Now if I'm wright (and again, feel free to correct me if any of my assumptions here are wrong), you recognize that it would in fact take a long period of education to convince people that your way is in fact the better way. Then there'd be the issue of finding a way to gradually implement the changes in a systematic fashion to ensure a smooth transition.
Quite right. The Socialist Party recognizes that in order for socialism to work, the majority of people have to understand and want it. In order for this to occur, the working class needs to gain class consciousness and an understanding of what socialism is. This requires a large educational initiative on behalf of the party, which is why we are so focused on education rather than political campaigning. As opposed to all other so-called 'socialist' movements throughout history, the Socialist Party does not believe in the idea that people can be lead into socialism. The idea is that, if someone can lead the masses into socialism, someone else could lead them right back out. For this reason we reject all forms of vangaurdism.
The goal is to make as many socialists as possible, and to have representatives elected to parliament. Once a critical mass (a majority) of socialists are reached, there will be no need to move from step A to B to C etc., because the majority of people will already understand and know what needs to be done. Everything will have been prepared before the transition to socialism. There will of course be some major changes, but for the most part, everything that we will need to operate the new society already exists under capitalism. Most change will involve getting rid of the redundant and non socially productive aspects of capitalist society, such as accountancy, actuarial work and risk management, banking, financial management, investment management, marketing, cashiers, etc. etc. the list goes on. As I mentioned earlier, some economists have estimated that roughly 1 in 4 people are employed in work that is considered socially productive, that is producing things that actally fulfill human needs. The other 3/4th's are involved in work that have no real productive value, other than to carryout the administration of capital exchange.
There is a debate within the party's of the WSM as to how the transition from capitalism to socialism will take place. One side advocates an abrupt transition, while the other side argues the case for a gradual transition. Both arguments are well thought out, each having their merits and downfalls. Thats one of the beautiful aspects of the SPC's (and for that matter the WSM) democratic structure. Almost nothing is beyond debate. There are no party whips, or leaders to set policy agenda. All party line is democratically decided. But I digress...
One important point that is stressed by members of the SPC is that it would be undemocratic for us to give a blue print of what socialism will be and how we will achieve it. Those things need to be left up to the people involved at the time it happens. To give a blue print for socialism would be foolish and undemocratic because we cannot speak on behalf of the majority of people. Because the idea of socialism rest so heavily on democratic involvement (much more so than in liberal democracy), we feel that the most important decisions should always be left to the democratic process. For this reason, the only thing we can really do right now is to consistently put forth our case against capitalism, and for socialism.
To conclude my response, the best explanation for our party platform is expressed in our eight point declaration of principles. Numbers 3,4,5, and 6 are most pertinent to your inquiry;
The Socialist Party of Canada hold that:
1. Society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master class, and consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labor alone wealth is produced.
2. In society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess.
3. This antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipation of the working class from the domination of the master class, by the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.
4. As in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex.
5. This emancipation must be the work of the working class itself.
6. As the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and overthrow of plutocratic privilege.
7. As political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interest of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.
8. The companion parties of socialism, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to stand against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, and call upon all members of the working class of these countries to support these principles to the end that a termination may be brought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labor, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.
Scientific socialism? It sure is. That's what Engels called it, to distinguish it from utopian socialism, Marx never used the phrase to describe his ideas. Any discipline that's credibly established itself as scientific has a group of theoretical and experimental practitioners and a body of results. Scientific socialism has only a body of theorists with very limited credibility. You've argued that every experiment in socialism wasn't really socialism, it was state capitalism or some other bastardization of Marx's ideas, the experiment's never actually been done, so you have no results. That's not a science.
Thank you for actually taking the time to think about your response. It seems that many people here are reactionary, lacking the ability to separate themselves from their narrow preconceptions of the world. However, at any rate, the scientific socialism that the SPC professes is concerned primarily with empirical observations of past and present social and economic trends. It uses historical materialism to observe the past and present and to make predictions for the future.When we say that socialism is scientific we do not mean that it is created by scientists in some Cold War Russian laboratory. We mean that it is based only on things that are directly observable, not simply the product of the ideas of man. Scientific socialists see capitalism and socialism as the result of the historical development of the material conditions of humankind, and not as a some social construct. In this sense, using the dialectic method, we can examine history and make the case that, like all other economic systems before it, capitalism will create the material conditions necessary for the establishment of socialism.
