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 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 rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu) --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au 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 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 raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au. 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. raoul@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Raoul Golan) Feb 20, 1994