The Sanity of Socialism

We are aware of the fact that the majority of the people oppose so­cialism, but we are equally aware that the majority is not acquainted, for the most part, with what the socialist case is all about. And one of the obstacles has always been the alleged urgency of things that seem to be of greater priority. There is always a crisis. These crises, such as war, un­employment, oppression of particular groups or other social grievances are always held to be more important. It is difficult for socialists not to feel irritated at times because the urgency is exactly the clue to the lack of comprehension of what the problem is about.

The latest crisis is the environment. In the last few years, a movement has come on the scene to save the environment. The environment has become the great discovery of the past decade. It is being treated as if it were a territorial discovery and has been made into a new area of activity with departments set up in most com­munities and states to supervise ecological activities. The word ‘ecology’ has become a household term. Business enterprises have been formed to make a profit in this new arena. The end of the world is at hand unless we do something about the environment!

The socialist feels that long before fighting pollution became a popular cause and the word ‘ecology’ a fashionable term, capitalism was indicted on this specific charge, along with many others. We maintained that as long as we had the relationships of a market economy, that is, the pro­duction of commodities to be sold for a profit — the environment be damned, profits come first.

Factories along the banks of rivers pouring their poisonous effluents into the water year in and year out — this was normalcy. Factories with their smokestacks belching noxious, toxic fumes into the atmosphere — this was business as usual. These are still typical symptoms of what is called prosperity — people are working, getting wages, everything is ‘normal.’

But what do the environmentalists advocate? They deal with all the visible effects but continue to be blithely unaware of root causes. Sure, they can slap a fine on a factory that pollutes — they can chastise a public utility that blackens the sky. But what motivates business is not the same concern that our ecologist friends have.

The conflict of interests comes up constantly. When the Sierra Club, a group of environmentalists, was confronted with the fact that its funds were invested in companies that are among the prime polluters, its re­sponse was that they had to be practical.

Of course, on the other hand, the prime concern of business is to keep the costs of production as low as possible. Profits have to be of paramount priority.

We are convinced, based on the facts available to anyone, that in our enlightened, technological age, almost all our problems can be solved. A planet fit for human beings to inhabit has become the question of ultimate survival.

Our case boils down to this simple premise: Let us eliminate the rela­tionships of commodity production — let us produce goods to serve the needs of humanity instead of producing in order to make profits — let us organize our world on a democratically planned base instead of working for the benefit of the stockholders — let us harness the natural wealth of the universe and match it with the trained technology of the workers who live on this planet.

All of the solutions of these problems would then fall into place. Thus, we are now able to eliminate waste. The waste of war. The waste of dupli­cation on the part of many competing companies. The waste of countless unnecessary industries such as banking, insurance, and advertising.

We contend that potentially the problem of production has already been solved. We can produce enough food and in infinite abundance. We can build as many homes as may be needed. We can fabricate endless miles of clothing and in infinite variety. And ALL WITHOUT POLLUTION.

And now we come to the question: ‘Is there enough?’ We are told that the mineral resources are running out. Consumption is running ahead of production. On this score, socialists are not interested in a system of production and distribution that ignores the basic purpose of satisfying social and human needs in favor of profits.

Any science, in any field of production which does not take into ac­count its social background and human purpose, is no science but merely technology.

The benefits of science and technology have yet to reach the multi­tudes. They have arrived only for a few people who own and control their operations.

Much scientific information available in many books on a variety of subjects concerning the natural and mineral resources of the world con­cludes that there is no shortage. No shortage of oil, coal or agricultural land; no shortage of any form of natural wealth, including energy.

Capitalism, which is based on a market economy, has been known to create shortages in order to boost prices. In order to attempt to affect prices, capitalism will curtail production, oft times squandering natural resources.

Many resources are considered in short (sometimes dangerously low) supply due only to the fact that they cannot be brought to the market profitably.

Every assessment of wealth is judged in this way. It would not be judged in this way in a socialist society.

The resource that commands the most attention at the present time is energy. Right now fossil fuel, mostly in the form of petroleum, is the dominant source of energy. Mainly because in the recent past few genera­tions it has been relatively available on the basis of supply as well as cost.

And under the ground lies a huge reservoir of coal and shale, largely untapped due to the uneconomic mining and processing involved. However, petroleum is getting more and more expensive due to real or imaginary shortages or political jockeying by the oil-producing countries versus the major multinational oil companies. And everyone and his brother and cousin is searching for alternative sources of the stuff that will run his automobile or heat his furnace at home.

This can be a fun game: An example of another source of clean, non-­polluting energy is geothermal. In the permeable rocks beneath the earth’s surface, water is heated by molten magma creating steam. You have often seen pictures of the geyser ‘Old Faithful’ spouting a jet of steam with age-old regularity. This steam can be harnessed. It can be brought to the earth’s surface through bore holes and used to drive generators producing electricity. Once the steam has cooled and condensed it can be returned via other bore holes back to the permeable layer where it is again heated, returning to steam — and so the process continues in constant recycling.

Perfectly practical? Too good to be true? What’s the hitch? It sounds too much like sanity.

There is a theory that comes up over and over again. It states that population, if not checked, would always increase faster than the available food supply. And further, this Malthusian theory argues that the way na­ture checks this imbalance is through war, poverty, and pestilence.

Some people fall for this and conclude that famine is, in a way, a good thing. It keeps the growth of population in check.

Actually, the theory is false. It assumes a premise that does not hold true. Overpopulation does not breed poverty but rather poverty breeds overpopulation. Hunger is usually not caused by the insufficient production of food in the world but by social factors that prevent the required distribution of food. The issue is clear. Improvisation within the limits of the capitalist mode of production cannot solve the problem of over-population. Only the sanity of socialism can offer the answer to this fearful problem. The fact is that today, not in the future, mankind has reached a potential super-abundance of all of the requirements to sustain life. Famine in 2017 is inexcusable.

Technologically, modern agriculture in the United States alone could produce enough food to feed the entire world. The application of science to soil — even soil-less agriculture — gives the lie to the Malthusian premise about food supply. And just around the corner stands the prospect of desalinization of sea water on a greater than the experimental basis. We literally will be able to irrigate the deserts of the earth and produce food anywhere.

We may say of the food problem, as we have said of the energy problem: We are not facing some final exhaustion of the world’s sources of food. The economist who sees capitalism as the best of all possible worlds says that we are simply short of capital. Any worldwide solution to the food problem will require the massive investment of resources. We, socialists, say the solution is obvious: Produce only to satisfy human needs and wants.

What will happen to the environment when working men and women decide to establish socialism? We cannot give a detailed account, but cer­tain things are clear. Instead of society being hell-bent on profit, the prime motivation is providing the population with food, clothing, and shelter (with a big plus) at a level that makes sense in every sense:

Energy — that which is the most efficient and environmentally satisfy­ing at the same time.

Transportation — no competing brands of vehicles; only the best will do. Probably more public transportation, but with a view to comfort and convenience.

Manufacturing — any process that despoils nature and endangers man obviously will be discontinued. The inventiveness of our age will overcome any short-range difficulties.

It may sound strange, but really what we are advocating is sanity. We call it socialism.

Abridged and adapted from here

http://www.wspus.org/2016/06/a-tv-program-the-sanity-of-socialism/