There is a funny story that once was kicked around against the socialist movement about a soap-box orator who had promised his audience that under socialism everybody would eat strawberries and cream. When an unfriendly heckler protested that he didn’t like strawberries and cream the socialist retorted that under socialism everybody would eat strawberries and cream and like it! There were, of course, two inferences in the answer that were and still are commonly held by those who have a smattering but not enough understanding of socialism and what it is all about. The first of these erroneous ideas is that socialists advocate a society in which everybody receives equal income; the second is that there is some sort of dictatorship that is to compel each and everybody to accept this equality.
The idea of equality in the consumption of goods and services is more than a little ridiculous when one goes into the matter. People have a difference in tastes, for example.
Some of us like to go fishing and have a use for equipment and clothing that relate to that pastime. Does this mean that everybody will be forced to be consumers of fishing tackle and hip rubber boots for wading in streams? There are those who get pleasure from imbibing in beer. Does this signify that there must be enough beer produced to divide equally among the entire population — at least the entire adult population — and that those who dislike the taste of the brew will nevertheless be compelled to drink it and like it? There are countless examples that come to mind that expose the fallacy of this argument. In fact, socialists have never advocated such obviously ridiculous procedures.
What socialists have always argued for is a society in which each man, woman and child shall have free access to all that is produced and this is an entirely different thing. This means simply that the needs and wants of society can be satisfied if production is based upon use rather than upon sale on the market with a view to profit. The only thing that stands in the way of a society based upon production for use is widespread acceptance of or widespread apathy toward private or state ownership of the means for producing goods and services. When a majority of the population understands and accepts the idea of common ownership of all wealth-producing means and instruments and the obvious advantages to all mankind of such a system this majority will certainly take speedy steps to introduce it. When that time arrives there will be, for the first time, a real choice for the voters. No longer will one be compelled to decide which person is best suited to administer an “un-social" social system. For the first time voters will be able to register their approval or disapproval of a system based upon wage labor and capital as opposed to a brand new type of life, a classless society which will make poverty and war impossible.
As for the idea that a socialist world would require some sort of dictatorial apparatus at the top — a minimum of reflection will expose its fallacy. Political power in the hands of a minority can only exist when ownership of wealth-producing property is vested in private or state hands and when scarcity of the things people need and want is the order of the day for most people. Who would possibly want to delegate power over one's very life when right of access to wealth is available? Socialism will transform governments over people into administrations of things and the very thought of being compelled to consume goods whatever one’s likes or dislikes would be unthinkable.
No comments:
Post a Comment