Capitalism
Sucks!
An
Interview with Wolf Larsen
from the book Capitalism Sucks!
Question:
Why do you say our government treats workers like dirt?
Answer:
Look at minimum wage, for example. It's
too difficult to survive on minimum wage in much of the United States, let
alone raise a family!
Q.
But the Democrats just raised minimum wage – isn't that better than nothing?
A.
I'd like to see these Democrat
politicians try and live on minimum wage.
And I'd like to see Republican politicians try and live on minimum wage
too. I doubt they could do it! Another problem with the Democrats is that
they are against working-class people just like the Republicans.
Q.
Really? Many people don't think so. Many people think that the Democrats are more
for the workers.
A. The Democrats pretend to be the friends of
workers. During election campaigns the
Democrats like to put on hardhats and pose for the cameras and say pretty words
about workers. But after the Democrats
get elected they pretty much do the same as the Republicans. The Democrats call out the police and even
the National Guard to attack picket lines, just like the Republicans.
Q.
So if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against the workers then what
should the working people do?
A. The working people must build their own
party. The working people need a workers
party. A workers party would fight to
double minimum wage, a workers party would fight for free quality medical care
for all Americans, a workers party would fight for the rights of all workers
regardless of their race or gender or religion or their sexual preference or
national origin. A workers party would
seek to smash through all these barriers that divide workers against each
other. A workers party would unite all
workers together to support doubling our minimum wage, to support quality
affordable housing for all, to support decent pensions and better social
security benefits for our older people.
A workers party would also take a stand against war. A workers party would also defend immigrant
workers.
Q.
But some people argue that immigrant workers are stealing jobs from American
workers. What do you say to that?
A.
The American economy has historically been one of the most dynamic economies in
the world. America has always produced
many jobs. However, now the employers
are moving jobs overseas. The employers
are moving manufacturing jobs to China.
And the employers are moving professional jobs to India and other places
like that. The reason that there's not
enough jobs to go around is because the bosses are taking our jobs out of the
country. We must understand that the
politicians are using the immigrants as a scapegoat. Our country is in difficult times. The bosses have moved too many jobs
abroad. We are in two wars at the same
time. The economy is in horrible shape
because the bankers and the fat cats on Wall Street have damaged it very badly
with their greed. Instead of
scapegoating immigrants we should understand that it is the politicians and
rich people and the big corporations who are responsible for the fact that
American workers are suffering so badly during these hard times. We should understand that the immigrants have
nothing to do with our problems. The
immigrants are just scapegoats. The
problem is with the rich people and the politicians and big corporations who
are all like pigs at the trough. It is
the rich people and the politicians who are ruining our economy and destroying
our nation. Not the immigrants – we've
always had immigrants. American native-born
and immigrant workers laboring together have made the United States of America
one of the most powerful and wealthiest nations on earth. Unfortunately, the wealth does not find its
way into the hands of those who actually work for a living! The vast majority of the wealth finds its way
into the hands of the rich and powerful, who are often not doing the work themselves.
Q.
But with their investments and their knowledge and expertise the rich people
actually help to improve our economy, wouldn't you say so?
A. How much knowledge and expertise does it take
to drink champagne and eat caviar? Any
idiot can do that! The rich people take
and take from the country and they give back nothing. There may have been a time – like in the 19th
century – when the rich people actually invested in our country. The rich people built factories, they built
railroads – well, actually the workers built those things and the rich people
financed the development of those projects.
However, today the rich people take the money – the money that they make
from the sweat of the workers – and the rich people move that money outside of the
country and they put it in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. The rich people also move our jobs
abroad. The rich people do not take the
money that they make from our labor and reinvest in our country anymore. So we would be better off without these rich
people.
Q.
So what do you propose to do with these rich people?
A. I would like to see them picking up garbage
off the ground for food stamps. I would
also like to see the Democrat and Republican politicians picking up garbage off
the ground for food stamps as well. (Laughs) However, I have heard it said by members of a
Trotskyist group that former members of the ruling class would have the right
to a job at the same wages as everybody else, and that members of the former
ruling class that work a job and stay out of trouble should be allowed to be
productive members of society. However,
after a workers revolution a workers government would have to defend itself
against anyone who took up arms against the workers government or anyone who
incited violence against a workers government.
A workers government would also have to defend itself against people who
financed violent counterrevolution. Such
elements would have to be crushed in order to prevent widespread
bloodshed. Because in the past counterrevolutionary
elements – like the Contras in Nicaragua and the white forces during the Civil
War in Russia caused a lot of suffering and death and needless violence.
Q.
So a workers government wouldn't necessarily line up all of its opponents
against the wall and shoot them?
A. Of course not. Not unless they took up arms against a
workers government, or financed or incited or advocated a violent
counterrevolution. Contrary to
stereotype communists do not believe in pointless violence and pointless repression. But I'm sure we could agree that after a
workers government took power a workers government would have to defend itself
if certain elements took up arms against the government or certain elements
financed counterrevolution. After the
workers revolution in Russia in 1917 it was the counterrevolutionaries who were
responsible for much of the violence and bloodshed. The workers government under Lenin and
Trotsky merely sought to defend itself.
Q.
But many people died during communist rule in the Soviet Union – isn't that
true?
A. First of all it wasn't communist rule, it was
Stalinist rule. Stalin murdered,
imprisoned, or exiled to Siberia most of the members of the Communist Party
Central Committee that lead the revolution.
It was the Stalinist bureaucracy who murdered and imprisoned many
innocent people – including many communists.
It was the Stalinists who murdered Communists like Leon Trotsky. Leon Trotsky was a co-leader of the 1917
revolution along with Lenin.
Q.
But haven't you heard that power corrupts absolutely? Wouldn't a workers government in America or
any other part of the world go the same way as the Soviet Union?
A. Not necessarily. It all depends on the circumstances. It's important to understand what happened in
the Soviet Union. It's easy to be
intellectually lazy and ignorant and wave off history with a simple statement
like, "power corrupts absolutely".
To understand history one has to study it. The Communist Party in the Soviet Union
inherited a country that was economically backward, a country that had huge
amounts of illiteracy, a country that had a very small working class at that
time, a country that had been devastated by World War I, a country that had
been severely damaged by the violence unleashed by counterrevolutionary forces
backed by countries like the USA. Another
problem is that in the beginning days of the Soviet Union there weren't enough
educated people to assume the positions of the bureaucracy. So the old bureaucrats under the Czar
continued to be the bureaucrats under the new Soviet Union. And guess whose sons were in college becoming
educated to become the next bureaucrats?
The sons of the bureaucrats where the ones in college studying to become
the nation's next generation of bureaucrats.
Hence, the Communists were actually isolated. The bureaucrats had more and more power with
each passing year. Lenin repeatedly said
that in order for the Soviet Union to survive they needed a workers revolution
in an advanced country like Germany so that the Soviet Union wouldn't be so
isolated. However, when leftist workers
attempted a revolution in Germany they were squashed by the Social
Democrats. Hence, the Soviet Union stood
alone. The situation made it difficult
to have a full-fledged workers democracy in the Soviet Union. Instead, the bureaucracy took control and
threw the communists out. The
bureaucracy killed many of the communists.
The country was communist in name only.
The bureaucrats ran the country.
It you had told Lenin that the Soviet Union would survive 70 years under
such conditions Lenin would have laughed at you and told you to stop smoking so
much opium! Lenin said that the Soviet
Union would not survive long without a revolution in an advanced country. He was wrong.
In spite of being ruled by a horrible Stalinist bureaucracy the
superiority of the planned economy in the Soviet Union not only helped the
Soviet Union to survive 70 years but it also helped the Soviet Union to become
the second most powerful country on the earth. The superiority of the planned economy also
allowed the Soviet workers to enjoy the highest standard of living that they
ever enjoyed in their history! As many
people know after the fall of the planned economy in the Soviet Union and the
re-introduction of capitalism there the living standard of the workers has
fallen tremendously.
Q.
But doesn't a planned economy hurt creativity?
And doesn't the capitalist economy encourage creativity?
A. Under capitalism there certainly are certain
types of creativity. There are lots of
people who are paid money to try and figure out the best way to sell you their
brand of toilet paper. Hence, under
capitalism there is lots of creativity in terms of coming up with creative ways
to convince you to wipe your ass with a particular brand of toilet paper. I don't think that's the kind of creativity
the human race needs.
Q.
(Laughs) I mean, what I'm trying to say is that doesn't the capitalist system
encourage innovation? I think the
problem with a planned economy is that it's too stagnant – isn't a planned
economy more stagnant and less dynamic than the capitalist one?
A. I think there's innovation in some capitalist
countries. But in most capitalist
countries there isn't much innovation at all.
I've been to over 50 countries on this planet in Latin America, Europe,
the Middle East, and Asia. In most
capitalist countries you have cheap labor and because the labor is cheap there
is not much incentive for innovation.
Actually what I see in much of the capitalist world is a waste of labor
resources. There are able-bodied men who
can't find a job – lots of them! There's
women staying at home because there's a lack of decent childcare. There are many people on the street in Third
World capitalist countries selling the exact same things that the stores around
them are selling. I've lived in a number
of Third World countries and that is something you see every day in capitalist
third world countries – a complete lack of efficiency and innovation.
Q.
But in the capitalist first world countries there's plenty of innovation –
isn't that true?
A. Sure there's lots of innovation, but what
kind of innovation? Is the innovation
helping mankind to progress? The United
States spends endless billions coming up with new innovative ways to kill
massive numbers of people with its war machine.
I fail to see how that kind of innovation is beneficial to mankind! There is very little being spent on a cure
for AIDS, and that's exactly the kind of innovation that the human race desperately
needs. Not enough is being spent on a
cure for cancer, and that's exactly the kind of innovation that the human race
needs. However, there's lots of money
and resources going into new innovative ways to sell people products that
perhaps they don't really need. If you
need something you'll go out and buy it.
You don't need someone to tell you that their brand of toilet paper is
better. Your own butt will tell you
that!
Q.
Regarding the Third World – you cite the lack of innovation and efficiency in
those countries, so don't those Third World countries deserve to be poor? Because they're inefficient and lack
innovation?
A. The people who have the power and money in
the Third World have less incentive to innovate or make things efficient
because they have such cheap labor resources at their disposal. Besides, if you're rich in a third world
country you've got it good – real good!
The rich people in many Third World countries are too busy having a
great time with all their money to think about innovation or efficiency! (Laughs)
Anyway, it's not the fault of the working people in those countries that
they're poor – they often work hard but they're paid in miserly wages. Most people in the Third World are not
stupid. They just don't have opportunities. In fact, most people in the Third World are
smarter than George W. Bush, the President of the United States of
America. Having lived many years off and
on in the Third World and having traveled widely in the Third World I can
assure you that most people who live in the Third World are smarter than the
current president of the United States. (Laughs) So I don't think the problem in the Third
World is a lack of intelligent people who can innovate and make things more
efficient. I think the problem is that
the people who rule these countries just don't care about innovation and
efficiency, for the reasons I talked about.
In order to improve the living standards of the vast majority of
humanity living in the Third World you have to completely change the
system. You've got to throw capitalism
in the garbage can. Because it's
capitalism that is keeping these people down.
It's capitalism that stifles innovation and efficiency. It's capitalism that dooms the vast mass of
humanity in the Third World to suffer so much!
No, those countries don't deserve to be poor. It's capitalism that's stopping those
countries from being more innovative and efficient.
Q. But the Soviet Union certainly wasn't very
innovative or efficient – isn't that true?
A. They were innovative and efficient enough to
be the first ones to put a satellite in outer space. They were innovative and efficient enough to
become a superpower – the second most powerful country in the world! They were innovative and efficient enough to
give their peoples a better standard of living than they had before or
since. And back during the Soviet Union
working people had free medical care, affordable housing, and the right to a
job. And they had all of those things
because of a planned economy! But one of
the things that stifled the Soviet Union was the Stalinist bureaucracy. Trotskyists called for a political revolution
to oust the Stalinist bureaucracy of the Soviet Union. A political revolution would have kept the
planned economy, but would have gotten rid of the Stalinist bureaucracy,
installing a workers democracy.
Q.
Isn't communism incompatible with democracy?
A.
No it's not. What communists want is a
WORKERS democracy. Right now, we live
under a rich man's democracy. Right now,
workers have the right to become unemployed and end up living under a
bridge. Right now, workers don't have
the right to free quality medical care.
Right now, workers don't have the right to quality affordable housing. Right now, the landlord has the right in most
places to raise your rent is much as he'd like.
So you have to move out because some yuppie has the right to take over
your housing. The rich people have the
right to smash your union. The system is
biased in favor of the bosses. Hence, we
live under a dictatorship of the rich.
It is the rich people that enjoy democracy, not the workers. Under a workers
democracy working people would have many rights; including the right to a
job, including the right to a much higher minimum wage than today, including
the right to decent affordable housing, the right to free quality medical care,
the right to free quality child care for all working women, the right to live
in a society without discrimination based on race or gender or sexual
preference or national origin or religion or lack thereof. Workers will enjoy many more rights under a workers democracy. Workers will have the right to vote for their
representatives in both the local and national levels. Also, those representatives in the local and
national governments will be subject to instant recall. That is, if the workers don't like a
particular politician they can vote them out right away! They won't have to wait for the next
elections to get rid of some bum in office.
For example, if there was somebody like George Bush and he was a
complete idiot (laughs) the workers would have the right to vote them out of
office at any time by simple majority.
They wouldn't have to wait for the next election. That's how things would work under a workers
democracy.
Q.
Wouldn't a workers revolution be violent?
A. Well, if the rich people said look were sorry
we've been screwing you workers over for too long so we'll give up power now
and let you guys have a workers government and we won't organize
counterrevolution against the workers government gee that would be nice. In other words, the communists don't want
violence. After a workers revolution it
will be the people who are accustomed to having great wealth and power who may
want to instigate violence to try to restore the old order and their old privileges. A workers government would have to defend
itself.
Q
. What is the difference between
socialism and communism? Is socialism
like what they have in certain northern European countries and communism like
what they had in the Soviet Union?
A. The Soviet Union was never communist. The Stalinist bureaucracy found it convenient
to call itself communist, but the Stalinist bureaucracy killed the communists
who led the October Revolution. Capitalist
countries also found it convenient to call the Soviet Union and its privileged
bureaucrats Communists as well – all the more to confuse workers across the
world. Of course, the politicians and
the rich people of the capitalist world wanted everybody to think that the Soviet
Union was communist. But that's all a
lie, or a gross misrepresentation, a gross misrepresentation that was
convenient for all the parties involved.
Q.
Well if the Soviet Union wasn't communist then what was it?
A.
(Laughs)
Q.
Why are you laughing?
A. Because I was trying to think of a way to
explain this in simple English. However,
that's not easy to do. The Soviet Union
was a degenerated workers state.
Q.
(Laughs) What? A degenerated workers state? What's that?
A.
The Soviet Union began as a workers state.
The workers came to power in the revolution of 1917. However, the situation degenerated when the
Stalinist bureaucracy began to take power away from the communists. This was possible because of the
circumstances I discussed earlier. The
situation in the Soviet Union made it difficult to establish a workers
democracy there. Remember I talked about
how before the workers revolution Russia was already poor and there was lots of
illiteracy at that time and the country had been devastated by World War I, and
the fact that the damn bureaucrats in the early Soviet Union were the same
bureaucrats who'd been the bureaucrats under the czar – so the situation
degenerated for all these reasons and that's why it's a degenerated workers
state. It started out as a workers state
but it degenerated and the communists lost control to the Stalinist bureaucracy
– so it was a degenerated workers state.
It was not communism. It wasn't
even socialism.
Q.
Socialism – is that what they had in northern Europe? With the safety net and all that?
A. No, they did not have socialism in northern
Europe. What they had in many Western
European countries was capitalism with a safety net. The reason they had capitalism with a safety
net is that the workers were more militant in Western Europe than in the
USA. The workers in Europe fought harder
for more social benefits. The workers
had political parties that were more to the left of our Republicans and
Democrats. That is one of the reasons
that the workers had a bigger safety net, that is that they have more social
programs, they had things like free medical care, free college education,
better social benefits if one became unemployed or couldn't find work. So the workers had this safety net partly as
a result of having more militant parties to the left of our Democrats and
Republicans. Another reason that some of
these capitalist Western European countries have a larger safety net than the
United States is because of the proximity of so-called Communist Eastern
Europe. The ruling class of the Western
European capitalist countries didn't want the workers to become sympathetic to
quote unquote communism. They bought off
their workers with the safety net that we've been talking about. However, now that the Stalinist countries
have fallen and so-called communism is no more these capitalist countries in
Western Europe are trying to get rid of that safety net. They don't feel threatened by so-called
communism anymore. So the safety net in
those Western European countries is being taken away from the workers. Hence, those Western European countries were
never socialist. They are capitalist
with a safety net. No nation has even
reached the stage of socialism.
Q. So you believe that no nation has even
reached the stage of socialism? Perhaps
that's because socialism and communism are nice ideas in theory, but they
cannot work in practice?
A. Of course socialism can work in
practice. The Soviet Union rose from
being a poverty-stricken backward nation into becoming the second most powerful
country in the world – thanks to a planned economy. That proves a planned economy is superior to
a capitalist one. Look at all the
economic misery in the capitalist world today!
Having a planned economy helped to industrialize the Soviet Union and
give the working people of the Soviet Union a better standard of living than
they have in capitalist Russia today.
However, even though they had a planned economy the Soviet Union never
reach socialism. As I explained before
the Soviet Union was a degenerated workers state. It never had workers democracy. It did not have socialism. You cannot have socialism in just one
country. A workers revolution would have
to spread to many countries – particularly economically advanced countries in
the first world in order for the human race to achieve socialism. Under socialism everyone would have the right
to a job, everyone would have a decent standard of living, people would be paid
according to their work, everyone who works would receive free quality medical
care and free quality child care, affordable decent housing would be human
right, etc. Look at how the rich people
and the politicians have run our country into the ground, gotten us into two
wars at the same time, and put millions of Americans behind prison bars – most of
it because of drugs, not to mention that in many places of our nation the
school system is in shambles, as is public transportation, and the medical
system stinks. That's how the rich
people run our nation. It's time for the
working people to rule. The working
people must rule not just America but everywhere across the world.
Q. Okay.
You just described socialism. So
then what's communism? And what's the
difference between socialism and communism?
A. Yes I just described socialism and how it would
work. Socialism would be a workers
democracy where workers would elect their local and national representatives,
and workers would also have the power to kick any politician out any time by
simple majority recall vote. Workers
would have all the rights I talked about earlier. Communism is a much later stage of economic
development that comes after socialism.
Communism would not be achieved for a long time. Simply the world is not economically
developed enough for communism. Under
communism the people would have all the same rights that they have under
socialism, but the economy will be much more advanced. There's no greed leap forward to
communism. It may not even happen in our
lifetimes. I cannot even invision
communism. It is way too far in the
future. But, I can see that socialism in
our lifetimes is a very real possibility.
A society where everyone has the
right to work, where everyone has the right to a decent education, where
everyone has the right to free quality child care for their children and free
quality medical care for everyone, and workers have the right to elect their
own leaders and recall them by popular vote at any time. Socialism is the next stage of human
development. If we do not reach
socialism then certainly the capitalist powers of the world will eventually
unleash a nuclear war and the human race will become extinct. Therefore, the choice is clear. The choice is capitalism and barbarism or
socialism and a decent life for every human being on the planet.
Q.
If someone wanted to find out more about socialism and communism what would you
suggest they do?
A. I would suggest they read. I would read the following books: Ten Days That Shook the World by John
Reed, Last Will and Testament by
Lenin, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by
Frederick Engels, Wage Labor and Capital by
Karl Marx , State and Revolution by
Lenin, Imperialism: The Final Stage of
Capitalism by Lenin, What Is to Be
Done? by Lenin, Left-Wing Communism:
an Infantile Disorder by Lenin, and Permanent
Revolution by Trotsky. Read the
newspapers of all the groups claiming to be socialist and communist, and find
out which one is truly revolutionary.
You will find that the vast majority of them are reformist.
Q. Are you a member of any political group?
A. No. At
this time I'm not a member of any political group. I speak for no one but myself and the
interests of working people and poor people across the world.
Watch the video Capitalism Sucks from my political channel SucksCapitalism on YouTube.
Buy the book Capitalism Sucks on Amazon or other online retailers,
or just scroll down to read Capitalism Sucks for free.
You can also click on whatever chapter you wish listed
in the upper right hand column of this page.
You can also click on whatever chapter you wish listed
in the upper right hand column of this page.
No comments:
Post a Comment