<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
“It’s a nice idea but it will never happen” is one of the most\r\ncommon responses to the suggestion that it is in our interests to work\r\ntowards building a socialist society. The assumption is that socialism\r\nwill rely upon everybody being altruistic, sacrificing their own\r\ninterests for those of others. But socialism would actually involve the\r\nmajority of people recognising their common interests.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
This is a common objection to socialism, and suggests that, in\r\nsocialism, some people would take more than their share of goods.\r\nImages are conjured up of people walking out of supermarkets carrying\r\nstockpiles of food\u2014after all, isn’t that what everyone would do if all\r\ngoods were freely available?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
It may be what people would do in today’s capitalist society, where what we need appears to be scarce because it is rationed by the payment of the wage. But if food were given away free in socialism, there would be no need to take more than you need. Because food will have been produced to satisfy society’s needs, not for profit, it will be available on that basis. The current world food supply (let alone the potential supply) is enough to feed the global population (see How We Could Feed the World)<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Besides, we argue that people are not greedy enough! If people were\r\nas “greedy” as people claim, why do they give away all their wealth and\r\npower to the capitalist class in the first place?<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n This is a common objection to the proposal that all work be\r\ncontributed on a voluntary basis. Some people point to certain kinds of\r\nwork that people might seek to avoid\u2014such as cleaning out sewers, or\r\nmining. A more extreme form of the argument suggests that everyone\r\nwould spend the whole day in bed if they were not forced to work.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Humans throughout history have sought fulfillment through their\r\nwork. If they have not enjoyed their work, it has not been through\r\ndislike of work in general but due to the particular purpose and\r\nconditions of the work that they have been forced to undertake. Work\r\nunder socialism has the potential to be entirely different to\r\ncapitalist employment. The most important reason for this is that\r\nunpleasant work could be organised far more efficiently than under\r\ncapitalism and that all work would be organised so as to be as pleasant\r\nas possible.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The purpose of work would be entirely different. Under capitalism,\r\nmuch of the work done is the work required by capitalism in order to\r\nperpetuate its own existence. In socialism, the only work that would\r\nneed to be done would be that for directly meeting human needs. Indeed,\r\ninteresting and pleasant work is itself a human need. And work that\r\nisn’t in itself interesting and pleasant must be minimised or abolished.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n If a household gets a washing machine, you never hear the family\r\nmembers who used to do the laundry by hand complain that this “puts\r\nthem out of work”. But strangely enough, if a similar development\r\noccurs on a broader social scale it is seen as a serious\r\nproblem\u2014”unemployment”\u2014which can only be solved by inventing more jobs\r\nfor people to do. The fact is that most jobs under capitalism are\r\neither completely or partially unnecessary. Many of those that are\r\nnecessary are performed by stressed people working long hours while\r\nothers suffer poverty.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In a sane society, the elimination of all these absurd jobs (not\r\nonly those that produce or market ridiculous and unnecessary\r\ncommodities, but the far larger number directly or indirectly involved\r\nin promoting and protecting the whole capitalist system) would reduce\r\nnecessary tasks to such a trivial level that they could easily be taken\r\ncare of voluntarily and cooperatively, eliminating the need for the\r\nwhole apparatus of economic incentives and state enforcement. That\r\neconomists now believe that in 20 years time, total world demand for\r\nall commodities could be met by 2% of the global population\u2014and this in\r\ncapitalist society!\u2014suggests necessary work in socialist society could\r\nbe so organised as to enable individuals to contribute no more than a\r\nfew hours a week to the good of society.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n For more information on this question, see World without accountants.<\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Is the revolution we are talking about at all likely? Appearances\r\nwould suggest not. The odds seem to be stacked against it. Indeed, when\r\nwe put forward the idea, most people can scarcely believe we are\r\nserious.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n But most revolutions have been preceded by periods when most people\r\nwere scoffing at the idea that things could ever change. There was a\r\ntime when the idea of a capitalist society would have been dismissed as\r\na hopeless utopian dream. To a peasant living in feudal society, the\r\nidea of radical change would appear as hopeless as it may appear to you\r\nnow. To them, feudalism would have appeared as eternal and unchanging\r\nand unchangeable as capitalism appears to us now. In Europe, when\r\ncapitalism was relatively young, the idea of workers working an eight\r\nhour day with a weekend would have appeared hopelessly utopian. In the\r\npast in countries where everybody now has a vote, there was a time when\r\nthe idea was scorned and violently opposed.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n So we’re not too surprised that people find it difficult to take our\r\nideas on board. We found it difficult ourselves, of course. Yet,\r\ndespite the many discouraging trends in the world, there are some\r\nencouraging signs, not least of which is the widespread disillusionment\r\nwith previous false alternatives. Fewer and fewer people are bothering\r\nto vote in elections, for example, correctly realising that it will\r\nhave little effect on their everyday lives.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n For more discussion of this question, see Past Revolutions<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n No, of course not. We argue that the working class should organise\r\nfor socialism, but that doesn’t mean that nothing can be done this side\r\nof the revolution. Earlier we mentioned the welfare state as a failed\r\nexample of reformism. But on the other hand such things as basic health\r\ncare came into being because the working class fought for them (even\r\nthough politicians have since claimed the credit). Without the threat\r\nof action we would never have won such things. Strikes, or the threat\r\nof them, help to improve wages and working conditions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n We have the ability to change things if we act together. The power\r\nto transform society lies in the hands of those who create\r\neverything\u2014the working class. This is the source of our power, should\r\nwe eventually use it. The power not to make a few reforms, but to\r\nchange the whole system, to make a social revolution.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n For in-depth discussion of the question of human nature, see Do our Genes Make Socialism Impossible?<\/a>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nWho would do the dirty work?<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Are you serious?<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Does that mean we have to sit around and wait for a revolution?<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Is socialism against human nature?<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n