ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE ESSAY.
Question 2
THE WEAKNESSES IN CAPITALISM ARE CERTAINLY THERE,
BUT SOCIALISM HAS WEAKNESSES TOO.
PERHAPS POWER CORRUPTS ALL SYSTEMS, AND WAYS OF
COMBATING THIS GENERALLY ARE WHAT WE NEED TO
DEVELOP.
This question as I understand it, implies that all systems could be good if power did not corrupt the State and the society; if we could develop means to combat this problem, all systems, capitalism and socialism included, could be O.K.
First I will try to explain my opinion on the premise to the question: that capitalism has weaknesses but so has socialism.
Capitalism has developed for more than three hundred years, the' troubles we have today are caused by basic natural faults not weaknesses.
A relatively under populated and primitive world was the environment in which Capitalism has evolved: expanding population, expanding resources, expanding markets, and a primitive agriculture and industry. The nature and mechanism of the system, its basic essence, were determined mainly by this environment, and are geared to produce and supply the needs of an expanding market.
In the cycle of capitalist production those people who own capital, by employing labour, produce commodities, which they sell for profit in competition against one another on the world market. Profit is the motive force, without it all activity will grind to a halt.
Profit is realized at the moment of sale; therefore, selling on the market is the most important point in the cycle of production. Everything revolves around this point. As long as the sale takes place and profit is realized, what is sold or what happens to the goods afterwards is of relative importance. It does not make much difference if it is butter or guns or whether guns are sold to starving people, and butter to those who are already overfed.
Selling of commodities is the king-pin in capitalist economy, production comes second, human and ecological considerations come third: these last are often an impediment to the capitalist cycle of production and profit making.
Only in an environment of expanding population and expanding markets the capitalists could compete freely in producing more and cheaper commodities and still survive. The expanding demand could eventually absorb all the production.
Periodically the rise in production overtook the capacity of the markets to absorb the commodities produced, sales slumped, profits disappeared and the cycle of production came to a stop. In the early stages of the economy these periodical crises were only temporary and soon, in that expanding world, the cycle of production got under way again.
But today it should be evident to anybody but the most stubborn and blind conservatives that the empty environment that was the cradle of the capitalist system does not exist any more. In three hundred years capitalism has eliminated that environment almost entirely. Nothing has been left untouched in the creation of new products and new markets to maintain the spiraling cycle of production and profit making in motion.
Competition in production has made industry so efficient that it can take care of any demand. While in the early stages only a few industrialized countries were competing against each other's for the world's markets and raw materials, today most countries have become producers themselves and are keen competitors in the saturated world trade.
In proportion that the capacity to produce has increased, the available markets have decreased. Moreover, because of great advances in technology, part of the workforce, which itself constituted a market, is being put out of work.
Adam Smith stated that "the sole end and purpose" of an economic system is to supply the needs of the whole people in a society but, in capitalism, people have become only an incidental in keeping the economy going for the benefit of a minority. When people are not needed any more, they are discarded just like any rubbish.
This is a great problem for capitalism. It cannot discard its workers and expect them to remain consumers in the market, nor it can expect them to just lie down and die.
The present crisis is not temporary, and cannot be fixed in a rational way within the system that is causing it. It is going to be a permanent feature in most countries of the world with the exception of those few that may now and then come out on top in the worldwide trade war.
The spiral of capitalist development has reached the physical boundaries of our planet Earth. Capitalism is geared for growth and expansion and it cannot stagnate for long.
These are basic natural faults that cannot be called weaknesses; they are the terminal sickness of an obsolete social and economic system.
I do not advocate socialism as it is at present (1980), but it is evident that, if a better alternative is not found soon, we will be forced to choose between two, both disagreeable, possibilities: either a dictatorship of the right, or one of the left. In such eventuality I would have to choose socialism.
The reason is, that to solve the problems of ignorance, unemployment and pollution we need a planned economy and a progressive humane philosophy. Socialism at least envisages such a society in the future; this is why, notwithstanding all its present weaknesses, it holds some hope for our survival and is appealing to idealist young people today.
Socialism is a new force and cannot be fully assessed yet. It. has been the underdog and under constant threat since the beginning. It is different in every country, and it is too early to say whether its present problems are just momentary weaknesses or basic natural faults. When we think about socialism we have been influenced to think about its worst features by the capitalist media. There are poor socialist countries, but there is seldom such misery as we find in most capitalist countries side by side with the most extravagant luxury.
To conclude the first part, I believe that it would be appropriate to say that while the capitalist system has a definite terminal sickness, socialism may only have the troubles of a difficult birth.
Coming to the second part of the question, that power corrupts all systems and what we need to develop are ways to combat this trend, I believe that even if we had the most honest and hard working people in command, both in government, business and union circles, it would not make any difference to the situation of overproduction and market saturation that we have in the world today. This situation is the immediate cause of our economic crisis.
We can all see that, no matter what colour, democrat or republican, liberal or labour, honest or crook our government and business leaders have equally no success in their attempts to fix the problems of capitalist economy.
To survive in the world today each country which has not an isolated planned economy must win the war of competition in the world markets. To this end they must sacrifice their populations almost to the point of suicide. The victory of one country means the defeat of many. It is a rat race to produce and sell cheaper than the rest, to put the opposition out of business. The result is that everybody including the winners is reduced to a life of sacrifices and insecurity.
To produce and sell cheaper goods one would either have to lower wages and consequently lower the standard of living of a part of the population, or it would have to replace people with robots with even worst social results.
It is true that power has a corrupting influence, but the main problem with capitalism is not that it is almost completely corrupted but rather that it is obsolete. The increasing corruption is more the result than the cause of its obsolescence. Nothing can be done about it; it is a question of evolution.
POWER CORRUPTS ALL SYSTEMS - we know from history how many times an oppressive and corrupt regime was overthrown by more honest and progressive forces which eventually became as bad as those they had displaced; often notwithstanding winning an election the real power is still in the hands of those that have been replaced in government.
It is because of our ignorance and immaturity that instead of cooperating we are competing against each others. From this competition for survival derives the quest for power. We believe that we must have power over Nature, the land, the sea, over the means of production, over other human beings to be able to win in the contest.
Every human society must have some kind of organization. An organization, whether primitive or more complex, must have some form of power structure.
The ideal social structure, in my opinion, would be one where power is shared amongst all individuals. This would be an ideal democratic society where the level of education and consciousness would be such that every individual would have the ability to think objectively, where all work would be shared and where there would be no private ownership of the means of production. This society may be a distant dream.
But even if a perfect society may not be possible, it has been the ideal and aspiration of Mankind since ancient times. There is no reason why we should not be striving towards such an ideal. We must try to get as close to it as it is humanly possible.
The problem of the abuse of power and its corrupting influence is an ancient one. It stems from our ignorance and fears in the competition for survival. It is a problem that human societies have tried to solve in different ways, but they have never been successful for long. Sooner or later the rules were changed or distorted. Fortunately, no abuse of power can go on forever, sooner or later it will create the means of its own destruction.
Therefore, we must be prepared to deal with this problem for a long time to come, and we must continually try to find ways of combating it.
As the problem of power abuse and corruption has been and still is common to all systems and societies, it can be considered as a constant factor that could be ignored in the equation or comparison between socialist and capitalist economy. The choice would still be between two different economic systems, the factor of corrupting power being a possibility common to both of them.
We would have to choose between a wasteful, polluting, soul destroying economic system run by wealth and power hungry gangsters, and a more rational planned economy run by power hungry bureaucrats. To be successful in the first, one would have to become a capitalist or join the 'mafia'; to be successful in the second, one would have to join the ruling party and become active in one of its committees.
At present, the socialist countries are the underdogs in a ruthless economic and military contest with world capitalism. In this competition they are making the same mistakes of the West as they are influenced by the same values. They are becoming nationalistic, they are adopting consumerism, and in their stupid race to keep up with capitalism they are polluting the environment even more.
They could have won the support of the progressive people of the world if instead of pursuing a policy of power they gave a good example by avoiding taking part in the arms race and by avoiding the mistakes of the capitalist system by developing alternative energy saving technologies. It is probable that they cannot trust the West any more than the West can trust them. They can be partly excused because we know that capitalism has a longer history of violent exploitation, and we know also that capitalist economy prosper by war and destruction.
To conclude, I believe that, contrary to the capitalist system, a planned economy holds better prospects for the future because it can be harnessed to the needs of society. Moreover, it is more likely that the problem of corrupting power may be overcome in a society where the means of production belong to all and nobody can accumulate an excessive amount of wealth over the rest of the citizens. It would be almost impossible to solve the problem of the abuse of power in a society where most of the land and the means of production, which are the real source of power, are the private property of only twenty percent of the population.