Pages

Pages

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Et in terra pax hominibus


Some of us tread gently on the earth and others clump with big tackety boots all over it and anything which gets in the way.

Where did capital come from in the first place? From piracy, plunder, slavery, war and conquest. The destruction of other countries mode of production and enforced drug peddling, by gunboat diplomacy. It is now all legitimised as inherited wealth and constitutes dead labour until it is invested for the purpose of more exploitation of a wage-slave class. It may be true that some capitalists go bust, but most escape with a larger proportion of the loot, even as more shut up one business to open another. It is the workers who produced their wealth who face penury. They do not have any 'Right to work'. Capitalists do NOT create wealth. It is the labour of the working class from which all wealth derives. Capital is dead labour, plundered surplus value form the activities of an exploited working class, which is only risked by the capitalist when an opportunity arises to derive a profit from this wealth producing capacity of labour. The workers commodity (labour -power) is a unique commodity, in that it produces a surplus over and above its own reproduction, which is sold on the markets to realise a profit for the parasitic capitalist class. Capitalism cannot have any other purpose than the economic one of making and accumulating profits. It cannot serve any other social purpose and cannot be made to. It is based on a division of society into those who own and control the places where wealth is produced and those who don’t.

The modern working-class have no class below them on whom to foist a fraudulent conception of class interests, and from whom to draw support and assistance in the struggle. All their strength must be of themselves and in them themselves. All their militant might must be based upon the knowledge of their class position and the logical course dictated by that position. Therefore at the very outset it is seen that the need for leaders does not exist. Only those who do not know the way require to be led, and this very fact makes it inevitable that those who are led will be entirely in the hands of those who lead.

The working class can only find emancipation through socialism, which implies the overthrow of the present ruling class and their social system. The only possible human instruments in the prosecution of the struggle for this end are those who understand the working-class position in society, realise that only socialism can lift them from that position, and who desire that the proletariat shall be so lifted. Broadly speaking, only members of the working class will come in this category.

The class-unconscious mobs, therefore, whom the "leaders" place themselves at the head of, can never be effective factors in the struggle for working-class deliverance. It is often said that the leaders are in advance of the led, but in the broader sense this is not true. Lading, after all, must be by consent. So it happens that the "leader" can only lead where he is likely to be followed. Hence, so far is the leader from being in advance of the mob, he is only the reflection of its collective ignorance. We remember Bevan who had what they call the common touch. Who better than a one-time down-trodden miner to justify the anti-working class policies of his party? Bevan who was a member of the Labour government when they were busy breaking strikes and getting involved in the slaughter of workers in Korea and other parts of the world. Bevan, a minister in the government which promoted the great swindle of nationalisation, which made the shareholders more secure than before and left the workers no better off. Yet - and here is the greatest swindle - this was said, by Bevan and others, to be in the name of building socialism. It was not a working example of socialism but managed capitalism. The NHS was supported by the Liberals and Tories as more efficient than giving higher wages to purchase insurance for medical care. Beveridge was a Liberal. It was certainly a bit of a benefit for workers but it was set up as a consequence of the war which preceded to manage any discontent which would have impinged on the boom which follows a war. In effect, it was to be capitalism with nice bits added on and the bad bits lopped off, retaining wage slavery and profit. All capitalist countries are or have the potential to be highly socialised, (even in the emerging capitalist Bismarck's Germany the railways were state run), but this doesn't make them 'socialist' or 'socialistic' but managers, on behalf of exploiters of wage labour, (Workers/wealth producers) in the interest of the dominant class of exploiting parasites, (Owners, Employers, Capitalists.) A left-wing capitalist fantasy masquerading as socialism. Facing the threat of, or actual strikes, Labour governments always took the employers side in such confrontations. While pretend that we can make capitalism fairer? By misleading workers that capitalism can be reformed by a nicer style of government in order to get their support at the ballot box? No capitalist party is worthy of support. Capitalism must be replaced.

The socialist and the true democrat does not place faith in leaders. He knows that the only hope lies in the intelligence and courage and energy of the working class as a class, and all his hope, all his faith, all his trust, rests in the working class. We should be asking why we persist in the delusion that any capitalist political parties have your interests at heart?

Socialism not a 'belief' system, it doesn't have leaders, rulers or a ruling class, or elites, and has no sacrosanct books, Marxists continually dispute scientific points with each other in evaluation of contributions, but only uses all scientific evidence to underscore its case to be made. It does not do mechanistic blueprints or certainties, but places in the sphere of human action upon the material circumstances of the day.

War is not necessarily constrained by good people, (religious or not) or caused by bad ones (religious or not). Modern wars arise out of material conditions of fierce competition with occasions of dispute over power, trade routes, raw materials or geo-political advantage, by different sections of ruling class elites. These elites will justify their behaviour by reference to principle, religion, or cynicism, as war being "business by other means".

Foe and friend, believer and non-believer alike are blessed, before being slaughtered in the interests of these elites, God being the first conscript on all sides, with guardian angels Jingoism and Xenophobia enlisted, for the duration with lies, damn lies and misinformation as scripture. Believers and non-believers can, have done in the past and will do so in the future, stand shoulder to shoulder, with their brother and sisters of this common humanity, in opposition to the monstrosity of war. Far from misrepresenting history this unbeliever wants us all to learn from it.

The Socialist Party seeks to see things develop: a growing worldwide anti-capitalist movement that will eventually end capitalism and replace class ownership by common ownership and democratic control and production for profit by production directly to satisfy people’s needs. Workers need to become aware of possibility of abolishing the wages and prices system altogether. If this doesn’t happen then capitalism will just stagger on from crisis to crisis while social needs and the good of society continue to be neglected. Enough of this though, friend, we will say "peace be upon you" ("et in terra pax hominibus") and know we mean it.


No comments:

Post a Comment