For years the Socialist Party has pleaded with the workers
to organise and take over the entire means of production and distribution. The
Socialist Standard, books, pamphlets, leaflets of all kinds were freely
circulated, with scanty result. Unheeded, the Socialist Party faced blank
indifference. It is not a question of condemning capitalism. Capitalism
condemns itself. Capitalism must go is the only hope of the world. The onus is
on the Socialist Party to demonstrate in a way that can be understood by
fellow-workers that the theories we have so long expounded can be translated
into a practical method of producing and distributing the wealth of the nation
in such a way as to end forever the exploitation of the many by the privileged
few
All the progressive liberal “anti-capitalists”, all of them,
accept continued production of commodities for the market and for profit, the
existence of an owning class and a working class, and the division of the world
into capitalist nation-state competing against each other — in short,
capitalism. The word, socialism, is taken to mean state ownership or government
control. Their proposed policies contain a vast array of suggested remedies for
the ills of capitalism —nationalisation, the development of state-operated
health and welfare services, workers to sit on boards of directors, workers’ pension
funds to extend their ownership of corporation stocks and seek control of
corporation policy, government curbing of the freedom of action of big
companies, encouragement of small companies and cooperatives, government
management and planning of the economy, and so on. All these expedients have
been tried and tested — with total failure. Application of all these “remedies”
has not materially affected the character or operations of capitalism.
Progressives not only support capitalism, even strengthen it by reforms, but
also sees state capitalism as “socialism.”
Socialists are not looking for a saviour but for their fellow
workers to join them in a movement which is understood by all, controlled by
all, and in the interests of all — Socialism. It is not enough to say one is a
“socialist” to be one. One must advocate the revolutionary abolition of
capitalism and refuse to work for its reform, in order to wear the label of
"socialist.”
What is apparent in elections is the extent to which all the
parties try and manage the agenda for the election. They all want to encourage
the debate to be round the handful of high-profile “flagship” issues where they
feel on strong ground. 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 simple
soundbites don’t do our case justice. We in the Socialist Party 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. 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. We're talking about a world community without any frontiers. About wealth being produced to meet
people's needs and not for sale on a market or for profit. About everyone
having access to what they require to satisfy their needs, without the rationing
system that is money. A society where people freely contribute their skills and
experience to produce what is needed, without the compulsion of a wage.
In the admittedly
unlikely event that the Socialist Party was elected, we would very probably (i.e.
as we are a democratic party it wouldn’t just be up to the newly elected MP to
decide) give our support to a reform demand which we felt 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.
It's tempting, in the absence of any real alternative, to
get drawn into the phoney war that is political debate today. Whether Labour,
Tory, nationalist, Lib Dem or whatever they all spout the same promises. But it
always amounts to the same thing-they offer no alternative to the present way
of running society. Do you really think who wins an election makes any
difference to how you live? And do politicians (whether left-wing, nationalist
or right-wing) actually have much real power anyway? OK, they get to open
supermarkets and factories, but it's capitalism and the market system which
closes them down.
No comments:
Post a Comment