Arguments for Socialism
- This topic has 72 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
TomandBob
There is some truth in what you say about the need to associate socialism with abundance, but I don’t think this is an either/or situation.
Many workers are increasingly concerned about the state of the environment and are disillusioned with the consumerist rat race. There have been studies that point to the fact that beyond a certain point, more money does not make you happier. As someone quipped, the most miserable people in the world are the very rich and the very poor.
We should be thinking of a more balanced approach to life. One of the great “selling points” of socialism, if I can put it like that, is that most of the jobs that we do today in a capitalist society will no longer need to be done in a post-capitalist society (all those jobs to do with handling money, for example). In effect, we can more than double the amount of labour and resources for socially useful production in a socialist society without imposing any greater strain on the environment – simply by diverting all this wasted labour and resources away from these socially useless activities that capitalism necessitates.
This is one of the strongest arguments for socialism. It should be hammered home at every opportunity
This pamphlet, published by the Socialist Party, addresses the question of ecology and environment. Most environmental activists do not see that the main problem is capitalism
‘We should be thinking of a more balanced approach to life’.
But, what you consider as ‘a balanced approach to life’ may be different to someone else. I’m happy to use public transport as I live in a city, while someone else may find having a car more important. I only wash with soap, someone else may like using different shower gels and putting on different body sprays each day.
‘We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume.'(Sylvia Pankhurst). That seems like a pretty good aim.
The socialist party advocates for a world society of free access and common possession of the means of production
It strikes me that a conscious socialist population would be prepared to sacrifice production that is harmful to the natural environment, toxic to it, cruel and harmful to other species, and not necessary for humans to live. People who “don’t give a damn” about these things where their pleasures are concerned would, I hope, be publicly shamed. Socialism would, I hope, be a responsible and compassionate society first and foremost, and not a free-for-all for irresponsible hedonists and destructive people.
‘People who “don’t give a damn” about these things where their pleasures are concerned would, I hope, be publicly shamed’.
How? Sent to a gulag?
‘The community would shun them as selfish bastards and restrain them if they do harm.’
We do that now. People and companies are fined or imprisoned for breaking rules and regulations related to the environment. Most of the problems are happening in countries without adequate institutions to set and enforce laws.
‘..not necessary for humans to live’ is subjective. What I don’t think is necessary, you might think is essential for a happy life.
‘An irresponsible society would never establish socialism. The irresponsible thrive already’.
So Socialism is impossible.
Those who commit harm now would be stopped, i e. the expropriation of the capitalist class in the first place. Socialism’s first priority, after getting food, clothing and shelter to those without them, would be to reverse what can be reversed of the damage capitalism has done; not a free-for-all licence for those wanting to continue the damage.
‘An irresponsible society would never establish socialism. The irresponsible thrive already’.
So Socialism is impossible.
If you buy into the selfish human nature myth.
Yes, socialism will never be made by people who don’t care about the planet and the welfare of other beings. It will be made by more people who do care becoming aware that capitalism is the problem.
The “don’t give a damn” crowd are those who mock the idea of socialism; who laugh at “do-gooders.” A socialist says better a do-gooder than a do-badder.
‘An irresponsible society would never establish socialism. The irresponsible thrive already’.
You said it not me.
Capitalism has brought unprecedent wealth to a lot of people. In the west especially, most people are living longer and healthier lives. Even Marx aknowledged this:
“The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?”The problem is that Capitalism produces vast inequalities. Hence, why the aim should be abundance for all.
Also the ‘selfish bastards’ you describe exist because there is no other way to get rich and buy high quality goods. If money doesn’t exist and we live ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ then there would be no need to be selfish. However, ‘need’ is a subjective concept.
‘People who “don’t give a damn” about these things where their pleasures are concerned would, I hope, be publicly shamed’.
How? Sent to a gulag?
=========================================
A socialist society is not going to have a system based on punishment. The indians did not have a criminal legal system, but the worst punishment for them was to be shamed by their own society
And so with socialism.
Coming out of capitalism will be a damaged people, but the fact that they have opted for socialism and understood it will imply a sense of responsibility, which at first will mean some sacrifice.
A society of abundance can be built, but that goes hand in hand with responsibility and abstaining from harm.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.