Socialism- Now More than Ever, We Need It

Hello, Genossinnen und Genossen.

It occurred to me that I've not offered a good summary of the broader cause which motivates me: Socialism.  I'd like to seize on this opportunity to so do in light of recent events. 

Our scene is set in a climate of hostility towards workers

These are far ranging- starting with pensions- delayed compensation for work performed, timed to come when workers need it most- old age in order to permit retirement with dignity.  A New Jersey court has ruled that pension contracts are no longer binding in case of bankruptcy- so an owner or board can sell off their company's assets to another firm- even one they own, holding the means of production hostage, bankrupting their original firm, shed pension obligations to the workers who created all their wealth- and use the stockpiled pension investment to pay their own bonuses, before starting a new venture, even with the same equipment, and it is now perfectly legal in New Jersey!

Labor unions- the most important development in this country's history for narrowing the wealth gap both between classes and between sexes, are being attacked on all sides, starting with the right to organize and strike- the Air Force may no longer report for duty when called in to bomb union meetings like they did in the 1920s, but the consequences for attempting to unionize are often dire.  And we're now seeing broader erosion of union power across the western world- their right to charge dues has been abolished in 25 states or more, and Cameron is passing a new British law banning union members from using Social Media during an organizing effort or within two weeks of a strike action.

Back home here Democrats are busting unions too, starting with teachers' unions, and by keeping the health insurance system privatized when 70% of Americans wanted a public one, facilitating attacks on the people's health insurance- a company's religious delusions are now more important to the law than the health of its productive workforce!

Meanwhile government services- the core of any so-called "sewer socialism" beginning, are being reduced like disability insurance, abolished like the federal welfare system, or sold to the highest bidder like most municipal services like energy and waste collection.  Most quietly but still dramatically, two years ago the Obama administration privatized poultry inspection with a stroke of the pen.  Now much of the South and Midwest- especially my native Missouri- is in the grip of a bird flu epidemic, wiping out entire flocks, and costing taxpayers and consumers enormous sums of money both to pay higher prices for food and to bailout the largest, least responsible producers!

All of this is carried on in the belief in individual property rights, and the thought that workers are not responsible for all that they create.  In short, Capitalism requires a belief that the rich have a right to be rich in order to function.  Even on Daily Kos there was a question asking how Bernie Sanders can accomplish his goals without the support of the Capitalists once in office, a worthy question perhaps, but the reason behind it was that rich owners produce all the wealth of this country!  Rather than respond heatedly, I wanted to outline in detail exactly why that is philosophically, morally, and economically incorrect.


There is an alternative- both of organizing and conceiving of society: Socialism

This actually starts with a simple question:  how do we own stuff?  Marx actually reaches a similar conclusion to America's grandfather, John Locke.  In the state of nature- without society, everyone has an equal right to everything, which is to say, no property right.  How one acquires the right to use a resource is by expending labor to refine, prepare, transport, or otherwise process it.  This seems simple enough- Locke actually mentions the process of Ausbeuterung/Exploitation though not by name as he concedes that one with enough money can buy the product of another's labor and profit from it, but he doesn't address the inherent class structure created in this transaction.  That was left to Marx.

Marx points out that we can all expend labor given the correct structures and tools to do so: these are the means of production- the factories, tools, distribution networks and such needed to bring products into the market at an efficient rate.  One's ability to use one's own labor efficiently depends on one's relation to the means of production, which is constantly changing to preserve class divisions as technology advances.  This has several implications

1.  Since in Capitalist societies, the means of production are sold freely, there is a class of the dispossessed, who cannot use their own labor profitably without subordinating it to the owner- compare independent farmers with mega farms, or any other situation.
2.  Since ownership is linked to money, not actual ability, the owners will require laborers of some quality and quantity to operate their empires.
3.  Profit is the extraction of value from labor- that is, getting more out of something than one puts into it.  Goods and services have different utilities to different people, but that value is the property of those who produce it, not those who control the means of production!  We can't get the full value of our work as long as the business we serve are making profits, unless we own them ourselves.
4.  Since Capitalists all extract more from their workforce than the goods that they buy and sell are worth, they will not be able to turn a profit unless they pay their employees much less than their competitors, or find a new market to sell them in.  This explains why wages relative to productivity are half of what they were 40 years ago.

This brings us to Socialism: a system in which ownership of these means of production- these tools of society- is shared, whether in a system of co-ops or by a state that represents the interests of the productive class, and gives everyone meaningful, productive status within that class.

This would stop so many problems!  For one, we could produce what is needed, not what is profitable.  Further, by eliminating the financial interest of elites in favoring certain policies, we could achieve a much more sustainable society, whether it's a centrally planned one or a decentralized, cooperative one.  Without the wealthy classes need for profit, we could switch to clean energy without meeting any opposition, we would have no need for a massive military industrial complex, because decisions could be made without concern for profit!  Society must run on the interests of all, not on the interests of an ever-strengthening owner class.  That is what Socialism promises- a society where the means of production are shared.

The question of course remains whether the co-op or the centrally planned model is best.  I rather like the idea of democratically deciding what we divert resources to: in a society where every price is by default based on the labor cost of production, we will need to make some tradeoffs.  While the examples we have of planned economies are somewhat less than democratic, the model of centrally directed investment in things like the arts has proven extremely effective in countries like East Germany, with a high degree of artistic freedom retained in the bargain.  As for the cooperative model, the best example I know of was the post-revolution Spanish Republic, but it didn't really last long enough to establish anything approaching normality.  (Productivity did rise dramatically when ownership was shared, as people are better motivated when their labor's earnings aren't being siphoned off to enrich the coffers of the wealthy).

For a society that is politically and economically democratic, we need Socialism.  With ever-increasing concentrations of wealth out of reach of our democratic institutions, we need to break the control of elites over the key sectors of our economy, and make decisions together in the interest of the people, not the highest profit margin.

Now that we have two prominent socialist campaigns, one on either side of the Atlantic, these ideas are at least approaching the public's consciousness once more.

In Britain, the heroic campaign of Genosse Jeremy Corbyn for leader of the Labour Party (and Prime Ministerial nominee in 2020) has revived a conversation about the essence of Socialism: public ownership rather than private exploitation.  Promising to renationalize Britain's energy and transit sectors and diverting funds to restore free higher education, Corbyn is promising a democratic reordering of the British economy, and a recognition of common cause with the Workers of the World, including South America.  Backing off from imperialist wars abroad, and instituting economic justice at home has never looked so possible for Britain since the Attlee government.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, Genosse Bernie Sanders is running for the Democratic nomination for president.  Promising to strengthen unions and increase public sector involvement in infrastructure as a remedy to both Climate Change and unemployment, Sanders has done much to raise awareness of our rigged economic system, and may well win several primaries, keeping the discussion going for weeks longer than scheduled by the DLC elites.  His promise to break up the financial manipulators that produce crisis after crisis, only to demand more taxpayer dollars, is resonating with millions of voters, and the word "Socialism" is exciting Americans in droves for the first time in decades.

Maybe Marx is right: maybe Capitalism inevitably pushes too hard and makes itself unsustainable.  We could well be witnessing the beginning of the final struggle for liberation.

Down with Profit!  Long live Justice!

Genossin Elise