Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership.
This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire
global population. But does it really make sense for everybody to own
everything in common? Of course, some goods tend to be for personal
consumption, rather than to share—clothes, for example. People 'owning' certain
personal possessions does not contradict the principle of a society based upon
common ownership. In practice, common ownership will mean everybody having the
right to participate in decisions on how global resources will be used. It
means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own
personal possessions.
Democratic control is therefore also essential to the
meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have
the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These
decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of
decision, for example, would be how to organise the production of goods and
services.
Production under socialism would be directly and solely for
use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and
controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human
needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would
take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each
according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.
So how would we decide what human needs are? This question
takes us back to the concept of democracy, for the choices of society will
reflect their needs. These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures
and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be
designed to provide for this variety.
We cannot, of course, predict the exact form that would be
taken by this future global democracy. The democratic system will itself be the
outcome of future democratic decisions. We can however say that it is likely
that decisions will need to be taken at a number of different levels—from local
to global. This would help to streamline the democratic participation of every
individual towards the issues that concern them.
In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods
and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system
of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All
work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would
engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would
provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and
conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.
As a world socialist who stands for a world without borders
in which the Earth's resources will have become the common heritage of all,
naturally we favour a welcoming treatment of fellow workers fleeing oppression.
After all, Karl Marx was in this position himself
Profits before people that's how capitalism works and can
only work. There is no alternative within capitalism and it's misleading and
even dishonest to suggest that there could be. The real lesson is that, since
all that capitalism has to offer is austerity and cuts, we should concentrate
on organising to bring it to an end by political action aimed at ushering in a
society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of
production so that there can be produce for directly for use and not for
profit, and distribution on the principle of "from each according to their
ability, to each according to their needs". Socialism.
It’s the system that’s to blame, not those elected to run
it. That’s why changing the politicians in charge makes no difference. As the
saying goes, “changing governments changes nothing”. It will be like this as
long as the profit system lasts. So there is no point in voting for parties
that accept this system. The alternative is to change to a new system based on
satisfying our needs, where the places where wealth is produced will no longer
be owned by profit-seeking businesses but will be owned and democratically
controlled by us all. That’s what the Socialist Party stands for. We are
contest elections to raise this issue, and to give those of you who agree a
chance to be counted. Parties promising to do things for others is not our idea
of politics, so we make no campaign or manifesto promises to do anything for
anyone. The Socialist Party is standing to give people the chance to show they
reject the capitalist system where making profits always comes first.
Capitalism is going through one of its economic crises and the only way out for
it is to restore profits by cutting the living standard of working people and
their dependents. That’s why what our wages can buy has shrunk. It’s why
benefits are being slashed. And it’s why local councils have been cutting local
services. It’s councils everywhere, whichever party is in control. Politicians,
local and national, are just running the system in the only way it can be. It’s
the system that’s to blame, not those elected to run it. That’s why changing
the politicians in charge makes no difference.
Instead of trusting in politicians we’ve have got to change the system
ourselves, to one where the places where wealth is produced are no longer run
as profit-seeking businesses but owned and democratically controlled by the
community and used to provide a decent life for all. Public services and amenities
are being cut and people shouldn't put up with this, but this is the fault of
the capitalist profit system as it goes through one of its economic crises. So,
it is misleading to blame those who administer this system rather than the
system itself. The only way capitalism can get out of a crisis is by cutting
living standards. This is why the
Socialist Party campaigns for the abolition of capitalism, not for a change in
the people running it or trying to make it work in a way it just cannot.
No comments:
Post a Comment