One of the basic proposition of socialists is that
capitalism, even at its most liberal, remains a system of domination and
exploitation. It is a system which involves the concentration of economic
power, based on the private ownership and control of the main means of production
and the maintenance and defence of this system possesses strong tendencies
towards an ever-greater concentration of political power and a corresponding
erosion of civic, political and democratic rights. There is an increasing
centralisation of production and finance into fewer and fewer hands, while at
the same time the dynamic of competition governs the system ever more
ruthlessly as global corporate giants and anonymous financial markets compete
over rates of profits. A vast reserve army of the unemployed has emerged even
in the major capitalist countries. Old industries are abandoned or
‘rationalised’; and through constant mergers and speculation new areas of
accumulation are fostered on a global scale. ‘Peripheral’ capitalist nations are
weighed down by enormous debts, whose ‘recycling’ is accompanied by demands
from creditors for ‘austerity’ measures on the part of the debtors; and these
measures naturally fall most heavily upon already desperately impoverished
populations. A ‘debt crisis’ continues to grow, and threatens to engulf the
whole capitalist world in yet another economic cataclysm. All the while militarism
is ever more blatantly a necessary prop of accumulation. Further still, the
evidence grows daily of the undemocratic lengths to which capitalist
governments are prepared to go to protect their interests and not only in
foreign lands, but right at home domestically as the ‘strong state’ is combined
with the ‘free market’. The ruling class seeks to its own view of how people
should live – so that ‘virtue’ comes to mean accepting one’s social position, ‘honesty’
means leaving the rich to get richer, And the state, by using its power to try
to make society cohere, in fact acts to make the exploited classes accept the
rules laid down by the ruling class.
There is no doubt important differences between countries.
More is done by way of welfare in Sweden than in Britain; and in Britain more
than in the United States. But in all cases, social relations based on
domination, exploitation and competition continued to structure the everyday
experiences of the populations of advanced capitalist countries; and the
reforms which were then achieved by dint of pressure and struggle remained
limited by the social relations of capitalism. So long as the development of
the welfare state and state intervention appeared to offer the possibility to alleviate
some of the economic and social ills produced by the logic of capital
accumulation for the majority, there are many people on the Left who believe capitalism
could gradually be reformed out of existence by ‘incremental’ advances on many
fronts. In short, the case for ‘gradualist reformism’ has been easier to make,
even if the actual reforms that were achieved have serious limitations. Now, even
these reforms need to be defended against the attacks and cuts. It is surely
past argument that all such reforms, in the context of capitalism, are
extremely conditional. The idea that reforms are in place forever once they are
established and that the only remaining issue is the pace and scope of further
advance, has been demonstrated to be no more than an illusion. Labour Parties have
so far mainly sought legislation to regulate and constrain capitalist power but
the point, however, is to dissolve it, and to replace it with a democratic,
cooperative and egalitarian social system. The Keynesian welfare state
reproduced the basic division between rulers and ruled, and did very little to
tackle the undemocratic nature of capitalist democracy. Nor was it ever to be
expected that it would or could.
Some critics of capitalism such as Richard Wolff and Gar
Alperovitz talk about alternative socially useful production, based on the
needs of society and (thus the needs of the employees and ordinary people.) alternative
production is, not only what is to be produced, but also how it is to be
produced. How the work is to be organised so that it’s not just fair but also pleasant.
Within these new models of cooperative production goods shall be designed and
manufactured more for the needs it fulfils than for the profit it might make
and should not waste energy or resources, neither in its manufacture, nor in
its use. The product should not harm the environment nor deprive workers of
their initiative, creativity, or job satisfaction. Prosperity isn’t only higher
living standards, but also the right to a meaningful job built upon the
capability of workers to bring an endless wealth of ideas, knowledge and
imagination.
The main lines of ‘new’ economic thinking emerge quite
clearly. Wolff and Alperovitz have presented together two quite different
things. At one level, they are concerned about propaganda about the superiority
of life under socialism. This is nothing new and has always formed an important
part of the socialist case. The other thing that they have done is to suggest
an alternative for production under capitalism. Even if the alternative model
of production is established in this or that factory it will not and cannot
insulate the working class from the consequences of the compelling drive of
capitalism to make profits and to increase profits. Capitalists, capitalist
states, even worker-directors, cannot break loose from that objective necessity
of speed-up, sackings, replacement of human beings by machines, cutting corners
on health and safety, etc., etc., for that is the logic of the capitalist
system itself. The dream of alternative production is not a panacea which
neatly skirts all of these real constraints. There are two results from this
alleged cure-all. First, the question of commercial viability is introduced
into the argument by the workers themselves. Second, it hands to all other
employers a golden opportunity for diverting the prospect of struggle into one
of negotiation where a wonderful store of initiative and imagination is opened
up to them, a host of new possibilities for profitable production are
presented. But of course, they will grasp it in their own way. Reformism is strengthened
by giving workers a place in the capitalist economic system through the
development and articulation of cooperatives, but such is not the road to a
socialist revolution by the working class. Socialists have always argued the
case for alternative production in one sense: the idea that in a socialist
society production will be for need and not for profit. Devoting time, energy
and resources to drawing up detailed plans for such production in a capitalist
society will ultimately be disillusioning and demoralising at best or
strengthen capitalism at worst.
No comments:
Post a Comment