The following piece, written by the late Pieter Lawrence, is the first chapter of his 2006 work, 'Practical Socialism - Its Principles and Methods'.
Chapter 1
What socialism means
In our every day lives we know that language should make a distinction between things. Without this, it would be difficult to make sense of anything. Communication and enquiry would be impossible and this is no less true of politics. Just as a word should relate clearly to an every day object so should a political term relate to an idea with some consistency. Unfortunately, although for the past two hundred years the word socialism has been commonly used, its meaning has become so blurred that for many, it even fails to distinguish socialism from its opposite, capitalism. There are many reasons for this but to pursue them in detail would be too diverting and well beyond the remit of this book. Nevertheless, in these confused circumstances, a book that has set out to clarify the principles and methods of practical socialism should begin with a clear meaning of the word that is consistent with both its origins and its background of political and economic theory.
Although the word socialism is itself more or less modern, its meaning can be said to go back to early religious sects of the ancient world and was perhaps taken up by the Anabaptist school of mediaeval times. Words attributed to John Ball during the Peasant’s Revolt of 1381 capture its meaning very well. “My friends, things cannot go well in England, nor ever, until everything shall be held in common, when there shall be neither vassal nor lord and all distinctions levelled, when lords shall be no more masters than ourselves.”
But it was not until the 19th Century that the concept of socialism (or communism) was developed by utopian socialists and then more systematically by Marx and Engels. In those early times socialism meant an alternative, classless society which can be set out under three main headings as follows:-
1 Common Ownership.
2 Democratic Control.
3 Production solely for use.
These features of socialist society would be dependent on each other and could only operate together as basic parts of an integrated social system. In combination, these define a way of organising society that in every important aspect of production, distribution, decision making and social administration, is clearly distinguished from the operation of Capitalist society.
1 Common ownership means that the entire structure of production and all natural resources be held in common by all people. Every person would stand in equal relationship with every other person about the means of producing the things we need to live. This means, mines, industrial plants, manufacturing units, all land and farms, and all means of transport and distribution. This also means the common ownership of all natural resources such as oil. Perhaps “common ownership” is partly a misnomer because what is meant is that means of production and resources would not be owned by anyone. In place of the property relationships of owners and non-owners, means of production will simply be available to the whole community to be used and developed solely for the needs of all people.
2 Democratic control means that social policy would be decided directly by communities. This would replace rule by governments. One great advantage of democratic practice in socialism would be not only the organisation of decision making but also the freedom to carry out those decisions. This freedom of action would arise from direct control of community affairs following the enactment of common ownership and removal of the economic constraints of the capitalist system. Without powers of action decision making is meaningless. (Proposals for democratic practice are set out in Chapter 5 – “Democratic Organisation.”)
3 Production solely for use means just what it says. People in socialism would be free to co-operate with each other in producing goods directly for the needs of the community. This would be useful labour co-operating to produce useful goods solely for consumption. Production solely for use would replace production for sale at a profit. Things produced for sale under the capitalist system are of course intended to supply a need of one kind or another but as commodities they are produced primarily with a view to money gain and the increase of money capital. As a general rule the market system is a system of no profit no production. In socialism this profit motive would be entirely removed. In a moneyless socialist economy the factors of production would operate only in a useful form and not as economic categories with a price. Labour would not be wage labour serving the interests of an employer but would be free labour. People at work would be creating only useful things and not economic values from which profit is derived. (Proposals for production solely for use are set out in Chapter 7, “Organisation of Production.”)
There should be no doubt that these basic features that define socialism clearly distinguished it from the capitalist system. Common ownership of means of production would be in direct opposition to private, corporate or state ownership; democratic control would be fundamentally different to rule by governments or corporations. Production for needs would be in direct opposition to production for sale at a profit. These defining features of the two systems cannot be operated together. They are mutually exclusive. The mistaken idea that they can be operated together has been a major cause of political confusion about what socialism means.
Production Solely for Needs
What is meant by needs should not be understood as mere personal consumption. It should not suggest a rampant consumerist culture. Production for needs would include a wide range of considerations such as the need to protect and conserve the environment. The question of socialism and needs will be developed in a later chapter but in defining socialism we should emphasise that it will provide for one vital need in a way that is impossible under the capitalist system. This is the need of peoples throughout the world to bring the organisation of their community affairs under their own democratic control and to develop them in the interests of the whole community.
It was with the emergence of the capitalist system that society lost direct control of production. In previous societies, such as feudalism, accepting that they were ruled by privileged classes, it was usual that production was at maximum capacity and this determined what could be distributed. In times of good harvests the whole community could benefit. But with the development of the capitalist system this was reversed. What is produced depends on what can be sold. This means that distribution through sales in the markets determines production and this is always less than what could be produced.
Market capacity is inherently unpredictable. If too many goods are produced for a market and they remain unsold, crisis and recession may occur with reduced production, increased unemployment, bankruptcies, and large scale writing off of capital values. Despite the many attempts that have been made, no theory of economic management has ever been able to predict or control the anarchic conditions of the market system. This is rule by market forces which serve minority interests and which generate the insecurities, crises and conflicts that shape the way we live. The fact that we have great powers of production that cannot be rationally organised and fully used for the benefit of all people has devastating consequences. This is at the root of most social problems.
In this way, the capitalist system places the production of goods and services, on which the quality of all our lives depend, outside the direct control of society. Opposite to this, a socialist system would bring the entire organisation of production and distribution under democratic social control.
Social Class
A further basic distinction between the two systems is that whereas the capitalist system is inherently class ridden, in socialism, social relationships of common ownership and equality will end class divisions. Much discussion of class centres on various sociological differences between groups which may be useful for some purposes. However, sociological differences can tell us little when seeking to explain how production is organised.
Some evidence may suggest, superficially, that we live in a society of greater equality. For example, we can accept that not so long ago “toffs” were people who played golf and went on motoring holidays, touring the Continent. Now, many people from all walks of life do these things. This tells us that these pursuits have become relatively cheaper and that some working people are now able to enjoy them, but this in now way alters the economic relationships of production. It does not alter the economic, class relationship between capital and labour which dominates the way we live. At the point of production, the workers and their employers who may be sharing a golf course in their leisure time remain in a relationship of conflicting economic interests which, whilst it continues, must always condemn our society to the class divisions of strife and to the many ugly comparisons that we see of poverty amidst luxury. Class is a social relationship that invades and has a corrupting influence on every part of our lives.
An economic definition of class based on the categories of capital and labour in a system of commodity production is basic to our explanation of how we produce and distribute wealth and the economic motives that are involved. Social class defined as economic relationships is a key to how the operation of the market puts profit before needs and places constraints on all our activities. Our lives and the quality of our society depend upon our relationships of production and on the services we can provide. An analysis using economic/class categories tells us who gets what from the pool of wealth that is made available and how a privileged class has accumulated great wealth and property; it therefore explains the great social differences that we see about us.
It should not be thought that class divisions only operate in the countries of privately owned capitalism. It has been an unfortunate part of modern political history that many millions of well meaning people have been loyal to the various regimes of state capitalism. Regardless of the various political forms they may take, whether they be based on private ownership, or the state regimes that recently reigned in Russia and Eastern Europe, and now rule the populations of China and places like Cuba, the class system is a ubiquitous world system. Every country operates a market system that because of its economic priorities puts profit before needs.
Current statistics on the distribution of property are many but just a few will tell us a great deal. If we look up the web site on “Who Owns Britain” we find that in “England and Wales” almost 26 million acres of land is owned by just over 150,000 families or individuals. This is 0.28% (a quarter of one per cent) of the population, who own 64% of the land.” According to the web site, if we look at the land owned by the Dukes of Buccleuch, Westminster and Northumberland we have just three individuals who jointly own 531,500 acres valued at just over 14 ½ billion pounds. These are just three persons who own a very big part of the British Isles.
Similarly, we find that increasingly, giant global corporations own and control the world production of goods and services together with the natural resources of the planet. The sole object is to amass greater concentrations of capital and to increase their economic and political powers.
At the bottom end of the scale, according to the Economist for 23rd February 2002, for the years 1999/2000, the number of children living in poverty in this country was 4.1 million. (Poverty being defined as children living in families receiving less than 60% of the average wage.) What this means is sub-standard housing, poor conditions of life, poor diets and cultural deprivation. A study published by the Rowntree Foundation has said that 8.3 million of our population live in these circumstances and this is not improving with time. This 8.3 million living in poverty was 100,000 more than in 1996/97.
What these statistics tell us is that we live in a society of deep class divisions with a conflict of economic interests between those who work the productive system and those who own it. This economic conflict can only be reconciled by the relationships of equality and cooperation that would integrate the community in socialism.
Whilst it is right to feel outrage at the great class divisions that exist socialists do not come to this question in a negative spirit of class hostility. The aim is to end it. Class conflict has gone on for too long. There has been too much strife and we have to heal the wounds of history through entirely democratic means.
Class society is both morally and materially indefensible. It need not linger on and on as part of an outdated system. An ethical society would be one in which all people would live their lives, free from the disadvantages of under privilege and class injustice. To live in a classless society would be in the interests of all its members. Freedom for every person to develop his or her skills and talents on equal terms could benefit everyone. Equality has the potential to enrich all our lives and would be a basis for a true community of shared interests.
Socialism – a Human Centred Way of Life
Having set out what socialism means, and having set out features that distinguish it clearly from capitalism, these can be summarised as one all important difference. Whereas the capitalist system works for sectional economic ends that are alien to the interests of the whole community, a socialist system would be wholly dedicated to the interests of all people. There would also be a difference of complexity and simplicity. Whereas, working within the complex economic limitations of the market system, our endeavours are frustrated and often blocked by the barriers of costs, in a socialist society, communities would be free to set up their goals and then organise their resources of labour, materials and technology to achieve them in a straightforward way. People in socialism would need only to work with the material factors of production and not any economic factors.
Given the control of human affairs that a socialist system would bring, people in socialism would be able to take charge of their destiny. What is undeniable is that we are a species with great talents. In science, technology, in art, crafts and design we can call upon a wide range of skills. The point now is to release these for the benefit of humanity.
Pieter Lawrence
No comments:
Post a Comment