Another world
Socialists have always known that another
world is possible. The world doesn't have to be capitalist. If, on the
other hand, capitalism remains, then a world other than we've got now –
with global problems of inequality, wars and environmental destruction
– is not possible. The only other world possible today is a socialist
world, in the original sense of the word of course, as a system of
common ownership and democratic control of productive resources, not
the travesties that passed for socialism in the 20th century.
Many in the alternative-world movement are prepared to call themselves
“anti-capitalists”, but only a few are prepared to argue for a world
society of common ownership and democratic control with production
directly to meet human needs without passing through money and the
market. Most are literally what they say they are – anti-capitalists,
i.e. opposed to the actions of capitalist corporations, and the
governments that protect them and promote their interests, rather than
against capitalism as a total, global system.
They are engaged in a never-ending, uphill struggle to try to contain
and restrain capitalist corporations and governments from pursuing
profits without regard for the consequences. Some of their less radical
colleagues – those running the Non-Governmental Organisations – have
made a virtue of necessity and see this as their institutionalised role
within capitalism, warning those responsible for running it of the
long-term dangers for the system of allowing policies to be dictated by
short-term profit considerations. They are not really anti-capitalist
at all, just advocates of a “regulated” capitalism. It's a message
capitalist governments are prepared to listen to and even welcome
(which is why they subside some NGOs, which are therefore not as
“non-governmental” as all that). The administrators of capitalism are
not as stupid as some of its “free-market” ideologues.
These are the same people who see the solution to the world's problems
as “fair trade” and who danced in the hall at the failure of the recent
WTO talks in Cancun. If further proof was required that they stand for
an “alternative capitalism” rather than an “alternative to capitalism”
this is it. Trade – as the exchange of goods for money (an exchange of
ownership title as opposed to the physical transfer of products from
one part of the world to another that will of course continue in
socialism) – is a key feature of capitalism which is in fact a system
of universal buying and selling, i.e. trading, on a world scale. “Fair”
trade is a capitalist concept according to which producers, or rather
producer-countries, would get the full value of what they sell instead
of less than this due to more powerful countries distorting the market
in their own favour.
Disputes such as took place in Cancun are essentially an argument
amongst capitalist countries, with the less powerful trying to regulate
the world market so that it does not operate to the undue – in
capitalist terms – benefit of the big boys. In this internal squabble
amongst capitalist states, the NGOs take the side of the underdogs and
offer this as “another world”.
The unequal distribution of the benefits of production is indeed, to
continue with their language for a moment, “unfair” and “unjust”. In a
sense, socialists start from the same premise as them that every human
being, just because they are human beings, should be able to enjoy a
life free from material deprivation and insecurity no matter where they
live in the world. But we don't agree that this can be achieved by a
regulated capitalism which would put all capitalist states on an equal
footing so far as realising the surplus value created by their workers
is concerned. This might benefit – enrich – the capitalists of India,
Brazil, China and Indonesia and put more money into the pockets of the
rulers of African states, but it would not eliminate inequality between
humans in the distribution of material goods.
Even in countries such as the United States and those of Western Europe
which benefit from current world trading arrangements, there is still
inequality: there is still a wealthy property-owning class whose income
as rent, interest and profit gives them a privileged consumption and
the rest of us, while nowhere near as worse off as those in the shanty
towns and villages of Africa, India and Latin America, still suffer
from problems of material insecurity. In any event, the division in the
world is not between all the people living in North America and Western
Europe and those living in the rest of the world. There are plenty of
rich people – some of them filthy rich – living in the so-called Third
World.
The only way to ensure that every single human being on the planet has
an equal chance to enjoy a life free from material deprivation is a
world where all the resources of the planet have become the common
heritage of all humanity. On this basis, these can be used to provide
enough for all, without conflict (between ruling classes) over access
to key raw materials and without plundering the Earth's resources or
polluting the biosphere. We are not claiming that this would be an easy
task – there will be problems of co-ordination and co-operation to
solve, not to speak of having to clear up the mess left by the profit
system – but it is technologically possible as well as socially
desirable.
Yes, another world is possible but it has to be a non-capitalist – a
socialist – world.
Go to Socialist
Party home Glasgow home