The other political parties, who claim to stand for Socialism or Communism (identical terms), never trouble to define either. Most of these parties regard it as unnecessary. The SPGB has always been careful in defining Socialism. Our object, containing our definition of the new society that will one day replace capitalism, is prominently reproduced in all our literature. Likewise the method of obtaining Socialism—this too appears on all our literature in our Declaration of Principles.
Socialism is like capitalism in that it is a system of society where human beings cooperate to produce things that people require. There the resemblance ends. Socialism means that everything in society is owned by everyone and available for use to everyone. There will be no ownership of wealth in any form; the concept will become meaningless to humanity. As Marx put it: “From the standpoint of a higher form of society, private ownership of the globe by single individuals will appear quite as absurd as private ownership of one man by another.” Capital Volume 3, p. 776, Lawrence & Wishart edn.)
Production will take place by people voluntarily applying their energies to satisfy the needs of themselves and others; material and mental needs. All wealth that is produced will be available to all, to take according to their own judged requirements. The only reason for production will be to satisfy that need. As there will be no private ownership, there will be nothing to prevent people using the resources of the world in their own interests. Likewise there will be nothing to stop people taking from the resources of the world.
World Society
This society must be a world society. It is quite meaningless to think of capitalism existing in the UK as distinct from the rest of the world capitalist scene. The system of society that is to replace capitalism will also be a system of society for the whole world. World resources must be freely available for Socialism to work.
People in Socialist society will have to produce things they need. It is a precondition to society itself that men cooperate to satisfy their requirements as living creatures. But the purpose of production will be completely different from that under all forms of property society. The object of production, looked at as a social whole, will be to increase the wealth of society itself, not of one class. If that is not the outcome then, unless there are some very special reasons, that particular line of production will be suspended.
So that whereas under capitalism the wealth of society is increased by the production of arms, or bombs, or useless luxuries, or pointless (to the majority of people) office blocks etc., in Socialist society there will be no question of producing anything other than something that fulfills the requirements of people. It won’t be possible to sell anything, so all that is produced will be produced for use. And in a world- harmonious system, no one will have any use for armaments. In this form of society people will democratically decide what is required in the interests of all. There is an argument for saying that in the first few years after the revolution, production will concentrate on building up the immediate pressing requirements, such as food and shelter, which capitalist society has kept in short supply. Once that temporary problem is overcome (if it actually proves to be a problem) society will produce everything required to the best of the technological possibilities available at the time.
Distribution will be a simple process under Socialism; once the absurd complications of capitalist social relations have been removed, there is no reason for it to be otherwise.
Free Access
Access to everything that is produced will be free and unrestricted. There will be no limitations on individual consumption, augmented by laws, backed by armies and police forces. The only restraint on consumption will therefore be social, that is, society will not produce what society cannot afford. Today’s society produces much that most people cannot afford. “Supposing everyone in Socialist society wanted a Rolls Royce? and their own Buckingham Palace and thirty-seven meals a day?” says the absurd questioner at Hyde Park almost every Sunday. “How would Socialist society cope with that?” The answer is simple—so far as we can tell, with current technological possibilities, it wouldn’t!
There is no reason to suppose that such absurdities will exist in a free society. Why should they? What the questioner fails to realize is that he is imagining that Socialist society will be the same as capitalist society, where the ownership of Rolls Royce, or a house like Buckingham Palace, actually means something. Such ownership concepts will have vanished once the revolution takes place. Besides, in a Socialist society, where distribution is organized, the number of things like cars actually required by society will probably be far fewer. What’s the point in having a car standing outside your front door all week, if you have no use for it until next week, when you will be able to take one for as long as you need it? When ownership is social, it will also be efficient.
Socialist society will not have class ownership of wealth. As it will be a voluntary non-coercive society, with no limits on individual consumption, it follows that there will be no compulsion on anyone to produce anything. A human being as a part of society will not be compelled to make his whole existence dependent on producing more for somebody else. So why should people work? There are many answers. Perhaps the most important for people emerging from capitalism is this; just as Socialism is a voluntary society when established, so also is its actual establishment. It will have been established by the majority in the interests of all. As it is absolutely necessary for man to produce (without that there is no survival) then it seems reasonable to suppose that people who have taken the trouble to set up this (system of society will do all that is necessary to ensure that it thrives. In fact the objection to Socialism “no-one will work” illustrates that the person that is making the objection has not understood the nature of Socialism and what is required to establish it. Society must produce: and this applies to a voluntary society. If people do not accept that proposition, i.e. that it will be necessary for each person to “do his bit for the common good” then Socialism cannot be established yet.
Human ‘Nature’
In fact, once Socialist society has been established, more fundamental reasons will emerge making sure that society does not commit social suicide by failing to produce. Without wishing to sound puritanical, man must work. First, without work, man is not man. One characteristic that distinguishes man from all other forms of life is that he consciously acts on nature; animals can only unconsciously react to it. If there is such a thing as “human nature” then its first feature is the desire to use energies to satisfy the needs of oneself and others. Second, work will be a pleasure; it will not be a “job”. A job today is something unpleasant, to be avoided (as the capitalist class avoids it) because it is made so unpleasant by the requirements of society. The worker cannot avoid a job, and consequently he has to work in order to live, instead of wanting co live to be able to work, i.e. use up energies in a fulfilling way. Not only are the majority of jobs performed by the working class today unnecessary (except in terms of capitalists’ profit-making), they are usually terrifyingly boring.
The most satisfying moment of any creative activity (having a useful end-result) is by definition, denied to the worker. The product of his joint labour with others when completed is automatically taken from him. It belongs to another class — the capitalist class—to whose interests, the worker, is diametrically opposed. In Socialist society, people will do things that are pleasurable because they want to do them, and because they have the satisfaction of doing something useful. In time, the distorted distinction between work and play will vanish. To the people who grow up in Socialist society working for themselves and others will seem natural, satisfying and an absolute requirement of “the good life”.
There are two obstacles to be overcome before this type of society can be established. First, it must be technically possible to produce sufficient of the requirements of life, to enable all to live without fear of want or deprivation. This requirement was satisfied a hundred years ago. It is certainly not an obstacle today. Second there has to be a substantial majority determined to establish this new form of running human affairs. Understanding has not been necessary for the establishment and running of capitalism (and other forms of property society) since the majority are compelled in one form or another to cooperate. In capitalist society, the workers are forced to sell their labour-power. Capitalism functions if a minority understand the total workings of society, so long as the majority understand how to produce. Socialism will require the substantial majority to cooperate in its establishment. To do that, the working class needs to understand how society works and why Socialism is in their interests. There are two irresistible forces at work doing just that. The first is capitalist society itself— its operation shows to the workers that it cannot function in their interest. The second force is the world Socialist movement.
Ronnie Warrington
No comments:
Post a Comment