Arguing for Socialism

One of the biggest problems for anyone arguing the case for socialism is the almost inevitable pessimistic response. The most pessimistic argue that human nature will prevent people from expressing the generosity seen as essential to any form of socialism. Since people are assumed to be naturally greedy, they will never accept any kind of equality.

Some people will listen to the ideas of socialism and readily agree that it would be a much better society but their pessimism comes through in arguments about the impossibility of getting there because the existing powers are simply too strong.

Others acknowledge the justice and fairness in the ideas of socialism but insist that the only motor of progress is competition and competitive capitalism. Without that cut-throat competition, they argue, we wouldn't have technological progress, the drive to produce new products, the improvements in living standards.

Faced with such determined pessimism, many socialists find it difficult to argue the case. All around them, they see colleagues and friends adopting reactionary attitudes in order to get on at work, believing in the market as the solution to all economic ills. Their friends and colleagues, perhaps even a little apologetic, see the victims of market competition as an unfortunate cost of general social progress. Unable or unwilling to see any alternative, they erect a wall against socialist argument.

For those going along with the general ideological flow, self-interest and the need to accumulate seems perfectly justified. The work environment of targets, appraisals, assessments at work, and ubiquitous deadlines, gives the impression that the process is efficient, the way it should be. The validation of these attitudes carries over into more general social attitudes. A work environment based on fierce personal competition turns anyone unable to defend themselves into a non-player, a non-contributor, a potentially avoidable cost.

It is perfectly understandable that those most accepting of an ideology of personal advance based on competition, will place a lower value on those people unable or unwilling to behave in the same way. Not only do they see the present system as validating their own success, but they see any threat to it as a personal threat too. The capitalist competitive environment validates the personal actions of those most able to exploit competition to their own advantage.

This pessimism is the result of years and years of propaganda against the ideas of socialism, the ideological control of the cold war, the disgraceful betrayal of socialism by those defending the Russian rulers, and the undermined confidence in people's ability to bring about change themselves. It's no easy task countering this weight of reaction but we should make the effort.

The Human Nature Argument

People are naturally greedy, will exploit their fellows, and will try to take advantage of the weak. At least that's what we are told. But is it really true? There are remarkable tales of selfless action, generosity and solidarity even amongst people in thoroughly capitalist societies. But there are also cultures in which competition has no place at all and where the very idea of accumulation is anathema.

Human nature is not the result of an innate drive for people to accumulate and compete, but the result of their unbringing and the influence of societal pressures. People are competitive because if they do not behave that way, they are deprived of some of the things they need and want, jobs and homes for example. They want certain products because of the pressure from advertising and their peers. These are not innately human characteristics but social behaviour.

Placed in a different environment, people behave very differently. In an environment where cooperation was more beneficial than competition, their human nature can, and does, change. Capitalism systematically moulds individuals to behave in ways consistent with the accumulation of capital, with the maintenance of the social organisation that benefits it. Human nature can change dramatically given the opportunity. Indeed, our whole education system is based on this fact.

At certain times in history, societies change abruptly when the social conditions no longer sufficiently provide for the needs of the people. Revolutions occur when working people can no longer accept the cost imposed on them by the current organisation of society. During these times, otherwise placid and subservient working people discover their potential to take action and change society fundamentally from below.

At that point, the whole argument about human nature changes. Human nature is no longer something constant, unchanging, static, pre-determined. Now it is fluid, full of potential and power. History is full of examples of how society has been fundamentally changed by working people taking power and reorganising it on different, fairer principles. They often fail, but nevertheless they prove themselves to be the motor of history.

Capitalism is just too powerful

In the last two years we have seen the world capitalist system shaken to its core by a financial crisis seemingly created by the greed of financiers. By re-selling mortgages whose values had been artificially inflated, they undermined confidence in the world financial system causing the collapse of credit, and in turn causing conservative governments around the world to rush to implement what previously would have been unthinkable. They were all desperate to subsidise and nationalise banking interests, offer ludicrously cheap bail-out loans, issue guarantees and bribes, in short redirect the entire state to repair an internationally damaged capitalist system.

That critical weakness in capitalism was not the result of a few stupid individuals, nor of excessive greed. It was and is a structural weakness in capitalism itself. Competition between companies forces accumulation and expansion, which leads to over-production and a drop in prices, which undermines profits, which of course pushes some companies to the wall cutting production again. The cyclical crises inherent in capitalism were identified 150 years ago by Karl Marx and all the evidence since then supports his analysis, which even pro-capitalist economists acknowledge.

Finance companies forced to show greater and greater returns led to fictitious products with no real value. The moment the bubble burst, everyone could see the inherent fraud in these mortgage products.

Although it is inherently crisis-ridden, capitalism is not weak and it won't fall apart on its own. Marx in fact never argued that it would - he said it would be crisis-ridden which it is. But capitalism depends critically on the only source of value in society, the labour of working people. No capital, no land, no stocks, no shares, produce any value themselves; they simply embody value produced by the labour of working people. Without that work, capitalism can't function.

That's the power of strike action. Preventing the circulation of capital stops capitalists from realising their profits and that directly hurts the interests of the capitalists. The struggle between labour and capital is constant and historical because the only way capitalists can extract value is when workers have no choice but to work for them. This is not the choice about which company to work for, but the non-existent choice of deciding whether or not to work. If a worker doesn't work, they have no means of support - welfare cannot and does not support the whole of the working class. The compulsion to work for others is ever-present.

Faced with the organised mass action of workers, capitalists often respond with attempts at repression, first through the courts, then typically with the armed force. But history is full of examples of where mass action is stronger. Capitalism isn't too powerful when faced with organised mass action. History is an excellent counter to the pessimistic idea that capitalism is just too strong. The overthrow of the state-capitalist regimes of Eastern Europe were brought about by waves of mass strikes.

The Capitalism is Progress Argument

No-one can doubt the pressure to develop economic resources found in capitalism. Production for the sake of production, accumulation in order to drive accumulation, competition leading to expand-or-bust companies, all force the use and expansion of productive resources.

In the last two hundred years we have seen the flourishing of technology, the advances of science and a transformation of the living standards of the advanced capitalist world. But what isn't quite so obvious is what has happened to the rest of the world. Capitalism is an all-encompassing economic system and the accumulation of capital in one area is at the expense of another.

Colonial expansion provided the capital for the development of industry. The extraction of raw materials from the colonies funded European capitalist development and in doing so impoverished those colonised countries. Slave labour financed capital accumulation in the US. Despite the triumphalist histories of "civilising" progress, the reality is plain for all to see.

So whilst it is true that capitalism has a brutal compulsion to accumulate and therefore forces the development of the productive forces, socially it carries a huge cost. But there is an interesting question to be posed. What if all that competitive waste was avoided?

Every time a group of competitors tries to develop a similar product, they repeat the research, the advertising and marketing costs. The R&D costs of developing a new drug are enormous but by far the majority of the costs are in marketing and advertising. That is waste. If instead of competition there was cooperation, that would be expenditure avoided. Drugs would be cheaper and would be produced quicker.

Instead of commercial secrets, the pharmaceutical research would be open source, available to everyone. Of course, the motive for producing these drugs would be social benefit rather than profit but the manifest advantages for society are obvious. It leads to the argument that human health is too important to be left to competition. Competition harms human health rather than leading to the best progress.

The same argument can be made in the case of food supplies, and many others. When the social cost of competitive accumulation are taken into account, capitalism does not look at all like the best way to achieve social progress.

No need to be pessimistic

Thinking of an alternative to capitalism is not difficult, but it is socially uncomfortable for many people because they have been educated to think that capitalism is the only possible form of society. It isn't.

Working people collectively have the power to change society fundamentally because they are the only source of wealth. All other apparent forms of wealth such as capital and land, require labour. Without the work of working people, capitalism produces nothing. This gives working people the economic power to change society.

Human nature changes dramatically and especially during the struggles to improve working conditions and claiming political rights. During political and economic struggles new leaders arise, people undertake new tasks and learn new skills, their imagination is fired and their potential expands. That massive untapped resource becomes available to build a different society. Human nature, far from being a limiting factor is actually a source of real strength for a socialist society.

Capitalism as a system is riddled with crises, not because it is poorly managed, but because competitive accumulation results in endemic problems which can only be resolved by increasing exploitation. Both worker and capitalist are coerced: the capitalist has to accumulate to expand, go bust, or get taken over; the worker has no choice but to work for the capitalist. The fragility of the system, and the coercive use of the state is increasingly apparent.

When mass organisations of workers act in their collective interests, society can be fundamentally changed. There is no reason why this should result in repressive societies such as Stalinist Russia or Maoist China - both of these arose for historical reasons which are worthy of careful study. Understanding what happened to them helps dismiss the cold war prejudices against socialist ideas.

I'll look at some more aspects of socialist thought in future hubs.

One of the best invitations to socialist thought I know of is this short book available online written in 1977 by Paul Foot, a UK socialist. Although it is a little dated, the ideas are expressed so clearly that it is well worth the time to read it:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1977/wysbas/index.htm