How socialism can be won

March 4, 2011

To win socialism — a society democratically owned and run by and for the majority of people — we have to get rid of the capitalist system that stands in our way.

But who is going to do this? The capitalists aren’t going to give up their privileges.

It's those who are exploited and oppressed by the system that have an interest in changing it.

Capitalism can't permanently satisfy the needs of the majority — the working class, farmers, women, ethnic and racial minorities and so on.

The working class, the producing class, has the power to stop production and distribution. As the collective producer, the working class also has the capacity to establish a new, non-exploitative system of production — an economy that works for people, not profits.

Every morning, millions of workers go to work in the banks, factories, hospitals, schools and shops of Australia. Yet every evening, workers leave behind the things they just produced for the capitalists to keep.

Then, after work, they go to the store and pay outrageous prices for the goods they made. There's no way in the world that the capitalists could force workers to do that if the workers united against them.

Consider the recent examples in Venezuela. When workers rose up against price increases in 1989, the government had them massacred. But this didn't stop the poor from organising, and in 1998 they elected a president, Hugo Chavez, who defied the interests of the ruling class.

When the big capitalists and privileged bureaucrats tried to overthrow his government in a military coup in April 2002, the workers and rank-and-file soldiers rose up and stopped them.

Then the capitalists tried to shut down the economy to starve the workers and their elected government into submission, but the workers responded by taking over factories, and even entire industries, and running them themselves!

In Australia, the ruling class has developed a huge propaganda machine devoted to selling the illusion that we all have a stake in the system. What's good for business is good for everyone. They say we have to curb our wages to make "our" companies more competitive.

It works to some extent. But people don't always believe the lies. Have you ever heard anyone say: "We had to cut my wages" or "We had to sack me"?

That's why there are often struggles going on: strikes in factories and workplaces.

Capitalism tells people they have to "work within the system": talk to the boss if you want a wage rise, or simply vote for change. But to win anything, people have always had to step outside the bounds of the system.

Australia pulled out of the Vietnam War because hundreds of thousands of people marched in the streets not just once, but over and over again, until the ideas of the anti-war movement penetrated all sections of society, including the army.

The growing realisation that the war was fundamentally against their interests started to make working people question the whole nature of society. The Australian ruling class wasn't taking any chances. They cut their losses and ran from Vietnam rather than lose control over their own population.

Capitalism fears the power of the oppressed. When it's necessary and when it can get away with it, the system will smash any struggle that threatens its profits and power. Trade unions are made illegal or protesters arrested.

But often capitalists have to make some concessions.

However, under capitalism, no rights are guaranteed. In Australia, Labor and Liberal take turns at eroding people's rights. In stable and prosperous times, the ruling class tends to back the Liberals over other parties because the Liberals' policies tend to be the purest reflection of their interests.

They are seen as less likely to be responsive to pressure from the working class, small farmers or other sectors. However, in times of economic crisis, the ruling class often prefers Labor.

Labor has the advantage of controlling the trade union bureaucracy. With the union leadership's compliance, a Labor government can cut wages and living standards with minimum social protest and maximum efficiency.

Labor has perfected giving with one hand while taking with the other. To survive in recession, capitalists have to lower their costs. So in every recession, every economic crisis, working people stand to lose.

Because every reform can be reversed, the struggle for reform as an end in itself is insufficient. Socialists fight for reforms in order to make a revolution.

Every time working people win reforms, they get a glimpse of their power to change society. Every time they occupy an office or factory, they know they don't need a boss to run it.

[This article is abridged from the magazine What Resistance Stands For.]


In the US, since the mid 60's we have spent $16 Trillion on means tested government giveaway programs. We are now $14 Trillion in debt and have 43 million people on food stamps, over 40 million kids getting free school lunches, 9 million more on WIC, about 8 million in subsidized housing, 5 million on TANF, 8 million on SSI (including 1.2 million kids), 71 million households not paying taxes because of EITC and the Child Tax Credit and about 49 million on Medicaid. Does anybody really think more debt or taxes to pay for more giveaway programs is really going to help anything? How can a tax system be called "fair" when 47% of households are getting a free ride on the backs of the 53% who are paying income tax and carrying their own weight in society? What part of that is fair? If you pay people to be poor, they will be poor. If you pay them to have more kids than they can afford, they will have more kids. They know that as soon as they can say "in need" and "at risk" they will qualify for the money that somebody else expended a part of their life earning. Why should they be responsible when they can qualify for somebody else's earnings? This is just plain wrong and there is nothing fair about it. And no - I am not wealthy, just sick and tired of paying other people's bills.
The article isn't about the US, your statistics are completely irrelevant. If you hate welfare, good for you, but please rant somewhere where it's relevant. With regards to the article itself: not too bad, although some of your rhetoric is a little outdated given that Australia is by and large a post-industrial economy and most of the goods that we pay "outrageous prices" for are imported.
The Fox news listener who ranted about welfare / socialism above is just plain wrong for more reasons than that s/he was talking about the U.S. The U.S. spent 16 trillion on social programs over 60 years? I doubt it, but that is nothing on the Federal Reserve, which gave away $16 trillion to banks and major corporations world-wide between December 1, 2007, and July 21, 2010. In two and a half years! As Senator Bernie Sanders, the only independent in Congress said, "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." I am not making this up; it is the result of an audit by the U.S.' Government Accountability Office. I mention this here because the same thing is going on around the globe. The reason the complainer above is paying for social programs is that the rich don't pay; working class people pay almost the entire tax burden. The predatory handful who own the wealth are killing the rest of us. Since it's those of us who work who collectively create all the wealth, we should own it collectively, too. Yes, Virginia, socialism is a good thing, and the only solution out of the terrible crisis we are in.

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.