|
Home | Join the Socialist Party | News | Subscribe | Donate | Bookshop Capitalism, Socialism and prosperityYour Comments6 July 2004 A question came up recently in a discussion which I
couldn't answer. Perhaps one of you could help me. Editor replies: This question is essentially answered in our Introduction to Marx's Communist Manifesto. Marx did not expect that capitalism would end as a result of a break down due to its contradictions, despite the fact that you will find this "determinist" interpretation of Marxism in a lot of literature. The Introduction shows how Marx saw the bourgoisie escaping from their contradictions by expanding capitalism across the globe, seeking new markets, but never ultimately resolving these basic contradictions. This process is still taking place, and, as you know, it is called "globalisation". As the Introduction explains, Marx predicted that the social and economic position and conscious development of the working class would lead it to be capitalism's eventual "grave digger." But the Introduction then asks: "Why has the working class not been successful up to now in ending capitalism, so that it can no longer threaten lives and livelihoods again?" (Chapter on "The Revolutionary Party.") Please read the Introduction and let us know if the reply given in this chapter answers your questions sufficiently. We would be glad to discuss this question in more detail. 12 July 2004 Thanks for your reply to my last question. Hi Kevin, You originally asked: "The USA has had an ultra-capitalist system for two hundred years. Why has the capitalist system managed to survive there so long if it is riddled with such contradictions?" Then: "I don’t understand though why widespread socialist and communist movements have sprung up in Europe, but not in the USA." To answer this properly would require a survey of the last 200 years of US capitalism, decade by decade, event by event, detail by detail, showing the battle between the two main classes, the rise of the working class and the tactics of the capitalist class, at each stage, and what was gained and what was lost. But I don't intend to do that. Socialist movements did spring up, but they never reached the prominence that they did in Europe, partly because of the relative youthfulness and vitality of US capitalism, which was able to part with some of its largess to the working class, and partly because of its utter ruthlessness, use of divide and rule and assassinations. Again in part undoubtedly the US capitalists saw their European counterparts assailed by revolutionary movements and vowed to crush utterly any growth of socialist ideas. To understand the dynamic of capitalism, and also the development of class consciousness, and socialist consciousness in the USA, you could do worse than the following: Schematically, first divide the last 200 years into two halves. In its first hundred years – schematically – you could say capitalism misspent the bloody brutality of its youth – slavery, the KKK, the Jim Crow laws, child labour, 16 hour working day, becoming protectorate, in effect, of the Americas (Monroe Doctrine), and many other crimes. Yet despite capitalism's gruesome vitality here, at the same time there are the emerging struggles of the working class, as epitomised by the first USA general strike and the beginning of the international May Day demonstrations in 1886 (see The Socialist issue 251) But the second hundred years, the 20th century, sees capitalism reaching old age and senility. Having already divided the world once over, in the First World War the main capitalist nations go to war to re-divide the world again with massive bloodshed, showing that capitalism has begun to reach its limits. Eugene Debbs’ Socialist Party gets 6% of the Presidential vote in 1912, (with up to 16% in some states.) Now divide the 20th century into two halves. In 1900-1950, capitalism faces the Russian revolution, wallows in two world wars, the great depression, and sees the rise of the general trade unions in the USA. This latter is a massive step forward for the working class (Teamster rebellion is a absolute must read - buy on this site.) Despite the utter brutality of the bosses, (Socialist icon and IWW leader Joe Hill executed by firing squad in 1915), the working class, under the skilful leadership of fellow Trotskyists of our party’s forebears, had the courage and conviction to build general trade union representation in the 1930s. By 1950 Capitalism and landlordism is overthrown across half the globe, but in its place arises Stalinism in various forms, creating great hardship for its people, and giving the bosses a stick to beat genuine socialists with. In particular, the McCarthy witchhunts against "Communist" sympathisers continues the US capitalist class’s hysterical and brutal pursuit of socialists, and spreads some confusion and uncertainty amongst the working class in the US about genuine socialist ideas. Now divide the last fifty years into two halves. Between 1950 and 1975 we see an upswing of capitalism after the destruction of the Second World War, and the emergence of the USA as the main capitalist country of the world (you could say the USA won the war.) This upswing led to widespread illusions in capitalism, and therefore somewhat cut across the growing willingness of the working class to organise. Even so, there were many very important struggles in the USA, such as the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and above all, the anti-war movement against the invasion of Vietnam. The USA is politically and militarily weakened by its defeat in Vietnam. 1975 – 2004: the upswing is reversed: capitalism spirals downwards, and US capitalism has not escaped. OPEC quadrupled oil prices in 1973 after the Yom Kippur War in the Middle-East, and global capitalism had its first simultaneous recession. Socialism Today has many excellent articles on US capitalism, for instance most recently Rate increases coming examines the world economy but primarily the USA economy, and 'The truth about capitalism' written in September 2000 by Peter Taaffe provides an overview of the last 25 years. In 2003 the war for oil in Iraq can be seen as the act of a desperate US capitalist class, divided but forced to take some extremely risky steps to keep its oil-based economy going, and finding just the mindless Bozo prepared to do it – enter Mr G W Bush. I’m sure you’ve read the many articles on our site in which we analyse the very poor prospects for the USA capitalist economy. In particular Our Aims gives a very useful and thorough overview, on our monthly magazine Socialism Today’s website. Today illusions in capitalism are disappearing, particularly amongst young people in the USA. You can be sure that the illusions which arose in the 1950 -1975 period, in the working class and more particularly it's leadership, will increasingly vanish, and the process of developing trade union leaders which adequately represent workers, even to the point of being prepared to replace capitalism, has begun. The trade union movement has made moves and will again make moves to break with the Democrats and form a mass party representing the interests of the working class. The presidential campaign of Ralph Nader, a left wing populist, a step in this direction also. (See current issue of Socialism Today – not available on the website.) So here we are: ready to take the struggle onward. At each stage in the past the working class has grown in numbers, strength, organisation, and consciousness. People apply to join the Socialist Party from the USA on our site practically every day, and sometimes several a day. We have a revolutionary party in the USA. www.socialistalternative.org By Sonny Klein
Capitalism, Socialism and prosperity16 February 2004 Just a few questions. Dan Factor, London, UK
Replies: 17 February 2004 Unfortunately, capitalism is not the garden of roses you might wish it to be. If it was, we wouldn't need to struggle against it. Nationally or internationally. One small company could be successful - the owner (let's call him Mr. Goodboss) might pay his workers well. This company has managed to be successful against all the competition, some of whom have gone out of business making their workers redundant. But eventually, another successful company comes along, owned by Mr. Badboss, which pays its workers far less, so makes more profit, has a higher share price and more financial backing. Mr. Badboss undercuts Mr. Goodboss Mr. Goodboss faces the dilemma all the good bosses faced, before they went extinct. If he pays his workers less, he will be more competitive, but he won't be a good boss. If he keeps his wages high, his company will go bust. So. Lesson no. one: Capitalism drives down wages. Capitalist society is a battle between workers - the people who work in the companies - and bosses. It always is. There is no good boss. Whatever the exceptions you might name, for most of us those are the rules. We do the work, they take the profit. We should be collectively in charge of the profit we make from our collective effort, not one boss alone. I mean primarily the big companies, the major multinationals that dominate the big majority of the UK and world economy, not the small businesses, (although they can be the worst.) The world is run by Mr. Badboss. Mr. Badboss is a Oil man, lives in the US and has just become president. His Vice President, and all his closest advisors, are all Oil men and women. And Iraq produces oil... The hypothetical question you posed [about Iraq] simply does not arise. Of course socialists would defend people from attack. But we are not so blind as to support the very people who made the danger in the first place, and would only make the world a very much more dangerous place, if they were given free reign to invade whatever country they pleased. Anon
Ok. So does that mean that under socialism the boss would not become wealthy from the business that he owns, and only be allowed to earn the same amount as the workers? Also I noticed from your website you have a general dislike of the rich. But not all of today's rich are Bad Bosses. Many of them are pop stars, and football players, quite a lot who come from working class backgrounds. Is it wrong for them to be rich? Replies 18 February 2004 Hey Dan, me again, question for you in return: Should bosses be allowed to own schools and hospitals? Other social services? How about roads, railways, house building? Steel, car, coach manufacture? Gas, Oil, electricity? The answer, from the point of view of socialists, is that these basic necessities of society need to be planned, democratically, with the full involvement of all concerned, as part of an integrated scheme. They simply cannot be left to anarchy, which is basically what capitalism is - the anarchic play of "Market forces". Capitalism leaves millions without jobs and wastes an incredible amount of stuff, through pursuit of a quick profit. Socialism, with a democratic plan, would show the advantage of planning over anarchy. The self justification of the rich that this is the best there is - their war-torn anarchy of boom and bust, unemployment and massive poverty - will be seen for what it is - a simple lie. Living standards would rapidly rise, just the opposite of what happened as the plan of production fell apart and capitalism was established in the Stalinist states of the former Soviet union - massive impoverishment of the people there. From the frying pan of a dictatorial regime that falsely posed as socialist, they fell into the flames of capitalism, with even more economic dislocation, unemployment, starvation, etc. So to answer your question: In the major enterprises, producing socially necessary stuff, there would be no boss, no "owner". These enterprises would be controlled and managed democratically by elected workers representatives from throughout the enterprise, who would not get more money for being elected to "management" for a period. They could then decide to increase wages, invest in new plant, fix up the canteen, open up a social club - rather than spend the money buying up some competitor or buying a new jet plane for personal use of the boss, etc etc. The reason bosses don't like the kind of socialism which the Socialist Party puts forward is that we state very clearly: we will nationalise the big monopolies, without compensation to the bosses, and place them under the democratic control and management of the workers. These enterprises would be part of a plan. They would share all their research instead of keeping it secret from "competitors." Instead of the duplication of competitive car plants setting up to steal the business from other car plants, which close down and set up again somewhere else, needs would be calculated, and research into development and improvement pooled. Instead of plants working at 2/3rd capacity and stockpiling millions of unsold cars, TVs, computers, etc, there would be a plan of production according to needs. As for small businesses, for instance small engineering firms supplying specialist kit, they would have bosses, and the bosses would be probably former workers who know their stuff backwards, and would reap the rewards for that. They can state their price, and would be a valuable part of a new socialist society. In fact small businesses would benefit from the abolition of the local government rates they had to pay previously, their overdrafts to the banks which would be abolished, and the cheap rents introduced, together with nearly interest free loans. As for the rich - it is the rich bosses which the Socialist Party attacks. I don't think the website has a general dislike of the rich, if you are talking of Posh and Becks, etc. See any attacks on them? (Maybe a joke or two...) I think the website tries as much as possible to make it clear it is referring to the big, multi-millionaire, or billionaire bosses - who own the top 150 companies that control about 85% of the economy. Sometimes the Socialist Party shortens this to "the rich", but that is who we mean. I want everyone to be rich, but that can't happen under capitalism. The Socialism in the 21st Century book explains this very well. The most important thing for us is that capitalism holds back the development of wealth for society as a whole, and impoverishes society. I don't hold anything again Posh and Becks - honestly! Apart from anything else, they make their money from their own talents (well, or whatever...), not from paying people s*** wages, paying no taxes through tax avoidance schemes, sucking up government grants, doing no work and pocketing a fortune. Anon Dan replies: 19 February 2004 No, I don't think bosses should own schools, hospitals, oil and electricity. These are things which we need and should be under government control. However not all competition is the cause of low wages. The main supermarkets are all in competition with each other, but when they lower the costs of their products they don't necessarily need to cut the wages of their staff. Ok, so they could use product price cuts as an excuse, but they would still be making a huge amount of money and still be able to pay their staff a good wage. Also, there are many businesses which sell things we don't necessarily need but buy as a luxury, such as CDs, DVDs, VHS and video games. And their sales are often dictated more by what people like and think is worth buying rather than what they need. I am not saying all bosses are great people. I just wonder if under this brand of socialism there would still be the opportunity for people to better themselves through their own work. The guy who owns the small stall on the market, could one day become the guy who has the big business. Should we say he is then the wicked "fat cat"? Ok, those people who make it big from out of nothing are few and far between, and yes it aint all a garden of roses. But we should at least give those people some credit. Also I don't think the bosses you speak of are necessarily bad people, they are just doing what the current political and social climate dictates. But I agree with your principle of how things that we need and that are essential to our everyday life should be democratically controlled. Dan Friday, London, UK Anon replied I don't have the slightest doubt myself that all the normal legitimate ways ordinary people have of getting more money will continue - - except by robbing their fellow workers of the fruits of their labour (which is what the bosses' profit is) - Posh and Becks will still be rich and posh. But like Posh and Becks, these individuals will not be in positions of power - power to make someone redundant, or otherwise make their lives a misery. But everyone's lives be far richer, with better housing, hospitals and schools, transport, better conditions at work, better wages, shorter hours, more job security. With Better food quality, air quality, better quality products, and so on. This is because capitalism prevents modern society from showing more than a fraction of the technological potential to increase people's wealth. [See Socialism in the 21st Century - ed] Also, under this brand of socialism, it is vital that a shorter working week is introduced immediately, without any loss of pay, so all pay would be consolidated first. Hours would quickly go down with pay consolidated, (I mean with no loss of pay to anyone from lost overtime) from the 41 or 42 hours the average is today, (and many people work far more) to 35, then 30 , then 25, including time every week for workplace meetings to get your elected workplace or other representatives to give a thorough explanation of what they've been up to. By the way, in my opinion, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be people who would decide to put in a load of overtime to earn enough to buy something they've always wanted, from time to time. Will people be able to own small businesses and make money from them? Yes It would be essential. Not just the fish and chip shops, newsagents and so on, but also the small engineering factories that produce highly specialised stuff, plumbers and electricians, etc. And then for instance, they could come up with the very latest useless gadget absolutely everyone wants. Nevertheless, any workers they employ would be well protected under a genuine socialist government. Will the Market Trader who one day creates a big, successful business employing thousands of people, be able to act the same way as he did when he only had one or two employees? (i.e like he was GOD) - No He can take the major credit, he may be granted by the workers by rights the biggest, fattest salary, but once his business gets beyond a certain size, he can't take credit for everything. He doesn't do everything himself. His business - whether he accepts it or not - is now a collective enterprise, relying on hundreds or thousands of people and all their skills. Beyond a certain size, under this brand of socialism, the decisions made in this firm will have to be taken collectively - and in consultation and cooperation with the needs of the wider community, the environment and other related businesses as well. So it's not a question of whether he's good or bad. It doesn't come into it. Like you say, that's just the current political climate - capitalism. The reality is - supermarkets pay s**t wages, despite making a huge amount of money - that's the system. Socialism is for moving to a more efficient way of organising society. The big bosses are just in the way of the forward march of the vast majority in a society which is beginning to recognise that capitalism is a destructive, backward moving, anarchic system. A majority which is already no longer deferential; that says: we want our rights. We have an equal right. Click here to send your Comments Home | Join the Socialist Party | News | Subscribe | Donate | Bookshop |
What
do you think? What is your experience?