Many people today are dissatisfied with conditions and taking action to
change them. We applaud all those getting organized and actively fighting
back. For actions to achieve the results desired, there is a necessity for
analysis. Action and analysis go hand in hand. Without the analysis of
concrete conditions, it is very likely that the action will get
side-tracked, or be ineffective in achieving the needed results.
For example, some groups today organize under the banner of being
"socially responsible." This usually involves calling for socially
responsible investments and education, economic democracy, etc. The call for
social responsibility is an admirable one. But how is social responsibility
defined in modern terms? What constitutes socially responsible investments?
These issues have to be seriously discussed and debated if indeed there is
to be social responsibility.
Social is usually defined as "pertaining to human society and its class
and individual relationships," (American Heritage Dictionary). Socially
responsible, then, would pertain to responsibilities, of society to
individuals and collectives (such as workers, women, youth, etc.) and
individuals and collectives to society.
Social Responsibility Means Guaranteeing Human Rights
Human beings are born to society and depend on society for their
existence. As members of society, human beings have claims on the society
--most notably the right to food, shelter, clothing, education, health care,
etc. These human rights belong to human beings simply because they are
human. For society to be responsible to its members, it is our view that it
must guarantee the human rights of all, and put these claims of its members
in the first place. For individuals and collectives to be responsible to
society, they must contribute, based on their inclinations and abilities, to
the development of society.
Socially responsible investments would be those investments made by
society, in both its human and material assets, to guarantee that society
can meet the claims of its members. To insure society's ability to make such
investments, the economy would need to be organized to meet the every
growing material and cultural needs of the people. Investments in both human
beings--in education, health care, housing, jobs, culture--and means of
production, would serve to make this guarantee a reality.
To actually fight for social responsibility it is important to discuss
this definition as a starting point. Is it valid? Without such discussion,
the aim of the struggle will remain unclear. This leaves the struggle for
social responsibility open to manipulation, to being directed into harming
the struggle for change, rather than serving it.
Can Capitalism Be Socially Responsible?
For example, there is the view that socially responsible investments are
investments in corporations that provide better benefits for their
employees. The problem with this perspective is its starting point--its
acceptance of capitalist relations of production as a given. Then, within
this given, choices are made between capitalist corporations.
Capitalism, and capitalist corporations, exploit human beings. Whether
or not they exploit them in good conditions or bad, they still exploit them.
The wealth which is socially produced by millions of working people is
stolen by the capitalist owners of the means of production. It is used not
to meet the needs of society, but for the making of capitalist profit. This
is an iron law of capitalism--exploitation of human beings for the making of
maximum profit. Daily life today, where millions are thrown on the streets,
where whole communities are left to die, where human beings and production
are incidental to the making of capitalist profit, demonstrates this reality
of capitalist life.
Reality cannot be ignored. The making of maximum profit directly
contradicts the meeting of the people's needs. To advance the struggle for
social responsibility, it is necessary to reject this starting point of
choosing one capitalist over the other. The choice is one system over the
other, between accepting the old or fighting for the new.
Like Chattel Slavery, Wage Slavery Must Be Eliminated
It is worthwhile considering some relevant history. When slavery existed
in the US--a brutal system enduring 400 years--there was a similar debate.
Was the problem slavery itself, or the rotten slave masters? Was the
solution eliminating slavery, or opposing the bad slave masters while
supporting the "good" ones. Today, there is no such debate. Society has
rejected this kind of slavery and few would defend the notion of good slave
masters.
Yet, under capitalism, this is precisely what is occurring. Rather than
discuss and debate how to eliminate capitalism and how to create a society
that is socially responsible to its members, there is discussion about which
monopoly is good and which bad. The Clinton administration has even coined
the term "Good Corporate Citizen" to emphasize that capitalism can indeed be
reformed.
But what is the reality? Which corporation guarantees a livelihood for
the workers? Which guarantees that it will not exploit the workers? Which
organizes production to meet the needs of society?
The wage slavery that exists today--exploitation of the workers by the
monopolies--must be eliminated, just as surely as the system of chattel
slavery had to be eliminated. Without this the possibility for social
responsibility, for society meeting the claims of its members, is blocked.
Similarly, there is a view that current problems can be solved by ending
corporate rule. The corporations are seen as having too much power. No
doubt, this is true. The issue is, what is the source of this power?
Monopoly capitalists, like all capitalists, derive their power from their
ownership of the means of production--the factories, mines,
telecommunications, etc. Based on the private ownership of these means of
production, the monopolies seize the wealth that is socially produced. The
drive for profits gives rise to increased monopolization--witness the
mega-mergers now taking place on a world scale.
If corporate rule is to be ended, then capitalist rule must also be
ended. The source of power of the monopolies--their ownership of the means
of production--must be eliminated. The contradiction at the heart of
capitalism, between private ownership and robbery of the wealth on one side
and social production on the other, must be resolved in favor of the people.
Social production demands socialized ownership. This would create the
possibility for society to be socially responsible to its members.
Shawgi Tell
University at Buffalo
Graduate School of Education
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
