Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism.d,alt.society.anarchy,alt.society.revolution,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc
Distribution: world
Subject: SOCIALISM IS INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY - A MINI FAQ
Summary: A question and answer article on Socialism
Keywords: Socialism, Marxism, Revolution
Revision 1.7
Here is the latest revision of the Q&A list on Socialism (thanks
to those who passed their comments of the previous revision on to
me). I mentioned before that there was an effort by some people
to get an official Socialist FAQ together, but I haven't heard
from these people for a long time, and I'm not sure about the FAQ's
status, or whether it will be completed in the near future or not.
As I said before, I hope this list will do for now, even though
it reflects one particular view only. Please keep in mind that
there are many points in which Socialists disagree. One single FAQ
cannot represent everybody. On the other hand, it is hoped that this
FAQ will encourage people to do some research on Socialism.
Thanks in particular to Ronald Kunenborg <
[email protected]> for
his invaluable criticism. He has been an great source of information
and useful commentary. Many of the points raised in this document
have been taken straight from his commentary. He virtually co-wrote
this article.
Thanks also to many other on cyberspace who have helped with their
comments.
...................................................................
SOCIALISM IS INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY 1.7
=======================================
Copyright (c) 1994 Raoul Golan (see conditions at end)
CONTENTS:
1. A short dialogue...
2. Introduction.
3. What exactly *is* Socialism?
4. Why still support Socialism when Soviet-style 'Communism'
has collapsed?
5. Why are certain prerequisites necessary for Socialism?
6. What is wrong with capitalism anyway?
7. What fault of Capitalism will cause a revolution?
8. Why is a revolution necessary?
9. Is Socialism autocratic?
10. What can stop Stalinism arising again?
11. Won't Socialism work against the freedom to choose?
12. Isn't the market democratic already?
13. Isn't competition a good thing?
14. Isn't Socialism against human nature?
15. Won't Socialism make everyone earn the same money?
16. Won't Socialism kill off innovation?
17. Won't Socialism dictate to me what to buy?
18. How will Socialism work?
19. Will the majority have absolute say over the minority?
20. What does "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" mean?
21. Won't the overhead of voting for production policy be expensive?
22. Don't examples like Sweden prove that Socialism does not work?
23. What sort of benefits will Socialism bring?
24. What can be done to achieve Socialism?
25. Further reading...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. A short dialogue...
(A Boss is seen shouting some orders at a factory worker in the
background. The boss steps forward to move along and comes across our
Inquirer, thus starting the following Socratic Dialogue.)
INQUIRER: What did you tell that man just now?
BOSS: I told him to work faster!
I: How much do you pay him?
B: (Clipboard in hand) $25 a day...
I: Where do you get the money to pay him?
B: (smiling happily) I sell products
I: Who makes the products?
B: He does... (pointing at Worker)
I: How many products does he make in one day?
B: $100's worth (lights his cigar happily)
I: Then instead of you paying him...he is paying *you* $75
a day to tell him to work faster!
B: (indignant) But the machines belong to *me* --
I: How did you get the machines?
B: I sold products and *bought* them (happy smile again..)
I: -- and who made *those* products? (B's cigar pops out
of his mouth)
B: (shaking his finger at "I") Shut up...he might hear you!
(From a cartoon by Fred Wright, inner back page of _The Bear Facts_ by
UAW Local 2300, service workers at Cornell University, as quoted by
[email protected])
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Introduction
Socialism is a frequently misunderstood term.
The man on the street will probably tell you that our current
system is not working.
He'll probably tell you that he feels that he has little say
in the way the country's run, and that he feels increasingly
alienated from the political process.
He'll probably feel that big business has too much power
in today's world, regardless of his opinion of government.
If you ask him if he would like to have a greater say in the
way things are run, he'll probably answer in the affirmative.
If you ask him if he would like to stop big business from dominating
government, he'll probably say yes there too.
If you mention Socialism, however, you'll notice that his attitude
changes, and he will probably refuse to listen to another word, in
spite of the fact that Socialism involves making these same changes.
Why is this the case? Part of the reason is that people don't know
enough about Socialism. Part is also due to a concerted effort by
big business to undermine any form of worker's organisation through
misinformation. Yet another part is due to the failed political
experiments which usurped the title of Socialism.
For this reason, it is necessary to look at Socialism afresh,
with no preconceptions. Only once it is understood should
one analyse the failed Socialist experiments of the past
and our situation in the present.
The business class has tried to bury Marx, yet his voice can still
be heard. The dominant ideology will dismiss Marx as a relic, as
not applicable to the present, ignoring the fact that capitalism
has not been able to solve the problems that Marx denounced.
Why is Socialism still alive? Because capitalism has not
been able to solve its inherent problems. Capitalism has
promised much, but it has delivered very little except to
the few. Capitalism has created a situation where
the majority of people on this planet are impoverished (30%
of children on the planet are malnourished), and the few live
in obscene luxury (5% controls more than 50% of the wealth
in the US alone).
The dominant ideology, that of the business class, is broadcast
to the people through the media, and permeates our everyday
life. It is time to question what we take for granted, time
to look at the facts, time to distinguish between what we know
for certain and what we are asked to believe by the dominant
ideology.
It is inevitable that unthinking hecklers will dismiss the
arguments without giving it any thought - this is inevitable,
given the power the dominant ideology, through the media, has
over the masses. In the West, this attitude is striking,
since many westerners are sheltered from the misery the
rest of the world suffers, misery which the Capitalist system is
responsible for. The West does give charity to the 3rd world,
but takes it all back, and more, through the IMF. It is important
to recognise this, form your personal conclusions, and not be
swayed by popular opinion. (Today, we can find abject misery even
in the West: the situation can only get worse under Capitalism.)
The crumbling of Stalinism has confused many workers: it has
given many people the mistaken idea that Socialism cannot
work, when Stalinism is a far cry from what Socialists stand for.
It is important to restore confidence to the working class,
to show that Stalinism is *not* what Socialist are fighting for.
Socialism bases itself on arguments, not faith. Not one single
argument in its favour should be taken on faith. It is not
merely that Capitalism is not as fair as is Socialism : Capitalism
is *inherently* contradictory, and hence will collapse, or lead
the world into destruction. (See Q.5, Q.6 and Q.7 for the
details of this contradiction)
It is sometimes argued that no-one understands your personal
needs better than yourself. This is true, but it is hardly a
defense of Capitalism. Capitalism is responsible for much of the
environmental devastation on the planet (see Q.7), and is also
responsible for polarising the world into the wealthy few and the
poor many. If one is part of this poor majority, Capitalism
hardly satisfies one's personal needs. Capitalism only satisfies
the needs of the elite few.
It is hoped that these questions and answers will clear up the
issue a little.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3. What exactly *is* Socialism?
Socialism is industrial democracy. It is a system in which
ordinary people, the workers, determine what sorts of
things are produced, and for whom these items will be made.
It involves stripping the power of big business to impose
its will on society. It is the next stage of the evolution
of society : a stage where class distinctions no longer
exist.
Socialist theory is not Utopian - ideals without substance
are mere fantasies. Socialism sees itself as the resolution
of the contradictions within Capitalism, just like Capitalism
resolved some of the contradictions within Feudalism. It is
this analysis of the evolution of economic systems which sets
Socialism apart from Utopianism. Just like Feudalism collapsed
under the weight of its contradictions, and Capitalism took
its place, Socialist theory maintains that eventually
Capitalism too will collapse under the weight of its own
contradictions. This theory was carefully developed by Marx.
The options facing us in an advanced capitalist society are
two : Socialism, or Barbarism. The failure to implement
Socialism will unavoidably lead to global war, ecological
devastation of the planet, and possibly the extinction of the
human species.
Marxism is not about pitying the working class, but about
the evolution of economic systems and the struggle
between economic classes (among other things). This does not
that one can be a Marxist without siding with the working class,
only that Marxism is not based on emotions, but on reason.
Far from being merely the philosophy of bleeding hearts, it is the
philosophy of a rational analysis of historical forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Why still support Socialism when Soviet-style 'Communism'
has collapsed?
Socialism has very little to do with Soviet-style 'Communism'
(more commonly known as Stalinism).
Although the Bolshevik Revolution was Socialist in its goals,
Socialism could not be implemented in Russia alone. The Bolsheviks
were aware of this. Stalinism arose because workers world wide
failed to support the revolution. It is important to examine this
issue closely, to understand how this conclusion is reached.
Certain prerequisites need to be met to implement Socialism
successfully:
a) According to Marx, Socialism is essentially an industrial
system. Marx was very clear on this point. Industry in a
peasant society would not be developed enough to implement a
Socialist system by itself. The material resources simply aren't
there. It would not be possible for workers to both work and
administer. This is why early Christian 'Communism' could not
possibly have succeeded. In our industrial age, the material
resources already exist for workers to take control of their
lives.
b) The success of Socialism requires an international workers
movement. Socialism must be international. Socialism requires
workers solidarity across national boundaries - without this
solidarity, capital can set worker against worker, and play
them off against each other. Capital can bribe workers to
betray one another, race is set against race, nation against
nation. (The future looks promising : As economic national
boundaries are blurred in today's global market, international
workers solidarity can only become stronger.)
In 1917 Russia, a backward, peasant country, with little industry
to speak of, a workers revolution took place. Here, Lenin headed a
'vanguard party' to lead the embryonic Russian working class into
Revolution. This party had the support of the working class, who
took it to power. Although this vanguard party only included those
workers which supported revolution, the party itself was highly
democratic and encouraged free debate. The first steps had been taken
toward a Socialist society.
However, Russia had little industry, and workers overseas were
dissuaded from Revolution by the lies of their governments. (e.g.
the German workers were promised the nationalisation of key industries -
this never happened). Socialism in Russia, then, stood very little
chance of survival, since it depended on Western support.
As the final nails in the coffin, WWI, the civil war, natural
disasters and foreign intervention all contributed in destroying
the power of the workers movement. Out of these ashes, a bureaucracy
emerged which was more concerned with keeping itself in power than in
world-wide Socialism. Out of this bureaucracy came the 'single-state
socialism' doctrine, a invention completely opposed to what Marx and
Lenin stood for.
Stalin, the leader of the bureaucrats, hijacked the Bolshevik Party,
as the later purges of loyal Bolsheviks showed. His goal, since
Russia had been abandoned by workers in the West, was to stay in
power at all costs. The workers were again exploited, this time
to provide defense against foreign powers and perks to the
ruling bureaucracy. The workers, by now decimated, could not resist
this bureaucracy. This 'counter-revolution' finally led to
totalitarianism under Stalin himself. In spite of this, Stalin
still masqueraded as a 'Socialist' and 'Communist', for his propaganda
purposes.
This is why both Lenin and Trotsky believed the Russian would
be doomed without a workers revolution in the West - they were
right, it wasn't long before Stalin's dictatorship usurped the
power the workers held. The working class managed to hold on to
power briefly, but lost it all later to the bureaucracy due to the
hardships Russia suffered.
It is essential then for workers to establish international
solidarity. The misinformation spread concerning the USSR
has left the working class demoralised and disorganised.
It is important to rebuild the workers movement. While the
time is ripe for revolution today, workers solidarity still
has to grow. Until it does, it is necessary for the working
class ideals to be heard as loudly and clearly as possible.
For this purpose, an organised workers revolutionary party is
essential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Why are certain prerequisites necessary?
a) International Socialism is required because in the face of
international capital, an island of socialism cannot survive.
Rather than joining the world economy, these systems are left
isolated (thanks to capitalism), and in the case of poor
3rd world countries, find themselves unable to modernise along
with the rest of the world.
Also, workers movements are left divided across national
boundaries. Capital can exploit this division within workers
ranks. For this reason, a workers revolution in a single country
can only be temporary, and must ultimately depend on an international
revolution. This point is crucial in Marxist-Leninist theory.
Furthermore, a country which attempts Socialism on its own still
has to participate in international trade. In a world wide
capitalist system, where profit is more important than need,
such a country is *forced* to cut costs in order to remain
competitive in order to trade. Such a state would end up being
run for profit, at the expense of its working class. Socialism
could not succeed under such circumstances.
The two opposing systems, Socialism and Capitalism, since
they have two different classes in power, cannot co-exist.
One will always overcome the other. Socialism must overcome
the drive for private profit world-wide in order for it to
succeed.
b) Socialism in an agricultural society alone cannot succeed
because its society still requires heavy industrialising.
Capitalism predominates under the phase of industrialisation-
Marx understood this well. This is why Capitalism arose out
of the ashes of Feudalism in the first place. A Socialist
society requires the resources of industry.
For instance, Stalin was faced with the task of industrialising
the Soviet Union very quickly in order to keep his country afloat
and his regime from falling. The result of was the destruction
of democracy : many people paid for industrialisation with their
lives, and a repressive regime was established to control
the population. Stalin's system obviously defeated the purpose of
revolution. This is why this system is commonly known as 'State
Capitalism': a term used to indicate how a minority in the state
profits from the labour of the workers (as opposed to free market
capitalism, where the capitalists are private individuals).
Democratic Socialism, the system advocated, does not suffer from
this problem : it opposes state capitalism just like it opposes
free-market capitalism.
(Keep in mind that there is much disagreement in the left on what
actually constitutes state capitalism.)
It is essential, then, for society to be already industrialised
for Socialism to take hold. Revolutions in agricultural societies
must spread to industrial ones for Socialism to be possible, and
from there, it must spread world-wide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
6. What is wrong with capitalism anyway?
This should be obvious. The environmental problems facing the
world today stem from the fact that capitalism's profit drive
overpowers any other consideration.
It might be argued that there is less environmental destruction
in the US than in the ex-USSR - The Soviet regime cut many corners
in environmental issues. The reason for this is that the Soviet
people had no say in the way the country was handled - Socialism,
on the other hand, would solve this problem by being democratic.
The US is an interesting case - although environmental regulations in
the US vary enormously from area to area, its big business is responsible
for much of the environmental damage around the world. Even the
local environmental restrictions are likely to go if they became
detrimental to big business. Note that the objection here is not with
the American people - it is with big business, which is essentially
international.
Also, Capitalism has been unable to solve the problem of poverty,
either. The gulf between rich and poor is ever increasing.
In today's world, after 40 years of spectacular economic growth,
30% of children around the world are still malnourished. In spite
of this there is a NET flow of capital from the third world to
the industrialised countries - the loan repayments far outweigh
charity. Wealth is becoming increasingly concentrated in the
hands of the few. Increasingly today, even in industrialised
countries do we see a widening gap between rich and poor.
Critics argue that Capitalism has brought wealth to third world
countries. This is nonsense. Capitalism has exploited countries
such as Thailand and Brazil for centuries, and yet the vast majority
of its people remain impoverished. Capitalism only concentrates
wealth in the hands of the few.
"Haven't Japan and Korea have benefited from capitalism?", they ask.
Yes, they have - but only because global capitalism has allowed them
to build advantageous protectionist barriers around themselves for quick
reconstruction, at the expense of a lower rate of return for foreign
investment. This was done to halt the spread of Stalinism, not out
of kindness. Now that the Cold War is over, there will be nothing
to stop Capitalists from bleeding third world countries dry.
Up to the last decade, we have seen a period of spectacular economic
growth. However, the post war boom is now over, and we will now see
the lot of the worker worsen everywhere (real wages usually only
increase during such economic booms). We are not likely to see
another boom like that in the future (unless WWIII is breaks out and
somehow our society manages to survive). An upturn in the economy
will see profits go up, but unemployment will still stay high and
wages will still stay low - today's situation clearly indicates
this.
Also, big business controls the political system. Bourgeois
democracy is dominated by the power big business wields.
Government is a slave to business interests. Defenders of free
market capitalism do not understand that the problem stems
from the concentration of capital in the hands of the wealthy few.
Restructuring government, or legislating against it, will not change
this situation (no more than you can legislate against adultery).
In Western societies, the state apparatus decides the important
issues - democracy here is just a friendly looking facade, which
attempts to hide the real source of power.
Last but not least, Capitalism is responsible for fuelling
military conflicts (when it is not causing them directly).
War is the ultimate expression of the drive for profit in
crisis. Furthermore, it provides an excellent opportunity
for arms dealers to benefit from mass murder, enabling them
to fuel conflict. There can never be peace under Capitalism.
Since the concentration of capital will increase as time goes
on, all these problems will only get worse. "Fine tuning"
capitalism is like re-arranging deck chairs in a ship on a
collision course with an iceberg.
The options facing us are, as Rosa Luxemburg once said :
"Socialism, or Barbarism".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
7. What fault of Capitalism will spark the revolution?
Basically, the inability of Capitalism, in its advanced stage,
to look after the interests of the class which sustains it -
namely, the working class.
Capitalism will, in its advanced stage, invariably and incessantly
lower the cost of labour in order to increase profits. This is
due to the fact that in an industrial society, once there
are fewer and fewer markets to expand into, the supply of labour
will be increasingly greater than its demand. Also, with fewer
markets, investment will no longer produce a significant rise in
profit. Marx identified this as the tendency of profit to fall.
This is the crisis of Capitalism, the contradiction which was
mentioned earlier. Of course, there are business cycles of
booms and busts, but the overall trend is that described.
These cycles steadily become more and more frequent, and
the system becomes more and more unstable.
It is true that the lot of the worker has improved since the
end of WWII - but the post-war boom is now over, and real
wages have been declining since the early 80's. Latest news
shows profits increasing: however, unemployment is not
dropping and wages are not picking up. Society is increasingly
becoming polarised into rich and poor. It can now be seen how
capitalism manages without a major war to boost the economy -
very badly for the workers, but still very well for the rich few.
If one looks at the ratio of wages to GNP in most capitalist
countries, one will find a surprising truth. This ratio
actually *declines*. Further, the concentration of capital
*increases*. From 1960 to 1990 in the US, the GNP per capita has
increased almost EIGHT times, while wages have not even increased
FIVE times, not even enough to keep up with CPI. (Mail me at
[email protected] for a DETAILED analysis of this)
This means that more workers take home less and less of what
they produce, and more and more wealth is taken by an increasingly
exclusive capitalist elite. A system like this will eventually
break, and lead to global warfare and environmental devastation
(in a futile attempt to solve the insoluble) or, alternatively,
lead to revolution and Socialism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Why is a revolution necessary?
The simple fact is that those who own big business won't want
to part with what they control - they'll use the means at their
disposal to stop workers taking control of their lives, in other
words, the police and the army.
For this reason, a revolution will be necessary, and it is to
be expected that this revolution will be violent (whenever it
is it happens). This violence is unavoidable, since Capitalism
protects its interests through violence.
Some socialists maintain that Socialism can be reached through
reform : however, the truth is that the state *cannot* be reformed
in this way. It is not possible to legislate against those who
control the state, those who control the police, the army, the
factories. Whenever it has been tried, it has resulted in a
massacre of the workers (cf. Chile, 1973). The workers must
smash the state, or the state will smash them.
Note that violence in this context does not mean spontaneous
acts of terrorism - violence here means self defense. Self
defense, because when faced by the forces of the police and
the army, the working class must fight to defend its own
interests.
(Keep in mind that many on the left believe that Socialism
CAN be achieved through reform. Some believe that it could
be achieved through the ballot-box. The author disagrees
with such viewpoints, for the reasons listed above.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Is Socialism autocratic?
Not at all. It is *democratic*. Other types of systems which have
been implemented, mistakenly called 'Socialism', have not met this
criteria, and hence they do not represent the system advocated. The
difference is that under Socialism, the workers would be in control.
Stalin state, on the other hand, crushed workers and controlled them.
The misconception of totalitarianism comes from Stalin referring
to his regime as 'Socialist' and 'Communist'. Of course, this term
served Stalin's propaganda purposes well (as well as those of the
capitalists). Let us then call Stalin's regime as 'Stalinist' and
not 'Socialist', since the systems are totally different.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
10. What can stop Stalinism arising again?
Above all, the revolution must spread world-wide. It is important
for workers in strong, industrialised countries to support the
worldwide workers movement. Socialism, as mentioned before,
requires the resources of industry, and cannot co-exist with
Capitalism.
Secondly, the revolution must happen from the bottom up, not the top
down. Should leaders fail to represent the interests of the workers,
these leaders must be overthrown. Revolution must come from the
working class itself, expressed through worker's councils.
Leninists argue that a vanguard party is necessary to bring out
the class consciousness of the working class, but that the power
of the party must at all times come from the working class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Won't Socialism work against the freedom to choose?
Only if your choice involves something which is detrimental
to society. What is detrimental to society is determined by
society *democratically*.
In most cases, it will be in everyone's best interest to cater for
as wide a range of choices and tastes as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Isn't the market democratic already?
No - your vote depends on the amount of capital you own. An
industrialist's vote has a lot more weight than the average person
down the street.
The ability of the worker to make money is not the same as the
ability of a rich industrialist to make money: this has nothing to
do with 'talent', it has to do with the wealth the capitalist
already has. To make money, the worker has to work. The
industrialist only has to sit back and take in profit. Capital
allows the few to make money simply by virtue of their existing
wealth. The only 'talent' particular to capitalists is in
accumulating and protecting their personal wealth, but this is
hardly a talent which benefits the community.
The fact that some capitalists work is beside the point - workers
also work, but they don't have the privilege of rents or dividends.
The fact that a few workers become capitalists later is also beside
the point (You wouldn't justify slavery just because some slaves
could later become slave owners!).
The flow of wealth is heavily biased toward those that are already
wealthy. You will see this bias in the increasing gap between rich
and poor - capitalism cannot solve this problem. Attempts to
correct this bias is seen by free-market advocates as unnecessary
interference with the market, and some extremist capitalists even
see this as immoral. We must step outside capitalism to put
an end to this wealth polarisation.
During economic booms, there is some social mobility within
capitalism - there's no doubt about that. However, the boom that
we've witnessed after WWII is now over : our standard of living
is declining relative to that of our parents'. Social mobility
is decreasing, and once the Capitalist expansion into the
3rd World is over, it'll be even more difficult to improve
one's position.
We cannot expect government to protect our democracy, because
government itself is a slave to big business. Some concessions
are given to the working class, admittedly, but these are
condescending moves to keep the working class pacified, and are
pitiful compared to what this class could achieve without the
burden of the capitalist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Isn't competition a good thing?
There is a fallacy involved here, which assumes that because
competition between two rival small businesses benefits the
consumer, it follows that full competition everywhere will benefit
society as a whole. This is a bit like saying that because
snowflakes are light and small, avalanches are also light and
small. This fallacy is a fallacy of composition.
It is true that competition between a small store on the
corner and another small store across the road will mean
benefits to the shopper. But when big business uses its
muscle, society starts to lose out. Small business is
squeezed out. Single large corporations are able to dominate
industry sectors.
The major industries today are anything but free markets:
for instance, the oil industry has always been dominated by
people like the Rockefellers, or the few major American and
British players acting in collusion, or organisations such as
the OPEC. The free market for oil does not exist, nor can
it be implemented. The reason for this is that as soon as
corporations become large enough, they are powerful enough
to control the rules of the game. Governments do not
oppose them, since they depend on them. Consumers
cannot oppose them either, since consumers do not form an
organised group powerful enough.
The larger corporations get, the less meaningful free trade
competition becomes. Single corporations can control many
different industries. Such large corporations are run like
totalitarian regimes (i.e. do as you're told or get out),
and the transactions that occur within them resemble very much
those of a directed economy. Internally, big business hardly
resembles the model of free trade.
One could argue that large corporations would be disadvantaged
by their sheer size, but this is not always the case.
Corporations aren't disadvantaged by their size alone : it is
usually a bad internal structure which makes it bulky and
cumbersome.
If these corporations do develop bad internal structures, and
they find their bureaucracy too unmanageable, they may subdivide
into smaller units for flexibility, sometimes still under the
same parent company, sometimes as an independent corporations.
In the first case, control stays with the original owner. In
the second case, the capital still remains concentrated since
the owners do not give the subdivided units away for free, and
all that occurs is a change of masters. Control, and hence
power, always remains with the Capitalists, and it is this power
that allows them to wrap the government around their little
finger.
This is where the ideals of free trade and competition have
led us. To deny this has happened is to be still living in the
past. The modern corporation in no way resembles the corner
shop down the street, and our modern economy cannot revert back
the past where small business was in charge. The conclusion
then, is that in today's world of multinational corporations,
a level playing field is an impossibility. 'Libertopia' is
an idle dream.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Isn't Socialism against human nature?
How so? It is in human nature to maximise your chances of survival,
selfishness does this sometimes, cooperation does this very well
other times. Also, human nature is partly a product of the
environment - change the environment, and you change human nature.
One might argue that Socialism goes against the human tendency
to strive for self-interest. Well, humans *are* driven by self
interest at times, but if it is in the best interest of everybody to
change the system, then people will do so. If it is obvious
that Capitalism is leading us nowhere, people will get rid of it.
Likewise, what allows modern society to survive? If humans
are only capable of selfish acts, how is it possible for
people to live together today? The fact is, that at times
people are willing to cooperate if the fruits of cooperation
outweigh its disadvantages.
There is also the concern that sociopaths could somehow
undermine Socialism. Why? They don't undermine capitalism
today - why should they be able to do it under Socialism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Won't Socialism make everyone earn the same money?
Hardly. Ronald Kunenborg <
[email protected]> expressed this very well:
"Since people have different needs and abilities, giving everyone
the same money would be grossly unfair. People with young children would
need more money than singles, for instance. Also, people with special
skills would tend to get more privileges, until enough workers could be
trained to fill these positions."
"The belief that there would be no incentive to work under Socialism
is without real basis: people work partly because they have to eat,
but mostly because they find satisfaction in their jobs, have social
contacts at work and take pride in their achievements. The need
to work in order to live would disappear, but since work would be
under the same democratic workers' control as the rest of society, work
would be re-organised to be much more pleasant than it is now.
Unpleasant jobs could be shared by all, or automated as much as
possible. The `little cogs in the big machine' would become no longer
alienated from what they produce, but would take control of their own
production."
It is true that worker productivity was low in Eastern Block countries,
but would you be productive if your government did not represent you?
If the wealth you produced went into the pockets of officials whom you
could not criticise? If your government directed the production of bombs
rather than bread? If the government deliberately impeded efficiency
to keep different geographical areas in a state of interdependence?
If what you made at your job was not enough to keep you well clothed
and fed? If you had to take on more than one job just to survive?
All these problems stem from lack of democracy. Democratic Socialism,
the system advocated, would not suffer from these problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Won't Socialism kill off innovation?
Why should it? Researchers are usually driven by curiosity,
not greed. Most researchers the author has met have been more
interested in their subject matter than in making money (research
is not really the best way to make money, as we all know!).
Capitalism only encourages innovations that will make a profit,
not innovations which are useful. Socialism, however, will always
encourage innovations which are useful. (What is useful, once again,
is determined by society democratically).
Since less effort would be wasted on unnecessary items such as
weapons and advertising, more effort can go into research which
is useful to society, as society sees fit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Won't Socialism dictate to me what to buy?
No. It will be in everyone's best interest to provide as many
different products as possible. Most people would want a wide
range of products to choose from, hence this is the policy that
would be implemented.
There is a caveat, though. Currently, there are some anti-social
products on the market : some plastics, CFC's, leaded petrol,
disposable containers, etc, etc. These products are on the market
today because they are profitable to business, not necessarily
because they are preferable. It is to be expected that under
Socialism people will decide to vote against these. If you are
determined to use such products, chances are you'll be
disappointed, unless you have a good reason to use them.
For most of these unattractive products there are less dangerous
but less profitable alternatives : as the profit drive fades,
the tendency would be to use less dangerous products instead
of more profitable products.
Almost for every dangerous product there is a less dangerous
but more expensive solution. As the drive for profit disappears,
the drive would be for less dangerous rather than just less
expensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
18. How will Socialism work?
Workers will be able to determine production policy by voting
in workers councils for representatives which will implement said
policies. Workers in one factory won't have to know about the
details of production of other factories - these issues will be
left to the workers who produce the items concerned. The overall
high-level policies, however, will be determined by all workers.
The representatives must be responsible to the workers
who elected them - should they fail in their duties, the
citizens should have the right to remove them.
It is of crucial importance to bring the decision making to
as low a level as possible - it is important to decentralise
the decision making as much as is practicable.
Many critics worry about the problem of inefficiencies in a
large organisation. The reality is, the size of an organisation
matters very little: what is important is its internal structure.
A large organisation *can* be efficient if it is subdivided
in relatively autonomous units. For this reason, if only
the high level decisions are made at top level, and if the
lower levels are made responsible for the details, a Socialist
system can be made to be efficient and responsive. (Large
organisations today survive through an intelligent
decentralisation of decision making.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Will the majority have absolute say over the minority?
(It is curious that many people who bring up this point don't
even realise that today, although big business only represents
a small minority, big business has inordinate power over
of our lives. This is clearly an unacceptable situation.)
Critics have a fear that mob rule will take over, that the majority
party will impose its absolute will on the minority, that the
rights of the minority will be trampled on. A Constitution
could be drawn up to ensure this doesn't happen, but there is
a reason why the author thinks it might not be necessary, as
explained below.
Presently there are many opposing parties involved in politics.
These have usually arisen due to competing interests among the
different classes. E.g. there are working class interests, middle
class interests, and big business interests. The issues that are
debated in Government are usually those where there is a conflict
of interest between classes. For instance, should corporate tax
be lowered at the expense of welfare? Either way, one class stands
to gain, the other to lose.
Under democratic Socialism, since there is no business class,
there ought to be much less conflict in politics - all policy
will be directed at the benefit of the workers. The sorts of
issues discussed will be, for instance, should more consumer
goods be produced instead of machinery? These sorts of issues
affect all workers in the same way. For this reason, there will
be no political conflicts as we know them today. Should there be
a disagreement, the majority will carry the motion. Should
bad decisions be made, they will be self correcting at the
next election. (Note the representatives do not form a class
separate to those who elected them, since the latter have
the right to recall them. The representatives interests will
therefore coincide with those who elected them.)
Individual rights should not suffer either. It is in the best
interest of everyone not to interfere with individual rights.
As an example, Nazi propaganda today is not banned, not because
it is agreed with, but because people value free speech (with
the exception of a few), and they fear that their own rights
might disappear if a precedent is set. One possible safeguard
for the problem of individual liberties is to protect them via
a Bill of Rights.
It is true, however, that in many either-or situations, the majority
will have the last say, but this is the case in any democracy.
You don't see democracy being abandoned because of this problem:
the alternative would be to have a minority make the rules! (note
this problem arises only in some either-or situations)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
20. What does "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat" mean?
The proletariat is the working class, the class of people that
earn a living through work, as opposed to rents and dividends.
Ordinary people belong to it : plumbers, teachers, doctors,
labourers, administrators, planners. It excludes those who derive
their income from rents and dividends. The dictatorship of the
proletariat is the system in which the working class have control
of government, and do not share power with business. If the owners
of big business want to partake in government, they will have to
become proletarians, just like everyone else.
This 'dictatorship' does not imply totalitarianism by an individual
or a bureaucracy.
It is true that under Stalin 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'
was expressed as totalitarianism - but Stalinism is *not* the
system being advocated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
21. Won't the overhead of voting for production policy be expensive?
Computers are bringing down such costs already. However, an
overhead will still exist. Such is the price of democracy -
you'll find that no-one condemns our present democratic ideals
on the basis of cost alone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Don't examples like Sweden prove that Socialism does not work?
For starters, the Swedish example is that of a Welfare State, i.e.
a capitalist system embellished with social welfare. Strictly
speaking, it is not the Socialism we are discussing. What the
failure of the Welfare State proves is that real Socialism cannot
be reached from within capitalism, it must be achieved outside of it.
Sweden, as a capitalist state, is susceptible to all the problems
of capitalism. Unemployment, income disparity, wealth concentration,
production for profit, boom to bust market swings are all problems
that the welfare state must endure, since they are all particular to
capitalism. The problems faced by the Welfare State are NOT those
of Socialism.
The welfare state still suffers from the conflict between labour and
capital. For instance, the issue of unemployment is a common one.
Critics argue that unemployment benefits only encourage laziness, and
therefore such social measures have a detrimental effect of the
economy. The problem here is that unemployment is a capitalist
phenomenon, caused by the market forces on labour. In a Socialist
system the economy would be directed: unemployment would not exist.
Everyone who was able-bodied and willing to work would be able to
work - not to dig holes and fill them up again, as some critics
would believe, but to do *useful* work, like building hospitals,
schools, community facilities. For this reason, there would be no
need for unemployment benefits as we know them today, and 'laziness'
would no longer be 'encouraged'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
23. What sorts of benefits will Socialism bring?
Big business will end its tyranny. Production will be directed
at need, not profit. Commodity production will no longer exist.
There will be no class conflict, since class differences will have
been abolished. People will have a real say in the protection of
the environment. Factories will not lay idle during economic
downturns, since the capitalist business cycles will be a thing
of the past. Full employment will be the norm. Leisure time
will increase, without loss of productivity or income. There
will be less gap between rich and poor, and hence considerably
less crime. There will be less reason to go to war. With no
private property to protect, there will be less need for the army
and police - under these conditions, the state will indeed wither
away.
These things are not universally impossible, just impossible under
Capitalism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
24. What can be done to achieve Socialism?
Encourage the destruction of national and racial boundaries.
Politicise the working class by educating them and organising
them. Reject right wing ideologies which divide the working class
according to race and nationality, and beware the use of the 'last
resort of the scoundrel' : patriotism. Your loyalty belongs with
the people, not some abstract entity representing the interests of
a minority. Foster international working class solidarity.
Speak out against the crimes of big business.
Above all - support your democratic rights, your right to be
heard above and beyond the constraints of our system. Don't be
fooled by the establishment's '5-second' democracy, where your
involvement in politics is reduced to spending 5 seconds in
ticking a box every four years or so. Your democratic rights
extend well beyond that, in spite of what your governments says.
The working class cannot die. Capitalists may become stronger
for a while, but their power cannot last, since capitalism is
self-contradictory for economic reasons. Its demise, and the
rule of the working class, is therefore inevitable - to oppose
the working class cannot achieve anything but prolong the conflict.
Help Socialists build a better world, a world free from exploitation
and poverty. If you agree with what you've read here, contact your
local Socialist organisation. A good organisation to contact is
the ISO (International Socialist Organisation). They'll be able to
provide you with further literature to explain in greater detail
much of what could only be briefly mentioned in this article.
Of course, I do not claim to speak for any group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Further reading...
Ernest Mandel has written great introductory books on Marxism,
among them "Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory" (Pathfinder)
and "Introduction to Marxism" (Pluto).
Some of the books from the "For Beginners" series are an excellent
introduction (published by Writers and Readers, London). In
particular, "Marx for Beginners", "Lenin for Beginners", "Trotsky for
Beginners" and "Socialism for Beginners" (although many others
are very worthwhile).
Much literature can be obtained from your local Socialist organisation.
In particular, the ISO has numerous books and pamphlets which could
be of interest. In addition, they publish newspapers which can
keep you up-to-date with current affairs, providing an alternative
point of view than that of the reactionary mainstream media.
There is a substantial online library of Socialist works, by
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and DeLeon, compiled by K. K. Campbell,
and transcribed into ASCII by various people. This library is
available on gopher and FTP on csf.colorado.edu, and is being updated
constantly, as I'm told..
....................................................................
These questions and answers have been collected throughout the
continuing discussion concerning Socialism on the net.
With your criticisms, I hope to be able to improve on this list
of questions and answers. I do not claim to be a specialist on
this subject, so if you find any inconsistencies, I'd like to hear
from you. Keep in mind that this list is a draft only, and mistakes
are unavoidable. Once an official FAQ is released, I intend on
abandoning the effort of maintaining this list.
Comments and criticism are welcome, from those in favour, and
from those against Socialism.
It is curious that talk of Socialism sends certain types of
people into a tail-spin. Certain close-minded individuals would
think that a one-line dismissal of the issues raised is enough
to close the issue. To those people, I suggest that only reason
contributes to the debate, not unintelligent abuse. Such abuse
is more a reflection of the originator rather than the ideology
attacked.
Send comments and corrections to
[email protected].
Mail me, too, for further information.
Disclaimer:
The following opinions do not necessarily represent those of
any organisation. They are presented here in order to attempt
to clear up the confusion concerning this topic which appears on
the net. The left has many differing points of view, and the
different factions disagree on various issues. I could not possibly
incorporate all points of view here, hence I have only outlined
mine.
Copyright (c) 1994 Raoul Golan
Making and distributing verbatim copies in any medium of this document
as received is permitted AND ENCOURAGED, provided that the copyright
notice and permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor
grants the recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted
by this notice.
This document has a copyright notice on it NOT to restrict its
distribution, but to enable the author to retain control of any
changes made to it.
[email protected] (Raoul Golan)
Feb 20, 1994
