The Socialist Party argues the case that capitalism is well
past its sell-by date. The world can now easily produce wealth sufficient to
adequately house, feed, care for and educate the global population. Instead we
see hunger, disease and homelessness around the world despite the concerns of
governments, charities and pop-stars. Closer to home, in a "developed"
nation like the UK, we see child poverty and an increasing gulf between rich
and poor. Rates of depression and anxiety are becoming epidemic. Capitalism is
failing: it now acts as a barrier, preventing production being geared to human
need. Rather than keep trying to tinker with this system we should start
looking beyond it to an alternative: a wages-free, money-free, class-free world
community based on production for human need, not profit. This social change
can only come about once the majority understand it and want it. It won't come
about by following leaders or voting for someone else to do it.
Other political parties (whether openly pro-capitalist or
avowedly socialist) are asking you to believe that they can run this society a
little bit better. We’d argue that history shows that the money system actually
ends up running them. Their election promises usually amount to nothing. So
don’t vote for them - it only encourages the idea that capitalism can be made
better. A vote for the Socialist Party in contrast, is a statement that you
don’t want to live this way and that you think another world is possible. If
you have confidence that humans can live and work co-operatively without the
pressure of the wages system, or the rationing system of money.
What is apparent is the extent to which all the parties try
and manage the agenda in an election. They all want to encourage the debate to
be round the handful of high-profile “flagship” issues where they feel on
strong ground. But it’s always phrased along the lines of “knocking on doors,
we keep hearing that XXX is the real issue of the day”.
Funnily enough, we never hear for example, “recent canvassing returns indicate
that voters actually don’t give a damn about our policies one way or the
other”. The assumption is that voters are stupid and can only remember 3 or 4
things at a time, so why give them more than that to consider. What it all
means is that the campaign may centre around a handful of issues only. That may
appear to appeal to the Socialist Party. After all we are the ultimate single
issue party - Abolish capitalism. But while this is a single issue no-one is
pretending that it is a simple case. Sure it’s not complicated, the case for
putting human need ahead of profit, but sound-bites don’t do our case justice.
We are also handicapped in the eyes of the modern voter by the fact that we are
not in a position to make promises, and what’s more, we aren’t going to “do
anything” for anyone. The other parties are falling over each other to be seen
to be offering some immediate palliative.
What is important to recognise is that these so-called
“local” issues that are high on the agenda (such as the NHS, education, and housing)
are pressing issues everywhere else. But these are not really local issues after
all. It’s just that many people (and all of our opponents) think the solution
is usually a local one, so there is no point looking elsewhere for the answer.
Unhappy with the plans for the local hospital? Well, don’t worry whoever gets
elected will have a word with the local Health Board and try and clarify the
situation. Concerned about lack of fire cover because of closed fire stations?
Don’t worry, one of the politicians will make sure you are consulted about it.
Losing sleep over global warming? No problem, I’ll just turn the thermostat
down… (OK we made the last one up)
In fact the problem underpinning most of the supposed
“local” issues is usually much broader. It’s not just specific local problems
(like poor consultation or ill thought through proposals). The whole issue of
provision of essential services such as health care and schools is dictated by
the level of resources allocated. And whether it is in Livingston or Llannelli,
the same picture emerges: social services are obviously extremely stretched.
Public sector workers are under pressure to work harder, for less money and now
for longer with the retirement ages raised increased.
The economic storm clouds are gathering which are likely to
severely inhibit Prime Minister Brown’s room for manoeuvre. In reality, the
government is in control of the economy the same way a duck bobbing around on
the ocean is in control of the tides. Our opponents are making all sorts of
promises to the voters. What will they do for the NHS? Will they remove
prescription charges? What is a “fair living wage”? In so doing we’d say they
are fighting over the crumbs from the rich man’s plate, rather than upsetting
the whole table. The Socialist Party’s view is that this is the merciless logic
of the market system. The capitalist class don’t want to pay any more than they
have to. Or anything more than the bare minimum. The reason? – ultimately,
these costs come off the profits of UK Capitalism.
Socialist sentiments lurk inside us all, often without us
realising it. In the Socialist Party, we don’t just pay lip service to this
basic principle though: for us it’s not just a nice idea - it’s the essence of
our position. Only the Socialist Party has the practical case that is consistent
with this idea. Let’s be in no doubt, despite the politicians platitudes, the
reality is that profit does come before public welfare and safety. Somewhere in
the local authority or Holyrood or Westminster, there is an accountant doing a
cost-benefit analysis. They are working the cost savings.
You don’t need to be told not to place too much faith in
whichever politician gets elected - history would suggest that promises made
before the election quickly get discarded when in office, and the pressure of
trying to run the profit system in the interests of humanity become too
difficult.
The Socialist Party advocates the abolition of buying and
selling and money and wages. We want the replacement of the system where
production is geared to profit, by a system where production is based on
self-defined human needs. In the (admittedly) unlikely event that the Socialist
Party is elected, we would very probably give our support to many reform demands,
where we felt it would advance the interests or conditions of the working
class. But it is reasonable for us to not want to allow this to divert us from
the mandate we would have been elected on, to push for a world where the
satisfaction of human need is the first and last and only consideration of
society
Brian Gardner
No comments:
Post a Comment