RedCeltic
16th January 2002, 01:43
*The following was posted on a yahoo groups on socialism by JT. *
It would be foolish to deny that at one time the capitalist system was a
progressive development of society. It is doubtful if even a dedicated
admirer of privilege would want to go back to feudalism. Who would want to
be ruled by an absolute monarch in the shape of King Charles III, either
with or without Queen Elizabeth II?
If we were so ruled more than a few of us would be plotting a fate for him
similar to the one that befell his unfortunate predecessor King Charles I.
However, although capitalism once moved us forward, it has long since
outlived its usefulness. We come here to bury the capitalist system, not
to praise it.
In deciding whether capitalism, like feudalism, should be consigned to
history we should apply one simple test. Is the capitalist system
organised directly for the needs of all people? If it is not, that would
be the best reason for getting rid of it, and replacing it with one that
would. This is a choice between capitalism or socialism.
Capitalism is organised for private gain, for profit and the accumulation
of capital. It works through class ownership and economic exploitation. It
sets up economic antagonisms within communities and divides the world into
rival capitalist states. It breeds the ideologies of hate which are
expressed in many forms of religion, nationalism and racism. It is
enforced through the power structures of the state. It creates vast
amounts of waste and destruction. It turns all the useful things of life,
including our labour, skills and talents into commodities to be bought and
sold on the markets.
Capitalism makes a god of money and puts this above the real needs of
people, so how could anyone seriously argue that it is organised for the
benefit of the community?
Some obvious examples can be given. Surely, the first thing that any
decent society would do is make sure that everyone ate enough quality food
to sustain good health, yet there are more people starving or seriously
undernourished than ever before. In the 1990s UNICEF stated that 40,000
children die every day from malnutrition or malnutrition-related disease,
and this has not improved. We were all shocked and sickened by the
slaughter of 3000 workers in the Twin Towers in NYC. We should also
remember that throughout the world thousands of children are dying
needlessly every day.
We are not only talking about undeveloped countries. In the so-called
advanced countries there is widespread poverty. In Europe 30 million
people live below the poverty line (less than half average national
income). In America the number is 32 million. According to a report issued
by the “Department of Social Security Report: Households below average
income”, one third of all children, that is 4.1 million, live in poverty.
Appalling neglect of needs
How has capitalism responded to this appalling picture of starvation and
poverty? It cut food production because it was said there was
"over-supply". To understand this we have to understand that in the
twisted language of the market system "over-supply" does not mean "more
than we need". It means that too much food was produced for the purpose of
selling it at a profit. As a result food prices fell and profits were
threatened. To increase prices and profits, production was cut.
In America 82 million acres are taken out of cereal production. This was
equivalent to the combined states of Iowa, Illinois and half of Indiana.
Europe did a similar thing under a different name, "set aside". Under the
latest reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, European farmers have had
to take 15 percent of croplands out of production.
The ‘Independent’ carried sometimes a picture of a Major Lloyd and his
wife who are being paid £19,000 per year for growing nothing on their 215
acres of high quality arable land in Oxfordshire. Major Lloyd is an
ex-life guards officer, a group who are not normally noted for their
humanitarian sentiments but even he can't help saying, "something is wrong
when there are so many people starving in the world and we're being paid
not to grow food".
A further example of how the priorities of profit and capital accumulation
come before the needs of people is unemployment. In the 25 countries of
the so-called Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) 35 million are unemployed. In Germany it is over 4 million. Since
1980 in Britain there has never been less than two million unemployed
using the old accounting methods.
In view of all the things that need to be done would a sane society keep
millions of its work-force in a state of idleness? What has been the
"opportunity cost"? Two million unemployed means 10 million work-days lost
every week or 500 million every year. Since 1980, in Britain alone, more
than eight billion work-days have been lost because of unemployment.
Think of all the useful things that could have been done with these eight
billion work-days, the houses and hospitals that could have been built,
the production of food, better education, a decent public transport system
and a clean-up of the environment. These are all examples of how the
capitalist system prevents our use of resources whilst needs are denied.
We are not only talking about material things, we are also talking about
de-humanised relationships in which producers are used as objects for
private gain. Profit and capital accumulation can only be achieved through
the economic exploitation of one class by another. The function of workers
is to create values over and above what their wages or salaries will buy.
This surplus is the source of the obscene disparities in the ownership of
wealth which we see all around us.
The ‘Independent’ reported that in America "Just weeks after AT&T
announced plans to shed 40,000 workers, it has emerged that its chief
executive, Robert Allen, received a pay package in valued at just over $16
million, compared with $6.7 million a year earlier." In this country,
Barclays Bank has announced the loss of a further 1,000 jobs, just after
posting $4 billion profits. This comes on top of its 21,000 workers sacked
since 1991.
Many such examples could be given and what they add up to is the fact that
capitalism is ruthless in its treatment of people when pursuing its aims.
By no stretch of the imagination could the capitalist system be said to be
organised for the benefit of the whole community, and this is the test as
to whether it has outlived its usefulness, now that a world of abundance
is possible.
Practical alternative
The practical alternative which would be organised directly for the needs
of all people is socialism. The challenge of working with others round the
world to set up a new system is not so great as it might appear. Already
we have people doing useful work in every field. In farming, mining,
industry, manufacture, building and transport, and in the running of
services like education, health, communications, radio and television, and
the like, we have people of every skill and talent doing the useful things
of life.
The challenge is to free these resources from the constraints and the
anti-social aims of the capitalist system. If workers around the world can
run society in the interests of profit-mongers then they can surely run it
in their own interests.
This would have to be based on common ownership where all resources and
all means of producing and distributing goods would be held in common by
all people. Then through democratic control and voluntary co-operation
every aspect of society would be organised solely for the benefit of the
whole community.
What can be the justification for wanting to retain a system such as
capitalism, which is only distinguished by its ability to generate failure
and disillusion and all its various ways of thwarting the best hopes that
we have for our future?
The day is long overdue for getting rid of it.
(Edited by RedCeltic at 1:05 am on Jan. 16, 2002)
It would be foolish to deny that at one time the capitalist system was a
progressive development of society. It is doubtful if even a dedicated
admirer of privilege would want to go back to feudalism. Who would want to
be ruled by an absolute monarch in the shape of King Charles III, either
with or without Queen Elizabeth II?
If we were so ruled more than a few of us would be plotting a fate for him
similar to the one that befell his unfortunate predecessor King Charles I.
However, although capitalism once moved us forward, it has long since
outlived its usefulness. We come here to bury the capitalist system, not
to praise it.
In deciding whether capitalism, like feudalism, should be consigned to
history we should apply one simple test. Is the capitalist system
organised directly for the needs of all people? If it is not, that would
be the best reason for getting rid of it, and replacing it with one that
would. This is a choice between capitalism or socialism.
Capitalism is organised for private gain, for profit and the accumulation
of capital. It works through class ownership and economic exploitation. It
sets up economic antagonisms within communities and divides the world into
rival capitalist states. It breeds the ideologies of hate which are
expressed in many forms of religion, nationalism and racism. It is
enforced through the power structures of the state. It creates vast
amounts of waste and destruction. It turns all the useful things of life,
including our labour, skills and talents into commodities to be bought and
sold on the markets.
Capitalism makes a god of money and puts this above the real needs of
people, so how could anyone seriously argue that it is organised for the
benefit of the community?
Some obvious examples can be given. Surely, the first thing that any
decent society would do is make sure that everyone ate enough quality food
to sustain good health, yet there are more people starving or seriously
undernourished than ever before. In the 1990s UNICEF stated that 40,000
children die every day from malnutrition or malnutrition-related disease,
and this has not improved. We were all shocked and sickened by the
slaughter of 3000 workers in the Twin Towers in NYC. We should also
remember that throughout the world thousands of children are dying
needlessly every day.
We are not only talking about undeveloped countries. In the so-called
advanced countries there is widespread poverty. In Europe 30 million
people live below the poverty line (less than half average national
income). In America the number is 32 million. According to a report issued
by the “Department of Social Security Report: Households below average
income”, one third of all children, that is 4.1 million, live in poverty.
Appalling neglect of needs
How has capitalism responded to this appalling picture of starvation and
poverty? It cut food production because it was said there was
"over-supply". To understand this we have to understand that in the
twisted language of the market system "over-supply" does not mean "more
than we need". It means that too much food was produced for the purpose of
selling it at a profit. As a result food prices fell and profits were
threatened. To increase prices and profits, production was cut.
In America 82 million acres are taken out of cereal production. This was
equivalent to the combined states of Iowa, Illinois and half of Indiana.
Europe did a similar thing under a different name, "set aside". Under the
latest reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, European farmers have had
to take 15 percent of croplands out of production.
The ‘Independent’ carried sometimes a picture of a Major Lloyd and his
wife who are being paid £19,000 per year for growing nothing on their 215
acres of high quality arable land in Oxfordshire. Major Lloyd is an
ex-life guards officer, a group who are not normally noted for their
humanitarian sentiments but even he can't help saying, "something is wrong
when there are so many people starving in the world and we're being paid
not to grow food".
A further example of how the priorities of profit and capital accumulation
come before the needs of people is unemployment. In the 25 countries of
the so-called Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) 35 million are unemployed. In Germany it is over 4 million. Since
1980 in Britain there has never been less than two million unemployed
using the old accounting methods.
In view of all the things that need to be done would a sane society keep
millions of its work-force in a state of idleness? What has been the
"opportunity cost"? Two million unemployed means 10 million work-days lost
every week or 500 million every year. Since 1980, in Britain alone, more
than eight billion work-days have been lost because of unemployment.
Think of all the useful things that could have been done with these eight
billion work-days, the houses and hospitals that could have been built,
the production of food, better education, a decent public transport system
and a clean-up of the environment. These are all examples of how the
capitalist system prevents our use of resources whilst needs are denied.
We are not only talking about material things, we are also talking about
de-humanised relationships in which producers are used as objects for
private gain. Profit and capital accumulation can only be achieved through
the economic exploitation of one class by another. The function of workers
is to create values over and above what their wages or salaries will buy.
This surplus is the source of the obscene disparities in the ownership of
wealth which we see all around us.
The ‘Independent’ reported that in America "Just weeks after AT&T
announced plans to shed 40,000 workers, it has emerged that its chief
executive, Robert Allen, received a pay package in valued at just over $16
million, compared with $6.7 million a year earlier." In this country,
Barclays Bank has announced the loss of a further 1,000 jobs, just after
posting $4 billion profits. This comes on top of its 21,000 workers sacked
since 1991.
Many such examples could be given and what they add up to is the fact that
capitalism is ruthless in its treatment of people when pursuing its aims.
By no stretch of the imagination could the capitalist system be said to be
organised for the benefit of the whole community, and this is the test as
to whether it has outlived its usefulness, now that a world of abundance
is possible.
Practical alternative
The practical alternative which would be organised directly for the needs
of all people is socialism. The challenge of working with others round the
world to set up a new system is not so great as it might appear. Already
we have people doing useful work in every field. In farming, mining,
industry, manufacture, building and transport, and in the running of
services like education, health, communications, radio and television, and
the like, we have people of every skill and talent doing the useful things
of life.
The challenge is to free these resources from the constraints and the
anti-social aims of the capitalist system. If workers around the world can
run society in the interests of profit-mongers then they can surely run it
in their own interests.
This would have to be based on common ownership where all resources and
all means of producing and distributing goods would be held in common by
all people. Then through democratic control and voluntary co-operation
every aspect of society would be organised solely for the benefit of the
whole community.
What can be the justification for wanting to retain a system such as
capitalism, which is only distinguished by its ability to generate failure
and disillusion and all its various ways of thwarting the best hopes that
we have for our future?
The day is long overdue for getting rid of it.
(Edited by RedCeltic at 1:05 am on Jan. 16, 2002)