‘No’ to slavery – but ‘Yes’ to our chains.

Socialists are against buying and selling things with money and for money. But, we exist in a capitalist world that requires us to do much of what we are against. In order to survive we need to buy food and such and what we sell is our labour-power – our capacity to work. Only by buying the worker’s labor power can the capitalist make profits. Workers produce more than what the capitalist pays them in wages and benefits. This is the basis of exploitation of the workers. What the workers produce over and beyond the socially necessary labour for keeping themselves and their families alive and working is surplus value. Surplus value is the only source of profits and is ripped off by the capitalists.

Our goal is to move beyond capitalism. We also use fossil fuels while pre-Civil War and people in the North wore clothes made of cotton picked by slaves. But that did not make them hypocritical when they joined the abolition movement. It just meant that they were also part of the slave economy, and they knew it. That is why they acted to change the system, not just their clothes. Also remember that the people in the North didn't "fight" slavery by buying non-conflict fair trade cotton from somewhere else to somehow stop slavery. What do most consumers know about how food is grown and processed? We know to find it on grocery shelves. But we don't know about the actual social process of production—that's not listed on the ingredients. We know price. That's the essential market information. I buy a chocolate bar. But do I know that the Ivory Coast is the world's leading cocoa exporter and supplies most of the chocolate I crave? Do I know that Nestle and Hershey's work through a web of cocoa exporters, purchasing agents, and labour contractors linked to plantations that rely on child labor? The market doesn't convey this crucial information. Not only do commodity production and market relations hide exploitation and oppressive class relations rooted in the system of production. They also distort and obscure the real social relations that bind individuals to one another. We are not free-floating consumers but are in fact part of an economic and social “matrix.”

Socialism is incompatible with markets for goods and services in an exchange economy.

 Capitalism is a highly developed and interdependent system of social production, with highly advanced technology and a complex division of labor. The different units of production, let's say, steel mills and computer makers, depend on each other—both as suppliers of raw materials, machines, etc., and as customers. On the other hand, the system of production is fragmented into privately owned and controlled units. So the connections between producers are not, and cannot, be consciously and directly worked out. Instead, the links among units are spontaneously arrived at through endless processes of exchange. If something sells, fine; if it doesn't, something is wrong. If earnings rise, fine; if they plummet, the capitalist responds and adjusts. There is no “before-the-fact” planning. So the market) coordinates the different components of the economy. But this happens indirectly and in a roundabout way behind the producers' backs. Each owner goes his or her own way, and then sees what happens...in the market.

Money rules in the capitalist market. Not only is money the medium by which prices are paid and goods obtained. Money is the goal of production. The units of production are organized around profit. No capitalist is in the business of making soap or lighting fixtures or cars; they're in the business of making money. The capitalist aims to come out of the process of production and exchange with more money (profit) than he started with. And somebody has to produce that wealth which under capitalism is the worker. Why do we work for capitalists? That has everything to do with market and ownership relations. The capitalist class owns the  means of production. We have no choice but to sell their labour power (our ability to work—our energy, skill, intelligence and creativity) in the labour market, or we starve. Wages enable workers to obtain the means of survival—to buy back in the market a portion of the wealth they have produced. The rest belongs to the capitalists. The most fundamental market transaction under capitalism is the sale and purchase of labour power. The exploitation of wage labour is the source of capitalist wealth and power.

Markets are NOT the source of exploitation, rather, extraction of worker surplus value by the capitalist is the source of exploitation under capitalism. The market mechanism is not the same as the exploitation of wage labor. Exploitation takes place at the point of production. But some fail to see is that the market is integral to this process. On the one hand, a pool of labourers (a labour market) is available for exploitation, because these laborers have no means of production. The labour market represents a form of coercion unique to capitalism—the worker is not forced at gunpoint, or by feudal obligation, to work—but he or she is compelled to seek work (and labourers can work only insofar as the capitalist can make profit off their labour). On the other hand, the market is the mechanism through which the capitalist carries out and completes the cycle of production and exchange: buying means of production and labour, and then realizing (converting into money form) the surplus value produced by social labour. If people say that the market will exist under socialism, does that include the market for labour power?

The market regulates capitalist production in two fundamental ways.

First, the market imposes norms (standards) of efficiency . Each capitalist is in battle with others. Each seeks a larger market share (at the expense of others), and the chief weapon in the battle is to expand production, raise productivity, and reduce cost. That means getting workers to work harder, faster, and longer. If an individual capitalist doesn't operate at a certain level of efficiency, he loses out—he can't sell at the prevailing market price—and he either raises efficiency or goes under.

Second, the market guides investment. When the market and profits are growing in a particular sector or product line, capital moves in. For instance, big returns could be gotten in telecommunications a few years back, so huge amounts of investment capital flowed in (you can see the moral of the story). But when the economy gets out of whack, the market imposes discipline and dictates reorganization: companies go under or merge, assets get sold or liquidated, workers are laid off, wage levels are pushed down—and stronger capitals and speculators move in like sharks in a feeding frenzy. This is a highly wasteful, anarchic, and oppressive process of regulation.

The market is impersonal. It isn't accountable to people. It doesn't consult with you about your needs. It doesn't care whether you lose your job, house, retirement pension, or your health coverage. If those things stand in the way of market efficiency, so be it. If you want the market—let's call it a “Market with a Human Face”—to be the organizing mechanism of the economy, you have to explain how the market can function according to market rules and yet not do the horrible things that the market does. Let's say market mechanisms are allowed to operate fairly freely in the consumer goods sector. Different enterprises are producing goods and winning or losing in the marketplace, based on what people buy.

Will the managers of these enterprises be allowed to trim the work force if earnings decline?

Will enterprises be allowed to go bankrupt if they do not make adequate profit?

Will society allow the market to “freely” set prices for goods—including items essential to people's well-being?

Will society allow production to shift to upscale goods that people with higher incomes demand—even if this comes at the expense of things that broader numbers of people need?

If you don't want the market to do those things and you want it to act according to other rules, let's say safeguarding people's basic interests, then what is the market doing that keeps it a market?

Market mechanisms do not promote meaningful work that serves the social good, and they do not promote social equality. These values are totally contrary to competition.

There is no plan for social production in the capitalist market economy. Society as a whole is not figuring what its requirements are: its social needs, the equipment and technology to carry out production, the housing requirements of the population, the resources called for to deal with an AIDS epidemic.

Instead, this is left to the market to work out (of course, the government plays a role, but the market reigns supreme). What happens is that capitalists enter different fields and product lines. Each capitalist producer decides what and how much to produce, whether to expand or cut back, whether to hire new workers and build new facilities. These decisions are guided by the capitalists' ability to sell products at profitable prices and by the expectation of finding profitable markets in the future. The capitalist produces and then sees what happens. It's a hit-and-miss, shoot- and-overshoot, trial-and-error process. In boom times, investment is expanded too much. In periods of economic slowdown, there is too little investment. Great numbers of people can no longer work, resources lie idle, and urgent social needs go unmet. All this is tremendously wasteful and destructive.

The market rewards the minimization of cost in pursuit of the maximization of profit. This is the “bottom line,” what it all comes down to in the market. The capitalists equate the “bottom line” with efficiency. But efficiency has definite class content under capitalism. It is the efficient exploitation of wage labour. It is the calculation of what is cost- efficient and profitable in a narrow and short-term sense. A factory might belch out pollution, but that cost to society is not a worry for the factory owner—you see, air is not within his boundary of ownership, not part of the cost structure that the market rewards and penalizes. The market doesn't register the long-term and social effects of economic activity. Health and pollution don't show up in the supply- demand and profit maximization framework of price and profit. That's what happens when profit is the starting and end-point.

Take the example of pharmaceutical industry. It is not profitable for the pharmaceutical industry to develop cheap drugs for diseases that affect the vast majority of humanity. The market returns are too low. So people go untreated and die of curable diseases. But it is profitable to develop “life-style” drugs and to slightly modify existing drugs to get new patents. Housing is another example. There is an obvious need for affordable and decent housing. But the market doesn't respond to social need or social demand. It only recognises monetary demand—“show me the money.” So you have the problem of homelessness; you have a public housing crisis; you have a situation where the average worker in retail in the U.S. can afford the rent for a one-bedroom apartment in only three of the largest 20 housing markets in the country. Globalization is all about the “bottom line.” In the anti-globalization movement, they call it the “race to the bottom.” The global investor scans the global market in search of low costs, high productivity, and big returns. Sweatshops, lax environmental regulations, few worker benefits—all this makes “good market sense.”

Each capitalist seeks to outmaneuver and out-position others. They keep technical and scientific knowledge from one another through trade secrets and patents and intellectual property rights. Ideas can become private property, and the “rights to these ideas” are bought and sold—just like everything else. To win in the market is to maximise competitive advantage and gain.

We can't eat, put a roof over our heads, or work without going through the market. But when you relate to the market for a house or for a job, you are relating to other people in very definite ways. You are competing for jobs, for housing, etc. The market breeds a mind-set of “me-first,” of “look out for number one.” The market is cold and cruel. It's about “winners and losers.” And in such a world, our world, it's just not “cost-effective” to show concern for others. Of course, we do try to care about others (today, even in this world dominated by the capitalist market), and we organise on the job and in the community. But the fact remains: capitalism and market exchange pit us against each other; the system of private ownership and the market fragment and atomise people.

The situation of exploitation and market relations alienates workers from the means of production, from the goals of production, and from work itself. Work is an alienating and oppressive activity. We work for an impersonal market and we work to obtain life's rewards in the market. There's nothing intrinsically rewarding about work, nor is work about serving meaningful social purposes. We “market ourselves” for jobs, for education...even for relationships. Happiness in the market society is measured by wealth and by the acquisition of things. Okay, there is the cornucopia of products. This, however, is not a market response to consumer want. Logos and brands are not about satisfying real material and social needs, and advertising is not a public service announcement. It's all about manipulating wants, stimulating and steering demand, and fighting for market share. Yes, “we get to choose things.” But three points have to be said about that. First, it's a “sliding scale of choice” based on class position and income. Second, as I have emphasized, the market does not respond to social need. And, third, like the ritual of elections, the “illusion of choice” masks and reinforces the basic powerlessness of the great majority of society. The ideology of consumerism is part of the psychology of control exercised in the capitalist market economy.

There is no plan for social production in the capitalist market economy. Society as a whole is not figuring what its requirements are: its social needs, the resources, equipment and technology to carry out production for the requirements of the population. We are often told that the capitalist consumer market is a kind of “referendum” in which consumers “vote with their dollars”—that in the market the “best product” wins. This is an extraordinary distortion, because it is the market that shapes the consumer. What wins in the marketplace is a function of marketing. What wins is a function of the manipulation and creation of wants (It is estimated 20 to 25 percent of the U.S. labour force is engaged in selling and marketing and advertising). What wins out in the dog-eat-dog world of capital is profitability and least-cost production. We get this message from capitalist ideologues that socialism will only produce a standardised and dull selection of goods that people don't like; or that people won't be able to get what they need, because there isn't enough attention paid to distribution of products. From people who are more radical the argument that socialist planning is inappropriate to consumer want, because these wants are so varied and changing. The “preference question”—the question of the volume, assortment, and variety of consumer goods is the standard bourgeois charge is that a socialist economy can't respond to, or doesn't care about, changing wants.

 A genuine system of socialist planning cannot be ignorant or indifferent to people's needs and wants. It must safeguard people's basic interests and it does have to be responsive to changing wants. Socialism is not “more of the same”—or “less of the same”—with the private individual as the starting and end point. Socialism has to forge new relations of social life and community. Responsiveness requires “feedback mechanisms” and information flows into the planning process. It requires social interchange and social investigation at all levels. It's not a question of bureaucrats deciding from afar through a command economy, or of letting the market and price dictate what gets produced and who gets to buy it. It can be achieved by processes already in place. Trade organizations can periodically engage in consumer surveys. The distribution system keep tab on the changing pattern of tastes by what and at what speed items leave the shelves. Outlets can periodically hold public forums at which suggestions and customer grievances were aired. When new product lines were introduced, the distribution centres specifically solicit consumer reactions. Meetings can be held between agencies which handled supplies and retailers to discuss problems of marketing, volume, quality, and appropriateness of goods handled. Mobile teams were sent out regularly to make “on the spot investigations” of user needs and responses. Telephone or internet research carried out. Supply agencies can keep representatives at the plants of major suppliers to act as liaisons for user interests. Perhaps some of those suggestions may be imperfect life-styles can be so messy. But this approach to consumer and user wants helps people take off the blinkers and think about real alternatives to market/ price mechanisms of decision-making.

People's most basic needs will be met, and the new economy will strive to produce a rational variety of consumer goods. But the ‘convenience’ of having Indonesian workers cater to athletic clothing needs, or peasants in other parts of the world cater to upscale coffee sensibilities, will be no more. At the same time, people's social needs will change with the transformation of social life. There will not be the obsession with consumption, the need to define oneself on the basis of what and how much one consumes. We are saying that a goal of socialist society is to create a common (shared) material abundance.