Many people pose questions about the state of human existence. It is obvious that we live in a deadly dangerous world in which survival is by no means certain. We are bound then to consider an alternative to this. The practical option is to establish a society in which useful work ceases to be a saleable commodity. This would be a world in which the means of production and distribution are used in common by the whole world community. A world in which the useful work of the individual would be given freely to the community, where the welfare of the individual becomes the responsibility of the community, and where the welfare of the community, in its turn, becomes the responsibility of the individual. Only with the end of private property and where human energy ceases to function as a commodity can the mutual interest of the individual and the community be made to serve each other.
The land, factories, mines, railways and other productive resources would belong to no one. They would exist for the purpose of producing and distributing the things that people need in order to live, it would mean no shareholders in companies and no working for money wages or salaries. It means production and distribution solely for needs. This would be a society operated through cooperation. There would be no exchange of goods and no need for a medium of exchange—money. It would mean the end of competition and war. It would mean the coming of age of mankind.
Free Society geared to needs
These simple and practical ideas are contrary to the values we are taught at the moment. We learn the values of private property and that the means of life must be owned by some and therefore not owned by others. We are taught the relationships of ownership and non-ownership. These are the relationships which determine the quality of social life. In socialism the fact that no one will own "the means by which I live" will be the basis for a free society. On this basis, the means of production will be used solely for the purpose of satisfying human needs. Apart from such needs as food, clothing and shelter the needs of one person may vary from that of another. In a free society this would be determined by the individual as part of social co-operation.
The essential need in order to survive in our present society is to have money. In socialism all that we will need is to be human—and to co-operate as humans.
Some people might say that such a society is eventually inevitable, an ultimate stage of social evolution. They might argue that just as the taming of animals and the cultivation of land made it possible for organised society to emerge from hunting communities, and as the use of steam and electrical power gave rise to modern industrial capitalism, so automation and computerisation will give rise to socialism. But this change will not happen automatically; it requires the conscious action of political organisation. The main barrier which stands against this is that ideas are not in tune with the need to change society. In many counties democratic rights are not established.
Many people are still conditioned by tradition, religion and superstition. However, there can be no halfway house. Present society can be abolished and replaced by a new world system which is organised for needs, but it cannot be reformed to make it serve needs. So long as capitalism exists, and human energy remains a commodity and goods are produced for profit, society will remain dominated by the economic forces of the market and social divisions and strife will remain. The idea of socialism must be understood and acted upon by a majority of the world's people. Therefore this change must be the result of education, communication of socialist ideas and democratic political action on the part of people who must work for it. A better world is not "just around the corner", it has to be brought about by the conscious efforts of those who stand to benefit by it.
Competition not healthy
The problems caused by present world society extend to every country, even though they are at various stages of industrial development. Whereas in underdeveloped countries the vast majority are forcerd to endure abject poverty, with many starving to death, even in the so-called developed countries deprivation still persists. Poverty in industrialised countries is evident in several different forms. Many people are compelled through stress, tension and insecurity to indulge in drugs and alcohol to excess. The drug companies are making huge profits from the sale of drugs which people consider necessary in a stressful society. The threat of war, insecurity about employment, loss of health, and the social isolation of individuals are just some aspects of our lives which give rise to the need for drugs, and such "tranquillisers" as valium are amongst the best sellers in "developed" societies.
It is said that "healthy competition" is a desirable feature of human behaviour. Socialists deny this. We maintain that competition is a destructive feature of a society based on property. The quest for profit and the accumulation of wealth involves competition and not co-operation. Cooperation is a constructive force associated with the creative abilities of people which could provide for needs. Competition is part of the market system, it is a destructive force and ultimately results in war or the waste of preparations for war. Competition is entirely related to the acquisition of property on the part of some at the expense of others. The material security of the whole community in an assured future requires co-operation, not competition.
The most satisfying social activity is useful work carried on in co-operation. Work, however, is not to be confused with employment, or the sale of human energy in the labour market for wages. Such employment is carried on around the competition for jobs, it is motivated not by needs but by profit, and many employment occupations reduce workers to mere mechanical functions, and many are useless, or destructive of the welfare of the community.
Voluntary co-operation and free access
It is argued that people will only participate in social production if they are paid with money, yet this does not correspond with actual behaviour. The fact is that even in a world motivated and geared to the sale of goods, many groups of people successfully operate and manage projects which bring them no more reward than the satisfaction of being able to participate. For example, within the northern boundaries of Sydney is a radio station, which, except for two full-time paid people, and a further three who are paid on a part-time basis, is maintained twenty-four hours a day throughout the year by volunteer workers. Not only do they work for no money but it is also necessary for them to donate part of their earnings from their employment in order to pay the expenses involved in running the venture. Hundreds of people, electricians, engineers, electronic experts, carpenters, you name them and they are there, giving their time freely, in spite of the pressures on their time imposed by their employment.
In 1976, the year the station began, there were great problems such as building studios, erecting antennae, etc. The amount of required work was enormous. Today, nine years later, in spite of all the problems caused by the money system, the station, 2MBS FM, is working smoothly and reliably in the Sydney area, day and night, constructed and run overwhelmingly by voluntary co-operation.
Even now, under the present capitalist society there are many examples of such voluntary co-operation which provide the utmost satisfactions to those who participate in them. At the present time this can only operate at the margins of society because it is excluded from the means by which we live and from the natural resources of the world. In socialism, voluntary co-operation will come to its full fruition because it will operate with free access to all the productive means which could be at the disposal of the whole community.
It is a fact that in the common experience of ordinary people, in the main they behave decently to each other, and for the most part the spontaneous responses of one person to another are those of mutual concern and care. It is these responses which find their expression in the many examples of voluntary co-operation, without which no human society, not even capitalism, would be either practical or tolerable. For example, no family could function in a practical, day-to-day manner without co-operation, and the life situations of people would not be viable if they were governed at every point by ruthless competition.
Anti-social behaviour has to be prepared by definite programmes of social conditioning. We are taught that commercial competition and social inequalities are "normal". The justification for war is given by the attitudes of nationalism and prejudice which have to be learned. Against this background of conditioning people are inclined to regard the possibility of a society based on voluntary co-operation with scepticism even though such voluntary cooperation is within their everyday experience.
Prejudiced ideas about human nature
In 1978, the Australian Broadcasting Commission published a book entitled It's Only Human Nature. It was based on a series of broadcast discussions between people who had spent a great deal of time studying human behaviour in varied social and geographical environments throughout the world. In speaking of prejudiced ideas about "human nature", Dr Anthony Barnett from Canberra, stated:
I think it is just a casual mode of speech that sometimes is used as a weapon in argument, I think, illegitimately. Suppose you are supporting a particular kind of political system and someone else comes up with another idea, you describe this other fellow as an "idealist"; you can't change human nature, you say, you'll never achieve these "ideals". That kind of argument is one of the most commonly used on occasions when people talk about "human nature", but they are talking about their own particular "nature" produced by their own particular environment.
Margaret Mead also participated in this discussion:
The way English-speakers use the term "human nature" has very little to do with anything; I mean they invoke "human nature" to support any prejudice they happen to have at the moment. So people say, well, you believe in heredity don't you? Identical twins are alike, aren't they? And doesn't that prove whatever they want to prove, that white people are superior to black people, or that black people are superior to white, or that people will always fight, will always have aggression, or any of these things? Now what one can safely say, scientifically, is that human beings are capable of an incredible range of behaviour, and we haven't tapped a tenth of it. All we need is a greater understanding of the interaction between individuals (in society) and innate abilities. We are now in an entirely new ball game where we can use everything we have learned to date about the potentialities of human beings to build the kind of society that will make this planet safe. If we don't—we won't be here. Societies are built by men and women and they can rapidly adjust to living in totally different societies.
The establishment of a new world socialist society in which people throughout the world will have free access to all the means of living and natural resources which exist, and in which they will therefore be applied solely for human need through voluntary co-operation, will not require any "new" forms of human behaviour. The establishment of socialism would eliminate from daily life the present destructive economic forces which engender competition, violence, and all forms of civil strife. This will enable the better sides of human behaviour which already exist, such as co-operation, creative individuality, and mutual care, to find their fullest expression. In a society which would be united in the common purpose of providing solely for needs, and which would operate on the basis of free access to the means of living, what place could there possibly be for the divisive attitudes of competition, nationalism, race prejudice and class antagonisms? On the contrary, co-operation will mean that individuals would see each other differently, as fellow human beings, expanding the diversity of skills and talents which would enrich the quality of life of all people.
Chas Lawrence
(Australia)
No comments:
Post a Comment