks no other reward than the joy
of discovery or the happiness that results from the full and free use of its
creative powers. The day of the individual scientist working alone has long
since gone. Men and women of ability in the scientific world are hired by the
big corporations to work in their laboratories, at regular salaries. Security,
a dream laboratory, the gratification that comes from absorbing work—with these
they are content, and these they frequently have—but not profits. Suppose they
invent some new process. Do they get the profits that may result? No, they do
not. Additional prestige, promotion, and a higher salary, maybe—but not
profits. The patents, copyrights and the intellectual ownership remains with
the corporation or university.
The ruling class would have us believe that capitalism or
class society is the inevitable result of human nature. The people who argue
that "you can’t change human nature" make the mistake of assuming
that because man behaves in a certain way in capitalist society, therefore
that’s the nature of human beings, and no other behavior is possible. They see
that in capitalist society man is acquisitive, his motive is one of selfish
greed and of getting ahead by any means, fair or foul. They conclude therefrom,
that this is "natural" behavior for all human beings and that it is impossible
to establish a society based on anything except a competitive struggle for
private profit. The anthropologists say, however, that this is nonsense—and
prove it by citing this, that, and the other society now in existence where
man’s behavior isn’t anything like what it is under capitalism. And they are
joined by the historians who say also that the argument is nonsense. While
biology determines certain aspects of our behavior, human nature is not a
permanent, unchanging thing that magically fell from the sky. How we act, and
how we relate to the world and each other, develops in response to the changing
material conditions of society and our relationship to the natural world. There
is a difference between selfishness and self-interest. There is absolutely no doubt
that human beings look out for their self-interests, and the struggle for
socialism is completely in line with this tendency. It is probably true that
all human beings are born with the instinct of self-preservation and
reproduction. Their need for food, clothing, shelter, and sexual love is basic.
That much, it may be admitted, is "human nature." But the way they go
about satisfying these desires is not necessarily the way that is common in
capitalist society—it depends, rather, on the way suited to the particular
culture they are born into. If the basic needs of man can be satisfied only by
knocking the other fellow down, then we can assume that human beings will knock
each other down; but if the basic needs of man can be better satisfied by
cooperation, then it is also safe to assume that human beings will cooperate.
Mankind’s self-interest is expressed in his desire for more and better food,
clothing, and shelter, in his passion for security. When he learns that these
needs cannot be satisfied for all under capitalism as well as they can under
socialism, he will make the change. But self-interest is not the only thing
that guides us. Take a look at the amount of people doing voluntary charity
work. For millions of years, people lived in egalitarian hunter-and-gatherer
societies. Food, shelter, and the necessities of survival were equally shared
throughout society. By harnessing modern technology to provide for everyone,
socialism would create the material basis for human culture to change in the
most fundamental way. Instead of a society that rewards the most vicious and
greedy, a socialist society would develop a new culture based on equality and
justice.
Our society can function perfectly well without a capitalist
class. Five hundred years ago, in Europe, the question was: Can our economic
system function without feudal lords? One hundred and fifty years ago, in the
United States, the question was can our economic system function without
slave-owners? Society found that it could do without barons and slave-owners,
so it will find that it can do without capitalists. To say that we could not
work without a capitalist is false. The fact of the matter is that we have
reached the point where society not only can but must function without
capitalists, since the power which is theirs as owners of the means of
production must be used in such a way as to lead to unemployment, insecurity,
and war. Most corporations are not run by the owner-entrepreneurs. They are not
run by the owners at all—in the main they are managed by hired executives,
CEOs, who work, not for profits, but for salaries. Their salaries may be large
or small paid, they may include a big bonus or no bonus. In addition there may
be other rewards—praise, prestige, privilege and power. But for most of those
who manage business the incentive of profit has long since wilted away. Will
people work for other incentives than profit? No need to guess. We know that
people do.
No comments:
Post a Comment