Socialists stand for the establishment of a system of society fundamentally different\nfrom that which exists now. In a socialist society the means of producing and distributing\nwealth – factories, farms, mines, docks, offices, transport – will belong to the whole\ncommunity. Common ownership will do away with the need for exchange, so that money will\nhave no use. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Production in socialism will be determined by people on the basis of social need, not\nprofit. At the moment people may need wealth but, unless they can afford to buy it, they\nmust go without. Production is geared to sale with a view to profit. Socialism means\nproduction solely for use: bread to eat, houses to live in, clothes to wear. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What will be the incentive to work in a socialist society? There will be no wages, for\nin a classless society no person will have the right to buy another person’s ability to\nwork for a price. Work in socialist society will depend on cooperation and the voluntary\ndecisions of men and women to contribute to society in order to keep it going. Just as an\nindividual could not survive if he or she did not eat, drink or take basic health care, so\na socialist society would not survive unless the people in it acted cooperatively in a\nspirit of mutuality. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Socialism will not be a Utopia where all the problems of existence have vanished.\nUnpleasant work will still have to be done. Of course, much of the dirty work of the\nprofit system, such as killing and conning and counting bank notes, will be dispensed with\nimmediately in a socialist society. Other unappealing work can probably be taken care of\nby labour-saving machines. Where dirty work will have to be done in socialist society we\ncan be quite sure of two things: firstly, it will not be done by the same people all the\ntime – members of society will take turns; secondly, such work will be carried out by\nsocially conscious men and women who will appreciate that society belongs to them and\ntherefore its less pleasant tasks must be performed by them. In the knowledge that we own\nand control the earth, and all that is in and on it, it is unlikely that human beings will\nrefuse to attend to the dirty work within socialism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
What about the lazy people in a socialist society? Critics of the socialist proposition\noften tell us that socialism would be confronted with millions of men and women who would\nrefuse to do their bit to make society run efficiently. Indeed, socialist society will\ncontain millions of babies and infants who will not be able to work down mines or milk the\ncows; but, in the sensible knowledge that these dependents will be the providers of\ntomorrow, we do not think that the inhabitants of socialism will let babies starve to\ndeath. Fifteen million children under five die of starvation every year at the moment – a\nsociety based on production for use would not tolerate such obscenity. There will be those\nin socialist society who are too old or too ill or too incompetent to offer much to\nsociety; but they are not lazy and there is no reason why society should not allow them to\ngive according to their varying abilities and take according to their differing needs. And\nif one who contributes less takes more, why should this be a problem in a society which is\nbased on the satisfaction of needs? Those people living in a socialist society who are too\nlethargic to work will not be a drain on society’s resources for very long, for if they\nlie in bed for long enough they will die – of boredom, if not of inertia. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But is it not the case that, given a society of unrestricted access to social wealth,\nhuman greed will lead people to consume all the wealth of society within one month? Such\nis the “problem” foreseen by the critics of socialism. To begin with, their\nprediction is based on the false assumption that socialism would be a society of\nconsumption only, whereas it would obviously be a society where what is consumed would\nhave to be matched by what is produced. So, if people in socialist society decide to eat\nten dinners a day – as our critics seem to fear – there will have to be provision made to\nproduce enough food to satisfy such unhealthy gluttony. Of course, in cases where people\nwant what society is unable to produce, or has democratically decided it will not produce,\ntheir consumption will have to be limited. This may be bad news for the Utopian but, for\nthe worker who is currently deprived of what he or she needs (not because society cannot\nsatisfy the need or has decided democratically not to but because it is unprofitable to do\nso) the idea of democratically organised production for use is infinitely preferable to\nthe present social arrangement. For example, the thousands of pensioners who have died of\nhypothermia are not likely to reject the socialist proposition because it will not allow\nthem to eat ten dinners a day; at least a society based on producing for needs will ensure\nthat no one is unable to have access to warmth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But what about this greed? The critic of the socialist idea is truly worried that in a\nsociety of free access, people will take more than they need. Now it is quite true that if\nthe stores were opened tomorrow and workers were invited to go in and take as much as they\nwant without having to pay there would be a mad rush and the stores would be empty within\na day. But why should this be the case if the stores are always open for free access? It\nwould be odd indeed for the inhabitants of socialism to store dozens of loaves of bread,\nwhich would go stale before they could be eaten, when the option would exist to go to the\nstore and collect a new loaf of bread each day or few days. It would be no less odd for us\nto read today of workers filling their lungs up with water because they fear that when\nthey next turn the tap the free liquid will no longer be there to consume. Perhaps, in\ninnocence, the earliest inhabitants of socialism will indulge in a few feasts of\nconspicuous over-consumption (who would be surprised at such action after years of poverty\nand social inferiority?), but such antics will soon end when the physical consequences of\nsuch irrationality are felt. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But is it not the case that, even if classes were abolished and all people were equal,\na hierarchy would soon arise again and society would be back to square one? The opponent\nof socialism feels convinced that inequality is a phenomenon from which society can never\nescape. Perhaps – and only perhaps – socialist society will not eliminate inequalities of\ntalent: one person might be a greater pianist than another will ever be, while another\nwill run faster than another could ever train to run. But this does not mean that\nsocialism will establish a hierarchy of pianists or athletes or poets or brain surgeons.\nIn a cooperative society it will be recognised that poets cannot write their literary\nmasterpieces unless the miner is willing to bring the coal from under the ground. Humanity\nlives interdependently. And who is to say that miners will not be poets when they are not\ndown the mine and the greatest chess player in socialism will not sweep the streets so\nthat the greatest brain surgeon can walk to the hospital without rats biting at the\nankles? The rigid division of labour which is a feature of the present system will not\nexist in socialist society. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
In general, critics of the socialist proposition are not saying that they are opposed\nto the establishment of a socialist world, as defined by socialists. Most of them are\nraising objections to socialism which reflect their own conditioning by the present social\norder. The “problems” which they fear are based on the wrong assumption that\nsocialism is going to be imposed on the conditions of capitalism, including the\nconsciousness which props up the system. Of course, a majority of people whose minds are\nstill filled with the ideas and prejudices of the profit system could never run socialism.\nThat is why the Socialist Party of Great Britain states emphatically that there can be no\nsocialist society until a majority of workers understand and want it. Only then will the\nbaseless fears of socialism’s critics become as absurd as the quaint old fears of the\nVictorians that electricity in all homes would lead to dangers which society would be\nunable to handle. Yes, the future always looks strange when people’s minds are imprisoned\nwithin the past, but the nearer we get to the next stage in social development the less\nstrange the idea of production for need becomes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
There are thousands of workers walking around with ideas in their minds which are close\nor identical to those advocated by socialists; as that number grows, and as they gather\ninto the conscious political movement for socialism, the doubts of the critics grow\nfainter and more absurd and what once seemed unthinkable rises to the top of the agenda of\nhistory. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Back to the ‘Dream On’ Index<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n