There is no foreigner but the capitalist (Part 1)

 Millions of workers are driven to emigrate to wealthier countries because of the desperate dire conditions in home-lands. The capitalist class realise that these workers can serve as an alternative labour supply for the industrial reserve army, since native-born workers, through their past struggles have come to expect higher wages and benefits. One very basic idea, unity of the working class is critical. In all capitalist societies, a tiny class of people owns the means of production and profits by exploiting the workers’ labour. United, the overwhelming tendency of the working class would be to fight for a decent life for all, which is incompatible with capitalism. Powerful united struggles of the working class would inevitably demonstrate the need to overthrow capitalism altogether. Since the working class is the only class with the power to overturn capitalism, the capitalists use every possible divide-and-conquer tactic to prevent this development. The employing class hope to keep the workers fighting with each other over shrinking pieces of a small pie instead of uniting to fight for a decent life for all.

The U.K., a country of immigrants, has always been prone to an anti-immigrant chauvinism, which becomes more active during times of economic crisis.  Even during capitalist booms there are never enough jobs to go around and workers compete with each other for employment and wages. But during recessions, competition can become cutthroat. This compels not only individual rivalry but group competition, and the most oppressed groups get the worst jobs—or none at all. Competitive hostility spills out into all areas of life, well beyond the job market.  The capitalists and their lickspittle retainers in  politics and the media tell workers that their increasing plight is due to “welfare scroungers” and migrant “free-loaders."

It is certainly true that the policies of immigration are determined and done for profit, quite regardless of the welfare of either the migrant or the indigenous worker. It would be naive to believe  that capitalists think of anyone’s welfare except their own.  It is the bosses who benefit from immigrants and love the low wages forced on them, and the effect this has in depressing wages in general. Migration is being occurring everywhere  and used to drive down wages to the lowest point possible. The migrant workforce has become irreversibly vital to the economy. This fact is already understood by politicians and think tanks. And this gives immigrant workers an opportunity to fight back. Socialists need to explain to our fellow workers that the real power of the working class lies not just in its numbers but in its central role in production and the rest of the economy. The only mass organisations the working class has today are the unions. The unions will have to play a central role in the immigrant rights struggle, but they will not do so without transformation. But it cannot remain just a trade-union fight.

 However, the real solution to the problems faced by immigrant and non-immigrant workers cannot be won by strikes alone, no matter how powerful. We make no secret of the fact that class consciousness is not just militant trade unionism but that struggles must be in the direction of socialist revolution. The capitalist system is the enemy and socialist revolution is the only real alternative to the miseries capitalism inflicts on the immigrant masses and all workers. Any concessions won under the present system will be temporary.

Capitalists want to see immigrants with second-class status, because they form a layer of the working class that is most easily exploited—they have a much harder time fighting back against rotten conditions and sub-minimal wages. Having such a layer of workers bound to miserable conditions weakens the whole working class, since other workers face the threat of replacement by this underpaid sector of the workforce. Immigrants tend to be concentrated in the lowest-paid, hardest and dirtiest occupations industries increasingly shunned by UK-born workers. Now the capitalists shore up their profits by a heavy reliance on immigrant workforces in the hotel and catering trade and in food-processing factories. The exploitation of immigrant labour has increased the division of the working class. By forcing immigrant workers into competition with native-born workers, the capitalists intensify the exploitation of all. The mass use of immigrant labour, at a time of retreats by the unions and minimal job security, has stirred competition.

A section of the  capitalists generally reflect the interests of middle-sized companies which have not invested abroad, who sell on the domestic market and out of fear of competition from the giant multinationals, they wrap themselves up in the patriotic flag and right-wing populism, warning about the immigrant “hordes” threatening our culture and values and demonising them as criminals and terrorists. Such “respectable” politicians (and they are not restricted to UKIP) give aid, comfort and stimulation to neo-fascist thugs. The mainstream of the ruling class largely accepts immigration, since it provides a layer of readily exploitable workers. But when times anc conditions changes, the ruling class may move  to harass immigrants and also to try to bar them, and you can be sure that many in the union bureaucracy will join in the chauvinist chanting against unlimited immigration. It is also disappointing to admit, but in the past, “socialists” have joined the outcry against the “foreigner”  and some of its modern counterparts on the Left to-day echo this clap-trap against the arrival of the Eastern Europeans - the “white pakis”. The ideas of racism and nationalism become intertwined, both overtly and subtly.

The restriction or even expulsion of immigrant labour would by no means solve the labour question  and we should  drive that home hard enough, so that  workers can really understand it even amidst the sufferings caused by the immediate and special attack on their standard of livelihood. We stress the common interests of immigrants of different nationalities.

 Until he or she becomes a socialist, and is conscious of being naturally the friend and ally of every worker throughout the world, the capitalist class will continue to divide and rule. Our capitalist masters use racism, national chauvinism and every other reactionary device to exacerbate divisions within the working class. Their method is divide and conquer, and they hide the fact that attacking the whole working class is going to be the only way to maintain capitalist rule. Today, migrant workers and asylum seekers are among the most vulnerable targets for virulent scapegoating. Large numbers of predominantly white indigenous workers were led to see newcomers as undeserving who have to be kept down, forcibly if necessary.

Migrant workers are only doing what every worker is more or less forced to do and that it to compete with all others for subsistence and survival. It is true that some immigrants are forced by capital into being more obviously the enemies of their fellow-worker than is usually the case, but that is only a surface difference; it is more dramatic, that is all. Every working-person is forced into the same false position of contest with every other working-person. The foreigner, the incomer, is no more guilty of the suffering which their competition causes than are female workers when used against men or younger workers against the older generation. Many immigrant workers have learned from their experiences that both here and in their countries of origin, capitalism is a cruel and callous system that needs to be swept away. If the working class can see this, and abstain, as we may well hope they will, from playing into the hands of their real enemies by attacking their fellow wage-slaves, they will deserve well of the Brotherhood of Man and will show that they understand the motto: Wage-workers of all countries unite!

The Mythtake of Nationalism

Arundathi Roy

All nationalism is based on mythical history and nations have to create their ideologies from whatever come to hand and Scotland is perhaps luckier than most with its many fairy-tales of a romantic. Nationalism is an enemy of working people. Nationalism is the belief that the members of a nation share common interests that are different from the interests of other nations and different from the interests of the human race as a whole. Any nationalism ultimately implies that those people are better than all others.

Scottish nationalism proclaims that the Scottish exploited have more in common with their Scottish exploiter than with their fellow workers. Nationalism is a heaven-sent way of diverting the  workers from pursuit of their class interests and provides the sugar-coating on an economic system based on wage-slavery. In a capitalist country, it is capitalists who own most of the wealth, who hold the power and who are accepted as spokespeople of the national interest. So when the specifics of any claimed national interest are looked at, it turns out that those specifics are the interests either of particular capitalists or of the capitalist class as a whole.  Nationalist employers will remain true to their class interests and abandon the workers with the lie that “It is in the country’s best interest if workers’  accept lower wages so that the products from our nation can undercut those from other nations.”

In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels insisted that “the working men have no country”. They argued that the nation state was alien to the interests of the working  class and that in order to advance their interests workers must “settle matters” with the capitalist class of each state, that workers must challenge the power of their “own” capitalist class directly. Marx maintained that workers must free themselves of patriotism and national superiority in their own interests, for without discarding these aspects of ruling class ideology they would never themselves be free. Independence does not constitute a departure from the status quo but rather stands for its continuation albeit under a different flag. Constitutional struggle is no substitute for class struggle.

As the Indian writer, Arundhati Roy, says
"It's disturbing to see how neatly nationalism dovetails into fascism. While we must not allow the fascists to define what the nation is, or who it belongs to, it's worth keeping in mind that nationalism, in all its many avatars—socialist, capitalist and fascist—has been at the root of almost all the genocides of the twentieth century. On the issue of nationalism, it's wise to proceed with caution."

The political position of the Socialist Party is the policy of uniting people on the basis of class rather than separating them on the basis of any other factor - whether it is gender, sexuality, religion, colour or nationality. The Socialist Party encourages workers to put their political loyalties in their class, rather than their nation. Nationalism turns people into rivals vying for the same jobs as both economies are forced to compete for investment, thus triggering a race to the bottom.

 Will Socialists find their work easier in an independent Scotland than now? Will the Left nationalists be the dangerous rebels then as they pretend to be now?  No matter how you clip and trim a poodle it always stays a poodle and regardless of how much you re-shape and re-fashion capitalism, it remains capitalism. Scots aspiring to enrich local culture, even if they have to wait for it, should be part of the world’s workers movement. To the Scottish nationalist, as to all other peoples, the Socialist Party says, “Your  struggles will be abortive or lead to mere disappointment unless you accept as your watchword, WAGE-WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE!”

" To oppose imperialism demanded, then a total rejection of all forms of nationalism, even that of the victims of imperialist aggression. Nationalism and imperialism were inseparable and had to fought with equal fervor. " - Paul Mattick on Rosa Luxemburg 

True to Revolution

The word “socialism” is often used as a political trick. Every other day in the newspapers or on the TV there is something about socialists. It is suggested that countries with large welfare state programmes are socialist or that nationalised industries are socialist. These have nothing to do with the socialism dealt with here. The constant stream of unfavourable publicity that the concept of socialism receives from the various sources of information (or misinformation)  creates in the minds of many people preconceptions which are very far from reality. People are treated daily to a barrage of propaganda emanating from one class, the smallest class but the most powerful in determining public opinion and what governments should do. This small class is the class of the extremely wealthy owners of industry and controllers of commerce who by the power of money and particularly of the power of monopoly, do as they like. Of all political parties or groups the Socialist Party is the most open and frank about their aims and objectives. Most other political parties disguise their real objectives using names for their parties which hide their real character. For instance,  the mis-named “Labour”, whose MPS scarcely include an honest labourer in its ranks but instead is full of Oxbridge lawyers and we have the  “Liberal Democrat” Party, neither “liberal” nor “democratic” but now an appendage of the Conservative Party government. These parties have chosen these inappropriate names in order to deceive people, to get votes under false pretences. They have the same attitude towards political programs. They make promises during elections which they have no intention of carrying out. The Labour Party is not a socialist Party, does not set out to abolish capitalism and to establish socialism but tries to prove that it can administer capitalism better than the Tories in the interests of  the rich. Although the Labour Party was created by the workers and, without workers’ support today, would be nothing, it serves the wealthy class  and are the enemies of the workers. Nowhere have the reformist parties advanced the case for  socialism, nowhere have they lessened the grip of the  bankers and industrialists.

The Socialist Party does not stoop to using cheap election tricks to get votes. It states frankly to the voters what it considers should be done with a policy that declares  what is blocking the way to social progress is the prevailing economic system of profit-making, the ownership and control of industry by a few for their own gain and not for the benefit of the people and that the solution for the ills of present day society is the common ownership of the industries and the production for the common good, instead of profits for the few. “From each according to ability to each according to needs.”

A demand for production for use and not for profit has revolutionary implications and presupposes revolutionary action for its realisation. Today capitalist ownership of the means of production and its legal right to exploitation of labour determines all political relations; which is another way of saying that those who own and control the means of production are those who rule. The mere change to government ownership or public ownership does not suffice for these capitalist relations remain in effect. It is nonsensical to assume that production for use, which pre-supposes the expropriation of the means of production and the transfer of the ownership thereof to the producers, can find its realisation without the overthrow of capitalist rule. In other words it can  only be accomplished through the socialist revolution. The aim of the Socilist Party  is socialism.

 No small groups of insurrectionists can bring about the changes we believe are necessary; this will take the power of the great majority of people organised and determined to make a change. Some who describe themselves as socialist believe that the people are an unintelligent mass who can’t think for themselves, who will never move against the injustices that beset them daily, and that the fate of the people rests in the hands of a small number of the most intelligent or most courageous and active who will take action themselves without waiting for the “common herd”.

According to such leftists it is “heroic party cadres” who who make history and not ordinary men and women. The Socialist Party opposes such ideas. We recognise, of course, that some individuals  have played a big part in making the history of the world, and there have been and are great men in the socialist movement, but their ideas have only been effective when the people have been convinced that these ideas are correct, are beneficial for them. So all our efforts are directed towards getting the great majority of the people to right their own wrongs, to take action themselves in their own interests and we trust in the ability of the people to do this. We  have always fought against those who have a contempt for the people and who take “short cuts” by acts of terrorism which we know from bitter experience do not advance the peoples’ interests but hold them back.

Socialism will not come of its own accord. It must be campaigned for and so we are also opposed to the “arm-chair philosophers” who sit back and wait for the people to “wake up”.

The Age-old Class Struggle.

The Socialist Party and the trade unions will inevitably come closer and closer together. and the  unions will eventually come to stand for socialism. The Socialist Party will thus become a component part of the labour movement. The union and the party together will then make war upon the enemy, the capitalist class.

In their war upon the working class, one of the most effective weapons of the capitalists has been the physical force wielded by their political government. Everywhere the workers have been fooled into supporting the government. The pro-capitalist parties are maintained to keep the workers divided. Whichever of these capitalist parties is victorious, the workers are always defeated. Labour and Tory politicians alike use the powers of government in the interests of the master class. Whenever the workers strike they are brutally clubbed, put in jail. Injunctions prevent them from picketing and talking to the strike breakers while the courts seize the funds of the unions and turn them over to the capitalists.

Workers have the right to vote yet they foolishly try to defend themselves by voting for such politicians that call themselves "the friends of the worker." But they soon find out that such “allies” out of office, quickly become the enemies of workers when in office.

The great purpose of the Socialist Party is to seize the powers of government and thus prevent them from being used by the capitalists against the workers. Freedom of speech and of the media, now often curtailed by the capitalists, will be secured to the working class. Then they can continue the education of the workers. The Socialist Party is not a political party in the same sense as other parties. The success of socialism would abolish practically every office existing under the present form of government. Legislatures and parliament would not be composed principally of lawyers, as they are now, whose highest ambition seems to be to enact laws with loop-holes in them for the rich. But the committees and councils  of the workers would be composed of men and women representing the different branches of industry and their work would be to improve the conditions of labour, to minimise the expenditure of labour-power, and to increase production.

It was generally thought that history was made by great men who won battles, made treaties of peace, created constitutions and laws, ruled nations, and saved humanity from destruction. Marxists through their study of history, that this was a childish view of life and of government. The great facts of history, its wars, its governments, its art, science and literature, these were created by a deeper social force. This force was the economic or material force. People lived as they did and acted as they did, because they made their living in a certain way. If they used small, rude tools, and the soil they worked. was poor, their ideas would be much different from what they would be if they used larger and more productive tools upon richer soil. The nature of man's social life depends chiefly upon the physical conditions under which he is living. This same principle is true in matters of morality. An individual, or nation, or a class, will finally come to think that right which is to his material advantage. Nations make war in order to add to their possessions. Individuals engage in such work or business as will yield them the largest pay or profits. A class will fight to the death with another class over profits or wages. In war, killing people and burning cities is thought to be a patriotic work. If successful it is considered to be right and fine. In industry the capitalists will enslave small children, and the profits wrung from their pitiful toil goes to build churches and universities and support Christian missions. The murderous capitalist who robs cradles to get his gold comes to be praised as most "benevolent," "virtuous," "religious," etc.

When the worker, either through experience or a study of socialism, comes to know this truth, he or she acts accordingly, retaining absolutely no respect for the property "rights" of the profit-takers. He oe she will use any weapon which will win the fight. People know that the present laws of property are made by and for the capitalists. Therefore they do not hesitate to break them. They know that whatever action advances the interests of the working class is right, because it will save the workers from destruction and death. A knowledge of economics places the workers squarely on solid ground and makes them bold and independent of mind.

An understanding of the class struggle comes only from a knowledge of the economic interpretation of history. If the conditions of a people are determined by the nature of the tools they use, of the work they do, and by their relation to these tools (that is, whether they own them or not), then we may easily obtain an insight into the working class struggle. All the great revolutions of history have been class struggles. So, too, must be the movement of the workers. No class has been really free until it has ruled society. Therefore the working class, to be free, must rule society. But the workers, when they free themselves, will make slaves of no one. Machines will be so developed that every one can work and live in freedom. Long ago slavery was necessary to the end that the master might develop civilisation. In socialism, a higher and better civilisation will be open to all.

The Socialist, through his knowledge of the law governing social progress, gains an insight into the future which is impossible to those ignorant of socialism. Through  study of history comes understanding of  the part played by revolutions. Whenever a social class has become powerful enough to rule society it has seized the reins of government. Thus the capitalist class in westernkings. They have accomplished this through a number of revolutions. The most important of these were the Europe and America has made an end of the power of English Revolution in 1642, the French Revolution in 1789, and the American Revolution in 1776. The Civil War in the United States was a very great revolution. It made an end of the power of the Southern slaveholding class and established capitalism in the South.

When the working class is strong enough both in its industrial organisation  and politically at the ballot box, it will make an end of capitalism and will be the period of the social revolution. Of course we cannot tell when this will come. Neither can we tell whether the period of revolution will be long or short. Both will depend upon several factors. The most important question is, how long will it take to educate and organise the working class? The revolution might be hastened by a panic. It might be retarded by a foreign war or by capitalist reforms. But it is bound to come.

For the revolution to be successful, it will have to result in the ownership and control of the land, shops, mines and railroads by the workers. The present trans-national corporate empires will be changed into an industrial democracy where the workers will administer and manage global industry. Socialism will recognise no political boundary lines.

Socialism has no concern with the innumerable social reforms which the capitalists are now preaching in order to save their miserable profit system. They are either charity doled out to paupers, or bribes given to lure voters by politicians. State ownership can never lead to socialism. It is not a step toward socialism which involves means industrial emancipation.

When a worker understands socialism, he or she does not ask who will do the hard work, will socialism divide up, will socialism destroy incentive, initiative and innovation. Everybody now realises that it is ridiculous for sane people to work all day and every day. "The less work the better," is the motto which the workers must set themselves. Let all those who currently work in unproductive occupations  go to work and produce real wealth. Let all the wealth now wasted in wars,  in competition - let all this waste cease. Let the newest and best machines and scientific methods be everywhere used. Let the intelligence of the workers be liberated for the many inventions and the development of better processes. If all this were to be done, it is readily seen that a small portion of the day, or a few days per month, or a few months steady work per year, will yield wealth in abundance.

Those who deign to not work but prefer the idle life of the drone will not be permitted to starve. At present, all healthy people wish to work, yet none desire life-long slavery to the profit of others.  Most of the diseases which now afflict humanity will be unknown because their causes will have been removed. Where there is plenty for all, none will be driven to swindle, to steal or to take profits.

 The basis of socialist  freedom will be the freedom of the individual to develop his or her powers. People will be educated in freedom. They will work in freedom. They will live in freedom. Science and the arts will flourish.The working class, through securing freedom for itself, will liberate humanity. Socialism will free not only the slave but also the slave-driver and even the slave-owner. Socialism today makes war upon the enemies of the working class. When it is victorious, the enemies of the working class will embrace it. Peace and brotherhood will come with freedom.

The mission the Socialist Party sets before itself is twofold:
First, it must be the bearer of sound knowledge, using its great and growing organisation to teach socialist principles and practice.
Second, it must lay bold of all the powers of political government and prevent them from being used against the industrial organisation of the workers.

Why Scientific Socialism?

Socialism is the future system of society. Towards it, the world is moving. Under capitalism today the means of wealth production are privately owned. In socialism tomorrow they will be collectively owned. Socialism is a message of hope. It is addressed to the working class. It will save the working class, or rather, show the working class how to save itself. The world does not need to be cursed by toil and drudgery, by low wages, by starvation, by disease and by worry. Many now know that these conditions may be completely changed. When enough of the workers understand socialism, believe in it, and are firmly resolved to have it, the time will be ripe for the change. That change is coming.

If misrepresentation and misinterpretation could destroy a new thought, an idea, or a movement  then socialism would have been dead long ago. The adherents and advocates of socialist principles would have been buried with the death of the idea. But as it is, socialism is still  a spectre haunting the world. A healthy sign of progress exists everywhere. But there are also many things to dampen the enthusiasm. Socialism is so much discussed, yet so little understood even though the arsenal of facts based on political and  economic developments and conditions, in support of socialism is almost inexhaustible. Socialism is a theory—but not an infallible dogma hatched out in the brains of a few academics but draws its support from facts in life.

 The Law of Evolution - the great immutable "law of change." - may be stated as follows: all things in the universe today are the results of the actions of the forces of the universe upon the matter of the universe applied throughout the eons of time, producing innumerable changes, which have finally developed higher and more permanent forms of life out of those which were lower and less stable. The physical conditions which compelled changes in animated nature, and under which they occurred, are usually denominated "the environment" - the surrounding influences.

Joseph Dietzgen, in his philosophical works, demonstrated the fact that all of man's ideas come from the outside — that no thought ever sprang spontaneous in the human brain. In other words — human thoughts, human ideas, spring from human contacts and experiences with the physical universe about us. Man's ability to think —   consciousness — the thing we call the "Ego" — the mind — is a natural development through the orderly operation of the laws of the Universe, and, as such, it may be studied, analyised and classified. The science of psychology takes its place naturally as part of the larger and more extended sciences of biology and anthropology. Whim and caprice disappear, and the laws of cause and effect are seen operating in an orderly and rational sequence. Individuals takes their place as a resultant of the experiences of their forebears and their own contacts with the world around them. Their environment and the history of the human race have made them what they are. Knowing the intimate history of any person, and with a given human situation, we may confidently predict what his or her actions will be. Similar experiences beget similar ideas. The average of the experiences of a community, or a class, begets the central idea of that community, or class; therefore, in attempting to explain the tendency of any such community,or class to orient about some central idea, or concertedly move towards some definite goal, we must discover those similarities of experience which furnish the common ground for similarity of thought and unity of action. Mankind is a gregarious species. We herd together in social organisations, and our history is not complete without an examination of the relations which people sustain toward each other.

Marx’s researches into history observed certain classes of men always standing together—always appearing upon the same side of the great historical arguments—and, upon a careful analysis, he surmised that the thoughts and actions of men are determined by the manner in which they obtain their living. The same being only another way of stating the evolutionary truths, that man is a product of his environment; and that his thoughts and ideas are generated by his contacts and experiences with the world around him which is translated into Marxist terminology as the  Materialist Conception of History.  All the social phenomena in any historical epoch may be explained upon the basis of the method of wealth production and exchange existing at that time. Immediately history ceases to be a mere record of the achievements of individuals. Instead, it becomes a moving panorama of the struggles for supremacy of the various classes that have successively dominated society. Fundamental causes are seen at work, continuously and methodically shaping the trend of events. All the apparently disjointed and unrelated facts marshal themselves into orderly array, and take their places as sign posts along the  road of history.

The pre-eminent fact of history is the institution of private property with the division of the people into classes in the terms of wealth and power — the separation of society into opposing camps — which carry on a continuous warfare among themselves - the class struggle. And in each civilization we find a dominant class imposing its will upon the balance of society and maintaining the basic method of wealth production and distribution of that time. All the laws, the religion, the educational system or lack of educational system were designed to retain that class in its position of power and privilege. Internal peace depended upon the relative degrees of acquiescence in the general scheme manifested by the secondary and subject classes, and their ability to wrest concessions from the dominant class by a display of their organized strength.

The ancient slave and serf classes were not essentially revolutionary, and if they had been their ignorance and isolation was sufficient to prevent any concerted action. Mere physical revolution against an irksome environment cannot be called a revolutionary spirit, and while the slaves and serfs indulged in rebellions, they were usually planless and contained no germ of a constructive nature. At the most, some measure of participation in the benefits of the existing system was all they sought. There was no idea of the establishment of a new order of society, which should promote a greater diffusion of culture, and thereby create a better and nobler race. Success upon their part would have meant only social chaos and a recession in the scale of civilisation. Any force in society that lacks a constructive programme is useless — a futile force. If it merely defends a set position and does not keep pace with the progress of the age by means of a positive policy of its own,

Class conscious workers denies the right of the owner of the machines to hold them in subjection. They seek a way to seize the means whereby they lives and turn it to their own use and purposes. They think in the terms of a class, for they now realise their class position and knows that only as such can they hope to survive. They find that they must attack the structure of a society based on private property and their point of attack is at the point of production, the point where they daily meets his enemy. Their whole attitude is one of opposition—opposition to the property of the master class—an attitude utterly subversive of all modern ethics, morals, religions and laws, a revolutionary attitude.  Workers makes no appeal to any but other members of  the wage working class. The future society comes only at the desire and with the consent of the proletariat, for it is evidently the only class able to safeguard humanity by means of a new society. The needs and aspirations of working people are the justification of the social revolution. Marxism declares that the historic mission of the working class is to overthrow capitalism and establish a new order of society; therefore, the method of its organisation is of the first importance.

Worldwide in the scope of its activities, socialism points to a new civilization where the forces of production and distribution will be  co-ordinated—where those who labour will enjoy their work—where childhood will be free to learn and experiment—where life will be secure—where there shall be in harmony with the world. The tide is turning. Workers, in defiance of time-honoured customs have begun to think, to meditate and to act. In ever-increasing numbers,  stirred by a deeper knowledge of the principles underlying socialism, they have begun to move of their own accord and to take matters into their own hands. Revolts of workers may be acts of instinct only, not governed by deeper thought and consciousness, but they are significant. They express a desire for a change, these revolts shatter old traditions and pave the way for a propaganda on correct lines. They reflect some changes in the mental makeup of the workers. The agitation must start on this point else there is danger of relaxation, and deeper discouragement and indifference than in the past.

Socialism will need no armies police, and prisons.  Judges today are almost wholly concerned with two kinds of work.  One is to try cases at law which grow out of private property relations. When two property holders quarrel about a piece of property they go to court in order to have the fight settled as cheaply as possible. Another function of the courts is to sit in judgment upon and determine the punishment of such of the poor as may have been "guilty" of disrespect for private property. Of course everybody now knows that rich offenders purchase this "justice," while poor offenders get it presented to them. Do the starving poor take food? They are sent to jail. Do they strike for more wages? They are clubbed, shot or imprisoned. Such is the nature and purpose of the political government today. With  socialism there will be no lawless rich to keep their place by crushing the poor. There will be no enslaved poor to be kept down. There will be no great private fortunes to fight about in the courts. Hence government will concern itself only with the management of industry, with the promotion of public education and with other public activities which are of benefit to the workers

From time immemorial the struggle for existence, for bread, comfort, and better things in life was making for progress and the elevation of the human race from the lowest to ever higher stations of civilisation. Social, political, and other relations of mankind conformed themselves to these constant changes in the methods of getting ever more and readier access to the gifts and resources of nature, and of using instruments invented, made more and more perfect to transform these gifts of nature into useful things for the living. The relatively lower or higher stage of civilization or progress that the world had acquired were reflected by the relatively cruder or higher developed mode of production by which natural resources were utilised and matter transformed into useful things.

As time passed necessity forced constant improvements in the tools and the operations to produce necessities of life, and to harness the forces of nature, compelling them to yield their producing energies to the ingenious designs and useful exploitation by mankind. The means of production underwent constant changes. but with the perfection more accomplished, the original purpose of production, that is to satisfy the wants of all mankind, changed also.

First it was a combat to subdue nature's forces and energies. The stimulus in this conquest was the prospect of getting readier access to more of the good things that were stored up for conversion into useful things. But the achievements and yields of this combat constantly urged improved methods, but the results were not applied to the corresponding improvement of the life conditions of all the human race. From the physically strong, who in the first stages of human endeavors acquired larger control over the life affairs of others, grew out in the long course of centuries the economic master who with strong hand absorbs all the results of the struggle for larger returns from the improved methods of production, and allows the great mass which is used as a human attachment to these progressive methods enough to live, to exist and to propagate an offspring which again may be used in the same station of the producing process.

Human intellect and energy has developed the system of production to a very high point of perfection. But the great majority realises more and more that they are denied a just share in the enjoyment of the yields and returns from this age-old contest. They begin to think that the results of thousands of years of progress and efforts should be enjoyed by all alike.

Education towards Revolution

The Socialist Party has one aim — the propagation of socialism. We hope to see society transformed, to be changed into something quite different from what it is now. It is a new society that we are working to realise, not tidying up our present political mess. The real business of socialists is to impress on the workers the fact that they ought to run society. It is not too much to expect that the whole working-class can be educated in the aims of socialism in due time. History teaches us that no revolts that are without aim are successful even for a time. We are no mere debating club, or philosophical society and so we must take part in all popular movements where we can make our own views unmistakably clear; that is a most important part of the education in organisation.  Regular and co-ordinated exchanges are a necessary part of education; no independence is sacrificed by sharing knowledge, and propaganda is made much easier by it. One word to those who hold a tendency aloof from joining a political party. If you really disagree with our principles, or the tactics which follow from them, your membership would inevitably result in disputes and splits. But if you share our principles and tactics as practically the same, it seems a great mistake to maintain a distance. The present is no time for the formation of separate political organisation. We appeal to all who agree with us to join our Party so that we may confront in unison our common enemy in these troublesome yet hopeful times that are ahead.

The Socialist Courier blog aspires to attract attention to the study of our principles from those who have not yet thought of socialism, or who are hostile to it through ignorance. We seek to awaken the apathetic and  to strengthen the wavering. It is its task to attack unsparingly the miserable system  of capitalism with its rich and poor, slaves and slave-owners. We invite from all discussion of anything we post, in the belief that even criticism may bring forth useful information which might otherwise have been neglected.  Our appeal is to the workers chiefly for it will be through them alone, wage- slaves , the present misery will end. Socialism above all things aims at obtaining for the worker the desire for beauty, for knowledge, for more abundant life, in short. Not the sham art of commercial consumerist commodity capitalism, void of life or reason for existence. The way of working when people are not working for wages, but for the wealth of the community will mean the work would be done deliberately and thoughtfully for the good’s sake and not for the profit’s sake.  In work so done there is no drudgery; whereas ordinary work now is nothing but wage-slavery. Work will be done with variety with real workmanship and artistry.  Our function is to educate the people by criticising all attempts at so-called reforms, whose aim is not the realisation of socialism, but the hindering of it; and by encouraging the  the working class towards Revolution. The true aim of the people is to learn how to live, and to assert their right to do so in the teeth of all opposition.

State or municipal ownership is not socialism. There is a certain section of left-winger who never tire of hailing all such demands for nationalisation, a form of ownership in which the private capitalist is seen to be superfluous as a sign of the growth of the socialism. Calls for such demands is highly misleading. It is only state capitalism, not an abandonment of capitalism: but the strengthening of capitalism. Socialism abolishes the state and industry is transformed into new administrative norms of the organised producers, and not through the state. Socialism rejects state ownership, rejects state capitalism as a phase of socialism. State capitalism is not socialism and never can become socialism.

The lure offered to the workers is the struggle to “democratise” state capitalism by transforming state capitalism into socialism by “democratising” the government, placing it in the hands of “the people.” This policy is equally condemnable as strategy and tactics, – as strategy, it dispenses with the necessity of overthrowing the state as an indispensable phase of the social revolution; as tactics, it strengthens the state and weakens the proletariat by obscuring the fact that its power resides in control of the industrial process. Moreover, state capitalism is fundamentally and necessarily undemocratic; it cannot be democratised, it must be abolished by the working class. The coming of socialism is a process of  implacable struggles, not a dress parade of amicable transformation. The concept of “transformation” in practice doesn’t transform capitalism, it transforms the workers’ movement into a caricature of socialism and a prop of capitalism.Socialism is a struggle for proletarian power.

On the strictest definition, socialism is the movement of working class people trying to build an alternative to capitalism; and a "socialist" mode of production would likewise be a new set of self-reproducing relations of production (associated labour, worker control, etc) - however there is no complete agreement over how exactly these relations of production are to be like. What we do know is that state-ownership is just another separation of workers from control over means of production and thus another type of class society, and conflating that with all forms "socialism" gets socialists irate.

 People say ‘I want to see a plan as it were of the new state of Society.’ Our reply is when the plan is visible the new state of society will be realised, it cannot be visible before.

Socialism not Reformism

The capitalist system may well destroy itself but unfortunately it does not necessarily follow that socialism will be the successor. The need for revolution is increasingly realised. A new generation understand that their parents’ world is on a course of self-destruct, but they do not know what to do about it.

Socialism is defined as the rule of the people, a society of the free and equal. To use the word “socialism” for anything but working people’s power is to misuse the term. Socialism, though, is a hardy plant. Once it has taken root, no matter how unfavourable a soil, it tends to survive.

We socialists are the most consistent advocates of democracy in all fields and that, in fact, we are completely devoted to the idea that socialism cannot be realised otherwise than by democracy. The socialist movement will not advance again significantly until it regains the initiative and takes the offensive against capitalism.  Our task, as socialists living and fighting in this day and hour, is simply to restate what socialism and democracy meant to the founders of our movement, and to all the authentic disciples who followed them. The authentic socialist movement has been the most democratic movement in all history. The authors of the Communist Manifesto linked socialism and democracy together as end and means. All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority. The  claim—that the task of reconstructing society on a socialist basis can be farmed out to a privileged and uncontrolled bureaucracy, while the workers remain without voice or vote in the process—is just as foreign to the thoughts of Marx and Engels, as the reformist idea that socialism can be handed down to the workers by degrees by the capitalists who exploit them. All such fantastic conceptions were answered in advance by the reiterated statement of Marx and Engels that “the emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves”. Such a revolution is unthinkable without the active participation of the majority of the working class, which is itself the big majority of the population. Nothing could be more democratic than that. All Marxists define socialism as a classless society—with abundance, freedom and equality for all; a society in which there would be no state, not even a workers’ state.

 Nationalisation of mines, railways, steel, etc. is not socialism. Such nationalisation in a capitalist society is simply a degree of state capitalism, with no relation to socialism. Nor is the “Welfare State” socialist. “welfare” in a capitalist state, to improve the efficiency of that state as a profit-maker, is not socialism but a form of state capitalism. It can be an improvement on capitalism with no welfare, just as a 40-hour week is an improvement on a 60-hour week. But it is not socialism. (the “Welfare State” inevitably turns into the “Means Test State”.)

Reformism is the illusion that a gradual dismantling of the power of capitalism is possible. First of all you nationalise 20 per cent, then 30 per cent, then 50 per cent, then 60 per cent of capitalist property. In this way the economic power of capitalists is dissolved little by little. Reformism is therefore essentially gradualist. Socialists are not a mere wage negotiators. Their aim has to be not a better wage, but people’s power.

Ultimately, the power of capitalists to grant concessions depends upon the expansive power of their economies and of the world market. A crisis, such as the current repetition of the economic experiences of the 1930s, very soon finds capitalism showing its uglier side once more. Instead of the expected era of positive achievements, of social reforms, of the “hollowing out of capitalism,” we had a period of high prices, wage cuts, of armament spending and of war itself, of nationalist obstruction, of dictatorships and of stagnation in all social legislation. Even the accomplishments of the old social democracy – the precious but limited reforms which did not even challenge the capitalist order – are beyond the grasp of contemporary reformism.

Workers’ discontent is again beginning to grow and this time with more genuine, more real possibilities. It is occurring in a period of growing working class disillusionment with the servile politician lackeys in whom they had long placed their faith. The Socialist Party cannot unite with those “socialists” who preach reformism and the accomplishment of their goals under capitalism. What type of party do the working class want -- a revolutionary socialist party or a refurbished Labour Party? A party dedicated to overthrowing capitalism or a party set upon reaching accommodations with the capitalist class?

The SPGB holds that involvement in daily struggles is not inherently reformistic. Indeed, such involvement, conducted in principled, non-opportunistic fashion is an indispensible aspect of sound class struggle tactics. Only a dogmatist would insist upon a complete divorcement of the socialist forces from all others, everywhere and under all circumstances. Marx castigated those who looked upon workers' struggles against the constant encroachments of capital as contrary to revolutionary principles in his essay, "Indifference to Politics," written in 1873. However, that there is a fine line, an all-important line, between "practical every day action" that is consistent with socialist principles and goal, and reformism, which negates or contradicts those principles and obscures the goal as Rosa Luxemburg wrote: "But if we begin to chase after what is 'possible' according to the principles of opportunism, unconcerned with our own principles, and by means of statesmanlike barter, then we will soon find ourselves in the same situation as the hunter who has not only failed to slay the deer but has also lost his gun in the process." She observed, "From the viewpoint of a movement for socialism, the trade-union struggle and our parliamentary practice are vastly important in so far as they make socialistic the awareness, the consciousness, of the proletariat and help to organize it as a class. But once they are considered as instruments of the direct socialization of capitalist economy, they lose not only their usual effectiveness but cease being means of preparing the working class for the conquest of power." ("Social Reform or Revolution")

 Neither welfare nor social security has anything to do with socialism; yet, it may also be said that they are a result of socialism. The reason neither of these social reforms has anything to do with socialism, of course, is that socialism implies an end to the poverty and social insecurity that come from private ownership and control of the economy. Welfare, social security, NHS/Medicare, minimum wage, etc., are so many concessions to the socialist contention that capitalism is incapable of eliminating the social ills the system creates. They are like so many confessions of wrong-doing by the ruling class, as are all examples of so-called labour legislation. Socialism does not strive to lessen the effect of capitalism's evils on the working class: it strives to root out capitalism and the social evils it spawns. The fundamental principle of socialism is that freedom for the workers is not possible while the system of wage slavery lasts. Hence socialism has for its mission the overthrow of the capitalist system of private ownership of the machinery of production and the establishment of collective ownership in its place.

The theory that socialism can with safety depart from the hard and fast line of its ultimate goal and follow the lure of "something now" batters itself against the hard fact that "something now" is not obtainable by it, and the logical consequence of such departure would be the degeneration of the movement into a "something now," or reform, movement. If the aim of socialism were to be made the getting of "something now" and socialism later, socialism would have to be sacrificed to immediate progress. Hence for a “socialist” to preach "something now" means that he discredits socialism, and only helps to prepare the workers as voting cattle for capitalism, when capitalist parties, by "stealing," by taking up the "something now" demands, promise their immediate realization. The lure of getting "something now" will wind up by getting nothing now. Nor will it get anything later, because it will have lost the golden opportunity of preparing the workers and the way for the benefits of the socialist goal. The more attention that socialists pay to the  goal, the more will the capitalist class endeavour to stem the tide and check its progress by offering "something now" schemes galore; so that, granting that "something now" is desirable, the way to get it is not by bothering about it but by working steadily for the goal.

Whether  reforms are direct aids to capitalists in exploiting the workers, or in perpetuating the capitalist system, or in deceiving the workers into believing that their fate can be improved under the capitalist system, the fact remains that the are generally contrary to the interests of workers. They invariably are designed as, or turn out to be, scaffolds for the unstable edifice of capitalism. Incidentally, this is literally, not merely figuratively, true. Social security and workers' compensation were introduced onto the stage of the class struggle by none other than Otto von Bismarck, the "Iron Chancellor" who in the 1870s, passed the infamous Anti-Socialist Laws aimed at destroying the socialist movement. When these failed of their objective, he, in the 1880s, introduced a number of so-called social insurance laws providing some compensation to victims of industrial accidents and old-age pensions. The purpose was not to ease the burden of the victims of the industrial system, but to deflect the socialist movement and, if possible, to split it. It was a brilliant piece of political strategy that worked like a charm, as the difficulty the movement has had in overcoming the seductive lure of such reform schemes shows all too well.

In their repetitious shedding of crocodile tears over the inequities of the present system, in their pious advocacy of relief for the most deprived and oppressed victims of capitalism's ruthless exploitation, in their selective and pretentious condemnation of the intensified onslaught against constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties, and in their unctuous lip service to the nation's traditional concepts of democracy, the liberal reformists have often been guilty of a degree of hypocrisy that would be difficult, if not impossible, to match. Their record of "accomplishments"  generally demonstrates convincingly the futility of trying to reconcile democratic principles and precepts with a social system -- capitalism -- premised on a denial of the most fundamental freedom -- economic freedom -- to the vast majority in society, the working class. It does not require any profound insight to realize that hopes for a sane and decent society do not lie with the  plutocracy nor politician. Nor do they rest with men and women "of good will," or of "a progressive persuasion," no matter how sincere or commendable such sentiments may be. Those hopes lie with the  latent political and industrial might of that working class.

In regard to those radical reformers, proponents of co-operatives and worker-owned enterprises, it is understandable that, in times such as these, some workers will be attracted to the idea of "worker-ownership." They are desperately seeking ways to assure a livelihood for themselves and their families. But this is worker capitalism, not worker management. No matter who owns and manages it, it's going to have to be run like a business. it would still function within the overall context of a capitalist economy. "Worker ownership" does not miraculously free a company from the anarchy of the marketplace, competition, and the effects of capitalism's recurrent economic crises. In order to compete in such a climate, "worker-owned" enterprises have little choice but to intensify exploitation just as much as their capitalist-owned competitors do. They must cut wages, close old factories, modernize outmoded equipment and lay off workers made superfluous by automation. The experience of co-operative schemes demonstrates that they do not attack the cause of workers' misery. In fact, to make such schemes "succeed" in a capitalist context, workers must make more sacrifices and intensify their own exploitation. Yet, they do undoubtably demonstrate that production in no way depends on a capitalist class whose sole function is to drain off the social wealth produced by workers' labor. But, if the concept of worker ownership is to truly benefit workers, it must be effected on a society-wide basis. To do that, a socialist revolution is needed to abolish the entire system based on private ownership and control of the means of production by a parasitic capitalist class. The potential of worker ownership can be fully realised only by replacing an economic system based on exploitation, competition, the market and the profit motive with one based on social co-operation for the common good. What workers must gain is not nominal ownership of individual plants, but real control of the entire economy.

The history of workers' uprisings concretely demonstrates that workers are capable of self-government and instinctively recognise the need to set up bodies capable of administering and operating the industries and services without any help from capitalists or bureaucrats. Taken as a whole, the history of workers' uprisings concretely demonstrates that workers are capable of self-government and instinctively recognize the need to set up bodies capable of controlling, directing, administering and operating the industries and services without any help from capitalists or bureaucrats. That history also demonstrates that during periods of extreme economic hardship and political and social upheaval they have repeatedly moved to create their own industrially based associations and elected councils and made them the basis for conducting a revolutionary struggle against their ruling-class oppressors. At the same time, the history of those uprisings is also a history of defeat. These defeats have always been at the hands of a well-armed class enemy. Contributing to those defeats, however, have been the workers' failure fully to understand the nature of its class enemy. Socialism, democratic workers' control of the economy, is an attainable goal. To attain the goal, however, workers must have a greater understanding of society and the social forces with which they must contend, and be better prepared and organized than any other revolutionary class in history. The more thoroughly the working class is already organised around a sound revolutionary program and principles during a revolutionary crisis, the better its chances for success.

APPENDIX
The Paris Commune was the first attempt at a workers social revolution. The next historical example of workers' capacity for self-government was during the Russian Revolution of 1905. In that year, general strikes spread throughout the industrial centers of Russia. To coordinate their efforts, workers' organized Soviets -- locally based workers' councils consisting of elected delegates from factories. The Soviets were reborn during the Russian Revolution of 1917. More significantly, workers also formed factory committees -- elected and controlled by assemblies of all the workers in each factory. Through these committees, the Russian workers collectively controlled and operated much of the industrial means of production during that chaotic period.  The Bolsheviks soon curtailed the powers of the factory committee and brought them to heel. In the aftermath  of World War I, workers' council movements, in large measure patterned after the Russian Soviets, workers' assemblies and factory committees emerged and struggled for power in Hungary, Poland, Italy, Germany and Bulgaria. All of these movements were put down by the stronger forces of counterrevolution. In some instances, the workers' movements were co-opted and integrated into the capitalist system, as in Italy. In other instances, they were smashed outright, as in Hungary. In still other instances, they were neutralized by a combination of these two tactics, as in Germany. During the Spanish Civil War the entire province of Catalonia, including the city of Barcelona, and other sections of Spain was administered through councils directly controlled by and responsible to the workers and peasants. In Hungary, in October 1956, the violent suppression of a protest by students and writers set off a nationwide rebellion and general strike. Workers spontaneously formed inter-industrial councils in the major cities. As Hungarian state authority collapsed, the councils assumed control of much of the country. Demands for workers' control of production were raised and efforts initiated to form a National Workers' Council to supplant the existing state ruling class. The list can go on: Paris 68, Portugal 1974, Poland in the 80s, Argentina in the 90s

Socialists Are Better Anarchists than Anarchists

All the materials and forces are at hand and easily available for the production of all things needed to provide food and shelter for every man, woman and child, thus putting an end to the poverty and misery. But the raw material, the machinery and transport must be taken from private ownership and control to be fully socialised, and democratised and then set into  operation for the common good of all. A privately owned world can never be free and a society based upon class conflict cannot be at peace. Such a world is a place of strife and such a society can  only survive by means of militarism and physical force.

What is it that divides the Socialist Party many anarchists? Like ourselves, they are for the working class. The emancipation of the workers is our common aim. The point of difference here between socialists and anarchists is not one as to the form of organisation of the future society, or of the details of such organisation. It is not that socialists wish to impose on the future society a huge bureaucratic system, spreading its tentacles, octopus-like, over all the arrangements of social life, suppressing individuality, and reducing every detail of daily life to rule and plan. All socialists are rebels against any kind of enslavement and exploitation. But the Socialist Party does stand for social ownership and social control, whereas there are many who consider themselves  anarchists, while still professing to be a socialist and to believe in social ownership, are critical of social control and propose some form of workers’ control over production. So there is a difference in the conception of future society of the socialist and that of some anarchists. The very essence of socialism, as the word connotes, is that society, the community at large, has interests superior to those of any individual or section of it. This is a basic difference between the socialist and the anarchist.

It is the aim of socialists to deprive the capitalists of the means of production. But that in itself is not enough. We must also determine who is to control these means of production. When another minority takes the place of the capitalists and controls the means of production, independently of the people and frequently against their will, the change in property relations does not signify socialism.

 It is very interesting to speculate on the future arrangements of society, but it is not in our power to say that these arrangements will be this or that and any discussion on this matter must necessarily be of an academic character. We are not called upon to make rules for future society; we can very well afford to let society at the time to take care of itself in that respect.  Nor should diverging speculations as to future society prevent people working together for a common object.

There are anarchists who believe that even under the limited conditions of today’s democracy workers should utilise the methods of the insurrectionary general strike, because, in their opinion, such methods will bring socialism more quickly than the casting of ballots, and that in the final analysis the opponents of socialism in the democratic states will yield only to insurrection and the general strike. They assert that socialists cannot hope to attain an electoral majority as long as the opponents of socialism retain control over the economic centres and the mass media. The Socialist Party reply: For sure, the power at the disposal of the capitalist, the economic dependence of the workers, the influence of the media and the stealing of elections can be brought into play even under democracy. But a Socialist Party which is unable, regardless of these obstacles, to obtain the support of a majority of the people in a democracy will find it even more impossible to obtain such a majority by the use of armed force or the general strike. For in the latter instance the weapons at the disposal of the opponents of socialism will prove even more effective than under the form of democratic struggle. The road of force and violence requires even greater sacrifices from the working class than the road of democracy. The use of force and violence requires the support of a much greater majority of the people if socialism is to win.  When force is pitted against force, the power at the disposal of the ruling classes comes much more into play and to counter that power we would require the support of an overwhelming majority of the people. The superiority of numbers is the sole decisive weapon the workers’ movement can command in any great decisive contest. Both insurrection and general strike have proven quite useless, however, when they were utilised by a minority.  The vote is the shortest, surest and least costly road to socialism. Our exploiters are not unaware of this fact. Hence, their their efforts to emasculate the franchise wherever they can. It would be nonsensical to contend that the Socialist Party is obliged to use democratic methods under all circumstances. Such an obligation we can assume only with respect to those who themselves use only democratic methods. The capitalist masters in some countries will stop at nothing to maintain themselves when they are confronted with the danger of expropriation. Acts of violence cannot be repelled by ballots, newspaper articles or mass meetings. Nevertheless, in circumstances when the  Socialist Party is compelled to meet violence with violence we must first seek to win the support of the majority. This is the essential prerequisite of victory, regardless of whether they apply democratic or other methods. However, the “Iron Heel” is simply the ruling class ultimate weapon. The capitalists resort more often than not to economic than military instruments, just as the working class in the great decisive political struggles fought with economic rather than military weapons. The methods pursued by the capitalists are essentially the same as those used by the workers: the strike, the crippling of production. The workers fight by stopping work; the capitalists fight by stopping the circulation of capital. By this means they have succeeded in overthrowing governments which they regard as inimical to their interests.

Where democracy does not exist the task before the labour movement  is to establish political freedom. It is quite erroneous to say that the workers must first emancipate themselves economically, and that only then will “true” democracy be possible. It makes no difference whether or not we choose to regard a strong representative assembly of the people, elected by universal equal suffrage, and coupled with freedom of the press, speech and organisation, as mere “formal” “bourgeois" democracy. The fact is that without such institutions the workers cannot emancipate themselves economically. To be sure, democratic institutions will change their character when society will be organised on a socialist basis. Today they are essential instruments of struggle for the working class. Socialist will make them instruments of free social administration. And this will constitute the difference between present day democracy and the democracy of a socialist society.

The Socialist Party fights not for shorter working hours and higher wages. These struggles are the responsibility of more fitting organisations - the trade unions, but for the liberty, equality, fraternity of all human beings, regardless of occupation, gender, colour or creed. Our task is not merely to abolish the capitalist order but to set up another in its place. It is for this reason that the democratically-minded must oppose all tendencies threatening the freedom of society’s members, tendencies manifested not only by the capitalists but also those that originate with anti-capitalist groups. A true socialist commonwealth must represent the realisation of the slogan of the French Revolution, which was “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.”

Capitalism and the State

In Feudalism, the landlord charged a rent/tax from the peasants in exchange of protecting them and giving them access to his land. You could rationalise this and say "Well the landlord is protecting the peasants, so it's a fair exchange." But ask yourself this, who is the landlord protecting peasants from? Well, from the other landlords he is constantly at war with...  Oh-oh, something seems rather fishy about Feudalism. It's like it's based on a type of circular logic, that the existence of the Feudal class system is what "justifies" the role of the Feudal classes (and hence their existence). The only thing that justifies Feudalism is Feudalism itself, it exists for it's own sake not for some bigger reason or due to eternal or "natural" laws of society; and the roles people play inside Feudalism are historically specific to that mode of production and subjected to change when relations of production change. The same is true for Capitalism.

Workers rely on Capitalists hiring them and advancing accumulated surplus as wages. Why do they? Because they lack means of production to employ themselves and surplus to sustain themselves. Why? Because Capitalists own the vast majority of the means of production. If access to means of production and relations of production changed, the role of Capitalist would be unnecessary, redundant. It is a historically specific phenomenon, not the result of eternal laws of economics, and trying to justifies it by saying "the Capitalist deserves X or Y" is missing the point.

It is very easy to rationalise the monopoly of the social surplus under any type of class society: If you tried to argue that the Capitalist plays an important role advancing Capital (and argue he "deserves" part of the surplus), you would be right! The Capitalist is definitely very important... but only for the Capitalist mode of production, much like the Feudal Baron played an important role in the Feudal mode of production - those respective modes of production wouldn't even exist if it weren't for people playing the role of Capitalist and Noble.

The function of Capitalist means advancing money and gaining back more money at the end of the day: Advancing money to buy means of production and labor-power, let labour power use the means of production to make commodities, sell commodities for more money. The process of exchange does not create or add any new value by itself (new value or an aggregate rise in prices can only come from producing new things, all pure exchange can do is shuffle existing value around), and neither can the means of production act as the source of surplus (they can not 'add' more than what they cost to buy as they are 'dead-labour' or 'stored-labour' that left alone produce nothing, in the end all production reduces itself to labour. So the only possible source of surplus from this exchange must be the work of the labourers: The price of labour-power is lower than the value produced by said labour-power, and hence the 'value added' to capital by the worker. In the aggregate labour-power is the only commodity that can "add" more than what is costs to buy.

 A capitalist doesn't need to "allocate labour and resources", he can hire managers and market analysts for that (and management, depending on the function, is productive labour). The function of Capitalist is the act of advancing money and obtaining more money. The most easily observable example of Capitalism is stocks and share-trading: Shares in a company can change hands multiple times a day on the stock exchange without the share-owners ever coming into contact with production, its decision making or resource allocation; and the factory keeps producing just the same. This is because investors are attempting to get money out of advancing money, exchanging money for more money - being capitalists.
A capitalist, for sure,  can do many things other than being a capitalist. He can be a manager and CEO, an inventor and innovator, or do absolutely nothing like a rentier or an heir to riches. But the function of a Capitalist, the function that is the source of most of his income as a capitalist, by itself produces or adds no new value to production - yet still gets a surplus. This surplus can only come from unpaid-labour. This carries several implications (that capitalists work to get as much out of workers as possible, that the rate of wages is not about 'marginal productivity' but about market power, that a reserve army of labour benefits the capitalist economy by depressing wages, etc).

 If workers do not have means of production (the ability to employ themselves) and also are not employed by a Capitalists, they would starve. Marx argues that, since the only choice workers have is to sell their labour-power in the market, Capitalists can buy this labour-power for less than the value the labour produces, and the difference between these two amounts is the surplus accumulated.

So the real question is: Why do workers not have the ability to employ themselves? Because the vast majority of the means of production are owned by a minority. How did that situation come about? Marx argues this situation came about and is maintained due to an enormous act of violence: During the last days of Feudalism, the Mercantile State did everything in it's power to dispossess the small producers and peasants. The Enclosures of common land, the establishment of artificial prices on un-settled land, banning hunting on forests, slavery, mercantilist monopolies and tariffs - all of this was part of a process that took the means of production from the many and put them in the hands of a minority. The "voluntary exchange" happens in a very involuntary context, workers and capitalists are not equal parties exchanging the commodity "labour-power" for the commodity "Capital"; it is an exchange between vastly unequal parties (one is completely reliant on the other) .

You must work for a living whether you want to or not, whether that's on land that you're farming or as part of a business organisation. The real question is: How do we work, in what conditions do we work, who gets to control the product of the work and what do they do with it? The answers to those questions give us the mode of production we live under. If we live in a class society, we have to work in a class society and our work must be understood in class terms. The fact we have to work is not the question, the fact we need to work in a class society is.

 One thing that can't be taken from workers is their labour-power. However, without access to viable means of production, labour-power is nothing. "It doesn't matter if you use it to till land or work a factory", but without the land or the factory, what are you going to do? Just look at the very existence of unemployment.

 After Capitalist relations of production were established, the bourgeois State must act as a monopoly on force and a defender of the Capitalist-type of private property, using continual coercion to maintain the system. Marx argues that no type of class society would stand without a State. Who would enforce Capitalist forms of private property and contracts and break up workers on strike if not a State? What would prevent workers from just seizing the means of production? It is on a similar line that Anarchists argue that Capitalist private property and relations of production are unenforceable in the absence of the State. The State isn't an "overarching" institution but part of the superstructure of Capitalism. If the most basic Capitalist social relations imply a conflict of interest, this will remain true regardless of the amount of government intervention in the economy.

The Marxist concept concerning the state is well-known. The state, as an historical category, is the tool of one class for suppressing other classes of society. If the state is a relation between men, then insofar as it oppresses, represses or dictates it does so in behalf of some men at the expense of others. Those who oppress and those who are oppressed represent a social division upon which the state is founded. This class division, this social antagonism as the source of the state power is the only scientific conception of the state.The core of state power is always the apparatus of violence: the police, the army and the courts of justice. The Marxist will always make use of and fight for democratic rights and liberties, but never believing that such demands may be obtained other than partially and incompletely under capitalist conditions. The socialist never attempt to hide that any success in such struggles under capitalist conditions, will only be partial and of limited permanence. Lasting and significant social progress will be part and parcel of an entirely economic system - socialism.

 The nature of the state is determined by its relation to the economic structure and the economic classes of society. The capitalist apologist  recognizes this fact by implication when he gives his own grounds for believing that the state is “impartial.” No sooner does the government, through a tax bill, legal decision, strike mediation or some other action yield to necessity, to class pressure, and deprive the capitalist class of 1% of its profits, than the pro-capitalist shouts: “You see, here is an anti-capitalist government.” He neglects to notice at the same time that the government has guaranteed, ensured, the other 99% of capitalist profits and the economic system which makes them possible. The superficial issues which so captivates the attention of the easily diverted media does not embrace the essence of the state power. Even if the working class were to win their battles on all these issues (which never happens), the government remains capitalist because the whole essential substratum of action and policy, which occupies the attention of the state 365 days of the year, is designed to uphold and administer the capitalist system.

The fact that the capitalist class or individual capitalists cannot get everything they want from the capitalist state does not at all impress. They can’t because circumstances make it impossible, not because the state power is against them. This is particularly true in the present period, when corporations must surrender a large portion of their profit to the war machine in order to safeguard the rest of it.  Some thoughtless and irresponsible (from their own viewpoint) critics on the libertarian right such as Ron and Rand Paul try to make political capital and anti-establishment platform of this, but they have been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the capitalist class in both the Republican and Democratic parties. For the rest, the capitalist class as a whole keeps up a running fire against high taxes, not because it could or would alter the tax structure fundamentally, but in order to keep its share as low as possible within the limits dictated by present circumstances.

The basis of the Koch brothers philosophy is that the existence of private ownership of the means of production makes it possible for the people to control the government because there are sources of power for them to lean on outside the government. If however private economic power is abolished, then there is a danger that when no power remains outside the government, government itself will rest on power. The “will of the people” could not prevail against the new pressures of government since only one power structure remains therefore the people are now disarmed. Here is the libertarian capitalist argument reduced to its bare bones: We need the capitalists and their power to rest upon in opposition to government.

 Historical research into the French, American, English, Dutch and other capitalist revolutions has demonstrated that the masses of the people (the professional and intellectuals, shopkeepers, workers, etc.) had to wrest these liberties from an unwilling capitalist class. Research find the power of the private propertied class to be a barrier in their way in all their efforts to control the government. Despite their vehemence against Marx, Middle America have to accept his law of capitalist development: that capital grows out of commodity production and that big capital grows out of little capital and that monopoly capital grows out of big capital, and that this process cannot be reversed by protests and lamentations so long as capitalism continues. We see the ridiculous spectacle of small-town conservatives  appealing to the Koch brothers and the Pauls, in all seriousness, that these are just the boys who will do the job!

In no country, after generations of capitalist rule, has democracy been carried to the full. In this country we have a hereditary chamber, a hereditary monarchy, and an irremovable judiciary, appointed by the elite from among the elite, to interpret and to enforce the laws, the whole forming a system of frustrating the people’s will which acted in a most effective manner. It is a system of “checks and balances” which reduces the rights of the population. Bourgeois democracy at its optimum is a restricted and partial form which serves as vehicle for the overlordship of the tiny portion of the population that owns the means of production.

In America there exists a president with near royal prerogative powers, and the administration, centralised in a way which only an autocracy could rival, invested with a plenitude of powers the Supreme Court is the supreme sanctifier of the laws. The “sovereignty” lies in the dropping of a piece of paper into a box every four or five or seven years. Democracy has been and still is to-day a  sham. Under its cover we had all along nothing else than the dictatorship of the capitalist class. Marx used the phrase “democratic swindle” whereby he meant it was a swindle not insofar as it was democratic but, on the contrary, insofar as it utilized democratic forms to frustrate genuine democratic control from below. Marx was referring to a country which had one of the most democratic  constitutional forms of the time: the United States. It was, indeed, “the model country of the democratic swindle” not because it was less democratic than others but for precisely the opposite reason. The fact that the US had developed the formal structure of the constitutional republic in the most democratic forms meant that its bourgeoisie likewise had to develop to its highest point the art of keeping the expression of popular opinion within channels satisfactory to its class interests. There has been a plethora of clever electoral systems devised to insert a manipulative factor into the forms of a more or less universal suffrage, beginning with the American Constitution. Engels would write  that “England is undoubtedly the freest, that is, the least unfree country in the world, North America not excepted”,  that the methods and forms of the political system are designed toward “making concessions merely in order to preserve this derelict structure as long as possible”. He goes on, “The Englishman is not free because of the law, but despite the law, if he can be considered free at all” , for it is the constant threat from below that ensures the recognition of democratic rights in practice. Engels concludes “But mere democracy is unable to remedy social evils. Democratic equality is a chimera, the struggle of the poor against the rich cannot be fought out on the ground of democracy or politics in general. Hence this stage too is only a transition, the last purely political measure that still is to be tried and from which a new element must immediately develop, a principle transcending everything political.This principle is the principle of socialism.”

What is democracy? It is the rule of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is our battle-cry in the class war. The Socialist Party has been sincere advocates and champions of democracy. The working class has succeeded in obtaining possession of political power. What is called bourgeois democracy, was never regarded by us as anything more than a means to an end. The fight for democratic forms of administration is part of the socialist effort; not its be-all and end-all but an integral part of it all. The issue has always been what will maximise the influence of the  workers movement on the political forces. Social democracy is not merely the replacement of the authority of bourgeois rulers with the authority of a socialist central committee but rooting out old habits of obedience and servility.  It is the use of all the means of political power to  expropriate the capitalist class – in the interests and through the will of the revolutionary majority, that is, in the spirit of socialist democracy. Without the conscious will and action of the majority of workers, there can be no socialism.

Anarchists and Left Communists Against Independence

Edinburgh Anarchist Federation have posted a blog that reflects many of the views of the Socialist Party enabling the Socialist Courier blog to quote extensively from it.

“Don’t buy into the ideology of the Yes campaign or its variant, left nationalism. Whatever the rhetoric of some on the Left, this is a Scottish nationalist campaign, just as the No camp represents a British nationalism.  Anyone who cares about class struggle politics needs to strongly oppose both.

Nationalism, whatever form it takes, does two things: it tries to create a community of interest between the bosses and the working class; and it binds this community to the capitalist nation-state, reinforcing the latter’s power and role in exploitation. There is no genuinely ‘progressive’ form that this can take. We have, as Paul Mattick observed, a century of experience of national liberation struggles where apparently progressive anti-imperialist movements culminated in an oppressive new ruling class. And we could now potentially see a new wave of independence movements in Europe in response to neoliberal restructuring and the more immediate crisis of capitalism.  Do we expect different results?...

Are smaller states better and more democratic? 

...Well, if we were to take a critical look at actually existing small European states we find:
That they’re certainly no more favourable to workers’ organising;
They are also coercive (which is the role of any state apparatus) and can be just as authoritarian (an example being the role played by the Catholic church backed by the Irish state);
They have been remarkably open to neoliberalism and austerity (which has had a devastating effect on small states from Finland to the Netherlands, never mind southern Europe);
There is a growing anti-immigrant trend related to systemic white supremacy across northern Europe;
That some have also sent willing to send troops abroad (Denmark in Afghanistan) or have aided others who have (Ireland again, offering Shannon airport for use by the US Air Force);
And they are always subject to the dictates of larger supranational structures and of capital itself....

The Nordic example

... Common Weal want us to emulate the Nordic states where thanks to a number of reasons – a strong labour movement,  available natural resources etc. – it has been able to maintain more of its welfare provision than Britain.
“ we still have a cabin on the upper deck, but it is the upper deck of Titanic.” - Asbjørn Wahl

 But all of the Nordic states have experienced their own neo-liberal offensive and inequality is growing there too.
Swedish welfare academic, Daniel Ankarloo, argues that the labour movement there has been ‘weakened by ... class co-operation’  and belief in a ‘social policy road to socialism’– i.e. that somehow the welfare model was an example of socialism in practice that just needed to be expanded.  Instead, to defend existing gains as well as to fight for a different society, we need to rediscover class militancy and that this, ‘radicalisation must ... come from below in the form of the self-organisation of the labour movement’. .

 What about the Scottish Left? 

...Both Common Weal and the vision of the Radical Independence campaign are concerned with trying to manage capitalism better.

 Common Weal is an explicitly class collaborationist think-tank – nicely summed up in its slogan ‘All of us first’.  Its proposals in creating a high-growth economy, are in reality about increasing the rate of exploitation and outcompeting workers internationally. Its advocacy of ‘work councils’ to smooth relations in the workplace is a necessary part of increasing productivity – i.e. profit. Where they have been used in Europe they have consistently undermined unions and workers’ militancy....

The most comprehensive statement made by members of the Radical Independence campaign, is a call for united frontism to the extent that socialism – even a bureacratic state ‘socialism’ – isn’t even on the agenda, but is treated as a utopian project for some distant future. It seeks to create a Scottish broad left – not an ‘anti-capitalist’ – party along the lines of Syriza or Die Linke, and it reproduces the same ‘Keynesian wish list’ based on the same weak analysis of the state and capital, critiqued so well by Michael Heinrich. Like Common Weal, it sprinkles radical rhetoric – participatory democracy, decentralisation – on its reformism.  It doesn’t differ substantially from the latter, but offers mild criticism of certain aspects, including its support for the Nordic model.

After the referendum

...We should not trust an independent Scottish state to share much wealth, to protect NHS provision, not to attack the unemployed or the disabled, not to make cuts, to deport people or remove trade union restrictions. Some are hopeful that the grassroots pro-independence movement will produce an oppositional social movement after secession.  But this is wishful thinking.  It would require it to reject its own ideological basis, its very nature as a cross-class alliance organised by forces who seek to gain political power. ..

Whatever the result of this referendum, the lasting gains we need depend most of all on our own capacity as a class for itself to organise and struggle...

The Internationalist Communist Tendency on the Referendum

The Left Communist organisation on their website also made some insightful comments of the referendum which again is well worth quoting

One of the ruling class’s weapons in its armoury is its ability to mask the reality of the exploiter/exploited class relation. Its web of cultural constructs is aimed at obscuring that reality - and the weave of that web is religion, race, gender and above all, nationalism. Nationalism isn’t “natural”. It is manufactured. It is the particularly manufactured ideology of the capitalist class. For them it is the perfect expression of their rule. They can pretend that in the nation we are all “free” even if some of us are freer than others because they have more money...Scottish Independence is just a diversion from the real issue based on a reactionary fantasy.

Post Referendum

If a ‘yes’ vote created a Scottish state, it would begin life already crippled with its share of UK National Debt – a sum estimated by the National Institute of Social Research to be £143 billion. That debt will have to be serviced, as will the debt incurred in the functioning of any capitalist state – borrowing for investment, infrastructure, defence, the social wage (pensions, health, welfare etc). For example, Edinburgh, Scotland's capital, is currently paying £5.8 million a year interest on its new 8 mile tram line even before any repayment of the £776 million capital costs.. Naturally, services such as libraries, social care, teachers and nurses etc ( all part of the social wage) are discretionary spending, while interest repayments are written in stone. The UK state, despite its vicious hacking back of the social wage, its use of cheap migrant labour to help drive wages down, its attack on working conditions and wages, has so far been unable to cut its deficit – in other words far from being able to address its debt, it is daily increasing it. Again, that debt incurs interest – and that interest is set by global money markets that take a very close interest in state spending. The Scandinavian states, for long hailed as examples of successful welfare states, are seeing their social spending slashed because the money markets demand it. National governments are expected to be ‘responsible’ (i.e. shaft the working class) or pay the price when they come to sell bonds, gilts or raise loans. This is an inescapable fact of crisis ridden global capitalism – no country is immune...

...Foreign capital investment, crucial to any Scottish state will expect, and get feather-bedded treatment in terms of grants and tax-breaks. What the workers will get can be seen in the brutal working conditions of the staff in the huge Amazon depot at Dunfermline. Any serious attempt by a Scottish government to improve working conditions there would see Amazon pack up and move elsewhere. No surprise in this – it’s how capitalism operates. The surprise lies only in the fact that so many are prepared to believe ‘We’re different up here’...

....There is only one internationalist response to this referendum – fuck it! The real issue for the world’s workers is that they face an increasingly dire future under whichever capitalist regime rules us.... Our only hope lies in getting rid of the system that produces such misery and such abominations. In the long run only autonomous working class struggle on our OWN terrain can hold out any hope for our future. In the short term, refusing to be dragged in to ruling class power plays is a crucial first step – seeing our class brothers and sisters sucked into nationalist traps in the likes of Ukraine, Libya, Gaza and Kurdistan only underlines the importance of this....

Socialist Courier has to add the caveat that neither group accepts our position that we support the democratic principle of voting in the referendum by going to the polling station and spoiling our ballot. Neither No, Nor Yes But World Socialism.