Capitalist society is rushing headlong towards some form of
barbarism. So long as the insane striving for profit in this private property
economy exists, and it must exist as long as capitalism exists, war is forever
the prospect of life, while environmental destruction is forever the reward of
the overwhelming majority of the peoples of all countries. Capitalism is
incapable and unwilling to produce in the interests of the common good of the
people. Its production is organised solely in the interests of profit.
Invention, which could lighten the lives of the people and produce enough to
have plenty for all, is impossible in an economy where the main aim of those
who own the industries, mines, transportation and utilities is production for
profit. The capitalist vultures whose main occupation is to exploit workers for
their own class benefit gorge themselves on profiteering in war. Society cannot
and must not be controlled by capitalism. Society is doomed to destruction if
this happens. Only a socialist society, a society without classes, without war,
without competition, without unemployment, and poverty can properly utilise the
harnessing of the planet’s resources. A class society which lives by
exploitation can only subordinate such natural wealth to the interest of
private profit. Let our fellow-workers ponder this fact. Let them understand
that when the media talks about the risk of destruction to the world, they are
not joking at all. The destruction of the world is a grim reality unless the
social order of capitalism is abolished and replaced by socialism, the society
of all the people.
The Socialist Party does not accept the necessity for inequality,
poverty and war as a social and historical fact. On the contrary we can see
that social harmony and the common good can be achieved without them. Capitalism
has become an obsolete oppressive system that ought to be got rid off. A
relatively small minority recognise this and are consciously anti-capitalist,
but the masses continue trying to survive within the system rather than by
overthrowing it. So, there is no real possibility of overthrowing that system
and attempts to do so degenerate into futile reformism and/or terrorism,
whatever the “revolutionary” rhetoric. The injustices of slavery and serfdom
were eliminated by abolishing the social institutions of slavery and serfdom
themselves, not by prohibitions against maltreatment of slaves and serfs. The
injustices of wage labour, including unemployment, will be eliminated by
abolishing the social institution of wage labour itself, not by directions to
employers to treat their workers better. The social revolution as profound as
abolishing the ownership of slaves by slave owners. We are talking about a
transformation of private/state property to become social property working to a
common plan. The social revolution required to transform capitalist enterprises
into associations obviously involves far more than government decrees
transferring ownership. The revolution itself would have produced various
models of workers’ councils in many establishments, which would have taken over
responsibility for management from the previous authorities. But that only
establishes pre-conditions for the transformation, without actually solving the
problem itself. Moreover, in many enterprises the workers’ councils would be
weak or non-existent, or a screen behind which the old bosses are still in
charge, since revolution develops unevenly.
Anarcho-syndicalists
seem to imagine that if everybody democratically discusses everything,
production units will be able to exchange their products to supply each other’s
needs, and to supply consumer goods for the workers, with no more than
’co-ordination” by higher level councils of delegates from the lower level
establishments. Actually, things are not so simple, and any attempt to realise
that vision would only mean preserving market relations between independent
enterprises, still not working to a common social plan. No amount of elections
from below, directives from the revolutionary government, or consultations with
the masses will change the fact that these people will be responsible for the
policy decisions in industry and will have to know what they are doing. Nor
would it change the fact that they are doing the job currently done by
capitalist “bosses” and will have ample scope to develop into new capitalist
bosses themselves (and bosses with wider and more totalitarian powers). Electing
different bosses does not abolish the boss system. The big issues are not
decided “on the shop floor”, to use a phrase much loved by advocates of “self
management”. Capitalism is already transferring more and more authority on the
shop floor to workers themselves rather than supervisors or lower level line
management. This only highlights the fact that questions like unemployment are
imposed by market forces outside the control of “shop floor” management, or
higher management for that matter. Elected workers’ councils would be in exactly
the same position of having to lay off staff, if there is no market for the
goods they produce. Revolutionaries have to raise their sights above the shop
floor, to places where more important decisions are taken, and to issues on
which decisions simply are not taken in a market economy, because there are no
decision makers with authority over the economy as a whole, and our fate is
still subject to the blind workings of economic laws beyond our control. Just
saying “the workers will do it” does not solve a thing. Who are these workers
who will do it after the revolution, without discussing what they will do,
before the revolution? Power will pass from the hands of the bourgeoisie to the
hands of the working class, because the working class will put forward a clear
cut program to rescue society from the impasse it finds itself in under
bourgeois rule. Slogans simply demanding a change in power because it is “more
democratic” will get nowhere. The question of centralisation and
decentralisation of enterprise management, is quite separate from the question
of abolishing commodity production. The issue of “who decides, who rules” only
arises in the context of “what is to be done”.
The socialist solution is to dissolve the antagonism between
separate enterprises so that each is directly aiming to meet social needs as
best it can, rather than responding in its own separate interests. How do you
decide whether to build a steel mill, or a hospital, or a thermal or hydro-electrical
power station? Not just by democratically consulting steel workers, or hospital
patients, or construction workers, or delegates from all three and others
concerned. There must be some definite economic criteria for decision making.
It is no good just saying we will build socially useful things like schools and
hospitals instead of profitable things like steel mills or power stations. You
need steel to build schools and hospitals, and you need electric power to run
them. At present the only criterion according to which goods and services are
produced and investments are made to produce them, is market profitability. The
actively functioning capitalists today are the financial managers and similar
functionaries who are not the nominal owners of the capital they control, but
carry out the social functions of the capitalist controlling it, and live it up
accordingly.