“A lot has changed in
three hundred years. People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of
‘things’. We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions…The
economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn’t exist in
the 24th century… The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in
our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of Humanity.” Captain Picard, Star Trek
We humans have made considerable advances in science and
technology over our brief existence on this planet. Yet it still hasn't made us
happy for the most part. Billions of us go to bed hungry and/or homeless every
night and despite our scientific knowledge and all our technology, we seem
powerless to help them. We are in the process of destroying the ecosphere to
such an extent that we are now in the middle of a "mass extinction"
event. Some blame science itself, but science is neither good nor evil. It is
not a problem with science or technology. Neither is it a problem with
"human nature." It is a problem with the basic structure of our
economic system. If the economy doesn't serve our needs, then why do we serve
the economy?
The idea of socialism is not that this is very complicated,
or hard to understand, but for many it just simply sounds too good to be true.
We have been so ground down living under capitalism that we become convinced
that nothing as rational and beneficial as socialism can possibly be possible -
life just isn't like that, so there must be a catch somewhere. But socialism is
a perfectly reasonable and practical way of organising society and all the
various objections are based on the implanted bias of the prevailing capitalist
ideology. The terms "socialist" and "communist" have been
defined in a bewildering variety of ways. Likewise, the word
"capitalism" can mean a great many and sometimes contradictory things
to different people. When reading them it is always important to know what the
writer means by them. When the Socialist Party talk of socialism, we are
referring to the economic and political system most people know as communism.
Genuine socialism is an economic system in which all of the
industries and services (stores, restaurants, hospitals, mines, farms, etc.)
are socially owned, not privately owned, as in capitalism, or state owned, as
in Leninism/Stalinism (i.e., often referred to as "state capitalism"
due to its similarity to "pure" capitalism). The industries would
serve the needs and wants of everyone, not just the profit interests of the
few. In fact, production is carried out exclusively for the needs of everyone,
and not for private profit. The object or service itself is what counts, how
these impact the consumer, society and the planet. What matters is the purpose
and effect of the thing in question, not that someone can use it as a vehicle
to obtain more of something else: money. We’ve stripped away everything but its
utility and its impact on individual who receives it, the society and the
ecosystem.
The premise of socialism is that the Earth is abundant with
plentiful resource and our practice of rationing resources through monetary
methods is irrelevant and counter-productive to our survival. Modern society
has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing,
housing and medical care. We can develop a limitless supply of renewable,
non-contaminating energy. No money. No private property. Socialism is very
similar to that of the anarchist vision: a stateless society in which central
government had "withered away," local, ground-up control of all
affairs by strictly democratic processes based at the place of work, abolition
of the market system (no money, no buying and selling) and its replacement by a
system according to which people would voluntarily work for the common good to
the extent they were able under the understanding that they could receive
whatever they needed for free ("from each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs"). National boundaries and governments having
been eliminated, war would cease.
The most common rebuttal of socialist society is that it is
impossible to achieve because "you can't change human nature." What
Marx set out to prove was that not only had "human nature" changed
many times in the past: there is no such thing as a static human nature. We are
products of our environment, particularly of the economic system in which we
live. People living under feudalism are motivated by feudal motives and think
them natural and fixed, just as people living under capitalism are motivated by
capitalist motives and mistakenly think those natural and fixed. Capitalists
think money solves everything, when it is actually the cause of many social
ills. Capitalism isn't working, so what is the alternative? Some people think
that socialism sounds great but will never work in practice. They say it would
only work in a world with perfect people. The Socialist Party challenges that
view. Many people fall back on the argument Human Nature. Trouble with that is,
the argument supports our position. Human beings lived for 200,000 years
communally, and as recently as the 19th century in North America, Native
Americans lived that way. They shared pretty much everything. It’s natural for
us to do so. It’s natural for us to work together for the betterment of the
family, the neighborhood, the tribe, cooperatively. We evolved in that way,
knowing we needed each other to survive and then building from there. The vast
majority of us do not want to rule over others. We want to get along and live
in harmony and cooperate with our fellows.
“From each according to ability, to each according to needs”
will be the guiding precept for people. Free-access to the articles of consumption is
made possible by advances in technology that allow for super-abundance. The
means of production are held in common, negating the concept of ownership in
capital goods. Production is organized to provide for human needs directly
without any use for money. Free-access to the articles of consumption is made
possible by advances in technology and is predicated upon a condition of
material abundance. There are no political leaders; the people govern themselves
directly. People who don’t agree with the majority are free to participate in
general assemblies, make their case, persuade their fellow citizens that things
should change. They are unconstrained in this regard. They wouldn’t have to
worry about being locked up like Occupy protestors. Police wouldn’t have the
right to kick them out of meetings. They can protest and petition and rally
people to their cause all they wish, freely using all the resources available.
This, in fact, would be encouraged. A socialist education system would
encourage civic participation and free thinking. It would encourage critical
thinking and help develop critical thinking skills.
In socialism, no money or system of currency would exist. Instead, people would work according to their
abilities, and take according to their needs. Society would be one of free
access, where no items were held from those who need them due to lack of
ability to pay. We would live in a truly free society, with no political state
to control our actions, and none would be needed in a system without the
material conditions that breed crime and violence, thus making it "necessary"
to pass laws to control our behavior. We would be free from want, with no
poverty or unemployment. As a result, crime would virtually vanish altogether,
and we will have a society that functions with far less friction than any
previous system in existence. We would be free from the violent and disturbed
individuals that are bred by a capitalist society, which fosters ruthless
competition among people, both within and across nations.
Poor people even blame themselves for being poor. They can
have problems with self-worth, self-image and self-esteem. Self-preservation
and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone
enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the
fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and
unfailing. Unemployment has become part of our culture and we all know what it
means, because if we can't find a job, we don't get much money, and life gets
to be difficult with people looking down on the unemployed. A slave dislikes
another slave not doing as much work as they themselves have to do, or worse,
not working at all. This hatred is encouraged in the propaganda and it's an
easy thing to get people to hate the poor and/or unemployed. One answer the unemployed could give is
"Yes. I can find work. There's work all over that needs doing. But what I
can't find is paying work." Or to point out that workers never get paid
what their work is worth, because somebody else is taking the profits from that
work. The basic principle is that if someone else can sell the fruits of your labour
at a profit, then you don't get paid what the labour was worth. The work that
rich people pay to have done is not really that big a portion of the work that
needs to be done. Without profit, we can cut our work hours down significantly.
We’re no longer working to make a few people rich like rajahs, and our work
hours become much more aligned with actual production, as opposed to production
plus multi-million dollar CEO salaries plus shareholder dividends plus
advertising and sales departments, etc. We make what society needs, instead of
what the 1% tells us to. Work hours are dramatically shortened, because we no
longer work our day to create profit for ownership and shareholders. We work to
provide for ourselves and society alone. No profit. No money. No political
parties. No corporations. Again, all of us own the means of production, so
power over the economy can never be concentrated. It remains dispersed and
obviously diverse. Zero private ownership of the means of production. There
would be no “ruling class” or “technocratic class” or “management class.” We’re
all the managers, technocrats and rulers with no one having any more weight
than anyone else.
Socialism works. We all know this first hand. A family
operates as a form of socialism. From each of us came goods and services
according to our abilities. To each of us, those goods and services were provided
according to need. One or both parents went to work and provided the
housekeeping budget. The kids did no outside work yet ate well every day.
Everybody shares the domestic chores the best they could. Everyone pitches in,
does their share. Parents bring home food and share it out equally. They strive
to make sure each child has a fair equal shares of clothing, gifts for their
birthdays and Christmas. Family members care about taking care of each other,
and the system worked. Families help out other families being good neighbours. When
they invite friends over, they share their food offering the guest first choice
and they don’t charge prices for it. They don’t ration our advice and wisdom according
to who can afford it. At work, throughout the day, we work cooperatively with
our co-workers. We give of ourselves, our knowledge, sharing our skills,
without asking for money in return, expecting nothing more than a “thank you”. So
why don't we apply these rules to society at large? In fact, in various forms
we have. Free access to health care for all via the NHS. Free primary and
secondary education. Free access to libraries, museums and art galleries for
all. Free access to parks and beaches and recreation areas (although we are
losing much of this free access). This is natural for the vast majority of us.
This is our frequently decried “human nature”.
In the socialist “family” we must still do “planning”, if
we’re going to achieve social justice and prevent ecological catastrophe. But
it doesn’t have to be centrally planned. We do this locally, primarily. Local
control, with integration into larger areas; neighbourhoods, towns, districts,
regions and the world as a whole. As we get further away from the local, the
“planning” becomes more and more generalised, with specifics left up to local
economies. Within the plan, or more accurately, the plethora of linked plans basic
questions are asked and answered. . How can we grow the widest range of crops
in a sustainable fashion? How can we have the widest range of foods in a
sustainable fashion? How can we do all of this and treat animals in a humane,
compassionate manner? How to make sure our water supply is always safe, clean, Does
the product serve the social good? Is the product environmentally safe? Is it
safe for individuals, kids, the elderly? Is it sustainable? Does it work and
play well with others, with other locales, regions, the planet? Do we actually
need it? Broad guidelines create the umbrella, the boundaries, the general
goals and pathways and all localities are represented in all other bounded
areas. Localities are then free to implement the specifics according to what
works for them, as long as these also fit in holistically with the rest of the
communities. One family pulling together. Synergy. And that one family owns the
means of production. As in, all of us, together.
Socialism removes the need for competition and the need to
have losers in order that there be winners. Cooperative economies are designed
to be win-win situations. Everybody can be a winner together. Implementation of
a cooperative economy would establish the basis for a more humanistic
relationship among the members of society and give us all greater access to,
and control over the real economy. Everyone would have the opportunity to
contribute to the economic policies and to share in each other's wisdom and
guidance in the formulation of those policies. This clears the way for
"real" progress. This gives us true economic equality. This means
that nice people don't finish last. This is nothing less than the next stage in
our economic evolution, as a species. We need to embrace socialism. This is
where our society is heading and there’s no point fighting it. We are in this economic struggle together. Let’s help out our comrades today. A latent
potential power rests with the working class which if liberated will mobilise
the creative energies and talents of tens and hundreds of millions and
socialism and a better world for all people will move from being a possibility
to being a reality. The prime requirement for that evolution is a profoundly
free society, which is not controlled by force, authorities, leaders, or
government, but which volitionally changes itself.
The Socialist Party seeks create a healthier, happier,
better-educated and more cohesive society and this we say we can sustain.
Sometimes socialists can be justifiably accused at looking back at the past but
what we should remember is simply because others failed at their own, unique
projects. To-day, we have totally different context, variables, resources, people,
methods, and dreams. We can make educated guesses about our own situation to
provide sensible launching pads but if we don’t take into account our radical
difference from other times and places, it’s a huge mistake when attempting
radical change. EVERYONE will have equal say and equal power. The only people
who will be “discriminated” against are those who want to be predators and
accumulate riches unto themselves. And the only thing those capitalists will be
barred from doing is capitalism. They’ll too will get to enjoy the fruits of a
society that protects the environment, offers free education, free health care
to all, with open access to the Commons which stretches virtually everywhere.
They get to enjoy our parks, schools, libraries, museums and cultural venues,
at no charge. Clean water, clean air, verdant land as far as the eye can see,
safe, organic food supplies, safe, renewable energy created by society for
society — even capitalists can enjoy all these things. The only thing they need
to give up is their capitalism.
If capitalism is “natural” then we are indeed lost. With the
capitalist system everyone is in it for themselves, their own wallet, there’s
no way possible to get it right. Businesses don’t check with their competitors
regarding their orders and unsold orders, and they have no control, obviously,
over what their competitors do. They don’t get together with them to prevent
saturation and waste (unless there’s a monopoly cartel, a cartel of
monopolies.) There is NO plan of coordination to prevent duplication of effort
and of products. Already have 100 sugary cereals on the shelves and more being
added. Already have enough deodorant to last us centuries. We don’t even have
managed chaos. Everyone for themselves. If they think they can make a profit,
they’ll flood the market with garbage. Doesn’t matter if umpteen other
businesses are trying the same thing at the same time. Within their first four
years, 44% of all businesses fail. That’s primarily due to the “free for all”
nature of our economy.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
