The following is a list of questions often asked about socialism. The purpose of this page is to clarify socialism's true purpose and characteristics and to dispense much of the lies and misconceptions. More questions will continually be added as I hear them.
Q: Hasn't socialism been tried in several other countries, and failed?
A: Genuine Marxian socialism has NEVER been tried in any country. In fact, socialism is a system that will be worldwide, and isn't intended to function in just one country. The principle of "socialism in one country" was expounded upon by the Russian dictator Josef Stalin in a self-serving attempt to convince the world that the country he ruled was indeed socialist. Furthermore, socialists firmly believe that socialism will be be brought about by working class organization, and by no other means. It will never be brought about by politicians, whose purpose is to control the working class on behalf of their capitalist masters, not to liberate the working class from oppression, or to meet the needs of the working class.
Anyone who states that genuine socialism has been achieved in any country is either seriously misinformed or an outright liar, usually the former.
Q: Isn't it true that socialism won't succeed because of "human nature?" Doesn't capitalism exist because human beings are naturally selfish and amoral?
A: This is perhaps the most common attack made against the viability of socialism by capitalist supporters, or by misled individuals infected by capitalist propaganda. This is also one of capitalism's most effective social myths in making people believe that socialism, or a "better society," free of most of our current society's problems, is simply pie in the sky.
Actually, many sociologists believe that human nature isn't inherantly bad. People are naturally pro-social, not anti-social. Our violent, aberrant and anti-social behavior stems from our living in a socio-economic system that encourages malevolent selfishness, competition, one-upmanship against other people and makes the majority of us live in constant want and fear. Capitalism appeared as a result of the economic and technological possibilites of the time period of the late 18th century. It had nothing to do with human beings being naturally "evil", nasty or selfish.
Human nature is known to be adaptable, and the environment we live in greatly influences our behavior. Human beings do not possess natural "instincts" in the same sense as other animals do. Rather, we possess the ability to reason, to adapt, or consciously modify our behavior according to need or according to what our immediate environment demands of us. When the social framework for greed, violence and competitivenss is removed, our correspondingly aberrant behavior will likewise vanish.
It should be pointed out that human beings lived in peaceful cooperation for hundereds of thousands of years before the first class-divided society, chattel slavery, appeared. The fact that this happened was one of necessity. Despite the equality of humanity's first economic system, often called primitive communism, it was an equality of poverty. Once material conditions advanced to the point where a small surplus was available to society, the concept of class divisions emerged. In that primitive world, society lacked the industrial capability of producing an abundance for everybody. Hence, the only way for society to advance was for class divisions to emerge.
Eventually, chattel slavery collapsed with the fall of the Roman Empire and was replaced by a higher form of society, feudalism, when technology became advanced enough to support the change to a more advanced system. Then, in 1776, further progressions in our technology enabled humankind to rise out of feudalism and into capitalism with the first American Revolution, which founded the United States of America and was essentially a war to overthrow the existing economic world order of feudalism by defeating the then most powerful nation in the world, England, and to replace it with the system that has since become the new economic world order, capitalism. Technology was still not advanced enough to produce an abundance for everyone, so socialism was inconceivable to this country's Founding Fathers. In about one hundred years, capitalism allowed the Industrial Revolution to take place. As a result, society is now advanced enough to produce an abundance for everyone, making socialism conceivable and viable, and will enable us to return to a classless society that our Cro-Magnon ancestors enjoyed.
Now, however, thanks to modern technology of production, we will have an equality of abundance, and not an equality of poverty that once made class divisions necessary for our distant ancestors. Ruling classes no longer serve a useful purpose in society, such as advancing culture and science, that they did in the class-divided systems of the past, when the primitive levels of production didn't allow human progress to occur any other way
[Note: this is not to say that there as a "moral" justificiation for chattel slavery, but there was indeed a purely material justification for it in the distant past. Modern technological advances make even modern wage slavery an outdated and unnecessary concept. It should further be noted that chattel slavery was once used by all societies in ancient history, and that some of the greatest and most glorious of such ancient societies, such as the Egyptian Empire, ancient Greece and the Roman Empire were built upon slavery as the economic basis of society, and chattel slavery was viewed as a normal socio-economic phenomenon that most people at the time probably assumed would exist for all eternity, just as most people in modern societies assume that wage slavery is still normal and legitimate, and that we will be at the mercy of the corporate structure of capitalism and the current economic world order forever.
It should finally be pointed out that in ancient times chattel slavery was color blind, and wasn't strictly a burden for the black race to endure, but was a fact of life for every racial and ethnic group on the planet at the time. In fact, the ruling classes of Egypt were almost all black, and they imposed slavery upon their people just as the mostly white ruling classes of Greece and Rome put the majority of their predominantly white population into slavery. Also, in ancient times the black race was at the forefront of cultural and technical advances for the world, with the earliest civilizations of Sumeria and Egypt dominating the world with their advances in science, engineering, mathematics and philosophy. The idea of chattel slavery being a horror imposed only upon the black race was a situation that only came about in the past 400 years.]
With modern technology now able to produce an abundance for everyone, and not just a fortunate few, thus making it possible for everybody to contribute to the advancement of society, the ruling class has now become obsolete, and has now become a completely idle class that does nothing whatsoever to benefit society but simply lines its own pockets with the vast majority of the wealth produced by the working (i.e., slave) class. Hence, it's these specific economic conditions, and not some nebulous notion of human nature, that created class-divided societies. When socialism is brought about, human nature (i.e., behavior) will adapt itself to these changes, and anti-social attitudes such as greed, violence and criminal inclinations will be all but excised from the public mindset.
Q: Won't the industrial government of socialism eventually become corrupt, just like capitalism's political government did? Won't class divisions and the eventual establishment of a privilaged ruling class be inevitable under any type of socio-economic system?
A: No. Absolutely not. This argument is often made by anarchists, who advocate a system of NO government of any kind, since they believe that any form of official directing body would eventually spawn a privilaged oligarchy that will live off the backs of, and impose its will upon, the vast majority of society. Socialists, however, believe that some sort of administrative body is necessary to direct production and distribution so as to enable the workers to achieve the full material benefits and leisure that modern scientific advances allow us.
Furthermore, all of the concerns that anarchists give in favor of no type of government only apply to the system of government peculiar to class-divided societies. This type of governing body is known as political government, based on control over a specific territory, and predicated upon a minority of individuals, known as a state, who are seperate and above the majority of society, and who make all of the rules and laws that the rest of society are forced to follow, and have a professional military and police force at their beck and call to enforce adherence of their edicts upon the rest of society, which is all done on behalf of maintaining the status quo of a class-divided society and protecting the privilaged status of the economic ruling class that established and empowered the state in the first place. This type of government could only exist in class-divided societies like capitalism or Leninism/Stalinism, and could never exist in the economic democracy of socialism.
Instead, we will have a government based on industry, and not on territory. The representatives would be fully elected by all of society (and not hand-picked by the wealthy members of a ruling class, which is what happens in the current system), and would not have any power to make rules above the consent of the majority of society or to pass laws to control or regulate human behavior, or have the purpose of controlling one class for the benefit of another, since there would be so seperate economic classes in socialist society . Further, since socialist society would be a fully moneyless society, there would be no way for the elected representatives of the industrial government to gain disproportionate amounts of the wealth in society, and to use it to acquire economic power, and consequently, to exploit or oppress another human being.
The purpose of the industrial government would be the administration of THINGS, and not of PEOPLE. The sole purpose of those elected to the Industrial Congress would be to determine what goods and services the workers need and want, what resources are needed to supply them, and how best to distribute them (the exact methods they would use to do this will be determined by the workers after the establishment of socialism); they would not have the power or authority to pass controlling laws, and they would not receive material compensation greater then that of any other worker in society.
In other words, as is often stated, the representatives elected to the Industrial Congress would be given the privilage to serve society, but never the power to rule it. Also, unlike the political government we see in class divided societies, the representatives of the Industrial Congress of a classless society would have no professional police or military under their exclusive command to force their will upon the majority of society. Whether a government is corruptable or not is dependant upon the economic basis of society. Because the Industrial Congress would have no economic power over the majority, and because its members are removable at any time a majority of the people deem it necessary, such a goverment would have no foundation on which to become a dictatorship.
Thus, as stated above, contrary to what the anarchists say, socialists believe that it's necessary to maintain some form of government to conduct industry and to ensure that the needs of the people are met. Political government isn't designed to meet the needs of the people...it is intended to be the executive body of the ruling class, and to enforce class rule upon the working class. Industrial government and its elected Congress would exist in a realm of no class divisions, no money and no possibility of one person or group gaining the ability to force others to work for him/her, since the industries would be socially owned and controlled, and not by private interests or by a state.
Q: What will be the role of the police in a socialist society? Or the military?
A: None. The police do not exist as a means of protecting and serving all of society, as it professes. Rather, it's controlled and answerable only to the state, and is a coercive force to enforce class rule upon the majority and to attempt to provide order in society by sheer brute force. Since socialism would provide for the needs of everybody, and not just a fortunate few, and because it would provide useful and satisfying work for everyone, the compulsions for criminal behavior, large levels of mental illness and the inclination to violence born of nihilism that we see so much today would not exist in a society based on economic freedom. As a result, order would not have to be maintained by forcing the people not to act aberrantly, or to use prison as a means of terrorizing the public into submission and acceptance of the status quo. No professional police force would be necessary. We can be rest assured that society will find means to cope with the occasional, incidental problems which may arise, and will do so in a far more humane manner then the capitalist government ever would.
However, such problems will be extremely rare in a socialist society.
The same is true of the military...it does not exist primarily to protect or promote "freedom" across the globe, or to defend the country from a foreign invasion. Rather, it exists to enforce the economic interests of one country upon the rest of the world. Due to the superior power of the U.S. military, it defends the material interests of the U.S. ruling class across the globe. Morality never enters into the decisions that the President or Congress makes in sending the military off on missions. The U.S. government has installed far more dictatorships and cruel regimes across the world then it has ever taken down. It has supported Isreal's attacks on the Palestinians, Turkey's attacks on the Kurds and ignored the brutal and misogynistic natures of Afghanistan, Brunei and Saudi Arabia. It even assisted dictators such as Saddam Hussien and Manuel Noriega when it suited their economic purposes, only to turn on them and demonize them as evil when they no longer served the interests of the U.S. capitalist class.
The military cannot be considered a benevolent organization, but is anti-working class. In a socialist society, the world would no longer be divided into seperate and rival nations who constantly posture and vie with each other over control of the world's resources, or disputes over which ruling class owns a certain economically strategic territory. Instead, universal cooperation and sharing of the world's very abundant resources, and the lack of a need to hold down the working classes of the world, since there would be no seperate economic classes, would make the military as unnecessary as the police in a socialist world. Instead, the "military" would consist of the armed worker.
For a more in-depth analysis of the purpose of the military under capitalism and the nature of war under the current system, see the section on Capitalism and War elsewhere on this site.
Q: Wouldn't socialism promote laziness? Isn't capitalism's policy of forcing people to work for their very survival a good thing?
A: No. The only incentive in capitalist society for members of the working class to render their labor power to society is for their survival, and the ability to acquire material goods (many of which are useless and merely for "show") and the only incentive for capitalists to provide jobs is when they deem it "necessary" and worth their expense, no matter how much society may need the products their companies create or the services they offer, and these decisions are based soley upon the prospect of making or not making a profit for the shareholders of the industry in question [a very good and sad example is the recent widespread closings of the trauma units in various hospitals due to lack of a sufficent profit and/or available monetary funds to "justify" the capitalist owners of the hospitals to keep them open, regardless of the immense need for these units and the number of lives they would have saved].
As a result, we have many socially useless jobs that revolve entirely around the handling of money but serve no other useful function to society at large or purpose to the workers who do those jobs, such as cashiers, bank tellers, accountants, corporate lawyers, the numerous jobs in insurance companies, collection agencies, social security (which would not be necessary under socialism, as the sick and elderly who are unable to work would be well cared for), or involved with deterring the numerous problems capitalism creates with both domestic and global order, i.e., crime and war, such as security guards, the criminal and civil court systems, the prisons, politicians, police, soldiers and home security services, as well as the huge amount of dead end work, the production of harmful products, such as the tobacco and munitions industries [cigarettes, drugs and weapons would not be "outlawed" under socialism, but the citizens of a socialist society would probably vote against squandering any resources on mass producing such items], and companies which produce tons of materially useless products and junk. All of the latter types of jobs would be totally needless in a socialist society of social ownership of the industries and services, since it would be a moneyless society that would render the workers free from material want.
Hence, a socialist society would not breed massive social disorder requiring brute force or repressive laws to "solve", thus freeing everyone in society to work jobs that would directly benefit all of society, as well as be personally rewarding and enjoyable to the individual workers doing these jobs. Work under capitalism is very often irrelevant to our personal interests and talents, and is done merely because we have to do so to survive.
As a result, capitalism, and not socialism, breeds laziness, by forcing us to perform work that is often only "necessary" to capitalist interests, and, as stated above, would be totally needless in a moneyless society, and the jobs that are useful to society at large (and that would exist in any society, such as the medical and scientific fields, education, food production, sanitation, engineering, construction, etc), are also tightly controlled by capitalist owners, or by the government that it controls, so that the workers themselves have very little say in how their jobs are performed, and have to endure their expertise taking a back seat to the orders of their bosses who do not know the work like they do, or are forced to perform their jobs in such a way that benefits the making of profits for their capitalist masters rather then serving the needs of society.
We also are very often compelled to work at jobs that we hate and are unsuited for, and which creates disparities of wealth. Further, many jobs are unsafe under capitalism, resulting in numerous avoidable deaths and serious injuries per year, which could be easily lessoned dramatically with the institution of safety methods and labor-saving technology that would not be prohibited under a system that didn't require money to institute these safety policies. Thus, capitalism creates laziness by making working conditions boring and irrelevant to the personal lives and interests of the workers, and also by creating absurd social work ethics (heavily influenced by Christian doctrine) that tell us that work isn't supposed to be fun, and that huge amounts of back breaking toil and drudgery for 40 hours a week or more is "healthy" for the individual's moral and spiritual development, despite the way such long hours of work negatively affects their health, shortens their life span, takes large amounts of time away from their families and personal interests, and provides very little time for leisure and recreation. A simple amount of common sense and critical analysis will make it quite obvious to anyone which economic class the establishment of such ethics are intended to benefit.
Considering the nature of work under capitalism, is it any wonder at all that so many people choose to avoid work under such conditions, and that people often hate their jobs even if they are lucky enough to find a job that complements their personal talents and interests?
Under socialism, however, useful and personally rewarding work would be available to everyone. People would work jobs that they are talented in, and in which they have a personal interest. The unpleasant jobs would be largely mechanized, or shared by all. For example, there would be no professional janitors and garbage workers forced to do the drudgery all of the time. Everyone would have to occasionally get their "hands dirty", though much of such work could be completely mechanized. Furthermore, the purpose of work would not be personal enrichment, but the betterment of the society we live in, and to produce and distribute all of the things that we need and want. Everyone would have to work, no one would be allowed to "earn" simply by "owning" as in capitalism, but the amount of work we each had to contribute would be a fraction of what it is today, since everyone would be employed all of the time.
As a result, work and leisure under socialism would be indistinguishable, unlike under capitalism, where we very often hate our jobs and look forward only to our time off.
Q: Without a controlling political state, who would make the rules and laws under socialism?
A: This is a common but slightly loaded question. Rules and regulations under socialism would be far different then under capitalism. Instead of having a few individuals make rules to control human behavior based on the needs of the ruling class to influence public opinion in their favor or to enforce both social order and their system of class rule upon the working class, or based on religous doctrine and ethics, socialist government will be the administration of THINGS, not of PEOPLE (as stated in a previous question). Laws to control human behavior will not be necessary or acceptable in a society of economic freedom and complete democracy. What rules will exist, the main one being that no one may privately own an industry or service, will be determined collectively, by all of society.
An example of how this would work is the issue of gun control. A socialist society would not advocate putting people in jail who have a gun. Rather, the people would deal with the problem by voting over whether or not to produce any more guns. As for what to do with the existing guns, they would vote whether or not to continue producing ammunition and replacement parts needed for the maintenance and continued use of the remaining weapons.
Problems like these in a socialist society would be dealt with in a democratic fashion unknown to capitalism, whose only means of maintaining order is to coerce and control human behavior through the use of force via the police, the courts and the prisons.
Q: What is socialism's stance on religion?
A: The general policy of socialism towards religion is the same as that of the U.S. Constitution...that religion is a personal matter, and should be kept out of production decisions, as well as being left out of formulating the rules of society. Just as the U.S. government professes a seperation of church and state as enunciated by the Founding Fathers, so too will socialist society practice a seperation of religion and the Socialist Republic of Labor. This is the basic position of the Socialist Labor Party. The World Socialist Parties, however, disregard religion, as they believe that it tends to placate the working class into accepting the "hardships" of capitalist society, encourages the belief in metaphysical rather then material reasons for the economic changes in history, to accept authoritarian rule, to seek religion for solace from the problems of capitalist society rather then critically analyzing the system, to blame lack of religous beliefs and/or morals rather then capitalism itself for the problems of society and to believe in scientifically unproven, "irrational" beliefs.
There is no doubt that religion serves these purposes for the capitalist state, and it is quite obvious that the U.S. government only pretends to be non-sectarian; many of U.S. and British laws are very clearly based on Judeo-Christian ethics, particularly those laws referred to as Prohibition (the phony and destructive "War on Drugs", the war on alcohal [that was later repealed due to its unenforcibility] anti-prostitution laws and the age of consent laws, among other laws inspired by Christian morality). Many Christian fundamentalists actively seek power in capitalist society, the best example being Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition, who is steadily building power among the Republican conservatives to turn the U.S.A. into a "Christian nation." Despotic theocracies have always been favored children of class-divided societies, as they do indeed encourage unquestioned subservience to authority figures and acceptance of economic inequality. The only difference today is that the clergy has been largely replaced by politicians and capitalist "bosses" in this capacity.
However, the Roman Catholic Church remains a powerful political entity that actively influences governments across the world, despite the fact that historically the Church bitterly fought against the rise of capitalism, preferring feudalism as the ideal economic system for maintaining its power over society, finally emerging as capitalism's sometimes reluctant defender (the Pope often releases encyclicals that attack certain aspects of capitalism, but he has never condemned the system itself, since he is well aware how much power and influence his beloved Church would lose under socialism). Any individual with significant economic power can impose their ideas and beliefs on others in a capitalist society. This is why the U.S. ruling class actively encourages adherance to Judeo-Christian religions, as it plays power politics for them, the same way it encourages excitement in sports, since religion (like sports) often serves the same purpose in modern capitalist society as the "bread and circuses" in the ancient Roman Empire did: diversion from the inequalities and problems of the contemporary society that the capitalist government cannot solve within the framework of the capitalist system, and also for people to turn to the Church to solve their problems rather then unite against the economic system that is creating these hardships for them.
Hence, many socialists actively encourage atheism in their fellows. Certainly, socialist society would have no interest in imposing religious beliefs of any kind upon the workers. Workers will be free to choose their own spiritual paths, or even to dissent all together from religious beliefs. It is the personal belief of this author that religion, when it lacks an economic and/or political powerbase of any kind, can serve the purpose of spiritually uplifting its adherants, and certian Pagan religions may even lead some of its followers to socialistic beliefs (though not very often, as Pagans are generally just as subjected to pro-capitalist ideology and morality as any worker belonging to Judaism and Christianity).
In socialist society, religion will be what it should be in any society: a personal matter that should be neither encouraged nor discouraged by society around it. Stripped of its economic power and political influence, the Roman Catholic Church may even one day become what it purports to be today...a source of spirituality alone, and nothing else.
However, those who wish to follow it, or any religious group or faith, must bear the material cost of doing so themselves. The Socialist Republic of Labor and its Industrial Congress shall be adamant in its refusal to provide material resources to any religious activity, just as the U.S. government is constitutionally forbidden to render material aid of any sort to religious organizations or functions. This must be the work of the practitioners alone.
Q: Won't there still be starvation in a socialist society?
A: One of the biggest lies capitalist supporters tell people is the statement that the reason starvation exists in the modern world is because we are unable to produce enough food to feed everybody. This is truly a fallacy of massive proportions, and it conceals what may well be capitalism's darkest "secret."
Prior to the past 120 years, and during all past economic systems, such an unfortunate fact was indeed the truth. Without the benefits of modern technology and farming methods in these societies of the past, there was a genuine scarcity of food (as well as everything else), and there was truly not enough to go around; hence, in all past eras of human history, a lack of enough food for everyone was a reality, and unavoidable due to the material conditions of the time. This is far from the truth as of the 20th century, however. Today, thanks to our advanced industrialised technology, the U.S. alone produces enough grain to provide over three thousand calories per person in the world, for every day of every year. Though it is true that natural disasters, such as droughts, do indeed contribute to hunger and starvation across the world, all such problems could be circumvented by modern technology, though the developing countries who live under a system that needs money to do anything, regardless of how necessary such things may be to the survival of its citizens, simply lack the financial means of obtaining the machinery, transportation, irrigation techniques and disease control measures that would be needed to overcome the problems caused by the droughts, though such methods would be freely available under a socialist system, which wouldn't require money in order for needed resources to be utilized for the benefit of an afflicted region.
The sole reason for starvation in the world today is primarily because every nation in the world lives under a socio-economic system (capitalism) in which food is grown to be sold for a profit. Food is treated like any other commodity, and those who lack the money to buy it, cannot have it. Even folks who collect government relief programs such as food stamps are still limited to what they can purchase with the meager amounts of the de facto currency they receive, which is often not enough to feed even a small family, and the several soup kitchens that serve the poor and homeless in the various inner cities across the nation are often unable to serve everyone, and are closing altogether in large numbers, due to lack of monetary funds (which usually come from charitable donations given by members of the working class, and not the capitalist government), which is needed to purchase the food necessary to serve these people.
In fact, in the U.S. farmers are given a kickback by the government to not produce too much food, and are legally required to destroy much of that which is already grown, both of these things for the purpose of protecting profits, regardless of how many starving people, both here and abroad, desperately need this food [it should be noted that food was destroyed in huge amounts during the Great Depression by direct orders of the President in order to protect the profits of the ailing privately owned agribusiness companies, and this during a time when enormous amounts of people in the U.S. were facing starvation]. So in reality, we actually have a very large surplus of food available, thanks to modern methods of food production, something completely unheard of in past economic systems.
It is the belief of this author that many people who insist that the modern cause for starvation is still scientific, and not purely economic, do so merely so that they can live with themselves easier for supporting capitalism. They simply refuse to believe that their beloved system, which confers power and privilage for the few (and quite possibly for themselves), could possibly be responsible for the absurdity and unthinkable atrocity of starvation in the modern world.
Q: Is there a possibility that terrible social problems such as poverty and crime can be eliminated from society without eliminating capitalism?
A: This is a common question asked by people who have a desperate need to believe that capitalism can somehow be made to work for everyone in society (something it is not designed to do), and wonder if somehow, some way, we can eliminate poverty, crime and all the other problems that capitalism creates while still keeping the economic class divisions intact. The question betrays a lack of understanding of both the operation and purpose of capitalism, but I will answer it nonetheless.
As for the possiblity of poverty being eliminated while retaining capitalist social relations, absolutely not. As long as class rule exists, there will be widespread poverty. This is simply a scientific fact based on the natural operations of the system, and in fact a significant amount of poverty is absolutely necessary for many aspects of the system to function normally, as well as an inevitable and unavoidable result of the ever increasing concentration of capital in fewer and fewer hands, which is one of the most prominant and notable features of capitalism (and which Karl Marx was widely ridiculed for correctly predicting in the 19th century).
In fact, class rule itself could not exist without the impoverishment and pauperization of the majority. If poverty were eliminated under capitalism somehow, the few could not maintain their vaunted power over the majority. If the majority was not left in deprivation, and the concentration of capital could not continue, capitalism as we know it could not continue. Attempting to place "moral" fixtures into a system that isn't designed for any purpose other than the "bottom line" (which the Green Party has ideas for doing, as described in detail on its forum) will severely disrupt its functions, and rapidly disempower the capitalist class, and is something the latter class is not about to do willingly.
Further, the capitalist class has a strong need for a large and growing segment of the working class to be disinfranchised, and to remain in its unofficial status as "reserve labor", since it both frightens the employed members of the working class into remaining servile to the capitalist class' whims as well as keeping the price of labor power (i.e., wages) down. Under capitalism, labor power is a commodity just as any other product or service is, and if all workers were employed, or if poverty was drastically reduced, then the price of labor power would go up, thereby resulting in the capitalist class being forced to pay significantly higher wages, which would both deplete that class of much of its profits and significantly reduce its level of power and privilage over society. The less people needed to run the industries and services, and the less people working, the less labor power is worth, and thus, the less capitalists have to pay the workers. The increasing expenditure by the capitalist class on labor-saving technology that allows them to run their businesses with less and less workers also increases their profits, and creates more unemployment, which further decreases the price of labor power, i.e., wages, and further increases the number of workers forced into the ranks of "reserve labor." This all leads to one thing: more and increasing amounts of poverty the longer that capitalism lasts.
This process was implicitly stated in Karl Marx's book Wage Labor and the Law of Value, which was published nearly 150 years ago. Of course, the less members of the working class who are employed, and the lower the wages of the workers who are employed, the less money is available for buying back the products and services that the workers create for the capitalist class, and the less tax money is paid to the political state to support its existence and its ability to perform other needed services that are "nationalized" (i.e., owned and run by the state, though not for profit, but are financially supported by taxes from both the capitalist and working classes). Of course, this major contradiction built into capitalist economics (though many other contradictions exist) leads to the constantly recurring economic crises referred to as "recessions", or, at their worst, "depressions", which are occurring at greater frequencies, and lasting for longer and longer periods of time as capitalism continues its inexorable deterioration.
The capitalist government has thus far staved off the inevitable collapse of capitalism by enormous amounts of deficit spending [much of it for the purpose of the little reported phenomenon of corporate welfare to shore up big businesses that sell needed products, and who would otherwise go out of business due to declining profits, social welfare programs for the poor, and to provide more loans for new businesses and growth] and fighting more wars [warfare aids the capitalist economy by giving many industries the impetus to hire many more workers who they otherwise wouldn't need, greatly increases the sale of hugely expensive munitions produced by companies in the U.S. to other countries caught up in the fighting, destroys the industrial infrastructure of rival nations, reduces the population levels of the world, helps divert the workers from recognizing the capitalist source of their problems by appealing to their socially conditioned nationalistic tendencies, which in turn prompt them to support their nation's military and to develop a dehumanizing hatred towards the workers of the rival nations, and to acquire financially lucrative new territorial acquisitions for the U.S. capitalist class to exploit; thus, fighting wars is a sure way for the capitalist class to stimulate the economy in a major way, which is why it's far from coincidental that a capitalist nation will become far more warlike during a period of economic recession or depression, and the bigger and longer the war, the better for the capitalist class].
Obviously, these short-term and temporary measures cause many other problems for society, such as increased inflation and an increase in the cost of living that deficit spending constantly creates, as well as the worldwide social upheavals caused by wars, both of which guarantee the continued existence of, and increasing amount of, poverty, despite the temporary preservation of the capitalist system. Since these measures also further destabilize the capitalist system and world order in other ways, it's a classic Catch-22 situation for capitalism, but they will never be able to eliminate or reduce poverty permanently, but only to delay the ever-approaching collapse of capitalism itself for a while longer.
In a socialist society, however, with all of the industries and services socially owned, and with everyone receiving the full fruit of their labor, poverty would truly be a thing of the past. Without society being divided into two contending classes, and with the establishment of a moneyless society that did not require monetary currency (be it physical or electronic) for the distribution of needed materials and resources, nobody would be lacking for any material needs, and the ugly, decaying infrastructure which marrs our cities (and which is slowly making its way into the suburbs) and forces its inhabitants to live in filthy, rodent infested slums, would be eliminated, and all homes and buildings would look new and immaculate at all times, and the problem of urban decay would no longer exist. As long as capitalism exists, and we continue to be divided into "have's" and "have-not's", and society continues to rely on the availability of money in exchange for the allocation of any materials and resources, poverty and the existence of filthy, festering slums, filled with impoverished people, will continue as a huge bloody scar on the face of our society. Such a thing will not, and logically cannot, be solved within the framework of the capitalist system.
As for crime, it will continue to exist in large amounts for as long as only a few people can enjoy the abundance that modern technology could provide for everybody. Crime is a social reaction to society being situated in such a fashion. Despite all of the repressive measures taken by capitalism's executive body (i.e., the political state) to eliminate or at least reduce crime within the context of the system, such as increasingly harsher laws, reductions in our civil rights, gun control laws, barbaric legal measures like the death penalty, more and more police put on the streets as well as increasing police powers, putting huge amounts of people in prison as well as building more prisons every year (the U.S. has almost two million people in prison, far larger then any other country, with only South Africa coming close) crime continues to both exist and to increase. Obviously, brute force and socially repressive measures are not the answer to stem the tide of crime, but it is virtually the only answer that capitalism's political government can give us. And by "crime", I am referring to the debased members of the working class who commit acts of violence, theivery and other anti-social acts against other members of their class for their personal benefit (who Karl Marx put in a subcategory of the working class he called the "lumpenproletariat"), and which are blatantly illegal under capitalist law.
I'm not even referring to the far greater crime committed every hour of every day by members of the capitalist class by stealing the vast majority of the wealth from the working class that does all of the useful work, but most of which is completely legal and permissable under capitalist law, yet is rarely recognized or considered a crime by most members of the working class, despite the fact that these actions by the capitalist class create the social conditions of poverty, unemployment and low moral conditioning (by encouraging selfish acts against other people for personal gain or to "get ahead") which creates working class crime such as street gangs, organized crime cartels (i.e., the various ethnically based "Mafia's") and burglary rings that routinely victimize the peaceful members of the working class (and which is also to say nothing of the crimes committed by the capitalist class against each other; despite the fact that the capitalist class, unlike the working class, are generally class-conscious of their mutual interests, a system based on competition does not engender decent conduct between anyone, regardless of a shared class or common interests).
The system builds prisons in increasing numbers, puts more police on the streets and tramples more and more of our civil rights with harsher laws every year in order to eliminate crime. It attempts to create order by sheer brute force even as the system breeds disorder. This has continually failed, and will continue to fail, as long as capitalism, or any form of class-divided society, continues to exist. As the gap between the rich and poor continues to grow, so will crime increase. No other possibility should logically be expected. History and common sense clearly show us that the continued utilization of prisons, the barbaric death sentence and increasingly harsher and more repressive laws will not create order and eliminate or reduce crime within the context of class divided systems. In fact, if any method was developed by the capitalist government that was actually capable of totally eliminating crime within the context of the system, we can be rest assured it wouldn't be anything that a sane or democratic society would find the least bit desirable. The only way to create order is by uprooting the cause of crime and eliminating class divided societies, such as capitalism, from the face of the Earth, and replace them with the classless, moneyless society known as socialism. Then, once nobody lives in material want, full employment is created with useful, personally satisfying jobs offered to everyone and the establishment of an environment of cooperation and mutual respect that will build a far more positive moral framework in its inhabitants, and not teach and encourage a malevolent mistrust and "dog-eat-dog" attitude against each other that the current system engenders, order will be a natural thing, and not something that has to be forced upon us by a small minority of people who are seperate and above society at large (i.e., a state) via controlling and repressive laws.
Human nature is adaptable, and it's not static, nor is it primarily determined by genetic factors, as many politically influenced members of the scientific community would have us believe. Genes may indeed play some part in the abherrant behavior of certain individuals, but it is primarily social conditioning and the nature of production and distribution that we live under that creates crime and causes the mental conditions that breed it to manifest themselves in people, just like the disease of alcoholism has a genetic basis, yet it is certain types of social conditioning and the harsh nature of the society we live in which causes the symptoms of the disease to manifest itself, and this is clearly displayed by the proven fact that not all individuals with the gene for alcoholism will inevitably abuse liquor, despite all of the pressures and conditioning of capitalist society.
Thus, it stands to reason that since the vast majority of the working class remain caring, upstanding and non-violent individuals who do not commit crimes against each other, despite the nature of their genetic makeup, it stands to reason that in a society that creates a positive environment of cooperation, all individuals with the genetic structure conducive to "criminal behavior" will not manifest such traits socially at all. Those capitalist apologists who claim that genetic factors are solely responsible for individuals committing crimes, and support the conservative notion that the existing social order is completely blameless, are reciting a reprehensible lie that encourages public ignorance and justifies all manner of repressive measures and inhumane genetic experiments to be conducted by the capitalist government under the guise of legitimate research and for "protecting" us from crime.
In conclusion, poverty and crime will never go away under capitalism, and both will continue to increase, but they will certainly go away under socialism.
For an in-depth discussion of why other severe social problems, such as war and the devastation of the environment, will likewise never go away under capitalism, see my sections on Capitalism and War and Capitalism and Environmental Destruction elsewhere on this site.
Q: Is the socialists' battle against capitalism merely the result of jealousy on the part of the socialist?
A: A casual peak in the section containing this author's guestbook will reveal a typical attack by a typical supporter of capitalism [Shawn] which accuses me of "jealously" over the power and privilege that certain people under capitalism wield. This is indeed a typical attack which socialists must endure. It is also an absurd accusation, but it is to be expected considering the types of social conditioning capitalism puts us through. The individual in question correctly pointed out that this is a "dog eat dog world", and that under this system we must viciously struggle to oust our fellow man or we will be left by the "wayside." No argument there.
However, the socialist will correctly point out the absurdity and immorality of a sentient race as intelligent as human beings living such a lifestyle when the technology to live in harmony and equality is readily available in the 20th/21st century (as opposed to the level of scarcity that existed in ancient society which obviously encouraged much war and violence). Individuals who fight against social injustice are accused of being "jealous" of the fact that undeserved power and privilege exists among a small number of people who did not lift a single finger to earn that wealth, but instead expropriated it by having other people work for them in exchange for but a tiny fraction of the wealth that the working class alone produced. Usually such individuals are either among the privileged ranks themselves, or simply believe themselves to be due to a parent in a high-ranking position at a certain capitalist institution (like a bank or credit union, perhaps), who take a nearly sadistic fascination over possessing despotic privileges over other human beings, or with the thought of outdoing or surpassing others in the quality of their life. The system itself is to be blamed for this corruption of our moral and social values, and for turning man against his/her fellow man in such an uncutous manner.
Was the chattel slave "jealous" of the slavemaster for having freedom, full access to health care, the right to his own life, etc., or was there social justice to be met with the slave's defiance of the slavemaster? I believe the latter to be the case, and I also believe that anyone who gets angry at individuals who struggle to achieve social equality, and defend an inhumane and criminal system simply because they believe it benefits them personally, is truly one of corrupt social values and one who does not value the treasure of love and respect which is rightfully afforded his/her fellow man. Socialists believe that the fight for equality and economic freedom is important to humankind's very survival, and since it is achievable under our current level of technology, it should be steadfastly fought for. To do less is to condone the continuation of a system that teaches and encourages us to treat our fellow man as an obstacle to overcome for our own benefit, rather then a partner in cooperation within a world of security and equality.
Human beings should never defend the "dog eat dog" aspect of capitalism, and to suggest that certain individuals "deserve" to live in poverty and social decay, while a sacred few do not...to accept this, and even to gain sadistic pleasure out of it, proves how deeply capitalism corrupts every human mind it "educates." In fact, if such a dark tenet is to be followed, the entire civil rights movement can be downgraded by implying that women and black folks were unrighteously "jealous" of the privilege that white men enjoyed in their lives, and were not justified in fighting for equality; they should have just meekly accepted that the white men "deserved" to have power and privilege over them, and they should not have fought for equality because it suggests that they are, in fact, "jealous." Such battles are natural to the human race, and history more then proves that we as a species inherantly detest inequality and have always striven to create an equitable playing field for our fellow man to work within.
I am indebted to Shawn for raising this point...such people remind me of how pervasive the corruption of capitalism goes into the human psyche, and reminds me of why I decided to embrace socialist ethics in the first place: to strive to improve the material and moral quality of the human race and to remove the proverbial "snakes in the grass" that continually sink their sharpened fangs into all that is inherently decent in our species. Thank you, sir, for reminding me once again of the dire need for socialists to exist in a world favored by the capitalist brand of ethics.
Q: Isn't it true that socialism looks good on paper, but in practice would turn out like it did in the Soviet Union?
A: Absolutely untrue. This is another common statement made by critics of socialism that is based on a lack of understanding of historical facts. Genuine Marxian socialism did not exist in the former Soviet Union. I cannot stress this point adequetly enough! In 1917, during the Bolshevik Revolution that overthrew the despotic rule of the Czar, Russia was not technologically advanced enough for socialism, being slow to abandon the system of feudalism, but was nevertheless determined not to embrace capitalism (which it should have done at this level of development; a capitalist phase for societies who are just coming out of feudal economic conditions is normal). Thus, the continuation of class rule was inevitable, but since the people refused to start a true capitalist system (which they should have), they adopted the ideas of revolutionary Vladimir Lenin about creating a variation of capitalism that would be predicated upon an all powerful political state that would control the economy and allegedly run it "in the public interest" and not for profit, and he euphemistically called this system "communism" and "socialism" since Lenin was a student of Marx, despite the fact that such a system bore no resemblence whatsoever to the classless, moneyless and stateless system envisioned by the latter.
As should be expected, a system based on the industries of production and distribution being owned by the few (be they bureaucrats or capitalists) and the continued existence of a political state to enforce the will of the new ruling class upon the many, resulted in a new form of class divided society that in many ways resembled capitalism, save for a few minor details in its functioning. Money, a wage system and an oiligarchy of the few remained, as the fledging Soviet Union was not given any assistance that it expected to receive from the outside world. Hence, the system of state ownership of the industries and services formulated by Lenin (and later adopted by China and many other nations) cannot rightfully be labeled as "Marxism", but should properly be referred to as Leninism.
When the ruthless dictator Josef Stalin took over control of the country in 1920, he cemented the dictatorial aspects of the new system even further, and ensured that it became a totalitarian system completely bereft of any form of democracy, or without even a pretense to it; however, he further declared the system to be true "communism" or "socialism" (which was eagerly and incorrectly accepted by the working classes of the world, most of whom were kept in ignorance of true Marxism by their respective capitalist classes) and instituted the very unsocialistic idea of "socialism in one country", which is why this system is also referred to as Stalinism, since though Lenin established it, it was Stalin who perfected it. Any authentic socialist would also point out that Stalin's notion of "socialism in one country" is a false one; socialism is intended to exist everywhere in the world, not in just one country.
Socialism requires the following prerequisites in order to come about in any society:
1. An advanced industrial base (which the U.S. has, but which Russia lacked in 1917);
2. A well defined working class (which the U.S. has, but which Russia, still steeped in rural feudalism in 1917, didn't truly possess);
3. A class-conscious working class that is aware of its interests as a class and aware of the ruling class as a distinct class enemy, as well as an awareness of the workings of both class-divided societies and of socialism (which the U.S. definately does not possess currently, but which Russia had to an extent in 1917, which resulted in a non-captialist revolution).
Hence, Russia did not possess most of the prerequisites required for genuine socialism at the time of the revolution. Most people seem unaware that socialism demands several specific conditions, both technological and social/psychological, in order to be established. The U.S. currently (and even in 1917) possesses all of the material prerequisites, but sadly, none of the psychological and social conditions (i.e., a class conscious working class that understands and identifies capitalism itself as the source of the problems in society). In many ways, Russia was the opposite in both conditions. Unfortunately, the nation was bamboozled by its new ruling class into confirming that a genuine worker's government had indeed been established in order to placate the yearning masses. This was very untrue, and remains so today. Socialism would function near perfectly in practice; it is not simply a series of hollow political tenets and hopeless social aspirations that would only look good on paper though not in practice, and there is absolutely no existing evidence to suggest otherwise (and I have already countered elsewhere in this section the famous argument which suggests genuine socialism would be against "human nature", which would now be thrown in my face were I to make these points in a public forum).
Q: Isn't socialism simply a Utopian fantasy?
A: This is another criticism often made of socialists. Further, in my guestbook section, the aforementioned critic [Shawn] accused me of living in a "fantasy world" for supporting socialism. Capitalist supporters who take a sadistic glee out of having privileges over others often state that socialists live in such a fantasy world. My section on Pretenders to Socialism explains the many differences between socialism and utopianism. Socialists, including myself, are well aware that socialism doesn't currently exist, and are forced to participate in the capitalist rat race the same as everyone else, both capitalist supporters and non. However, unlike the former, we believe the cutthroat competition of capitalism to be immoral and beneath the dignity of the human race.
During Karl Marx's time, he predicted many things about the economic world which were "fantasy" at the time, including the globalization of capital and the eventual creation of the subdivision of the working class he called the "lumpenproletariat," which would consist of the debased, criminal cast-offs of the proletariat proper. The current global status of capitalism linking all existing nations and the proliferation of elements such as the Mafia and powerful and well organized street gangs such as the Bloods and the Crips attest to the correctness of Marx's predictions. However, these and many other correct guesses were laughed at as being mere "fantasy" in a time before capitalism reached the level that it has today. Socialism is a system of the future whose technological possibility exists now. It is far from a fantastical idea, but was conceivable, if not technologically possible, during Marx's time as well. Medical science speculates on many things that it believes will exist in the future based on today's advances, e.g., nanotechnology, cloning of human organs, synthetic replacement of blood, gene therapy, etc., all of which are practical to envision (if not quite scientifically possible) today, due to the recent advances in medical science that make such ideas very conceivable from a modern standpoint. Socialism is the same way from the standpoint of the economic and industrial world. We enjoy speculating about advances in technology in the future, as well, otherwise such advances would never be made (we would be minus the television, the VCR, DVD players, and even the radio and the electric lamp without such "fantastical" speculation). It is often accepted and believed that technology will continue to be advanced and improved on, yet we scoff at the suggestion that social relations and the economy will do the same.
In other words, it is accepted that the human race is brilliant enough to advance in the physical sciences and to create the numerous technological marvels we see today, but is not commonly believed to be capable of improving and advancing the socio-economic order that we live under any further, despite the numerous such changes that have occurred in the past. Socialism is no more idle fantasy then any other major social or technological advancement for the human race, especially when based on the level of present advances. Socialism has been technologically possible for about 120 years now; we merely await the working class to become class-conscious and to see capitalism for what it really is: an obsolete and oppressive economic world order whose time as a progressive system has long since passed. Such an occurrance would be no more remarkable then the working class casting off chattel slavery or feudalism, both of which it has done, not to mention the elimination of cannabalism and other atrocities from the human mindset.
Q: Isn't Cuba and certain small African nations socialist?
A: No. Cuba and all of the "Third World" nations in Africa lack the technological capability to produce an abundance for all that is necessary for socialism. Please refer to two of the questions above for a listing of all of the material requirements that are needed to facilitate socialism, and then note that Cuba and all small "developing" nations lack every one of these things.
All of these small countries still possess widespread poverty, monetary currency, wage slavery, and an all-powerful political state, NONE of which would exist under genuine socialism (do you honestly think Fidel Castro would have put aside his status as one of the wealthiest men on the planet, as well as the most privileged person in Cuba, for the benefit of his countrymen?). Cuba's economy is Leninist (see the section on Pretenders to Socialism to see how Leninism differs from Marxism), despite the fact that it alternately refers to itself as "communism" or "socialism", both quite incorrectly. All of the small African nations that claim the mantle of "socialism" are likewise Leninist.
Further, I'll say this yet again: socialism is NOT intended to exist in one or only a few countries; when it is established, it will exist everywhere, or it will exist nowhere. It will be a worldwide system, and will not be limited to but a few nations. In fact, the very concept of seperate nations will not exist in the upcoming socialist world. Thus, no country on Earth today has a genuine socialist economic system in which all of society collectively owns and controls the industries and services. Instead, every nation on the face of the Earth today have their industries and services owned by a privileged few who run them for the express purpose of making a profit for themselves, and not for the benefit of all society, and this is not socialism.
