goods are, therefore, by definition inferior goods. Queuing for bread and meat is not unusual. But the ruling classes want to conceal this fact from the masses of the people. This is achieved by creating a false conciousness among them. Advertizing, the systematic use of the mass media, the constant propaganda for inferior goods - this blunts the spirit of the workers. It sharpens the Entfremdung which K. Marx (1818-1883) has proved to be the basic element in the socio-psychological condition of the people under capitalism.
So-called consumer sovereignty leads to the consumption of pornographic books and movies, to an unhealthy consumption of canned food, to an unhealthy interest in competitive games like football. And to erratic movements and migrations of persons across national borders.
Now, compare this state of affairs under monopoly capitalism with the state of affairs under socialism. Here so-called consumer sovereignty has been replaced by a socialist order of values. The luxury hotels have disappeared, the luxury datchas have disappeared, the luxury cars have disappeared, pornography has disappeared. Instead, the real needs of the real people are really satisfied. They get wholesome food, decent homes, socialist realism in art, beautiful music, portraits of their great leaders. There is an ample supply of the works of Wladimir Iljitsj Lenin (1870-1924). And people get psychiatric treatment when they really need it.
Yet the most essential political feature of public choice in the Soviet Union does not lie with the satisfaction of ‘individual’ wants. An essential difference between the socialist countries and the countries under monopoly capitalism lies with the position of political minorities. The so-called democracies of the so-called West suffer from the existence of many dissenting groups. They are simply riddled with minorities. But under bourgeois democracy there is no possibility to deal with them in a satisfactory manner. Either a majority decision is taken and then the minority groups are overruled. Their wants are not satisfied. Or, second possibility, the interests of the minorities are served, as is the case when monopoly capitalists have their way in parliaments. Then the majority is overruled and suppressed.
This contradiction has been noticed by K. Wicksell but his solution - unanimity voting - cannot work under capitalism because that system abounds with disagreement and strife. Consensus will never be reached under capitalism. Other solutions of a highly theoretical nature have been suggested but they come to nought. The Kaldor-Hicks principle, which says that a decision improves social welfare if the winners can compensate the losers, overlooks that under capitalism the losses always exceed the gains. This is inherent in the nature of capitalism itself. The Clarke-tax, which makes the individual participant in a voting process pay according to the degree in which he influences the outcome of the vote, cannot work either because under capitalism any real influence of particular voters on the outcome is absent - decision-making is dominated by the ruling class. Also, the ruling class will never consent to anything like the Clarke-tax. Furthermore, the Clarketax intends to reveal the true preferences of the voters but under the so-called democratic systems of the so-called West these preferences are distorted by the same false consciousness that distorts so-called consumer sovereignty.
The natural solution of the problem of political minorities comes about under socialism. Here the social contradictions - Widersprüche - have melted away. The class struggle no longer exists. Decisions are taken in full view of the real interests of the real people, as conceived by the communist party. Public choice reflects the social order of values and is therefore optimal by definition. The logical consequence is that votes are unanimous. Wicksell's principle is realized in the Soviet Union. It is a beautiful case of decision-making under perfect consensus.
The logic of this case is, as I have shown, simple and straightforward. Moreover, empirical evidence lends support to the reasoning. In the Soviet Union dissenting opinions are very scarce indeed. Public choice is never challenged. Political minorities never show up, apart from a few pathetic characters in mental wards. The Supreme Soviet takes its decisions by general consent and under general applause. The empirical picture of the Soviet-Union is characterized by the radiant harmony that the theory of socialism suggests.
And yet, some of us may have our doubts. There remains something to be explained. A population of more than 250 million people must, if only by the laws of probability, show some divergence of political opinion. The socialist harmony of interest is
Auteursrechtelijk beschermd
