Capitalism hasn't triumphed over communism. Communism or
socialism is a post-capitalist democratic, free-access, commonly owned,
price-free, wageless, moneyless (no means of exchange necessary) market-less,
(no need to trade when commonly owned) system, which takes the productive
capacity of an advanced technological society, using a self-regulating stock
control with calculation in kind, with production for use, (houses to be lived
in, food to eat), accessed according to needs, which has never yet come into
being. It requires the immense majority to be politically aware to opt for it
and then run it democratically with no top or bottom privileged or underprivileged
layers of authority. The Soviet experiment was a revolution from feudalism into
capitalist production (Bourgeois revolution and in the absence of a
sufficiently large capitalist class the state and intelligentsia took the
bourgeoisie and capitalists place. Nationalism, British, Irish, Scottish or any
other is a capitalist diversion from the world's workers primary task which is
to end waged slavery, establish a global, democratic, free access, society
without privileged elites and gain the world and everything in it and on it for
the worlds workers.
Capital depends on us, because if we do not create profit
(surplus value) directly or indirectly, then capital cannot exist. We create
capital and if capital is in crisis, it is because we are not creating the
profit necessary for capital’s existence: that is why they are attacking us
with such violence. We do not need Capital, markets, money, wages, prices, once
everything is owned in common. They don't invest out of philanthropy, or to
create employment opportunities. I have never met a capitalist worried about
how many jobs he/she could create. I have met some had sleepless nights trying
to figure how many to end and retain profit margins, or reinvest elsewhere for
speculative profit gains. The only time workers can get wage increases are when
trade picks up and the parasite class throw their money at the boom, to compete
against other parasites to accumulate, accumulate, to take profits. There is no
such thing as a fair days pay. Idealistic quasi-religious hogwash. Other than
that the capitalists can sit out the slump while millions eke out an existence
on dole, if they are lucky. The real wealth creators are the workers. Even
workers foolish enough to believe they are middle-class, if they 'have' to work
for a wage or salary they are working class. The business class are a parasitic
encumbrance upon distribution according to needs and the capitalist system an
exploitative means of ensuring workers are forever enslaved (via waged slavery)
for the purpose of profitable exploitation in the interests of that minority
class forever.
The notion that the Labour Party 'ever' presented an
alternative to capitalist politics is a seriously flawed one. Only social
ownership (not nationalisation) can tap into the new sources of energy and
creativity which can eliminate the alienating nature of work and the desire to
do one’s bit for the common good. If the left are going to be
"pragmatic" If you are recommending people to vote Labour or
Democrat, you doing so in the certain knowledge that a Labour or Democrat
government is going to disappoint and that as result of that disappointment
workers in the long run are almost certainly going to switch their allegiance
back to the right. Given the see saw nature of capitalist politics this is what
invariably happens, does it not? Why not then just short circuit the whole
lengthy exposition and simply say "Vote Tory!!”, “Vote Republican!!”
Because, let’s face it, that is the long term consequence of voting Labour. You
are simply preparing the ground for the return of a future Tory government or
Republican president in the wake of lesser evil’s inevitable failure.
Capitalism itself has provided the prerequisites that are essential for
replacing production for profit. People rightly object to the despotic
pseudo-socialism which developed in the old Soviet Union. Humanity today faces
a stark choice: socialism or barbarism. We need no more proof of the barbarity
of capitalism, the parasitical system that exploits humanity and nature alike.
Its sole motor is the imperative toward profit and thus the need for constant
growth. Capitalism’s need for growth exists on every level, from the individual
enterprise to the system as a whole. The insatiable hunger of corporations is
facilitated by imperialist expansion in search of ever greater access to
natural resources. The capitalist economic system cannot tolerate limits on
growth; its constant need to expand will subvert any limits that might be
imposed because to do so would require setting limits upon accumulation – an
unacceptable option for a system predicated upon the rule: Grow or Die.
It is ironic that in the present situation, peoples’
anti-austerity hopes now lie with the pro-business, Murdoch supported Scottish
nationalists with a policy of cutting corporation tax. The Labour party even in
its 'best' days was never a socialist party. Why should anyone be surprised,
shocked, disgusted or flabbergasted at this point in history? This is
capitalism and similar things are happening all around the globe. Capitalism's
raison d'etre - screw the majority to the possible maximum in order to
accumulate the maximum possible. Without a determined cooperative effort and
struggle by the majority of the world's population (the ones being repeatedly
screwed) then another century will slip by and our offspring's offspring will
be churning out the same mantras about taxing the wealthy and increasing the
minimum wage. Forget reforms. Think about it, there really is only the one
solution: Abolish the system that makes this possible. Abolish capitalism.
Together we can do it. The workers themselves have to do it once they know
capitalism cannot be reformed. It is not question of a party winning power
'over' people. United for socialism. State capitalism, nationalisation, was
never socialism.
The Labour Party was never socialist. They have always
supported capitalism. In all countries, the fight for the social revolution has
yet to take place. Every few years groups of professional politicians compete for
your vote to win themselves a comfortable position. All of the parties and
candidates offer only minor changes to the present system. That is why
whichever candidate or party wins there is no significant change to the way
things are. Promises are made and broken, targets are set and not reached,
statistics are selected and spun. All politicians assume that capitalism is the
only game in town, although they may criticise features of its unacceptable
face, such as greedy bankers, or the worst of its excesses. They defend a
society in which we, the majority of the population, must sell our capacity to
work to the tiny handful who own most of the wealth.
They defend a society in which jobs are offered only if
there is a profit to be made. Socialists have little concern for the apparent
moral consistency (or otherwise) of individuals, be they MPs or not. It’s the
system we live under that we are interested in. As defenders of capitalism the
right honourable gentlemen and ladies at Westminster have rarely been "right",
and are certainly unlikely "honourable" role models. As exemplars of
capitalism's principles, however they would appear to embody all the necessary
tight-fisted, money-grabbing, elements.
A socialist society, means a society without rich and poor,
without owners and workers, without governments and governed, a society without
leaders and led. In such a society people would cooperate to use all the
world’s natural and industrial resources in their own interests. They would
free production from the artificial restraint of profit and establish a system
of society in which each person has free access to the benefits of
civilisation. Socialist society would consequently mean the end of buying,
selling and exchange, an end to borders and frontiers, an end to organised
violence and coercion, waste, want and war. Socialism has never been tried
anywhere...No, the workers have not the foggiest of what socialism is and
support reformist, labourites, Lefties who are erstwhile leaders and new
governments 'over' the workers. Socialism will come about when the workers the
immense majority, understand what it is, (common ownership is not state
ownership, democratic control is not representative democracy, waged slavery is
not common ownership, socialism is a free access, revolutionary,
post-capitalist society) and work to bring it about without the need of
leaders. Nothing can stop socialism when the workers decide to implement it.
A load of hogwash spoken by Labourites, war-mongers and
business friendly supporters of capitalism. If we are going to improve things
we are going to have to act for ourselves, without professional politicians or
leaders of any kind. We are going to have to organise ourselves democratically
to bring about a society geared to serving human needs not profits. Production
to satisfy people's needs. That's the alternative. But this is only going to be
possible if we control production and the only basis on which this can be done
is common ownership and democratic control. In a word, socialism. But real
socialism, not the elite-run dictatorships that used to exist in Russia and
east Europe ― that was state capitalism, not socialism ― nor the various
schemes for state control put forward by the old Labour Party. We are talking
about a world community without frontiers. Only on this basis can world
poverty, hunger and the destruction of the environment be ended.
The socialist alternative to the profit system is:
• common ownership:
no individuals or groups of individuals have property rights over the natural
and industrial resources needed for production.
• democratic control:
everybody has an equal say in the way things are run including work, not just
the limited political democracy we have today.
• production for use:
goods and services produced directly to meet people's needs, not for sale on a
market or for profit.
• free access: all
of us have access to what we require to satisfy our needs, not rationed as
today by the size of our pay-cheque or state hand-out.
No comments:
Post a Comment