Skip to main content

No system is forever, not even capitalism.

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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…