As it should and ought to be

Humanity has at last conquered scarcity and achieved abundance. Enough for all is too much for the Capitalists, who find that they cannot distribute plenty - at a profit. Of course they can't. Their remedy, therefore, is to stop the machinery, as they are doing and hereafter to control production to keep it well under human need and so maintain prices and profits. Post-scarcity may seem like something from a work of science fiction. But rapid advances in seldom-reported technologies, coupled with sociological forecasts of our transition towards a new kind of civilization, say otherwise. Take, for example, 3-D printing which may someday inspire the development of a nanotechnology “everything machine,” a perfect panacea to all scarcity and disequilibrium in the world economy. Imagine if people could make anything in the household? What need would there be? Today’s 3-D printers maybe crude compared with what is going to arrive in coming decades. Strides in nanotechnology and biotechnology could potentially move us away from a profit-oriented economy to a post-scarcity situation that fits the description of a socialist mode of production with maximal freedom. Nano and bio machines may someday be household appliances that can literally do anything we want of them, and so our capacity to help ourselves and our fellow man will be so high that “economics” itself will become an outdated word describing a concern of primitives. The idea of post-scarcity might seem fictitious still, but it is every bit as plausible as democratization of information and press power through the Internet would surely have seemed twenty years ago. Technology reports are worth reading in combination with political and social theory, because many developments in science and technology are making a post-scarcity world seem more and more possible every day.

The myth of scarcity has one purpose: to justify not sharing the social wealth. There is no evidence that society does not have, and never could have, sufficient resources to meet human needs. On the contrary, the resources spent on war alone could provide everyone in the world with a very good life. The myth of scarcity was invented to justify the growing gap between what is possible – a world of plenty for all – and what exists – fabulous wealth for a few and declining living standards for the rest. If production was directed to meeting human needs, instead of making profit, there would be no scarcity. When one need was filled, we would fill the next; and when all needs were filled, we would have leisure time for other pursuits.

In most nations, the production of wealth has consistently outpaced the growth of the populations that produce that wealth. However, capitalism is not about sharing. Because the means of producing wealth and the wealth produced are both privately owned, only a small elite benefit from rising productivity. Workers were promised that the new automated technology would raise productivity so high that people wouldn’t know what to do with all their leisure time. However, like the rise in wealth, the rise in leisure went only to the leisured class. Since the 1970s, the amount of time Americans spend on the job has risen steadily, and leisure time has declined by one-third. Workers have less time to sleep, eat and relate to their children. Overwork exists alongside chronic under-employment. Twenty percent of workers are unable to secure as many hours as they need to make ends meet.

Most of the world’s starving people live in nations that export food. In India, where more than half the children are malnourished, the government spends more to stockpile food than it does to feed the hungry. In the world’s richest nation, 40 million Americans have difficulty putting food on the table, while up to a third of all food produced is discarded. Over the past 30 years, food production has consistently outpaced population growth. The problem is not too many hungry bellies, but that food is sold for profit, and too many people can’t afford it. The same is true for medical care. There are not more people than can be cared for, but more people than can be cared for profitably. Because these truths cannot be admitted, social problems are blamed on over-population and too many people wanting too much. Sadly, many in the environmental movement have largely embraced the myth of over-population and creating a fear of human beings. In t seminal work, the 1962 book, ‘Silent Spring’, Rachel Carson rightly lays the blame of the destruction of the natural world where it deserves - on the “gods of profit and production” and a world “in which the right to make a dollar at any cost is seldom challenged.” The belief that social and environmental problems are caused by too many people persists, not because it is true, but because it serves the ruling class. The unpalatable truth – that capitalism builds wealth for the few by impoverishing the many and destroying their environment – cannot be acknowledged. To do so would be to admit that what is good for the capitalist class is bad for the world. The myth of scarcity is necessary to reconcile the obscenity of growing wealth alongside growing poverty.

According to the World Health Organization, 10 million children died in 2004 from largely preventable causes like malnutrition and infections. At least two million child deaths a year could be prevented by existing vaccines and most of the rest could be prevented by access to clean water, sanitation and other basic necessities. Nearly 1.3 billion people live in absolute poverty, and more than 15 million adults aged 20 to 64 die every year from preventable causes. The pro-capitalist lobby so to continue the rule of the few and the misery of the many is to obscure what would otherwise be obvious: that ordinary people create all of society’s wealth and deserve their share of it. The elite who rule society can never accept this account of the matter. If they did, they would have to abandon their system of private ownership and competition for profit. Because they cannot do this, they promote the myth of scarcity instead. The central concept of capitalism is the idea that there isn’t enough to go around. Hence we are confronted with the idea that there isn’t enough food, aren’t enough jobs, isn’t enough housing, or aren’t enough university places because there is a certain fixed amount of all these things. We then compete in the “market” where the victory of one person necessarily comes at the expense of someone else.

Historically, control over land has always been vital to the livelihoods of the world's poorest people. Lack of access to land not only denies people the ability to grow or to gather their own food: it is also excludes them from a source of power. Who controls the land -- and how they do so -- affects how land is used and to whom the benefits for its use accrue.

Highly-concentrated land ownership is now a feature of agriculture in both North and South. In the US, nearly half the country's farmland is held by just 124,000 corporations or individuals -- just four per cent of the total number of farm owners.

 In Guatemala, 65 per cent of the best agricultural land is owned by just two per cent of the population -- a figure that is not atypical for other countries in Central America.

In Brazil, a mere 340 of the largest landowners, many of whom are foreign-owned transnational companies, own more land than all the country's peasants put together. The 18 largest landowners own an area equivalent to that of The Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland combined.

In the Philippines, five per cent of all families control 80 per cent of the agricultural land, despite seven land reform laws since 1933.

In the Philippines, about 72 per cent of rural households (three-fifths of the Philippine population) are landless or near-landless. Tenant farmers must contend with rents which account for between 25 and 90 per cent of their production costs. Usury at rates of 100 per cent in three months or 50 per cent in one month is common. Half of all those who make a living from agriculture are farm workers, often earning as little as $1 a day.

In Central America as a whole, small and medium-sized farms producing for local consumption and local sale represent about 94 per cent of existing farms but use only 9 per cent of the farmland. Meanwhile, 85 per cent of the best farmland is used to grow crops for export.

In Costa Rica, 55 per cent of all rural households are landless or near landless, whereas the cattle owned by 2,000 politically-powerful ranching families occupy more than half of the nation's arable, most fertile land. As in other countries throughout the region, smallholders have been pushed from their land into areas where soils are poor and prone to erosion.

In Guatemala, huge swathes of land owned by the biggest landlords -- an estimated 1.2 million hectares -- lie idle, either because the price of export crops is too low to justify planting or because the land is being held simply for speculation. Meanwhile, some 310,000 landless labourers over 20-years of age are without permanent employment.  A complicating factor is that ownership or continued access to land is not secure for many people. Some 22 per cent of farms in the country are held by squatters with limited rights.

Landlessness and poverty go hand-in-hand.

 Eight out of ten farmers in the Central America do not own enough land to sustain their families, forcing them to look for seasonal jobs.

 In Guatemala, government figures from the mid-1980s estimated that 86 per cent of families were living below the official poverty line, with 55 per cent classified as "extremely poor". Rates of malnutrition reflect these figures: a national survey in 1980 found that only 27 per cent of all children between six months and five years showed normal physical development, with 45 per cent showing moderate to severe retardation in their growth.

Land concentration in the Third World is not accidental . It has always been fiercely resisted, not least by popular movements demanding land redistribution. Imbalances of power, however, have enabled landowners to ensure that, by and large, land reform programmes have either been put on hold, subverted or short-lived. In other instances, they have been framed, not as a means of addressing insecurity of tenure, but as a means of replacing peasant systems of farming with industrialized agriculture. Some governments, in alliance with richer farmers and international development agencies, used "land reform" to appropriate land for the Green Revolution instead of freeing it up for peasant agriculture. The ultimate aim of such "reforms" was to transform Third World farming into "a dynamic productive sector" by extending export crop production and by drawing peasants still further into the cash economy where they were at a disadvantage.

The promotion of off-farm inputs -- chemical fertilizers, pesticides and improved seeds -- has forced farmers to buy what was previously free, in addition to locking them into a cycle of diminishing returns on fertilizers and increasing pesticide use. As a result, thousands of small farmers -- including those who had gained land under previous land reform programmes -- have fallen into debt and their land holdings bought up by richer neighbours. In South Korea, where the army was mobilized to rip up traditional varieties of rice and to compel farmers to plant Green Revolution varieties, the number of rural households in debt rose "from 76 per cent in 1971 to 90 per cent in 1983 and to an astounding 98 per cent in 1985." As a result, farmers have left the land in droves: 34,000 migrated to the cities in 1986, 41,000 in 1987 and 50,000 in 1988. Many of the farmers who remain have now abandoned the new varieties and are returning to planting traditional seeds.

Thus, for marginal groups of people, the promotion of Green Revolution technologies -- the hallmark of "efficient" farming -- has generated yet more scarcity of land and of food as the land becomes further concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Widespread ecological degradation has also followed the systematic undermining of ecologically-sound systems of agriculture and the adoption of Green Revolution techniques. Such degradation is now in itself a major cause of socially-generated scarcity. In the Sudan, for example, the combination of mechanized farming, monoculture growing and the search for quick profits has caused an estimated 17 million hectares of rain-fed arable land -- almost half the country's potential arable land -- to lose its topsoil. In central India, for example, the preferential diversion of limited groundwater supplies to richer farmers growing sugar cane and grapes has created severe water scarcity for poorer sections of the community. In many states, the mining of groundwater for commercial agriculture has led to ground-waters declining by 5-10 metres, generating a scarcity of water for subsistence farmers and villagers whose water demands (unlike those of large industrialized farms) are minimal. In the state of Maharastra, some 23,000 villages are now without water, while in Gujarat the figure is 64,500 villages. In such areas, access to water is increasingly restricted to those who can afford to deepen their wells regularly.

As land and water become increasingly degraded, and control over such resources increasingly concentrated, so the livelihoods of peasant farmers, the landless and the near-landless become increasingly precarious. No longer able to rely on growing their food, the vast majority have to buy their food. How much and what they get to eat depends on their ability to earn money or on the state's willingness to support them.

Discussions of population and food supply which leave out power relations will always mask the true nature of food scarcity -- who gets to eat and who doesn't -- and lead to "solutions" that are simplistic, technocratic, frequently oppressive and gender-blind -- all of which, ultimately, reinforce the very structures that create ecological damage and hunger. To reiterate: so long as one person has the power to deny food to another, even two people may be judged "too many".

Those committed to fighting for a better world should focus on the real cause of mass starvation and ecological crises: the capitalist system itself. If we got rid of the warped priorities of capitalist accumulation with all its gargantuan waste of resources, the environmental “footprint” of humanity, even with ten billion of us, would be far less than it currently is with seven. For a socialist society to succeed, abundance, rather than scarcity, must be the norm. The immense technological advances in production over the last couple centuries have made such a world feasible--a world based on Karl Marx's famous principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Socialism is based on the idea that we should use the vast resources of society to meet people’s needs. It seems so obvious--if people are hungry, they should be fed; if people are homeless, we should build homes for them; if people are sick, the best medical care should be available to them.

Adapted from here

James Maxton

Book Review from the August 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

"If it were not such a dreadful thing to say of anybody, I should say he meant well"

- The Way of All Flesh

A biography can be written in one of two ways. It may be an "objective" study, an attempt at critically assessing the man, his work and his place in history. On the other hand, it may be a personal piece—an extended obituary notice, wherein the author pays his tribute to the departed. John McNair's James Maxton, the Beloved Rebel (Allen and Unwin, 12s. 6d.) is unashamedly the latter: a chronicle and eulogy of a leader whose faults, if he had them, are allowed no place.

Maxton is presented as a man of deep, passionate sincerity, devoted to the welfare of the poor, earning the affection even of opponents by his integrity and his refusal to compromise. He opposed the two world wars which his Labour colleagues supported; in the first he was imprisoned, in the second he led the tiny I.L.P. group of M.P.s that constituted the permanent opposition to all war measures. Above all, Maxton is shown as a Socialist, aiming to abolish exploitation and misery, working for the unification of all interested parties towards that end.

The book is heavily—perhaps unavoidably—weighted with reference to Maxton's Scottish background: for example, the poverty of the working class seems, at any rate to this writer, to be made almost a regional affair. Nevertheless, it provides an informal, informative history of Labour politics from 1920. The growing Labour movement threw up men like Maxton, protesting against the degradation of the working class. From 1920 to 1939 there was never less than a million unemployed. Towns became derelict; children were born, grew up and married on the dole. "Ten million working men, women and children underfed, underclothed, badly housed at a time which was 'generally regarded as prosperous.'" (J. Kuczynski, A Short History of Labour Conditions in Great Britain).

Maxton's party, the I.L.P., supplied most of the Labour leaders of the "twenties"; of the 192 members in the first Labour Parliament, 120 belonged to the I.L.P. Describing itself—in the New Leader in 1923—as "the militant Socialist wing of the Labour Party" the I.L.P. pressed vigorously a "living wage policy" aimed at "a narrowing of the gulf that separates rich and poor." Mr. McNair makes much of this policy and its advocates, and thereby raises some awkward questions. It may be protested that his is a work of biography, not of political theory, but since much of the praise of Maxton rests on the policies he pursued, facts must be faced.

For the truth is that, however ardently Maxton spoke of Socialism and the abolition of poverty, he and his party had contracted for neither: the "wild men from the Clyde" were as dangerous to the Capitalist system as a pantomime lion to its audience. Leave aside, if you like, the economic aspects—for example, that Socialism has nothing to do with wages; leave that aside and consider merely that many of the men Maxton supported and Mr. McNair praises were avowed upholders of capitalism.

Thus, a whole chapter of the book is given to reporting Maxton's allegation of murder against the Tory Government for the malnutrition deaths of poor people's children, and his subsequent suspension from the House of Commons. But in 1924, when Labour was in office, Ramsay MacDonald—Prime Minister, a leader of the I.L.P.—told the House: "We are not going to diminish industrial capital in order to provide relief." There was no denunciation by Maxton, nor is there any reference by Mr. McNair. Again, John Wheatley is praised for his work on housing as Minister of Health in the first Labour Cabinet. But Wheatley himself made quite clear what his position was. Introducing his housing bill in 1924, he said:

"Labour does not propose to interfere with private enterprise in the building of houses . . . It says to the man with small capital: 'Instead of putting your private capital into a risky investment, lend it to the local authorities at 4½ per cent. Without your having any trouble at all you will get a safe return for your money . . . ' The Labour Party's programme on housing is not a Socialist programme at all."

What is more, he repeated it a week later:

"I notice that the Right Honourable member for Twickenham in criticizing my proposals the other day, said: 'This is real Socialism' . . . The proposals which I am submitting are real Capitalism½an attempt to patch up in the interests of humanity, a capitalist ordered society,"

Maxton's hope was that the Labour Party would become Socialist. In 1929, seeing his lack of an overall majority, he urged that it should attempt sweeping legislation on behalf of the workers; it would fail, of course, but then could turn to the electorate and ask for the mandate it would undoubtedly receive. Perhaps in that one incident is shown what Maxton really failed to perceive. All his life he had hopes in the Labour Party as the agent for emancipating the working class; he never saw that the Labour Party had never set out to that end—or, when he did see it, he hoped he was mistaken.

Maxton lacked, in fact, any clear-cut conception of Socialism, much as he talked about it. In 1928 he debated with the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and expressed his entire agreement with the case Fitzgerald put forward—adding that he appreciated also the Fabians and the Communist Party! He held that Socialism was a question of "human will and human intelligence," to be attained by any variety of possible means.

Indeed, the I.L.P.'s attitude to the Communist Party and to Russia comprises one of the more curious matters in the book. One might set aside Maxton's early co-operation with Gallacher, but McNair will not do so. He writes with undisguised sympathy for the Russian Revolution and the early Bolshevik Government, condemning the British Government's attitude towards it. The I.L.P. today condemns the Russian dictatorship as strongly as everyone else, but Mr. McNair does not explain the difference. Would it be too uncharitable to suggest that the I.L.P. was "taken in" by the illusion of Russian "Socialism" and can deal with its mistakes only by ignoring them?

Maxton's lack of understanding is made the more regrettable by his undoubted sincerity. He was a fine orator, commanding respect and sympathy, but his moral indignation against injustice was never supported by analysis of the real causes of that injustice. Those who followed him were impelled by the same emotional force that drove him: "beloved rebel" is an apt and proud title, but its pleasant emotional sound is the key to Maxton's weakness.

Much has been written in recent times about the "decline" of the Labour movement. The phrase lacks accuracy, since a decline implies a height previously reached. The Labour movement gained its strength from the hopes of working people: men were sent to Parliament who spoke fervently of their opposition to capitalism, inequality and privilege. Many of them, unlike the Tories and Liberals, were from the working class itself, had experienced poverty, knew the problems. When at last they came to govern with an unassailable majority, after the war, their policies gave birth to nothing; the real truth is that they had always been barren.

The I.L.P., a negligible force today, was nothing more in its strongest days. It stood for a benevolent capitalism, its leaders for the most part unaware that capitalism contained no seeds of benevolence. Only Maxton's idealism distinguishes him from the MacDonalds and Hendersons and Snowdens; had he attained parliamentary office, he would have been no more able than they to deserve the title of "beloved rebel," or even rebel. Perhaps the most pointed comment on all that Mr. McNair's book describes is contained in two recent death notices—David Kirkwood and George Buchanan. These, with Maxton, were firebrands among the "wild men" of the 1920s. They died reconciled to capitalism: the one titled, the other with his wildness tamed by service on the National Assistance Board.

Robert Barltrop  

Socialism is our hope

PRODUCTION FOR USE AND FREE ACCESS

Many say socialism will never work but exactly where on this planet is capitalism working except in the interests of the privileged few? Ask yourself “Is this is as good as it gets?” Pro-capitalist apologists for the system will often readily admit that capitalism is “far from perfect,” but as socialist society is utopian, capitalism remains not only practical, but the best system we could possibly have. The terms socialism and communism are also often associated with the murderous dictatorships set up by the Bolsheviks in Russia and later copied by their followers all over the world. Although these State socialists talked of creating a free and equal communist society, their authoritarian methods ensured that they ended up creating the opposite, a totalitarian nightmare. The revolution will not be made by a socialist party. The task is too complex to be accomplished by a minority. A free socialist society needs the active participation of millions of people. And crucially that participation can only happen voluntarily. Socialism cannot be imposed on the people. It has to be a voluntary libertarian process. It does not matters what term we use: we can speak of "communitarianism” and so forth; what matters is its content.

If we are serious about achieving new society, then we have to start about it now. It isn't going to fall from the sky. The longer we wait to begin acting for ourselves the longer it's going to be till we achieve our aim. Also many people are used to letting others run society for them. Sure they might get indignant over corruption or a particular war, but it's fair to say that their actual involvement in changing anything is pretty low. Much of the time we're powerless to control things in our lives and our apathy is understandable but it is a game changer when we, the people, get a taste of our collective power. Suddenly, politics become relevant in a way they never were before. The whole point of having a minority of brainy and benevolent leaders is that they will do the difficult work for you. As such it follows that you yourself don't need to change, to participate on an equal footing with everybody else, to think about why we need socialism, you don't need to get deeply involved in making it happen. This will be fatal for any revolution because the new society will face tough times. But if people have a good understanding of what they are fighting for and have made a deep personal commitment to achieving it, it's unlikely that they are going to let it go easily.

There is a common criticism of the Socialist Party that we just say we have to wait until socialism and then racism, sexism and homophobia will all disappear. But there's no way we will ever see a successful socialist revolution unless we fight against these oppressions in the here and now. Without presenting arguments against such prejudices and promoting sympathy and solidarity, scape-goating the disadvantaged and the vulnerable can appeal to people.  It's one of a time-honoured tried and tested strategies used by the ruling class to sow divisions between workers to keep us from blaming them. Mankind faces many challenges which are not a direct result of capitalism, yet cannot be solved because of capitalism’s peculiarities. Socialism does not automatically solve these issues, but rather it merely removes the barriers to solving them.

The system is capitalism. Under it a small minority rule in fact if not in name, and profit is the be-all and end-all of economic life; human needs come second—if at all. Freed from the clutches of the profit-gougers, the major industries must be brought under common ownership and the economy must be planned by the people themselves in their own areas of work. The profit system cannot make use of automation for the benefit of society; socialism will! The future society that will be constructed under socialism will reduce work to an insignificant part of daily life and offer the individual the fullest possibilities to pursue his own abilities and interests. Socialism is governed by a logic of humanism and solidarity aimed at satisfying human needs, rather than the pursuit of profit. For social wealth to satisfy the needs of everyone in the country, it is essential that the fundamental means of production are not monopolized by a few and used for their own benefit, but are collective, social ownership. But social ownership is not the same as state property. What happened in the Soviet Union and the countries that followed its example was not real ownership of the production process by the workers, but simply a nationalization of the means of production. The state become the legal owner of the means of production. They ceased to be owned by a few, to become property of the state supposedly representing the workers. However, the production process itself underwent very few changes: a big socialist factory differed little from its capitalist counterpart; workers continued to be a mere cog in the machine; they had little or no participation in decision-making at the work- place. This "state capitalism" retained the hierarchical organization of production; the manager had "dictatorial" power, and orders were transmitted from top to bottom. Workers need to take in their hands (appropriate) the production process and be involved in organizing it. Instead of feeling like one of many cogs in the wheel; they can contribute with their ideas and knowledge acquired through practice, combining thinking and doing, so that through work they reach their full development as social human beings.

If the means of production are to be socially owned -- and this means owned by all -- the products should satisfy the needs of the people, and the surpluses thus obtained cannot be monopolized only by one specific group of workers, but must be shared with the community. Who determines these needs? It must be the people themselves who define and prioritize, through a participatory planning process.

Socialism is all about producing abundance and worldwide, there is an abundance of resources to take care of everyone. As the American Trotskyist James Cannon explained:

“In the socialist society, when there is plenty and abundance for all, what will be the point in keeping account of each one's share, any more than in the distribution of food at a well-supplied family table? You don't keep books as to who eats how many pancakes for breakfast or how many pieces of bread for dinner. Nobody grabs when the table is laden. If you have a guest, you don't seize the first piece of meat for yourself, you pass the plate and ask him to help himself first.”

It’s Time Now To Demand True Freedom!

Boundless Possibilities  

Simply reiterating the slogan “another world is possible,” as occurs so often today, hardly adds up to a convincing vision of a society that points beyond the limits of both “free market” capitalism and the failed “socialist” regimes that once competed with it for world dominance. Why have so many movements stopped short of challenging capital itself, in favour of instead emphasizing relatively restricted social reforms and self-limiting revolutions? Socialists should take some responsibility for failing to providing a viable alternative to capitalism. The discontent with the many ills of existing society falls short of a serious challenge to the system as a whole.

A common cliché in regards to the writings of Karl Marx is that he had little to say about what might replace it. This is not quite true. For sure the technical details of socialist society or a comprehensive blueprint for such is missing but there has been more than one attempt to clarify the nature of the post-capitalist classless society, which Marx alternately labeled “socialism” or “communism” from what he actually wrote.

Raya Dunayevskaya wrote back in 1950, the important “opposition is not between ‘anarchy’ and ‘plan,’ but between the plan of the capitalist, which is always despotic in form, and the plan of freely associated labor, which is always cooperative.”

Socialism can be defined as the democratic management of society’s vital resources.  Socialists condemnation of capitalism is not be that promote excessive individualism. On the contrary: This market society is far from individualistic enough. We should ask: How liberating, for the individuals, is a world economy that plunges millions of people into unemployment and poverty? Is it out of consideration for the individuals that those who remain in waged labour are exposed to ever higher work pressures, enforced overtime or equally as damaging, contracts that cut hours? And what on earth has it got to do with individualism when the marketing and advertising business put billions of dollars into a most cynical manipulation and exploitation of the emotions and social insecurities of individuals?

Socialists assert that for us common people, increases in individual liberty has always been achieved through collective struggle. Personal sacrifices were made for a concrete, attainable goal of increased liberty and dignity for all individuals. The same holds true for the labour movement: The worker surrenders some part of his or her individual time and resources to the collective movement because this in return strengthens her or his position as an individual in a society dominated by capital. It holds true for any example of this enlightened form of self-interest we call solidarity. The unions and reform organisations fight to defend what already exists. To socialists, the welfare state is not sacred. But neither is it to be dismantled and privatised. But socialists fight for what does not yet exist.

Marx nowhere in any of his writings distinguishes between a socialist and a communist stage of history. Marx used the word socialism and communism completely interchangeably in his work. In his later work, Critique of the Gotha Program written at the very end of his life, for instance, Marx speaks of a lower and a higher phase of communism, the first, the lower phase, still bearing the birthmarks of the older society, where the higher phase does not bear those birthmarks. But the notion that socialism and communism are distinct stages in history, was alien to Marxist thought because he was really saying a lower and higher phase of socialism.

Marx never identified the dictatorship of the proletariat, a stage in which the working class assumes political control over society with socialism. For Marx the “dictatorship of the proletariat” refers not to “apolitical social relations of production” but to a political form that exists prior to the emergence of a socialist or communist society. He wrote in Critique of the Gotha Program “between capitalist and communist (or socialist) society there lies the period the revolutionary transformation from one into the other. Corresponding to this is the political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship or the proletariat."

Marx clearly refers to this dictatorship which meant to him NOT the dictatorship of the party on behalf of the workers, but rather the rule over society by the working class as a whole democratically. He explicitly says “this lies between capitalism and socialist or communist society.” The failure to distinguish between the political form of transition, between capitalism and socialism, from socialism itself, is extremely widespread in a lot of discussions on Marx and on contemporary issues, but it has no basis in Marx’s writings.

Nor did he refer to it as rule by a state at all in the conventional sense. For Marx and Engels, the most outstanding exemplar of the dictatorship of the proletariat was the Paris Commune of 1871, which “was a Revolution against the State itself, this supernaturalist abortion of society.” The dictatorship of the proletariat was for Marx a thoroughly expansive democratic form, which aspired for the “reabsorption of the State power by society.”

In a word, Marx understood the dictatorship of the proletariat as a political transitional form between capitalism and post-capitalism. It did not refer to a post-capitalist society. A socialist society would have no proletarian “dictatorship”—since with the abolition of classes the proletariat ceases to exist!

Marx left no room for a “transition” to socialism based on the principles of the old society. He conceived of a sharp break between capitalism and socialism.

Marx insisted that only “freely associated people” could put an end to the dominance of capital. Simply replacing the domination of the market by the state is no solution at all. Marx is explicit on this:

“The money system in its present form can be completely regulated … without the abandonment of the present social basis: indeed, while its contradictions, its antagonisms, the conflict of classes, etc. actually reach a higher degree….” This anticipation of state-capitalism that called itself socialism could not be clearer.

“Now if this assumption is made, the general character of labor would not be given to it only by exchange; its assumed communal character would determine participation in the products. The communal character of production would from the outset make the product into a communal, general one. The exchange initially occurring in production, which would not be an exchange of exchange values but of activities determined by communal needs and communal purposes, would include from the beginning the individual’s participation in the communal world of products […] labor would be posited as general labor prior to exchange, i.e., the exchange of products would not in any way be the medium mediating the participation of the individual in general production. Mediation of course has to take place.”

Here, Marx contends that labor in a new society would be radically different than in capitalism, where discrete acts of individual labor are connected to one another (or are made general) through the act of commodity exchange. In a new society, labor becomes general (or social) prior to the exchange of products, on the basis of the “the communal character of production” itself. The community distributes the elements of production according to the individuals’ needs instead of being governed by social forms that operate independently of their deliberation. Marx was not referring to the existence of small, isolated communities that operate in a world dominated by value production. He never adhered to the notion that socialism was possible in one country, let alone one locale. He was pointing instead to a communal network of associations in which value production has been superseded on a systemic level. Moreover, while exchange of some sort would exist in a new society, it would be radically different than what prevails in capitalism, which is governed by the exchange of commodities. Instead of being based on exchange values, prices, or markets, distribution would be governed by an exchange of activities that are “determined by communal needs and communal purposes.” People are no longer controlled by the economic mechanism; the economic mechanism is instead controlled by the people. Marx is envisioning a totally new kind of social mediation, one that is direct instead of indirect.

Within the collective society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products. Marx is not describing a higher phase of socialism or communism, in which “from each according to their ability, from each according to their needs” prevails. He is describing the lower phase of socialism or communism, “just as it emerges from capitalist society, which is in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. And yet even here, at this defective stage of a new society, there is no value production. Indeed, he even says that as of this initial phase “the producers do not exchange their products.” Marx’s is not suggesting that the operative principle of the lower phase of socialism or communism is “from each according to their ability, to each according to their work.” No such formulation appears either in the Critique of the Gotha Program or in any of Marx’s work. Marx’s concept of socialism or communism is based on the abolition of wage labor, capital and value production. The workers are not “paid” according to whether or not their labor conforms to some invariable standard over which they have no control.

Marx gave us an inspiring vision of the future we're fighting for. The more attractive that vision, the more others will wish to join us in the struggle. We have been trained to obey those with money and power, and where it seems natural to spend many hours a day being bossed around while doing labor that others have defined as necessary for profits. We have also been blessed with the traditions of movements that have taken over workplaces and neighborhoods and, in one way or another. It will be the working people of the world who will have to develop ways to make decisions, ways to work together, and ways to protect ourselves and everyone from the damages that capitalism will have created. Given our different histories and different geographical areas plus varying make-ups of the working class, we will have different conceptions of our immediate needs and interests, and of which problems it is most urgent to solve. We will also disagree over the best ways to organize decision-making at workplaces, in localities, and globally. All these disagreements will lead to political disputes within the working-class that we hope and expect will become the united in solidarity across the world. If successful, we will create a world of freely associated labor where we decide what use values need to be produced, make them available to those who need or want them, and do this in an environmentally sustainable way in which we find ways to enjoy our lives and fulfill our potentials through actions that are sociable and helpful to ourselves and others as well.

Socialist Standard No.1330 June 2015

• Editorial: The Aftermath
• Pathfinders: Post-election Blues
• Letter: Who's Spreading Confusion?
• Halo Halo! Pope Francis and the Devil
• Cooking the Books: Marx and the SNP
• Material World: Indigenous Suicides
• Greasy Pole: Wandering in Wolverhampton
• Hype and Hypocrisy – the Magna Carta
• Stressed Out
• ‘Bandh’ Strikes: Not the Answer
• Complicity
• Party News: Our Election Campaign
• Cooking the Books: Property Poverty
• Mixed Media: Bowie's Piano Man
• Book Reviews: 'An Alternative Labour History - Worker Control and Workplace Democracy,' & ' Towards A Science of Belief Systems'
• Silk Roads, Old and New
• Proper Gander: ‘I Love The Smell Of Rubbish In The Morning’
• 50 Years Ago: Where We Stand
• Action Replay: The Big Fight
• Voice From the Back
• Cartoon: Free Lunch

Keir Hardie Debunked

Letter to the Editors from the August 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir, I have stood by Hardie through the years. I have held him to be a man apart from the motley group of members and fakers of capitalism, to whom he has given political existence, and that he calls his Labour Party. I at one time allowed him to nominate me for membership of the National Branch, deciding that if his party was good enough for Hardie it should be good enough for me, and that if Hardie could do something with such elements I might. So I allowed myself to become a member of the Independent Labour Party, and have remained one up to within a week. I have hit out against the policy and tactics of the Party whenever I have occupied its platform, but I retained my membership simply because of my reverence for Hardie. Again and again I have contended with S.D.F. men: "Hardie is something bigger than these reform fellows. He means more than reform. He is a revolutionist—a kind of eagle among carrion crows." But since last week I admit myself beaten. I have been sold. Most of the workers are sold many times. You knock down their idol and they instantly get another. I have not been sold many times, but I admit I have been once—in Hardie.

Edward VII by the grace of the god Capital, and, in obedience to its will, that he might secure for it some sort of a basis to contract a further loan with Russia, was deputed to go and kow-tow with the bloody Czar.

Hardie had an opportunity to bring home to the House of Commons the horrors of Russia, and to fix them upon the Czar, backed by his "black hundred."

And Hardie got up his case well. Oh, yes, the facts were all right and the rhetoric also. Not for one moment do I think that I could have marshalled the facts as well, or have painted the pictures as vividly. He gave them the thousands that have rotted in Russian prisons during the last two years; he gave them the thousands that have been butchered by the emissaries of the "black hundred." And he brought the whole of the atrocities hone to the Czar telling the "House" how the Czar had thanked the "black hundred" for murdering wholesale the people of Russia, under the cry that they were Jews, and adorning himself and his child with the badge of their order as a token of his appreciation of their services to Russia. Then Hardie was called upon by the Deputy-Speaker to withdraw.

Well, with such a case, with such an array of facts, themselves completely pointing the charge, one would have thought that the mere human instrument, called upon to belie himself and deny them would have refused with quiet scorn, and have surrendered himself to any consequences.

But Hardie did not do this. He lost touch with the murdered in Russia, and the thousands groaning in its prisons. He commenced melodramatic word-play with the politician, Emmett. He ducked and edged and quibbled, and allowed horrible facts to be smothered in a play of words between himself and the Deputy-Speaker. And then when the latter insisted that the charge be withdrawn, Hardie withdrew the charge so far as it referred to the Czar and his Government.

Like Dan 'Connell, like Fergus O'Connor, like John Burns and a host of others—spouters, orators, fine rhetoricians, but not fighters, not revolutionists—so Hardie, when an opportunity arrived demanding that he should translate his speech into a bit of action, failed.

So Hardie has gone with the rest of them. The Socialist Movement has learnt that it must never trust him to use any great opportunity. Some of the papers had it that after "Artful Dodger" Asquith decided that he had bottled Hardie, he turned his face to his followers with a sardonic smile which said, "How's that for diplomacy?"

But had Asquith's man meant business, he might have retrieved his position even here, and the Whig lawyer might have had another unpleasant illustration of the fact that he who laughs last laughs best.

Had Hardie meant business, he might have proceeded with his speech, after the passage-at-arms with the Deputy-Speaker, he might have filled the ears of the "House" with the horrors of Russia; he might have piled fact upon fact proving what he had said, and then concluded: "the Russian Government is an autocracy, the Czar is a despot, and with these facts before me I say that the monstrous activities that I have laid before the "House" are the direct expression of the will of the Czar and his infamous Councillors, that he alone is responsible, being autocrat and despot, and I refuse to withdraw the charge." Then "Artful Dodger" Asquith would have smiled quite another smile.

But Hardie didn't mean business—and why? Was it his Parliamentary screw; or fear of not getting a seat in another Parliament, or fear of disrupting further that strange motley he calls the Labour Party, or what? It matters not. Once more some little political mote got into the popular leader's eye and blurred his vision as to the great matter for which he was pleading.

Then there was Grayson. He tells the people he wanted to say something. Why didn't he say it? Some of the papers say he was upon his feet before Henderson. Some of them say that the Deputy-Speaker called Grayson. Anyway, the pair got the floor pretty much together. Why did not Grayson proceed without it in the least recognising the existence of the man who had a compact with the Liberals to shut up the debate at a given time, or of it became in any way dangerous? Grayson may tell the mob outside, who have never been into the House of Commons, that he was prevented, but this will not go down with any man who has been into the Commons, and who knows that it requires a combination of circumstances rather more forceful than the ones of this debate to prevent a man in dead earnest from having his say in a hole like the House of Commons.

Anyhow, the debate upon the King's visit to Russia has been fruitful of much good to the English workers. It has smashed some more idols for some of us. It has shown us that the Labour Party is not independent at all, that it does make alliances with the Liberal Party to shut up debates when they become over verile. All this is education.

If the English Government would only try Russian methods on our spouters ever so little it would still further educate. But British capitalists are too wise for this. You mustn't frighten the popular idols of the people. Prospects of prison, disability, or banishment would turn most of these swans to geese. This would let people see too much. Disillusionment would set in fast. Therefore our Edward by the grace of Grab, going to one of Russia may say: "Behold I show thee a more excellent way to rule thy people. Do not murder and torture and crush in that old-fashioned way. Bamboozle thy people instead. Let them spout and have offices, and generally play the game, and soon you will find them so docile that, should any of their strong words annoy, you shall but threaten them with the least of these other things, so find them eager to withdraw.  Tut, tut, man, the father who has a child well broken in doesn't require to be always using the stick. He only requires now and then to show it, and this is more than sufficient."

But they do tell me that in Russia the people have gone beyond this spouting and office-holding and political game-playing, and refuse to have it at any price. They say that they have sighted the slavery underneath it all, and prefer prison banishment and death to it. And if this is so I don't know what Edward can say to Nicholas that will matter much. It seems to me that the same game played by both, with a people of this sort, must be nearly up. There are men and women in Russia of another sort than our Graysons and Hardies.

Yours, etc.,

John Tamlyn 

THE CONFESSIONS OF A CLYDE "RED."

From the September 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The only time in my life that I have allied myself with the enemies of the workers has been since I came to the House of Commons, and that is by the order of the Labour Government. Almost every time I go into the Division Lobby I join such tried and trusted friends of the Labour Party as Lloyd George, his daughter, Sir Herbert Samuel, etc. They are keeping the Labour Party in office on condition that the workers and the Labour Party programme are deserted."

Thus writes the Labour M.P. for Shettleston ("Forward," August 2nd). He was, however, the official Labour candidate, and stood for the official Labour Party Programme. He was attacked during the election by another Labourite, Mr. C. Diamond, who has been on three occasions official Labour candidate, and who stated that he has supported the Labour Party because it is not committed to Socialism.

The Party that the Member for Shettleston—McGovern—stands for, is not out for the working class. Read his own words: -

"There is no danger of chasing away the Liberal votes, as they have all joined us at Westminster. The Labour Cabinet coddle them too much to drive them away, and are more concerned about them than about the working class."

He became the official Labour Candidate—because it's the best way to get elected. "Getting in" —that's the game, even if it means going into the Lobby to vote against the programme he ran on.

The little conflict between the "wings" has now been settled at a joint meeting of the Labour Party and I.L.P., and the following terms were agreed upon: -

(1) That the I.L.P. accepts the Labour Party Annual Conference as the supreme authority of the organised political movement of the workers.
(2) That the I.L.P. wishes to remain in affiliation with the Labour Party. (Forward, Aug. 2.)

So, now Lloyd George, the I.L.P., and the Labour Party may continue their united front—in the same Lobby.

We Dare to Dream

What would socialism be like?

In 1912, Daniel De Leon declared that “We of the socialist movement hold that we are the real promoters of individualism, or individuality…We charge modern society, that is, capitalism, with crushing out individuality”.

We live in a world of poverty, war, and environmental devastation. A world where living standards for working people plummet while an elite few enjoy lives of unbelievable wealth and power. Something different—an alternative to capitalism—is desperately needed. But what should replace it? The Socialist Party considering our name, not surprisingly, proposes socialism, a society built from the bottom up through the struggles of ordinary people against exploitation, oppression, and injustice—one in which production is for peoples’ needs and profit. Socialism is the only possible alternative to capitalism, the source of gross inequalities and environmental disasters around the world. A society based on the principles of equality, democracy, and freedom. Is socialism an impossible, discredited dream? We say no but rather it is the only realistic path for human survival. The dream of human freedom is as old as class society itself. So long as one section of society has been held down and exploited by another, some men and women have dreamt, spoken and written about the possibility of a new kind of life. People do not conceive of themselves as having the capacity and power to overthrow their rulers and to build a new society out of their own efforts. The Socialist Party says you do, and must, emancipate yourselves.

When the Socialist Party talk about abolishing private property, we're not talking about personal property and possessions, like your house or your television. What we mean are the means of production: factories, hospitals, schools, etc.--i.e., the kinds of property most of us don't own, even though we may spend most of our lives working on that property and making the few people who own it very wealthy. Socialism will be about having more of everything, not less.

We’ll have much more free time. Right away, the working hours could be decreased dramatically--first off, just by leveling out all the people who are unemployed, with those working overtime or multiple jobs. Also, we could get rid of whole industries that are completely useless in any real sense. Advertising is a big waste. How many people will be truly sorry to never see another convincing us that Coke is better than Pepsi, again? Without the need to sell as much as possible to maximize profits, who gets produced and how it's made will also change. There will be no incentive to intentionally build products that wear out and break quickly or come up with 30 different brands of toothpaste that do essentially the same thing. These are just a few examples.

Professor of sociology at Boston College, Juliet Schor, has concluded that it would be possible to have a four-hour workday with no decline in the standard of living in a society that made sure every person had a job and that gave free reign to technological innovation. Economist J.W. Smith forecast: "We could eliminate much industrial pollution and conserve our precious, dwindling resources by eliminating the 50 percent of industry that is producing nothing useful for society." Smith examined the U.S. economy sector by sector and concluded, "We could all work 2.3 days per week with no drop in our living standard." This means is that in a socialist society, we would have time to focus on the things that really matter. We'd also have the time and energy to actively participate in making decisions about how society is run. The communications technology and corporate media that is now used primarily to sell things and perpetuate the ruling ideas of capitalism could instead facilitate the most widespread and varied debate. “Work” as we would understand it is all but nonexistent (along with ownership of work-places.) Nothing and nobody in socialism is exploited. It is essentially an automated civilisation in its manufacturing processes, with human labour restricted to something indistinguishable from play, or a hobby. Human beings and technology happily co-exist.

There's the perennial objection: If we lived in a socialist society, who would do the dirty work. First of all, under socialism, nobody would be forced to work a shit job their whole lives, which is what happens under capitalism. A lot of the most unpleasant tasks could be automated if making money wasn't the highest priority dictating how technology is used. We have the technical capability to send spaceships to Mars and land on asteroids, surely we can invent a machines to eliminate much of the unpleasant tasks in society. Unlike under capitalism, where advances of technology often end up hurting workers, with socialism, these advances could make everyone's lives easier. And whatever work couldn't be automated would be shared out in a rotation, instead of being shoved onto the most desperate and vulnerable in society.

The second part of the answer to the objection to socialism goes to the question of motivation. There's a pervasive idea in our society that the only thing that motivates people to work is money, and that without a huge monetary reward, nobody would opt to be, say, a doctor--everyone would want the "easier" job of porter. But that's ridiculous on so many levels. First of all, we should all be thankful that not all doctors are in it just for the money. There is something we talk about…a vocational calling

And why do the 3-D jobs, dirty, dangerous and demeaning, get so much less respect. After all, they are vital for the smooth running of cities and industries. Public sanitation is one of the biggest public health innovations of all time. Arguably, garbage men save more lives every day than doctors--by stopping all sorts of people from ever getting sick in the first place. Yet like all work under capitalism, this particular job is valued not by its contribution to society.

In socialism everyone will become both a producer and a planner of production. Everyone will have the time, the energy and the education to participate in the collective shaping of the environment--work which will require the fusion of artistic, scientific, technical and social knowledge, and that will be a collective, creative process. It would provide the spare time for all human beings to develop their creative potential. We would be free to learn the skills of economic and social management – presently the property of an elite few. In these conditions, work will become--in Marx's words--"not only a means of life, but life's prime want." It will cease to be a wearisome necessity and become a positive pleasure--a means of individual and collective human expression. In a way, socialism is nothing new. From the time of the Roman slave revolts, people have struggled for the dream of a society based on the values of equality, freedom, generosity and solidarity. We could readily meet everyone’s needs for food, housing, health, education, culture and recreation if the modern technologies, scientific knowledge, and organisational know-how were brought under the control of all people. Indeed, human labour is now so productive that we could achieve these goals at the same time as repairing the devastated natural environment.

Murray Bookchin held a vision of “liberatory technology.” He imagines its applications especially in the industrial sector:

“All but hidden from society, the machines would work for man. Free communities would stand at the end of a cybernated assembly line with baskets to cart the goods home. Industry, like the autonomic nervous system, would work on its own, subject to the repairs that our own bodies require in occasional bouts of illness. The fracture separating man from machine would not be healed. It would simply be ignored” He writes:

 “It is easy to foresee a time, by no means remote, when a rationally organized economy could automatically manufacture small "packaged" factories without human labor; parts could be produced with so little effort that most maintenance tasks would be reduced to the simple act of removing a defective unit from a machine and replacing it by another—a job no more difficult than pulling out and putting in a tray. Machines would make and repair most of the machines required to maintain such a highly industrialized economy. Such a technology, oriented entirely toward human needs and freed from all consideration of profit and loss, would eliminate the pain of want and toil—the penalty, inflicted in the form of denial, suffering and inhumanity, exacted by a society based on scarcity and labor”

Noam Chomsky holds a similar view:

 “I think that the industrialization and the advance of technology raise possibilities for self-management over a broad scale that simply didn't exist in an earlier period.…A good deal could be automated. Much of the necessary work that is required to keep a decent level of social life going can be consigned to machines -- at least, in principle – which means that humans can be free to undertake the kind of creative work which may not have been possible, objectively, in the early stages of the industrial revolution”

Having liberated humanity from need, technology would allow to help improve the relationship between human beings and nature. It is difficult to predict the effects that research and innovations in “artificial intelligence” could have but they will considerable. The capabilities of the “artificial intelligences” have eliminated any reason to entrust the management of collective affairs to an administration, even a delegated one..

We can also speculate that apart from direct democracy of general and work-place assemblies wider decision-making will be consist of referenda on issues whenever they are raised; generally, anyone may propose a ballot on any issue at any time; all citizens who may reasonably claim to be affected by the outcome of a poll may cast a vote. Opinions are expressed and positions outlined mostly via the internet and it is there that an individual may exercise their votes monitored  on a rota basis by a type of liaison person rather than someone with executive powers. Everyone’s opinion can be collected and be publicly voiced. This another form of public forum, where each person can put forth his or her arguments. And when discussions and procedures progress they can be followed thanks to feedback, which are also responsible for acting the resolutions that were voted on. If anarchy can be defined as “order without power” then indeed socialism is not far from it.

Socialism is about the future, it’s about freeing ourselves from the confines of the present with all of its oppressions, exploitations and “common sense” rationalizations of both. It is good to dream. We must dream socialist dreams. It’s the dreams of the future that give us the strength to fight like hell in the present. Some might call these dreams utopian but what’s the use of politics if it’s not for an ideal. Socialists look forward to the day when our descendants are befuddled by concepts like money, prices and private property being explained to them in history class.

Socialism - The future of Humanity.

 The term scientific socialism was used to differentiate it from utopian notions of socialism which were rich in imagination but had little roots in social action or the history of social progress. Scientific socialism did not provide any technological blueprint for building socialism, it only provided broad general guidelines for organising a socialist revolution. And these broad guidelines have been proved to be essentially correct even in considerably different circumstances. Socialism as an alternative to the current global order is commonly ignored in advanced Western societies and attacked as ‘outdated’ or even ‘useless’. The idea of working people taking democratic control of all aspects affecting their lives is not a new notion. It lies at the very heart of socialist thought and practice. Workplace democracy is something that our capitalist masters can never deliver because the key to their profits is absolute control over “their” workers. General assemblies in every neighbourhood might be hard to imagine but we are able to have a direct say through councils organised at community levels. Direct participation allows people to determine how resources are allocated in their communities. Socialism is a stateless, classless, communal society not only aims to transform how we produce the things we need and how we organise our economic relations but also change how we interact socially. Only through socialism can we end exploitative and divisive capitalist production and build the system which produces a harmonious, peaceful society where everyone produces according to their ability and everyone receives what they need.

With the rise of machines and robotics, advances in technology there are plenty of reasons to believe that we have reached a post scarcity economy. We produce a surplus. Of course, we still have people in the world that are starving but we actually have the capacity to feed them, to feed everyone, even now, even if we don’t have the will. It’s not a matter of scarcity; it’s a matter of the organisation of labour. It is time to think beyond capitalism and contemplate a new model. It’s time to leave capitalism behind.

In socialism can everyone have anything? Anything at all? The answer will be almost certainly no. Resources are still accounted for and allocated in some manner. But socialism will be massively productive and efficient, allowing for the effective decoupling of labour and wages for all of economic activity. People have no financial need to work, as their benefits are more than enough to provide a comfortable life, and there is, clearly, universal health care and education. Yes, some people might even decide not to work. So what? We think most still will. However, if they so choose they can also get a job. No enforced unemployment. Many people seek work for personal enrichment or for the desire to promote social welfare. Socialism will provide job satisfaction. Of course, a challenge is how will society get someone to do the menial jobs that cannot be done by automation. These tasks can be rotated and of course no-one is condemned to a career of performing dirty and dangerous jobs and rather than be seen as demeaning there is no reason why they cannot be ennobled. 

The amount of benefits available to all citizens is in excess of the needs of the citizens. Therefore, money is irrelevant to the lives of the citizenry. Because the welfare benefit of socialism is so large, and social pressure is so strong against conspicuous consumption, the average person never pays any attention to the amounts allocated to them, because it’s perpetually more than they need. But if they go crazy and try and acquire, say, 10 houses or 100 cars, the community simply says “no.” Behind the scenes there is a massive internal accounting and calculation going on — the ‘economics’ still happen but aren’t based on a monetary value , and people don’t acquire things based upon an exchange value. Socialism re-defines economics. Cities, housing, transportation, production of goods — all will be restructured. Money goes the way of the dinosaur and the banks turned into community centres.

Planning in socialism needs to be multi- leveled, with a limited sphere of responsibility assigned to a central administration, while individual localities and municipalities maintain relative autonomy for planning similarly specific and limited areas of responsibility. Such a decentralised form of planning should leave room for a different type of planning. Beyond a vertical political or state system (multi-leveled, with democratic controls) there is lateral or horizontal planning through the initiatives of the enterprises themselves.

Socialism is not the introduction of planning into an unplanned market society through state -ownership and control over production. It is the transfer of control of production to the direct producers and consumers themselves. Socialism is the abolition of market relations altogether and the elimination first of all of the labour market. As the labour power of workers is no longer treated as a commodity, socialism would be a step forward in the control of economic life by the producers themselves. A system of freely associating workers operating according to a common plan will be the result primarily of the development of lateral ties between all the various enterprises themselves.

Human beings will no longer behave as competitive predators upon nature, but become mutual guardians of it. One thing is clear: In socialism, the ownership of ideas will be exposed as a sham and a delusion. It follows that the elaborate fiction of intellectual property will simply be abolished. Owning ideas is impossible; the regimes of copyright, patent, and trademark have been enshrined in law and in popular consciousness to the detriment of creativity and the sharing of the infinite bounty of the human imagination. Since artists will no longer need to fear being ripped off and lose remuneration for their effort, the dubious protections copyright provides will serve no purpose. At a stroke such impediments to freedom would be done away with, and the problems and promise they have so long obscured will become immediately apparent. A socialist world is possible. It is necessary. It is the future of humankind.

All change for socialism

CAPITALISM V. SOCIALISM

Humanity now faces changes in our planet's climate that could not only make socialism a mere dream, but make the Earth itself uninhabitable. There is not a more defining struggle in this century than that. We are approaching tipping points which if reached will give climate change a momentum that human actions will have little or no control over. Global warming will be irreversible.

The basic economic structure of contemporary societies, with no exceptions, is capitalist. Capitalism marks the whole of our society and our way of life globally, regionally and nationally. But what is capitalism? Societies are capitalist, inasmuch as capital production, accumulation and profit dominate economy and society. Socialism is a society in which production, services and their distribution are dominated by the goal of producing the best possible conditions of the unfolding of the individuality of all, so that they may be used by the individuals both for their own well-being as well as for the solidary development of the productive forces of the community. Marx and Engels formulated it this way: “an association where the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”. In socialist society production is not for profit but for use. The objective of a socialist society is the promotion of a free, universal development of its individuals mediated by the solidary development of all.

It is evident that some people are gravitating toward criticising society, shifting the idea of radical change. Socialism, it is correctly said, must be the product of an engaged, united, and politically sophisticated majority. It doesn't follow that such a majority will simply emerge out of everyday struggles. Economic crisis alone, however, is not the sole cause of revolutionary change. The soil is prepared via the cumulative impact of many different crises - economic, political, social, and moral - taking place over time, during which people's understanding gains in sophistication (going beyond "them and us" and "the system sucks"), unity broadens and deepens, and organizational capacities and infrastructures grow by leaps and bounds. The idea of economic breakdown followed by "the revolution" should be retired. It should be replaced by an understanding of a more protracted and complicated political/historical process. The struggle for democracy, economic and political, is at the core of the struggle for socialism. It's not a diversion or a secondary.

Society can no longer feed itself. Not here and there alone, but everywhere where capitalism rules, from all quarters comes the same tale. Famine-stricken where food is plenty; ill clad where clothing lacks not; homeless among empty houses; shivering by mountains of fuel; tramping where transport rust. There is no promise of alleviation, but rather portents of worse to come. When the societies of old could no longer feed themselves they perished. And capitalist society is about to perish. A revolution is at hand. Another leap in the process of evolution.

Social reform is not socialism. Capitalism can be reformed. It can be reformed in many ways. But it cannot be reformed in such a manner as to effect an essential improvement in the working class conditions of life. The efficient operation of capitalist industry requires requires a working class always at the beck and call of the master class. Only by keeping the workers bordering on necessity at all times can this condition be assured. The whiplash of poverty is far more effective than any coercive force could be in keeping them tied to the machine and subservient to their masters.  Those who would administer the affairs of capitalism are limited in their endeavors by the requirements of capitalism, and even though they would bend every energy to lighten the burdens of the workers, the system itself inevitably reduces the results to disheartening proportions.

Socialism has not yet been established in any country. It exists today only as an independent working class movement striving against the opposition of capitalist and labour parties alike, its energies directed without deviation towards a single goal. There are no short cuts to socialism. It can be reached only through the conscious political organisation of the working class. But with that organisation accomplished, no obstacle can stand in the road. Socialism may be had for the taking. Take it. An examination of society has taught us that nothing less than socialism can suffice. The workers cannot depend upon others to do the job for them. It is a job that requires conscious and deliberate effort on their part. It is a job which they must do themselves. Socialism will not solve all the problems of human society. But it will solve all the basic economic difficulties that are a constant source of torment to so many of its members. The solution of a single one of these difficulties would warrant its introduction. The solution of them all renders it imperative.

Socialism solves the problem of distribution. Its introduction will mean the conversion of all the means of production and distribution from private or class property into the common property of all the members of society. Goods will no longer be produced for sale; they will be produced for use. The guiding principle behind the operations of industry will be the requirements of mankind, not the prospects of profit. Production under socialism will be pre-determined, and distribution effected with neither advertising nor sales staff, thus reducing wasted materials to the minimum and making possible the transfer of great numbers of workers to desired occupations.

The ending of exchange relationships will bring at the same time the ending of an exchange medium. There being neither sale nor profit associated with the production and distribution of goods, neither will there be money in any of its forms. Currency, credit and banking, whether private or “socialised”, will pass out of existence.

The advent of common property means the abolition of private or class property, which in turn means the abolition of class society together with the class struggle. The antagonistic classes of today will become merged in a people with common interests, and the former capitalists will have the opportunity of becoming useful members of society. This will not only remove the greatest of the burdens resting today on the backs of the workers, it will also further augment the available labor supply, by the inclusion of the capitalists and their former personal attendants, thus contributing to the general reduction in labour time needed to produce society’s requirements.

The workers today are fighting not only against the man-made laws of capitalism, but also against all the laws of economics. So long as their labour power remains a commodity they cannot essentially better their condition. So long as they allow the capitalists’ claim to the resources of the earth and the machinery of production, slaves they must remain, and as slaves they must expect to be treated. Their only hope lies in their emancipation from slavery – and they alone can achieve that emancipation. The outcome of the struggle between the capitalist class and the working class will be the Social Revolution. By political force the working class must wrest from the capitalist class the reins of government and must use the powers of the State to legislate in its own interests. By that stroke classes will be overthrown and labor power cease to be a commodity; production will be for use and not for profit; government of persons will die out and be replaced by an administration of things. The workers, controlling the means of production, will also control the resultant wealth and they will then be able to individually enjoy what they collectively produce.