How is the Socialist Party different from other left-wing groups?
We’re not left-wing, we’re Socialists! The left (groups like the SWP or Militant) merely want to reform capitalism, generally by increasing the degree of state ownership in the direction of state capitalism. In contrast, the Socialist Party does not aim to tinker with a few features of capitalism — we want to do away with it altogether. Our sole objective is the establishment of Socialism.
Lots of people say they're in favour of Socialism, though it's not always sure what they mean by that word. What do you mean by it?
The Socialist Party is perfectly clear about the nature of Socialist society. We don't use "Socialism" as a slogan to impress people or win votes.
A socialist society is based on common ownership of the means of production and distribution. Land, mineral resources, factories and so on will belong to everybody. It will not be possible for some group of people to lay exclusive claim to some factory or whatever and exploit others, as happens under capitalism. Equally, there will be democratic control of the means of production — decisions about what to produce and how to produce it will be taken by the community, not by an elite few. Production will be to satisfy people's needs, not to make a profit.
That sounds like workers' control with higher wages than now.
Absolutely not. Common ownership and democratic control mean that socialism is a classless society, with no capitalist class and no working class. Since property will be owned in common, the whole idea of buying and selling simply will not be relevant. Consequently there will be no money and no wages — people will take what they need from the stock of goods produced, without needing to pay for it. With no classes or private property, there will be no government, laws or armies. Nor will there be national frontiers either.
Now you're making it sound like what some people call Communism.
We use the term "Socialism", but the name is less important than the idea. You should realise, though, that what we are advocating has nothing at all to do with the regimes in Russia, China, Cuba, and so on, which claim to be Socialist or Communist, but are actually state capitalist, because they still have wages, classes, etc.
But do we need such a drastic change as you envisage? Can't capitalism be reformed?
In one sense, capitalism can be reformed — governments are doing it all the time. But it can’t be reformed to run in the interests of the working class, the overwhelming majority of the population who rely on a wage or salary to live. It's an essential feature of capitalism that there is a relatively small class of capitalists who own the means of production and so can force the working class to work for them in return for a wage. It also follows that the workers are exploited — the goods and services they produce are worth more than they receive in wages; this is where the capitalists' profit comes from. Every reform of capitalism has to come up against this brute fact that capitalism needs profits.
What's wrong with profit? If a firm sells something for a profit, doesn’t that just mean that people want what they're producing?
The problem is that workers are restricted by the size of their wage-packets to buying what they can afford, which may be very different from what they want. And so much of what is produced is third- or fourth-best, because companies know that workers can’t afford the very best (whether houses, cars, clothes or whatever). Of course the very best is produced for the consumption of the capitalists, who can afford it.
What’s more, if people don’t have money, then what they want hardly matters under capitalism. You can see this very clearly by looking the housing situation. People living in the street or in slums, or sleeping on a friend's floor, have housing needs but don't have the resources to rent or buy. No company will make a profit out of selling a house to the destitute. This is all because under capitalism houses (like everything else) are produced for profit, not to meet people’s needs.
In fact, housing is a perfect illustration of the shortcomings of reformism. Since 1868 governments have been legislating about the housing problem. But it hasn't been solved — far from it — and it's actually getting worse at present.
William Morris once said that reforming capitalism is like trying to make hell a little cooler in order to be able to carry on living there. We agree — the answer is to do away with capitalism, not reform it.
So how do you propose to go about setting up a Socialist society?
The answer to this follows from what was said earlier about the nature of socialism. Socialist society will be democratic, it will be run by ordinary folk, so people will have to understand socialism and be prepared to take part in running it. In other words, there can be no socialism without socialists. This is something we insist on — to make socialism you have to make socialists. Once a sufficient majority are socialists, they will be able to win political power and introduce common ownership. It must be the working class who establish socialism, not some leadership or vanguard.
But there will always be leaders, won't there?
No, having leaders implies having followers, so leadership is utterly incompatible with the idea of a fully democratic system. And the Socialist Party has no leaders — all members are equal.
How do I join?
Well, before you think of joining you should get to know our views properly, by reading several issues of the Socialist Standard and some of our pamphlets. Also, if at all possible, you should visit your local Socialist branch and talk to some of the members there. Joining the Socialist Party involves a bit more than filling in a form. Applicants need to understand and accept the case for socialism. If you do join, you will find that you are involved in the worthwhile task of helping to create a world where human welfare not making profits will be the over-riding objective.
No comments:
Post a Comment