You don't need to be told that, no matter whether Labour, Tories or LibDems win power, nothing really changes for the better. Nor that millions no longer vote because it's so pointless. But what you might not know is that there is a way to stamp out the same old problems for good – along with the same old politicians forever talking the same old humbug about 'solving' them. How about a brand new, radically different, politician-free system guaranteed to provide all the top-quality food, goods and services you ever need, throughout your entire life, at no cost whatsoever?
Cornflakes, computers, cars, housing, rail travel, water, electricity,
gas, phones, TV etc. all for free. You're now possibly thinking:
"Rubbish! What new system can possibly bring this?" Well, prepare to be
confused and annoyed by a word we have been conditioned, by years of
disinformation, to immediately blow a fuse upon hearing. It's socialism.
If you thought this has been tried already – and deceitful politicians
and newspaper editors have done their damnedest to convince people it
has – in fact, genuine socialism has never existed. In dictionaries,
socialism is: "Common ownership of the means of production and
distribution". That is, mineral mines, oil fields, manufacturing,
utilities, trains, etc., owned by the people. But at no time, in no
country, has any population directly owned and controlled these
productive assets. Private and/or state owners have always possessed and
run these, and consequently – surprise, surprise – they have benefited
Does asset ownership really matter? Absolutely. Whoever owns the means
of living decides the manner of living. Capitalist possession has
brought inadequate or no essential services due to profit-making and
cost cutting; more cancers and illness due to pollution and unsafe food;
excessive or dislikeable work; homelessness; ageism; too little free
time; burglaries; inequality; unemployment; escapist drug abuse; racism;
wars; environmental destruction; mortgages, bills, rent, taxes etc.
With genuine socialism, all those worries would end – not just get a
little better. Take cash troubles. If we all owned tomorrow what a few
do today, money would be obsolete. Directly owning those vital assets
mean we'd also own all the food, goods and services these provide. And
as one of the new collective owners, you'd then have a right to these as
That is why real socialism brings free access to whatever you need. Free
access would not mean people grabbing everything in sight because,
while work will obviously still have to be done to produce things, with
genuine socialism the whole purpose of this work would have then changed
from today's provision of goods and services strictly for sale (which
causes artificial shortages and exclusion for the non-wealthy), to
provision of goods and services purely to meet needs.
No more money might seem bizarre – even frightening – but what's it for?
It's for buying things that others own, and those owning what people
need most – capitalists – benefit most. We are led to see money as
offering freedom from worries, when in reality, it deliberately and
barbarically maintains them. By deviously making money essential for
life, asset owners can then compel those able to work to become their
employees. Governments help out in this (e.g., by imposing paltry and
hard-to-get benefits, and ensuring children are 'educated' to
unquestioningly accept money, wages, profits, etc.). Workers end up
buying what they together provided in the first place! Working long and
hard, they can't earn enough to quit for good, since if they could,
capitalists would then be unable to use them to make profits. Money is
basically just one part of a massive scam to control and exploit the
Obviously, cash is needed while this scam goes on, but if we want a far
more agreeable, healthier, plentiful free-access society, we need only
take care who we support and how we vote. Most people really would gain
from real socialism. Even those now with reassuring incomes and savings
would benefit from this new system – not experience worse lives as a
result of millions of others obtaining better ones. But after a lifetime
deliberately hooked on must-have money, some people may find this
radical change to cashless co-operation hard to take in. But weigh up
the facts, examine the criticisms, and true socialism is seen to be
For instance, you might think free access to whatever we need must mean
harder work. Not so. Ending capitalist employment also ends its
unemployment, so millions of people unwanted because bosses can't profit
from using them, can then contribute. And with no more exclusive assets
to protect, or money, millions more soldiers, solicitors, bureaucrats,
etc. and those just tinkering with cash in retailing, banking, insurance
etc., would all then be freed to add something of real value. What's
more, many repetitive and unpleasant jobs could be done by sophisticated
automation, which just won't happen today unless it's "cost-effective".
So, for these reasons, real socialism would actually bring a far
shorter working week, and jobs people enjoy – never again are forced to
do for money, or by governments.
For now, work is for profits, which means employees aren't paid the true
value of their labour. Someone working 5 days may have done enough
after 2 or 3 to cover their wages, but is kept at it so major
shareholders can sponge off profits and thereby enjoy relaxed opulent
lives. Even a 'good' boss must take advantage of workers to buy better
equipment, premises, advertising, etc. to remain competitive. So, to
some extent, all employees are cheated.
Exploitation of workers is unavoidable with capitalism, as without it,
the system won't work. This in-built abuse happens here now, just as it
did in a so-called 'socialist' Russia. In reality, old Soviet Russia was
capitalist too. It had employers (the state), leaders, money, wages,
profits, inequality etc. None of these would exist if genuine socialism
was established – fact elitist 'left-wingers' choose to ignore even
today. Such political activists claim to be 'socialist' while calling
for "Full employment", "Strong trade unions", "Higher top-earner taxes"
and "Nationalisation". But what they are therefore supporting is
capitalism continuing, since waged work, labour bargaining, taxation and
even full-blown state ownership of productive assets are all features
of a capitalist system. Even replacing private bosses with state bosses
changes nothing, as work will still be profit-driven.
These would-be reformers may hope to change private enterprise into
something better, but they'll never succeed. The Labour Party has proved
this. They, too, wanted to keep reforming capitalism so we gradually
moved towards socialism. But in the end, it was unchangeable capitalism
which reformed Labour – into yet another 'New' Tory party!
These "let's-make-it-nicer" tinkerers are quick to claim capitalism can
help those suffering if more money is taken off the rich, or if it's
governed 'properly'. This may sound good, but it's just tosh that
ignores the only way capitalism can operate – exploiting assets in the
most profitable way. If firms are made to pay higher taxes for state
services and welfare, pay better wages, use the best food ingredients
etc, then they can't compete in a global market. As profits suffer,
businesses go bust. Investment shifts overseas. The economy fails.
Public services collapse. Unemployment and poverty rise. Even more
people suffer, and the government of the day get kicked out. So, no
matter who governs, capitalism can never be run to benefit a suffering
majority, as majority exploitation is fundamentally inevitable – for the
chief benefit of a selfish minority.
Due to this fundamental bias, there is one party that wants not to
govern – but to enable voters to both elect themselves to power, as well
as obtain direct ownership of productive assets, by choosing real
socialism (once socialism's established, its purpose served, this party
will then cease to exist). Freed from capitalism's asset-owner bias,
money madness and marketplace wastefulness, aren't we perfectly capable
of running our own lives? Why shouldn't we all decide how resources
should be used (e.g., through occasional referendums) – rather than have
these momentous decisions made by a self-seeking privileged few, aided
by two-faced puppet politicians?
If you want a far better future, having had enough of capitalism's
never-ending troubles and the contemptuous electoral game politicians
play among themselves, where identical candidates from identical parties
chase votes to deliver an identically odious outcome (a game they
privately call Who's Best At Duping), then please get in contact for
further details about real socialism.
"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits...
A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification...
The life expectancy of people born in many parts of Scotland has fallen, as health chiefs continue to be worried about the worsening figu...