Answering the Questions - What Happens After The Revolution?

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.