|
--
| Socialist
Party
USA:
You
Don't
Have
to be a Saint to be a Socialist |
-
You Don't Have to be a Saint to be a
Socialist
by Edwin L. Laing
What if the world were a place where everyone had the comfortable
essentials of a full life, including satisfying work, housing, food,
clothing and health care? Plus the opportunity to learn and develop
into all she/he could be? A world where neither the environment nor
people were exploited?
Democratic Socialism is the exciting, lifeaffirming idea for a world
that works for everyone, a vision whose time can come. This pamphlet is
for people who know alittle about socialism but have questions about it.
WHAT IS DEMOCRATIC
SOCIALISM?
Democratic Socialism extends democracy from the political system to the
economic system. A democratic political system is a system of
government controlled by the people. Socialists want to extend that
democratic control to the way goods and services are produced. We want
to change from a form where production is for profit (capitalism) to a
form where production is for the use of all, in harmony with the earth
(socialism).
CAPITALISM
What is wrong with a
system where profit is the purpose of production?
A great many things.
For example, to maximize profits, unemployment is necessary in order to
weaken the bargaining power of working people seeking higher pay or
better benefits and working conditions, because workers know that
others are competing for their jobs. Unemployment creates insecurity
and poverty and pits worker against worker, often along lines of race,
ethnicity or class, where those who are lower on the economic ladder or
differ in some way are made to appear your competitors or willing to
work for less. Even without unemployment, the profit system results in
absurd differences in wealth, where a few at the top have more than
they can ever use, and enormous numbers of people are left with not
enough or in poverty.
At the same time, capitalism's race for profits requires enormous
expenditures for advertising (paid for by the consumer) with its
manipulation of our wants and fears and the downplaying of our critical
capability (which ability is crucial in a democracy), since all we need
to do is respond at our primitive level to this commodification of life.
Maximizing profits results in exploitation of workers, the environment
and the consumer. Capitalists can make more money for themselves if
they pay their workers as little as they can get by with. The same if
they use up the environment rather than respect it and husband it. And
the same if they make products that they can control the price of.
A major example of wasteful capitalism is the enormous war machine,
which sucks up national wealth in "welfare for arms makers". This makes
crazy sense for a capitalist system that must seek to "project
political power militarily" (i.e. kill people) to dominate the rest of
the world in order to control markets and resources to accumulate great
wealth. It makes no sense to socialists, who, putting aside actions by
the United Nations, believe in letting other nations be independent and
have fair trade with us. What if these enormous war machine resources
were put to work instead in meeting social needs –
building housing etc.?
You say "decentralized democratic decision making", but how can overall
needs be met if each locality is making its own decisions independently?
A federal system with democratically chosen representatives may be the
best way to insure that we don't work at cross purposes or selfishly
but have a big picture constantly in mind. Those representatives would
be charged with carrying out corrections to make the whole society
benefit.
So is this central
planning?
Mixed with multiple local planning, yes. But remember, any nation has
economic planning; it is only a matter of who does the planning, how
well, and in whose interests! Capitalists do a lot of selfish short
term planning to maximize their own immediate profits, often at the
expense of the society as a whole. Long term planning for the whole
society may have to emphasize education, energy and infrastructure such
as mass transit, and it will pay off in the long term.
A while back you said socialism aims to provide "satisfying work in
safe, rewarding conditions". Not all work is like that.
You are right. People might decide that some dull, alienating work
would be shared around or evaluated to see if that service or product
were really needed or if there is another way to do it. Brute
efficiency can be traded off for a way of doing things in a humane way.
And if workers are hurt on the job they would not need to fear they
could not afford treatment or would be abandoned by society.
What do you mean by
"alienating work"?
Sacrificing the worker's intelligence, creativity and social
involvement for machine-like "efficiency." "Alienation" means cut off
from. Marx pointed out that under capitalism, workers generally are cut
off in four respects.
1. They are alienated from their productive activity, from meaningful
participation in decisions about what to do or how to do it, how fast
etc.
2. They are alienated from the product of that activity, having no
control over what is made or what happens to it.
3. They are alienated from other human beings, isolated from each other
with competition replacing most forms of cooperation.
4. They are alienated from their potential individually and in a shared
community. It is exactly these four failures that socialism is
dedicated to erasing.
I don't understand
why you say socialist production is not for profit; don't the social
benefits etc. that you want require profits?
There has to be enough paid in from consumers/taxpayers overall to
support the costs of production and provision of services. In that
sense of course there is profit. But the socialist goal is to produce
for use, that is for reasonable, necessary wants and comfort, and any
"profits" would go back to replenish worn out equipment etc., and to
the people in whatever fair manner they democratically determined. The
important difference is that the capitalist system is built on sucking
out private profits at whatever cost to the environment, wages etc. in
order to give great wealth to a few; a socialist system starts from the
principle that people's needs and development in harmony with the
environment are always the primary goal and that profit must always
serve that alone.
What do you mean by
"people's needs and development"?
Socialism will strive to provide the conditions and opportunity for
each person to reach his/her full potential as a human being in all
respects. This is the great fundamental vision and goal and cannot be
overemphasized. Full individuality of each. (Not individualism, which
instead would seek to defeat others to aggrandize the self.)
Socialist society is based on cooperation and respect for others, not
competition in the sense of defeating others. Ample opportunity for
people to excel will be available in every field and not be limited to
an elite.
But some
people say socialism has failed.
Real socialism has never been tried. Or a start has been attempted
briefly in places like Chile in the early 1970s and overthrown by the
capitalists/armed forces, abetted by the United States government. Here
we get into labeling. For example an accurate description of the former
Soviet Union may be bureaucratic centralism, state
capitalism, capitalism without capitalists or something else, but it
was never socialist (except perhaps at the start) in the great
tradition of left humanist radical democratic thinking.
A lot can be said about this, but it's a rather pointless sidetrack.
The real point is that we can build a society that has the values and
forms I have described, one that is democratic and not capitalist. The
historic name for such a society is socialist. (Capitalists have tried
to make this a dirty word by attaching it to all manner of other things
–
regulation of industry, limits on land use, the welfare state, taxes or
even any attempt to make the government responsive to the needs of
ordinary people.)
But the Soviet Union
and others used the term socialist.
They sure did. However, you simply can't have socialism without
democracy. This is emphasized by the term "democratic socialism", but
that is really surplusage; the kind of society I am advancing has
nothing to do with the authoritarian states who hijacked the name for
demagogic purposes. What I have described earlier as socialism
obviously cannot exist without a democratic form. And there is no
reason to believe that we can't have such a society. But it is a
fallacy to pretend that every country's experience will be like
a certain other country's just because they used a common label to
describe themselves.
But aren't there
socialist countries like Sweden and Cuba?
The accurate term for Sweden is social democracy, a capitalist
mixedeconomy welfare state. (Most of the productive capacity in Sweden
has always been in private ownership.) You don't get socialism by
simple "tax and spend on social benefits" although that certainly has
been a lot better for most people in Sweden and some nearby
countries than the unbridled capitalist control such as the U.S. has.
The alienation etc. mentioned above remains in a mixed economy state
such as Sweden, whose welfare has been eroding under international
economic pressures.
Cuba is an undemocratic, or partly democratic, anti-capitalist state
(perhaps becoming capitalist) with amazing health and education
benefits for its repressed people, but it cannot be described as socialist
under
the
analysis I have given.
Although Solidarity and other groups do have a socialist program, too
often political parties around the world that have the word socialist
in their names do not have socialist programs and if in power merely
administer capitalism, as in some countries in Europe. They are merely
trading on the enormous appeal and popular identification made by
invoking the liberating, egalitarian tradition that working people
understand and want; how many political parties are there with
"capitalist" in their name? (Hitler's National Socialism [the Nazis] of
course had nothing to do with socialism and a lot to do with
capitalism.)
Well, since
socialism has all these other connotations, why not use another term?
Fine! How about economic democracy? The point
is that the whole humanist democratic anti-capitalist intellectual
history uses the term socialism and that is the one I prefer because it
locates us more accurately and historically. But as soon as you call it
economic democracy or good-ism or anything else, people will say – as
they should – hey that's really socialism, isn't it: are you trying to
pull the wool over my eyes? So let's not!
How does the term
communist fit in?
All over the lot! One meaning is the possible stage of egalitarian
cooperative society beyond socialism, perhaps like the early Christians
or present day convents but with a democratic form etc. Historically
Communists opposed Socialists. And of course it is used as a swear word
worse than socialism because of its association with authoritarian
countries like the Stalinist Soviet Union. Like democracy it has a wide
range of meanings; it has to be specifically nailed down in each
context in order to know which meaning is intended.
FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS
You mentioned
being in "the great tradition of left humanist radical democratic
thinking". My mother told me not to be a radical!
We use the term in its strict dictionary sense – to go to the root.
This is an essential idea for socialism. We don't want to just make
capitalism less bad, as liberals want, because we realize that the
system itself is the problem.
For example, a capitalist welfare state (where taxes support a large
social welfare program) still presents the four kinds of unacceptable
alienation of human beings I referred to earlier. And the capitalist
system requires that natural resources be used heavily, that labor be
squeezed, that consumers buy more and more high profit
items out of needs "manufactured" by advertising – all requirements
that come from the nature of capitalism.
Liberals whack away at capitalism's abuses, but capital will never
willingly give up enough profits to provide a full life for everyone,
nor can it change its essentially exploitive nature.
You locate socialism
in the humanist tradition. I am religious.
Great; there is no conflict. In fact
democratic socialism is a natural method to install fairness and love
as the very basis for society. Socialists advance the humanist emphasis
on each individual's dignity, worth and capacity for actualization. (Of
course religious hierarchies have often allied themselves with wealth
and privilege; when that happens socialists will oppose those policies,
as we will oppose attacks on religious freedom for all.)
The core values of the great religions can most easily find expression
in democratic socialism because of its insistence on individual worth
and providing the conditions for each person to get past economic
limitation in a way that demeans and exploits noone and that opens the
door to whatever spiritual life that person chooses.
The same goes for most "New Age" thinking, feminism and populism. As
each gets around to seeking the socio-economic framework to maximize,
practice and develop their values, here it is! Personal development
alone is not enough; we "walk on two legs", the personal – which won't
change the social framework – and the socioeconomic
system that can carry out and protect those personal values for all.
Patriarchal capitalism exploits and discriminates against women. So
feminist analysis is embedded in socialism, as is anti-racism, because
of our insistence that past wrongs must be righted and that all receive
equal treatment. And the Populist battle against the hydraheaded
monster of corporate domination opens the door to next address the
underlying support system of capitalist exploitation itself.
Do all socialists
agree with what you are saying in this pamphlet?
Oh no. I am trying to present a current
understanding of democratic socialism. I think it does so fairly,
although others would place emphasis differently.
I like the program
of the Green Party.
So do I; it has carried forward the defense of
the environment which Socialism supports. I hope Greens will come to
grips with the systemic character of capitalism's destructiveness. When
they do, their
program will resemble that of democratic socialists.
Well, how do we get
to a socialist society? Is it legal?
First, people have to know about socialism and the nature of
capitalism; socialism needs to get on the political menu. This is
crucial and is what this pamphlet is about. And yes it certainly is
legal to be a socialist in any democracy.
When people actually know what we are suggesting, are rid oftheir
misconceptions and are not tied into uncritical acceptance of
capitalism, then most people will realize that socialism is what they
need and want because it gives them assurance of not only all the
basics for a good life, but humane and satisfying work and benign
relations with others and with nature, together with the circumstances
to develop all sides of their potential.
With this understanding, change is inevitable and events will take
their course; I hope and believe it will be in a democratic way and in
a legal framework that continues the protections against the State
found in the Bill of Rights, with a Constitution that reflects the core
ideas and
protections we have been talking about and retains the best of our
present Constitution.
Who is in the
middle class?
Originally the term referred to the emerging
capitalist class under the feudal system. Now it seems to be merely an
amorphous middle layer of income. If a worker is one who must sell
her/his labor power to someone else for wages or salary, the blue
working class collar or white middle class collar matters little. (A
capitalist on the other hand lives off ownership of the means of
production.)
What about little
capitalists in a socialist society?
Some socialists talk about extending
democratic control only to "the commanding heights" of the economy, to
socialize big business (bring into democratic production) not merely to
nationalize it (capitalism without private capitalists). But isn't it
still exploitative of labor etc. and alienating for employees to work
for a middle size company based on the profit system?
Small businesses? Mom and pop businesses that do not make money off
capital or someone else's labor exploit little, except perhaps
themselves by long hours and hard work.
So socialism would
not "take my stuff"?
Of course not. "Commanding heights" aside,
socialism comes from producing in a humane, green way for the benefit
of each other.
What about retired
people who live off productive property?
Their welfare would have to be guaranteed in a transitional phase to
social ownership of the means of production, and of course when that
was complete their welfare would be amply provided along with everyone
else's.
Why aren't more
people socialists?
Several reasons. The main one is that people don't know about it or are
miseducated about it, since the corporate media and schools mostly
miseducate because they always reflect the going system.
Another is that secretly we blame ourselves if we're not "rich and
famous"; we believe that in the order of things we deserve what we got
– the fallout from the very effective false teaching of utopian
capitalism that everybody can be a millionaire if he/she truly deserves
it.
Another is that such a fundamental change seems impossible. Millions of
people see the flaws, cruelties and injustices of capitalism, but they
may not have thought about this in a systematic way and may fear that
the problem is too big to do anything about. To this I quote Margaret
Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens
can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
There are a great many people who are now discouraged about making
fundamental social change; they will come forward when the momentum
builds. Remember the Viet Nam War. Opponents were a seeming small
minority; opposition built momentum and then one unmarked day the
polarity changed and the rest is history.
Another reason is simply cognitive dissonance.
What do you mean by
cognitive dissonance?
Cognition is another word for knowing. Cognition consists of our
frameworks for understanding the world as formed by our education and
experience. We do not make sense of life raw; we understand it by these
frameworks built on our past experience and belief.
For example, every day we "learn" uncritically how the capitalist world
works, even if we don't even know what capitalism is. This is the
default setting, the conventional wisdom, the mainstream, "the way the
world is". For instance, we hear the newscast over public radio report
that things are good because unemployment has not gone
down so the stock market is up because business costs will not be up
(from increased worker demands). We are not told that this – more
working people out of work – can be bad for working people!
When we then see that this "world" doesn't provide for the humane
values we have been discussing and that a socialist framework can, two
ways of understanding now conflict; if one is "true" the other can't be.
But we have put our eggs in the present capitalist basket; we are
conditioned to that implicit world, feel some comfort in it and make
sense of things that way. The conflict shakes up our way of making
sense of everyday life; this conflict is like two musical notes that
clash, are dissonant.
We are stuck between them. Because socialism threatens these old
unexamined assumptions, patterns and assurances (including negative
assurances), we experience cognitive dissonance.
One result can be to lapse into denial, to avoid the discomfort of
having to accept our new understanding and its implications.
What
are
negative
assurances?
For instance "rents
are high – but that's the way the world is" with the implicit conclusion
(negative assurance) that there is really nothing that can be done; it
isn't even discussed except in liberal terms such as a long shot at a
possible rent control law if the problem becomes extreme. With
socialism the starting point would be housing for all.
Are people "good"
enough to become socialists?
Being
"good"
(or
perfectible etc.) has nothing to do with it! If ordinary people realize what
capitalism really does and learn what democratic socialism can do,
many will want to try it. People don't have to be intrinsically good;
democratic forms will correct their mistakes and excesses.
However, for
capitalism to function it must encourage personality/behavior
that is aggressive, acquisitive, manipulative and selfish ("bad"). But
a system based on real human values will reinforce humane
behavior ("good").
I
knew somebody who didn't have much but always took strangers in to his
home, freely shared everything he had,
and was very open and generous. Somebody said he was a real socialist.
Sounds more like a saint to me! I think that's fine, but you don't have to be a saint to be
a socialist, nor do you have to live in a hovel and give everything away.
The virtues, and
perhaps even the planetary necessity, of "Simple Living" aside, why
not have a swimming pool if you can afford it? (Although it would
be cheaper to share one!). Even wealthy people can be socialists if
they work toward the kind of society we are talking about, but they would be hypocritical if
they exploited people at the
same time.
With great admiration, this pamphlet is fondly dedicated to Bill and
Mae Briggs, socialists and humanitarians.
Copyright 2003
Edwin L. Laing
PO Box 186
Summerland CA 93067
Each person or entity is invited to make up to two hundred copies of
this pamphlet without payment to the copyright holder. Any and all
copies made must be without amendment, deletion or addition, must bear
this permission paragraph and must be distributed free or at a charge
not to exceed cost of reproduction. (Please report promptly to the
copyright holder full details of any copying over one hundredcopies.)
Any electronic posting (web site, Internet etc.) shall be considered to
exceed two hundred copies, but permission will be granted to do so,
without charge, to persons or entities approved by the copyright holder.
|
-
-
|
