Socialism not Communism

[GrandpaGB]

Socialism is often associated with public ownership and essential services such as healthcare, transport and utilities. But the SPGB means something quite different: common ownership of the means of production, the abolition of the wages system, and a moneyless society where goods and services are freely available according to need. One of those semantic comments of, we’re not communists, we just agree with Marx.

The SPGB doesn’t regard nationalisation or public ownership as socialism at all. In their view those are just forms of state capitalism; the wages system, markets and a privileged class still remain. For them, socialism and communism are the same thing: a worldwide system of common ownership and democratic control with free access.

That leaves some basic questions.

Can It Work in Practice?

The SPGB proposes common ownership and democratic control on a global scale. But how would that work in practice? Common ownership of the means and modes of production is communism, not socialism.

Without money, wages or markets, how would we decide what to produce, how much to produce and where resources should go? Who would coordinate everything, and how would we stop those people from becoming a bureaucracy with interests of its own?

Democratic control? How would that work beyond voting for political representatives? Would all eight billion of the worlds population have a say in decisions about production, or would we end up relying on administrators to make those decisions for us?

Removing Capitalism

In abolishing capitalism, who in Marxist terms would then control the means of production? In other words, who would control the ownership of wealth-generating assets and the means by which wealth is produced? The state, the government, a people’s collective? That’s communism.

In the Land of the Free

Then there’s free access. Would people really contribute according to their abilities and take only what they need? Who is going to decide what each individual needs, or do eight billion people each decide for themselves? What happens when resources are scarce, people disagree about priorities, or some people simply don’t want to contribute? Does everyone really get what they each think they need, or do we sink to the lowest common denominator in the interests of equality?

Advocating a society based on common ownership and free access is one thing. Explaining how it would actually function is another. Aren’t these beliefs just theory in opposition to laissez faire capitalism? How many here are working, own property, or have savings and are willing to share what they have with others? Or is it more a one way street and they have very little but want a share in what others have got? That’s not socialism either, again, it’s communism.

Socialism Not Communism

Given the SPGB’s minuscule electoral support, what’s the prospect of achieving such a society through democratic means? It’s zero isn’t it, so why not fight to keep the socialism of our welfare state out of private hands instead of dreaming of a mythical society where everyone agrees to be equal, greed magically disappears and eight billion people think they’re going to get what they want.

[ste finch]

Looks like someone has been playing with AI!
If this person wants to debate, we are happy to do so, but on the basis of our party’s case not some imagined or isolated points.
Just one more thing – yes we use socialism and communism interchangeably – get over it!

[Thomas_More]

I say we ignore him from now on. Don’t waste energy.

[Author]

Posts