Together we can win

 

Socialism means a society of associated producers that is characterised by common ownership of the means of production, the immediately social nature of labour and the planning of production to satisfy needs (production of use-values and not commodities). It means a class-free society without a state, without, that is, special organs or apparatuses for administrative, managerial or decision-making that is divorced from the mass of citizens. Such a society can exist only if it is managed by the producers and consumers themselves and only if it takes its destiny into its own hands. It must free itself from the tyranny of the “laws of the market” (the law of value), from the tyranny of despotic authorities, and from that of the state. 

 Socialism can only be fully realised on a world scale; it must, that is, encompass the main countries in the world. A worldwide administration does not preclude a large number of decentralised mechanisms at the local, regional, and neighbourhood levels and in the various branches of social and economic activity, nor of organisations in which democratic choices can be made at the base.

Socialism does not mean an earthly paradise nor the establishment of perfect harmony between the individual and society or between man and nature. The aim of socialism is more modest. It is to resolve certain social problems which have for centuries caused human suffering on a mass scale. There must be the end of exploitation and oppression and to halt wars and large-scale violence between human beings. Hunger and inequality will be banished forever. Institutionalised and systematic discrimination against women, against races, ethnic groups, and national or religious minorities, which are regarded as being “inferior” needs to cease. There must be no more economic or ecological crises. In terms of progress and emancipation, both for humanity as a whole and for the individuals who make it up would be a great a leap forward.  Such social advances are possible only if private property, commodities, and money are abolished. Their abolition is a precondition for the elimination of classes and the withering away of the State. The alternative is the possible collapse of human civilisation.

 The acquisition of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction, and the threats hanging over the ecological balance resulting from climate change makes even the possibility even the extinction of the human race feasible. The alternative is no longer “socialism or barbarism.” It is “socialism or death.” But all living species have an instinct for self-preservation and cling dearly to life. Mankind is no exception. And that is why attempts to prevent catastrophes will always prevail. That is why the struggle for socialism will continue in the face of defeatist and fatalist views of the future of mankind.

 All the threats to people and the planet result from the subordination of technological and scientific developments to the tyranny of capital, to the logic whereby each firm seeks to maximise its own profits, regardless of the long-term consequences for the labour force, for society as a whole or for the ecological balance, because it is subject to the implacable imperatives of competition and capital accumulation. Socialism is necessary because private property and the market economy, the logic of the quest for private wealth and, above all, the mechanisms of universal competition that they stimulate in every area of individual and social behaviour, are feeding an infernal dynamic which is leading us to disaster. Manufacturing goes on at any cost, regardless of the natural resources it destroys.

The productive forces have developed to such an extent that they have now created the preconditions for the abolition of poverty and commodity production on a world basis. This would, of course, require a radical redistribution of resources and the elimination of the under-utilisation or wasteful use of resources (arms production, products harmful to health, etc.). It would also require a redeployment of resources in order to prioritise the satisfaction of basic needs on the basis of the democratically determined preferences of producers and consumers, and not on the basis of arbitrary allocation by a technocracy.  

We are convinced that existing resources would make it possible to resolve these problems within a reasonably short space of time. There is no reason to suppose that poverty is inevitable and that there are not sufficient goods and services to cover basic needs in terms of food, clothing, housing, culture, leisure, and transport. It is not utopian to speak of the abolition of commodity production. It is certainly possible to feed all the men and women who live on our planet without destroying the ecological balance.

A worldwide redistribution of the resources required to eliminate famine and poverty does not necessarily imply a fall in the standard of living enjoyed by the average person in the developed world. Redistribution could to a large extent be achieved using resources that are now wasted or make no contribution to living standards. 

Socialism will finally become a new social system capable of reproducing itself automatically when cooperation and solidarity between producer-consumers replace the selfish urge to acquire private wealth. Cooperation and solidarity were prevalent in earlier societies and must eventually become once again universal human characteristics. It is not utopian to speak of cooperation replacing selfishness. None of this can be realised unless commodity production and the competition it generates disappear.