Common Ownership

Under capitalism the worker is a slave who sells himself for a wage with which to buy his rations, which is the only difference between this system and negro slavery where the master bought the rations and fed the slave himself. The American Civil War was not a war for the emancipation of the blacks but a war for the preservation of the industrial hegemony of the North, a choice between forced labour in the South and wage slavery in the North.

In Athens and Rome there was slavery. The slaves either cultivated the lands of their Greek or Roman master or laboured for his profit in the city workshops. Individuals owned them, disposed of them, forced them to labor, gave them away as presents, sold them or left them to their heirs. And in the same way, when after the collapse of the ancient society and the Roman regime founded on conquest, slavery was amended to serfdom, the serfs, too, bound to the land, were objects of certain private property rights. Under the feudal kings there were royal slaves attached to the royal lands, and church slaves attached to the church lands, but the immense majority of the serfs belonged to lords who were in the end practically great landed proprietors with a personal property right in their possessions. It was the lord who disposed of the labour of the serfs. Agricultural serfs, thinly scattered over the great rural domains, and industrial serfs, bakers, smiths, goldsmiths, spinners and weavers, gathered together in the outbuildings of the castles and all were under the domination of an individual noble; they were included in his property and sold by him with the estate. They were, like the land itself, like the fields, the vine-yards, the cattle, one of the objects upon which the right of private property was exercised.

The Roman slave-owner had his “labour troubles”. The slave uprising led by Spartacus proves that.  The medieval baron, lord over many serfs, also had his “labor troubles”. Wat Tyler’s Rebellion, and the Peasant Wars in Germany, testify how bloody these “labor troubles” became. The Southern U.S. plantation owners, had “labor troubles” also. The Fugitive Slave Act bears proof of this. Today a pick up of any capitalist newspaper will show the existence of modern capitalist and his “labor troubles”. But unlike then when  the slave would revolt to flee from employment and suffered crucifixion, hanging, quartering, mutilating and flogging we have workers who are clubbed and imprisoned for having the audacity to demand work, for a chance to slave.  Before the master sought the slave, now the slave seeks the master.  They stand in line, they beg for work and they scab on their fellow worker by pledging to work more for less. We are told that we are free and the bosses are free. He is free to offer us whatever terms he wishes –and we are free to starve unless we accept his terms. The free boss can lay off the free worker to freely starve in the midst of a land of full warehouses which the worker filled. Who needs the cat-o’-nine-tails to make the workers serve their master. We are fed on adulterated foods, clad in shoddy clothes, poorly housed in slums or sub-urban boxes and becoming ever more vulnerable than ever to chronic illness and disease. And all the time capitalism greedily demands more and more profits, installs more and more technology into the factories which produce goods and profits at a faster and faster rate. More and more workers are thrown on the streets or offered short-time contracts.

There is only one remedy for this slavery of the working class and that remedy is the socialist system of society in which the land and all houses, railways, factories and everything necessary for work shall be owned and operated as common property.  Socialists cannot offer a cure for unemployment under the capitalist system which is endemic and a fundamental component to it. Only by overthrowing the system of capitalism will unemployment be done away with. The society of socialism alone can eliminate the terror of unemployment. Capitalism will be replaced by employment for those who wish and plenty for all. Every capitalistic element will disappear; no man or woman will be able to make use of another person to create dividends for him or herself, or profit, or an income, or rent.  No person will be handed over to the exploitation of another or  the despotism of the nation. To help bring this about all workers should join the Socialist Party and help fight for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of socialism. The master and slave, the lord and serf of past ages, are gone, and the capitalist and wage workers of our day must follow them. The time is not too far off when no one will be able to speak about the preservation of private property without covering themselves with ridicule. Private property will become void and meaningless. When everybody shares in common ownership, no-body is the owner.

For Sale

The late Sir James Cayzer’s Scottish estate is for sale at the price of £29 million, the most valuable ever to come on to the open market.  Within its 5,400 acres, there is a range of property, extensive farmland and woodland, six privately owned lochs and exceptional field sports facilities. The properties include a Scots Baronial castle, Kinpurnie and Thriepley House, set in the midst of an orangery and surrounded by walled Italianate gardens. The estate also has eight luxury holiday homes and a further 18 estate cottages. The location is only a quarter of an hour away from Dundee airport.

The late Sir James inherited a shipping fortune made in India by his great grandfather. He was a friend of the Queen Mother with a fleet of Rolls Royces which he never drove. He had a reputation as a bon viveur and an incredibly generous host, holding annual New Year’s Day lunches at Gleneagles Hotel and decamping to St Petersburg for a season, or Claridges in London, where he maintained a suite.

Reading Notes

Describing the district of Lambeth Marsh, London, in the late nineteenth century, author, Simon Winchester writes in, "The Professor and the Madman", "So it was instead a place of warehouses, tenant shacks, and miserable rows of ill-built houses. There were blacking factories (shoe polish makers, like the one in which young Charles Dickens worked) and soap boilers, small firms of dyers and lime burners, and tanning yards where the leather workers used a substance for darkening skins that was known as "pure" and that was gathered from the streets each night by the filthiest of the local inhabitants -- "pure" being a Victorian term for dog turds... Lambeth was widely regarded as one of the noisiest and sulphurous parts of a capital that had already a grim reputation for din and dirt...A hundred years ago it was positively vile. It was still then low, marshy, and undrained, a swampy gyre of pathways where a sad little stream called the Neckinger seeped into the Thames. *The land was jointly* *owned by the archbishop of Canterbury and the duke of* *Cornwall*...(Surprise, surprise!) John Ayers

Food for thought

A corruption trial in China has revealed a world of privilege for "communist party" officials. Gifts like a $130,000 trip to Africa and a trip to the World Cup were showered on his son, and apparently limitless money given to the wife when requested, so much that it was stuffed into safety deposit boxes. This and other tales of corruption and wealth prove that China is about as far from communism as one can get. John Ayers.

Class Consciousness

 No matter how strong our convictions are about socialism may be, these alone will not win the day. We need to make an argument. And a successful argument must appeal to everyone in general. It must rely on rational claims of a kind they will recognise. We try to win them over through persuasion rather than force or bribery. If people cannot persuade or be persuaded then there can be no shared beliefs or co-ordinated collective action.

 It requires us to understand where other people are coming from.  People have different experiences and possess different information; they have different values and do not always share our criteria of judgment. To persuade them we have to make connections with our audience – with what they might think, feel and be familiar with. This is not about tricking people or fooling them. It is about truly persuading them to share our views on a particular issue – and that means developing a relationship. True persuasion is democratic. In giving people reasons to act with us we recognise that they aren't inferiors who can be compelled but thinking, feeling and speaking beings.

Class consciousness is not only something that comes from top to bottom nor is it something that springs forth spontaneously from the grass root. It is simply a reflection of social realities while living in a capitalist society where the exploited and the exploiters are locked in a confrontation. Class consciousness is not some complicated theory that only some three to five exceptional geniuses can comprehend, it is a type of consciousness that grows inside the mind of every person that lives under capitalism.  The great majority at this present time are still under the complete psychological and ideological control of capitalism. The majority of workers strongly believed that their interests can be adequately served within the framework of the capitalist system. They remained discontented but directionless, rebellious but not revolutionary. Most workers do not harbor revolutionary aspirations; they do not make demand a change in the system.

The working class have the legal right to use their majority of ballots in any way they choose. The workers are organised in large industrial plants and could easily become conscious of their power. The more potential political power the oppressed classes possess, the more urgent it is for the ruling class to insure that that potential power is not transformed into actual power. Therefore, it is even more essential for the capitalist class than it was for the ancient slaveowners or medieval nobility to convince the people that the state rules in behalf of all citizens. The slaveowners and nobles persuaded the slaves and serfs that class rule was right; the  bourgeoisie tries to tell the workers there are no classes.

The feudal lords had to surrender their dynastic privileges to the ascending bourgeoisie, better known today as the capitalist class. The owners of all resources and means of wealth form a class of their own; the owners of labour power as their only possession in the market, another. Political, judicial, educational and other institutions are only the mirror of the prevailing system of ownership in the resources and means of production. One class owns and controls the necessaries, the economic resources of the world. That class, for its own protection and perpetuation in power, subjects all other institutions to their prevailing class interests. As more and more corporation executives and millionaires become government officials, their scholarly defenders emphasise ever more insistently the non-capitalist character of the state. Government purports to give favours to no class or showers favours on all.

A vote for the small, then – which has few candidates? Yes. A vote of confidence in it and of confidence in the revolutionary tomorrow. A vote in the form of solidarity with it. A vote in the form of adherence to its principles. The only goal worth striving for is the emancipation of the working class, and  the abolition of class rule

A Strange Kind of Communism

Wang Jianlin is a property magnate who can count the world's largest cinema chain amongst his business interests, in addition to dozens of shopping centres and five-star hotels. ' Now Wang Jianlin can add another accolade befitting his billionaire status -he has been named China's richest man by Forbes. The 58-year-old Sichuan native, whose Dalian Wanda Group conglomerate this summer acquired a 92 per cent stake in the luxury British yacht manufacturer Sunseeker, whose boats have appeared in a number of James Bond films, is worth £8.9bn, the influential publication said.' (Independent, 10 September) How can the Chinese government claim to be a communist country when they have a member of the capitalist class "worth" £8.9 billion? RD

What Independence?

The Left Nationalist Fantasy

“Words and illusions vanish; facts remain.”

The capitalists are good mystifiers: they want to have us believe that their interests as an oppressing class are the interests of all classes. Since the time of Marx, class conscious workers have combated the capitalists’ chauvinist appeals with appeals for the international solidarity of the working class. They have fought the attempts of the bourgeoisie to enlist the workers in their nationalist strivings with appeals for the joint class struggle of the workers of all countries against world capitalism. 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 proletariat and that in order to advance their interests workers must ‘settle matters’ with the bourgeoisie of each state, that workers must challenge the power of their ‘own’ capitalist class directly.  It implied uncompromising opposition to the local state and its dealings with the rulers of other capitalisms – other members of the ‘band of warring brothers’ that constituted the capitalists at a world level. It also implied workers should organise in mutual solidarity across national borders. This was not a mere abstraction. Marx maintained that workers must free themselves of patriotism and national superiority in their own interests, for without discarding these aspects of bourgeois ideology they would never themselves be free. Marx and Engels maintained this approach throughout their political activities.  It was also the position taken by Luxemburg.

Those of us in the Socialist Party of Great Britain are told that our critique of nationalism is resented by many supposed revolutionaries because they think that our criticism casts aspersions upon their sincerity as revolutionaries. Our duty as socialists does not permit us to spare the feelings of any particular group which directly or indirectly acts contrary to the interests of the working class. At the end of  socialist meetings it was customary  to sing “The Internationale”. It was not Flower of Scotland, Scotland the Brave or Scots Wha Hae. Have those “socialists” forgotten the workers of the world anthem? The patriotic fever of the Scottish referendum is so prevailing that the convener of the Scottish “Socialist" Party shares the table with a capitalist hedge fund manager to determine independence referendum strategy.  Cooperation of the classes implies an abandonment of the class struggle.

The Socialist Party are told that we should accept that nations “exist” (even though we have seen that a common race, implying the same origin and purity of blood is but a fiction) Diseases exist as well. Is it that reason not to try and eliminate them? The real fight is the struggle of the dispossessed against the possessors and it is the only fight that matters. The national prejudices deliberately fostered by the governing class has to be fought by English and Scottish workers united against their common foe. For us, the workers, our weapon is solidarity, it is the awareness that we all form, whatever the language we speak or the colour of our skin, or the land of our birth, one single class exploited by a minority of capitalist parasites who are very much in agreement, despite their national rivalries, to crush us.

Independence and “socialism” is the Scottish nationalists favorite bait for workers. At this moment in time Trotskyists are engaged in a patriotic effort to persuade the working class that Scottish independence would mark a step forward towards its own liberation, a step towards socialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. With the conditions that prevail today in this country, the independence of Scotland  would not mean a step forward towards socialism. In all likelihoods it would be a step backwards.  The people who parade the banner of “independence and socialism” around, to catch the attention of  workers, are perpetuating a number of falsehoods.  The “Left” nationalists would have us believe  the task is to transform bourgeois independence into a socialist independence. In reality, they find themselves in the camp of those promoting division of the working class.

The Independence referendum is not about independence. lf the nationalists wins, Scotland will not be independent. The SNP is a capitalist party. It works on behalf of the capitalists. That means the union of Capital, Edinburgh to Brussels to London to Wall St. The nationalist is merely trying to keep more of it “within the family”.

Are we to believe that home-grown national businesses are somehow less exploitative than foreign companies and less subject to the impact of the general capitalist crisis? Capitalist enterprises, inevitably move towards becoming monopolies, regardless of the nationality of their owners. Capitalism created nations, but, in its development, created at the same time the conditions for their disappearance by multiplying all kinds of relationships between nations, within one country or on a world-wide scale. But at the same time as capitalism  creates the objective basis for the fusion of nations, it tries desperately to erect artificial barriers between them, so as to maintain itself as a system of control. Thus, by setting nations one against the other, by inflaming national animosity, the bourgeoisie aims at consolidating national barriers in order to protect its part of the spoils of capitalist exploitation, to attack the class consciousness of workers and to sow strife in their camp. Independence means the creation of national barriers by restrictions so as to consolidate the capitalists class privileges.

 Whatever twists and turns lie down the road in the fight for socialism in Scotland, one thing is certain: the success of that struggle depends on achieving the greatest possible unity of the working class, it is utterly ridiculous to argue that the working class ought to divide itself into two different countries in order to accomplish this unity. It is completely absurd to justify this with the false argument, disproven many times, that the battle for socialism would be easier if it were led by a more nationally “pure” and homogeneous working class. Working class unity is a must right now if effective resistance is to be mounted to the crisis measures imposed by the capitalists. Unity is necessary to stand up against all the attacks on our democratic rights. The working class faces a powerful and aggressive enemy which is solidly united despite certain contradictions within its ranks. The people’s army  are not going to win the class war by dividing themselves according to borders. Those who dress up as “socialists” in order to push nationalism on the working class are the objective allies of the capitalists. Supporting Scottish independence in the name of socialism is a hoax. It is up to the working class to show we will not be duped by political nonsense and deceitful rhetoric. Instead fight for your own cause, for your interests – for socialism.

Karl Marx wrote:
“What then does the German philistine want? He wants to be a bourgeois, an exploiter, inside the country, but he wants also not to be exploited outside the country. He puffs himself up into being the “nation” in relation to foreign countries and says: I do not submit to the laws of competition; that is contrary to my national dignity; as the nation I am a being superior to huckstering.
The nationality of the worker is neither French, nor English, nor German, it is labour, free slavery, self-huckstering. His government is neither French, nor English, nor German, it is capital. His native air is neither French, nor German, nor English, it is factory air. The land belonging to him is neither French, nor English, nor German, it lies a few feet below the ground. Within the country, money is the fatherland of the industrialist. Thus, the German philistine wants the laws of competition, of exchange value, of huckstering, to lose their power. at the frontier barriers of his country! He is willing to recognise the power of bourgeois society only in so far as it is in accord with his interests, the interests of his class! He does not want to fall victim to a power to which he wants to sacrifice others, and to which he sacrifices himself inside his own country! Outside the country he wants to show himself and be treated as a different being from what he is within the country and how he himself behaves within the country! He wants to leave the cause in existence and to abolish one of its effects! We shall prove to him that selling oneself out inside the country has as its necessary consequence selling out outside, that competition, which gives him his power inside the country, cannot prevent him from becoming powerless outside the country; that the state, which he subordinates to bourgeois society inside the country, cannot protect him from the action of bourgeois society outside the country.
However much the individual bourgeois fights against the others, as a class the bourgeois have a common interest, and this community of interest, which is directed against the proletariat inside the country, is directed against the bourgeois of other nations outside the country. This the bourgeois calls his nationality.” -  Draft of an Article on Friedrich List’s book

House Hunting?

Many young workers may be seeking a new house to settle down in, but we can safely imagine the following is way out of their expectations. A London mansion hidden away like a countryside cottage has been put up for sale for a record-breaking £105 million - 640 times the average house price in the UK. Park House has been described as the finest home to come onto the market in the capital in the past 25 years. 'Despite being in South Kensington in the city's centre it sits in more than half an acre of land and is out of sight from  any roads or cars. The home, described as being secluded like a private estate, has six bedrooms, five bathrooms and seven reception rooms, including an incredible 48-foot drawing room.' (Daily Mail, 9th September) Five bathrooms? The owning class of course do a lot more boozing than the workers hence the need for the additional toilet facilities. RD

Unity and the SPGB

Callie, the Socialist Party member

A union of people is greater than the sum of its members. That’s why trade unions succeed in securing decent wages and benefits for workers. A great orator alone doesn’t move mountains. But a crowd of hundreds of thousands united in purpose can make a difference. Businesses use the strength of unity as well. They join together in special interest groups that then have the leverage necessary to get them what they want.

Activists want to create a new left party because those that exist appear inadequate. The Left Unity project has raised many issues that the Socialist Party of Great Britain have faced and answered previously. Our critics accuse us of being out in the political desert and it is argued that if we can get workers’ unity, the strength gained will attract more and more towards our movement. But the Socialist Party is not prepared to join with parties whose aims and methods are contrary to the interests of the working class and a hindrance to the achievement of socialism. The Labour and Trotskyist Parties are parties to which that condemnation applies. It is our experience that any other policy is fatal for a socialist organisation. We would require the Left Unity Party to first state exactly what is its objective. It ought, of course, to be unnecessary to ask such a question of a party which declares its aim to be socialism. Unfortunately, there has been a wide misuse of the word socialism, and it is often applied it to the aim of state capitalism, which leaves intact the division of society into a propertied class and a class of property-less wage-earners.

When it was decided to form the Socialist Party those who made that decision did so against the advice of many others who claimed to know a better way of getting socialism. By joining the Labour Party (known at that time as the Labour Representation Committee) they said genuine socialists should get inside where they would have a wide and receptive audience for socialist propaganda. The view at the time held some merit as it was possible in those days to talk and write about socialism within the ranks of the Labour Party and to argue the socialist case with Labour supporters who were at least familiar with the works of the socialist pioneers. They didn't accept the socialist case but they were aware what that case was. The argued that ocialism was to be seen as a worth-while aim,  but workers being what they were, the only practical policy of a labour party was of making capitalism better through reforms and introducing nationalisation as stepping stones to socialism while teaching socialist principles to raise the level of understanding among the workers.

 We can let the readers judge the success or failure of its reforms and state-ownership but on the issue of those who advocated the unity strategy and membership of  the Labour Party it is reasonable for us to ask where is the socialist influence that was to permeate the ranks of the Labour Party?  Has it raised the level of knowledge in Labour Party? Sure, with  accumulation of experience of political office they know all about winning votes and influencing electors. They know all the intricacies of government and administration. They can can hold their own in the string-pulling and double-talk. It is always full of ingenious schemes for solving capitalism's problems but never on any occasion do they put the socialist alternative to capitalism or show a socialist understanding of the nature of the problems. The socialist case is not heard in Labour Party and if  a person  put it forward he or she would be regarded as a crank or an oddity and not to be taken seriously. Far from being influenced by socialist propaganda, the Labour Party has now forgotten what little it once knew. It no longer even argue against socialism for it does not now know what socialism is. There are perhaps some isolated individual members of the Labour Party who can remember the days when strikers were people to be supported and when jingoistic patriotism was a dirty word. What do they think now of their party, a fully fledged party of capitalism, with taking political opportunism is the one and only object of its miserable life?

We now receive similar words of wisdom from those who desire all those on the left to merge into a future Left Unity Party when it comes into being and it too possesses the quality of an aimless enthusiastic spirit of revolt against the iniquities of capitalism. There exists trap which the advocates of compromise always fall. They promise to solve certain urgent problems by entering into pacts and alliances hoping perhaps to gain strength later on to press forward. They forget that in taking on the administration of capitalism they do not gain strength, but lose it. They at once begin to earn the unpopularity and contempt which always centres on an administration which carries on capitalism. The effort to solve problems inside capitalism creates uncertainty, mistrust, apathy and despair among the workers.

The Socialist Party mission is simple. We have to proceed with our educational propaganda until the working class have understood the fundamental facts of their position—the facts that because they do not own the means by which they live they are mere commodities on the market, never have their capacity to work bought unless the buyers (the owners and employers) can see a profit for themselves in the transaction.

We have to emphasise the fact that no appreciable change is possible in the working-class condition while they remain commodities, and that the only method by which this can be altered  is by the working class taking the means of life out of the hands of those who at present hold them, and are the cause of the trouble. Before this can occur, the workers will have to understand the inevitable opposition of interests between them and the capitalist class who are able to exploit them, so that they will not make the mistake of voting them into power, as they have always done previously.  Representatives of the interests of the owning class dominate political power and  keep the working class in subjection. This is our mission, and we shall conduct it with all the resources we have at hand. It is the task of the Socialist Party by its educational propaganda, to clarify issues so that socialists will stand out us a political party distinct from and antagonistic to every other party to be a power in the land to-day. For the triumph of socialism, national and international organisation is essential, but the organisation must be for socialism and based on socialist principles or such organisation can be nothing to the workers but a delusion and a snare. The new form of society is ready to take shape only consent is lacking. The majority do not want socialism and do not understand it. That being so, it is mere illusion to imagine that working-class unity on a socialist basis is attainable at present. A socialist party cannot yet be more than a minority party.

For unity:-
The objective of common or social ownership, must be clearly understood.
There must be no room for policies of minority action.
There must be no collaboration with capitalist parties. (This would also rule out parties prepared to urge the workers to vote for the Labour Party or nationalist parties.)

 The Left Unity Party may gain its membership partly on the basis of the failures of the Labour Party, but it has also adopted exactly the same erroneous position. The Left Unity Party is committed to a gradualist, reformist strategy: seeking support on the basis of a programme of reforms. The case of the Labour Party is relevant here in that they too originally set out to impose on capitalism something—in their case, social measures in favour of the working class—that was contrary to its nature as a profit-driven system. The Left Unity Party are facing the same choice of strategy as did the first socialists in Britain at the end of the 19th century: to build up support on the basis of the maximum programme of fundamental social change and remain small till people have become convinced of the need for the change in question or to build up support on the basis of reforms within the system and grow faster but at the price of abandoning the maximum programme or relegating it to a vague long-term objective. So much is this the case that we can already anticipate the weak excuses, the shifting of blame and apologies for their inevitable failures to come. There is no need to be Nostradamus in foretelling its future. The widespread rejection of the Labour Party by radically-minded people does provide the basis for the growth of a genuine socialist party on sound principles, but the Left Unity Party does not fill the bill. It has nothing to offer except the failed old policy of state intervention and state control to try to make things better for people. Despite the repeated demonstrations that this reformist policy does not work, the new party wants to have another go, flying in the face of the inescapable conclusion that capitalism just cannot be made to work in the interests of the majority.

At the moment capitalism cannot even sustain the reforms it was able to afford at an earlier period. Since the post-war boom came to and end in the early 1970s, there have been no reforms – no improvements in housing, pensions, health care, social services or state benefits. Quite the reverse. Pre-existing reforms have been whittled away and things have got worse in all these fields. Nor is there any prospect of them getting any better; all the signs are that they will continue to get worse.  Nor can unemployment, poverty in old age, bad housing, inadequate health care, etc, etc, etc be solved within the capitalist system, not even by the most left-wing governments. Certainly, Left Unity says it wants to replace capitalism with a socialist society but this turns out to be, not real socialism, but the state capitalism that nationalisation represents. This is the past. We’ve seen it and it doesn’t work.

Knowing that socialism is the only solution and that it can be brought about only when the electors become socialists, it would be a dishonest political manoeuvre of seeking election on a programme of reforms of capitalism. It is dishonest because those who do it know that the reforms will not solve the problem.  The Socialist Party stands for the policy of independence. Unity is absolutely indispensable before socialism can be achieved, but it must be unity of socialists: on a socialist platform and in a socialist party. Socialist  politics is concerned with a materially realisable future, not with a mythical past, and is actively working towards a more equal and more humane society. A non-exploitative and non-hierarchical society is a practical goal not an ideal, one which necessitates a social order based on the common ownership of natural resources. Workers in solidarity shall overcome.

POLITICS AND HEALTH

Overwhelmed accident and emergency departments have suffered the worst summer in a decade, new figures show. They reveal almost a million patients are waiting more than four hours for treatment, nearly treble from four years ago. 'Over the same period, key A&E departments missed Government targets for about 80 per cent of the time. .....Since last September, Jeremy Hunt's first year as Health Secretary has seen 980,068 patients waiting longer than four hours to be seen in A&E units. Between 2009 and 2010 the figure was 353,617.' (Sun, 8 September) The figures also reveal 172,266 A&E patients were kept on trolleys last year for between four and 12 hours, 47 per cent higher than the previous year, and 219 patients waited more than 12 hours on a trolley, more than double the previous figure. We wonder how our caring MPs would relish 12 hours on a trolley awaiting treatment. RD

Social change not small change

Many devote their lives to battle against frightful odds to right the wrongs of the world but for the most part they are people with little vision —merely ordinary men and women who are pained by horrible injustice and oppression they see. Often commentators will label them the “lunatic fringe” by which they mean who believe in social justice and want to put it into effect. They are for peace, not war; they are not for obedience and subservience to corporations and governments. Sadly, not theirs is the socialist vision of a classless society. They limit their ambitions to reforms and adjustments to the system. These limitations are inherent in a struggle unguided by a vision of a different type of society. The Socialist Party task is to break them off from ideological and political submission to capitalism.

Society is divided into two great classes by the present form of property-holding, and that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the workers, are obliged to work for the other, the capitalist, in order to be able to live.

Socialism is a system of society in which the land, the means of production, and distribution are held in common. Production is for use, as and when required, not for profit, exchange or sale. The organisation of production and distribution is the responsibility of by those who do the work and of the communities they serve working for the general welfare and mutual harmony of all. Socialism is a classless order of society in where everybody shall have leisure and be secured from want. There can be no socialism until the majority of people desire socialism and turn their thoughts and actions towards it. Socialism can never arise and flourish save by the active co-operation of the majority and by their common will. Force may overthrow governments, and set up governments, but even governments cannot long remain, unless they obtain the acquiescence of the governed. Observation of life around us teaches, that where violence has no place in human relations everything is settled in the best possible way, in the best interests of all concerned. But where violence intervenes, injustice, oppression and exploitation invariably triumph. We want to bring about a society in which men and women will consider each other as brothers and sisters and by mutual support will achieve the greatest well-being and freedom as well as physical and intellectual development for all.

 In every discussion on the aims and objects of the World Socialist Movement someone is sure to bring up the objection that difficulties would arise out of the inability of the common people to understand the complexity of the social system they will be called upon to administer, which would result in its failure. This objection seems rather tenuous since the majority of those who at the present day are entrusted with the work of organising and administering the capitalist system are unaware of every development of the system outside of their own particular sphere. Socialist organisation  will preserve the effectiveness gained from capitalism whilst jettisoning the waste capitalist competition entails. It is not at all necessary that everyone, or even a very large number, of those engaged in labour should be able to understand and explain the multifarious processes of production, and that they should all be qualified to follow commodities through all their stages, from  raw material up to the final  finished product. It is only necessary that each worker should perform with due skill his or her own allotted task. The few required to be the co-ordinators organising industry may be left to the work of adjusting and interlocking the parts and even this apparently formidable challenge may be reduced to the routine work of a clerical and statistical staff on computers.

The World Socialist Movement has constantly based itself on class struggle and revolution. The World Socialist Movement has never compromised, it has never been opportunistic, or embraced reformism. Perhaps no movement in the world has had its eyes so clearly on the final goal of abolishing capitalism as it has. We see the state as a tool of bourgeois control and decide that for the worker to make any demands on it at all is a waste of time! We see the government simply as an administrating committee for the capitalist class and think of engaging it in politics as a waste of time! While the capitalist system prevails earning partial improvements is a waste to time! We want nothing from it at all. Our goal is the abolition of capitalism. We understand that without the abolition of capitalism, no amount of reform will bring emancipation.

A LIFETIME OF EXPLOITATION

Britain's pensions crisis was laid bare as official figures showed almost a million over-65s are working or looking for a job. They include 158,000 people over the age of 75. According to the most recent census, the number of residents of England and Wales aged 65 and over rose by nearly a million to 9.2 million between 2001 and 2011. One in 10 of those was employed or job-hunting. The number of those aged between 65 and 74 who were still economically active rose by 413,000 from 8.7 per cent to 16 per cent. 'Michelle Mitchell, of Age UK, said: "People are living longer and are generally in better health, so many are likely to want to carry on working. However, rock-bottom annuity rates combined with low interest rates on savings mean others have no choice but to carry on working because they cannot afford to retire".' (Daily Express, 7 September) Even after working for almost fifty years many workers still cannot afford to retire. RD

No compromise - no concessions

We are poised between capitalism, an old world that doesn’t work, and socialism, a new world struggling to be born.

The old world is one of concentrated economic power that hoards wealth; that creates corrupted and hierarchical governments to serve and further concentrate wealth through exploitation of people and the planet. The capitalist market  has colluded with government. They are hand in a glove and work together as partners to expand the market's power over all aspects of our lives. The state provides a useful fig leaf of legitimacy and due process for the market's agenda.

The working class in society holds a special position. It has no property. It is a propertyless class—dependent upon the class which owns property—the land, the factories, mills, mines, transport. But the land cannot give forth its fullness unless workers plough and sow and reap. The earth cannot deliver its mineral wealth unless workers dig it. Factories, mills, mines, railways, etc., cannot work unless workers are employed to make them serve their purpose in the transformation of nature’s wealth into social wealth. It is this fact which compels the owners of the means of producing wealth to employ labour. They need that labour or their ownership ceases to be of value. That is why the withdrawal of labour by the workers can be so powerful a weapon when used on a large scale.

People are experiencing the ravages of this global economy in which the market reigns supreme and everything is a profit center, no matter the human and environmental costs. People are searching for alternative ways of structuring the economy and society that are empowering and more sustainable. Part of this work includes understanding and building the common ownership which is the opposite of the predatory market economy.

Socialism stands for social or community property. Capitalism stands for private/state property. Socialism is a society without classes. Capitalism is divided into classes—the class owning property and the propertyless working class.

 Common ownership cannot exist without a participatory structure; it cannot exist without human involvement. Therefore, it is a fundamental step toward real democracy. Socialism is not about looking back to an idealised past; it is looking forward to a vision of an economy of new values, people building community and working together to solve common problems; to a time when all people have access to the information shared on the internet and the fruits of their labour.

The Socialist Party seeks to contribute to the creation of better lives for all of us.  Our platform does not contain a single immediate demand. In fact, the whole spirit of the party is well expressed by the motto: "No Compromise, No Political Trading." The Socialist Party practices a  less dramatic method of political democracy to those who advocate general strikes and barricades in the streets. For democracy means progress when the majority wishes it, and it will wish it only when it understands. That means education for the socialist system.  You cannot force socialism into existence by paralysing society. 

NOT SO COOL

When workers use new up-to-date technology they imagine they are being ultra cool and extremely modern, but they are supporting work practices that would put Victorian sweatshops to shame. The new cheaper iPhone that Apple will unveil to a global audience is being produced under illegal and abusive conditions in Chinese factories owned by one of America's largest manufacturing businesses, investigators have claimed. 'Workers are asked to stand for 12-hour shifts with just two 30-minute breaks, six days a week, the non-profit organisation China Labor Watch has claimed. Staff are allegedly working without adequate  protective equipment, at risk from chemicals, noise and lasers, for an average of 69 hours a week.' (Guardian, 5 September) RD

CRIME AND CAPITALISM

According to TV dramas the police are depicted as extremely successful at solving all sorts of crimes, but it turns out they don't even investigate most of them. 'The head of one of Britain's largest police forces admitted yesterday that his officers did not investigate 60 per cent of reported crimes. Sir Peter Fahy, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, said that his force was only able to to "actively pursue" 40 per cent of cases due to priorities and funding.' (Times, 5 September) It is also reported that the Metropolitan Police, Britain's biggest police force, are just as bad. Almost 50 per cent of crimes are being "screened out" because they are deemed too difficult to solve. Why don't they call in Hercules Poirot or Miss Marples? RD

Planning for Socialism

Capitalism has become an obsolete system that ought to be got rid off. A relatively small minority recognise this and are consciously anti-capitalist, but most continue trying to satisfy their needs within the system rather than by overthrowing it. It is natural that the question of what is the alternative to capitalism should be raised. It is frequently said that there can be no blueprints for the future because the people themselves will decide how to build the new society as they are building it. Too many talk about “revolution” in the abstract, and fail to put any flesh on to the bones of it. And when they do,  people are rightly cynical about the “policies” and “programs” whether “revolutionary” or not. Once bitten, twice shy.

If the revolutionaries do not form a political party that aims to take power from the capitalist regime then the old regime must continue. It will not just disappear in a burst of anarchistic enthusiasm. If the revolutionary party does not propose alternatives that are more desirable and effective than those capitalism, then why should anyone support a revolution? So we need to go beyond denouncing the existing system and start offering constructive options for workers to choose from, even though any such proposals are bound to be more generalisations at this early stage.

Socialism” would NOT have wage labour,  NOR commodity exchange through money. It would be quite possible to abolish these social relations left over from capitalism all at once. Wage- slavery will be eliminated by abolishing the social institutions of wage-slavery themselves, not by regulatory reforms and prohibitions against maltreatment of workers. It is a social revolution as profound as abolishing the ownership of slaves by slave owners.

 Critics of socialism point to the drab, boring existence of the old Eastern European bloc where everything was subject to central planning, everything subjugated to the state-owned enterprises. Socialism does not imply the restricted range of products available in those economically backward so-called socialist countries any more than it implies the lower standard of living, longer working hours or lower cultural levels common in those countries as compared with advanced Western countries. However socialist advocate society planning its production and distribution but are not advocates of THE PLAN.  We seek to co-ordinate the requirements for labour of different occupations and skills in each industry and locality and in each establishment. Far from discouraging new technology, to save jobs, we would facilitate its speediest implementation, to provide leisure. When production is geared to social needs rather than profits, it is quite feasible to cope with increased labour productivity by simply reducing the hours of work which can then become a voluntary activity.

 No matter how much state ownership and “planning” there may be in a market economy, if production and investment decisions are at all regulated by “the market”, they must be subject to market movements. Simply directing state owned enterprises to adhere to a central plan could not work while they were still basically oriented towards a market economy. If the products have to be sold on a market, and there is no market to sell more of that product, then its no good having the government telling a state owned firm to hire more workers. Those workers might just as well be paid unemployment benefits direct - their services are not required.

Many on the Left feel that all problems of control should be resolved by “decentralisation of authority” to permit more room there is for local level units to determine their own affairs. It, however, does not mean that the every problem can be mysteriously avoided by “decentralisation”. Some anarcho-syndicalists seem to imagine that if everybody democratically discusses everything, production units will be able to exchange their products to supply each other’s needs, and to supply consumer goods for the workers, with no more than ’co-ordination” by higher level councils of delegates from the lower level establishments. Actually things are not so simple, and any attempt to realise that vision would only mean preserving market relations between independent enterprises, still not working to a common social plan. The concept of the right to vote at the work-place can not in itself transform bourgeois social relations into co-operative ones. Modern  industry in capitalism  has always been based on capitalist production for profit, and nobody actually has much experience in how to run it any other way. Indeed many people allegedly on the “Left” seem to be unable to conceive of it being run any other way, and dream of somehow going back to a smaller scale of production, for it to be “more human”. On the contrary, it was precisely small scale production that was suitable for capitalism, while the development of huge transnational corporations with a single management for entire sectors of the world economy, proves that the socialisation of production makes private ownership an anachronism. The only experience we have of labour for the common good has been in a few community not-for-profit projects and some co-operatives. Everything else is based on people working for wages under the supervision of bosses to produce commodities for sale on the market. Often voluntary community projects also end up adopting a boss system too, or remain hopelessly inefficient and get entangled in factional disputes that can not be resolved without a clear chain of authority, and in effect, “ownership”. Then they go under and reinforce the idea that capitalist production is the only system that can really work.
The mentality that equates “popular”, “democratic” and “co-operative” with “local” or “community” projects is a  mentality that accepts the necessity of a  ruling class to manage the affairs of society as a whole. We do not just want to create some free space within which slaves can manage some of their own affairs. We want to overthrow the slave owners and abolish slavery altogether. The question of centralisation and decentralisation of enterprise management, is quite separate from the question of abolishing commodity production.

Planning decisions will have to be taken by somebody, whether they are called the workers council, Industrial Union or the factory committee. The communist solution is to dissolve the antagonism between separate enterprises so that each is directly aiming to meet social needs as best it can, rather than responding in its own separate interests, to an external compulsion to do so. Having a factory management (the workers themselves), who are dedicated to meeting social needs, would solve it completely, since they would interpret planning directives from a social viewpoint rather than a narrow one.

How do you decide whether to build a steel mill, or a hospital, or a  power station? Not just by democratically consulting steel workers, or hospital patients, or construction workers, or delegates from all three and others concerned. There must be some definite economic criteria for decision making. It is no good just saying we will build socially useful things like schools and hospitals instead of profitable things like steel mills or power stations. You need steel to build schools and hospitals, and you need electric power to run them. At present the only criterion according to which goods and services are produced and investments are made to produce them, is market profitability. Some public services superficially have different criteria, but the “cost-benefit analysis” they use includes interest on capital as part of the costs, and measures benefit by what would be paid for the service if it was marketable. Government funds can only be invested if the overall social rate of return is sufficient to allow payment of interest on borrowings directly, or by taxes raised from sections of the economy that have benefited indirectly. Despite loud squeals from the “private sector”, no government projects are based on expropriation. It all has to pay for itself on the market, and return interest on the funds borrowed from the private sector. It is a specific function of the capitalist (or state official) to allocate investments. It does this rather blindly, and with colossal waste, but it does do it and whatever is wasted, is often a loss to the particular capitalists concerned, as well as to society as a whole. The capitalist parasites are not even very good at keeping track of their own wealth, as is shown by the various multi-million dollar frauds that have been coming to light. In fact even their investment function is carried out for them by accountants, advisers, brokers etc who receive a share of the spoils, but are not the actual owners of the capital they invest.

Workers and the communities they live in and serve, will communicate with others similar bodies and determine what needs to be done, what tasks requires accomplished and what should receive the priority. Human need rather than capitalist greed. It is not utopian, much of the technology and information exists now, they simply have to be deployed for the common good instead of individual gain. 

Food for thought reforms one and two

The futility of reform - This week marks the fiftieth anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous "Dream" speech. It has been described as a defining moment in American civil history. But Americans are still debating how much of the dream has taken hold -- not bloody much!
Modern economic realty has got in the way. Long-time labour activist and author, Stanley Aronowitz, who helped to make the march a
reality, comments (Toronto Star, 24/08/2013), "On a scale of 1 to 10, Americans as a whole have gone from one in 1963 to minus three in terms of economic well being, and African Americans today are now at minus-five." We need a lot more than stirring speeches, maybe a class consciousness would help?

The futility of reform II -- Layoffs in Japan have always been taboo. Workers got jobs for life in return for fierce company loyalty and hard work that produced the Japanese economic miracle after WWII. Now Sony are forcing the issue by putting those who refuse early retirement in a special room with nothing to do hoping that the workers in question will be so bored they will be glad to go. This is part of a general movement by companies and supported by
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to end the 'privilege' of a job for life. A stagnant economy for years has prompted the capitalist class to go after this particular perk and to get a more 'flexible' (read poorly paid, no benefits and no security) work force. Easy come, easy go for reforms -- time to ditch them and the system where workers must beg for decent treatment and standards! John Ayers.

THE BED AND BREAKFAST FARCE

When on the prowl for votes one of the politicians' favourite dodges is to put great importance on the value of families and to portray themselves as stout champions of the family.  In practice however it is a different story. 'The number of families without accommodation being put up by local councils in B&Bs has risen to its highest in 10 years. New government figures show that 2,090 families with children were living in a B&B at the end of June. That is the highest figure since September 2003, and an 8% increase on the same month last year. ........ The figures also show that one in three families have been living in a B&B for more than six weeks, the statutory maximum.' (BBC News, 5 September) RD

What we need is understanding

The vast majority of us are wage-workers. Wages are our main source of income.  Or we receive a pension because we were once workers. Or we are the dependents of workers. We are just cogs in a giant machine. We are seen primarily as a cost that reduces profit. Some lip service given to workers as a resource; words to the effect that “we’re all in this together” might be spoken, but real examples of workplace democracy are few and very far between. If workers were truly valued as people “all in this together”, wouldn’t there be at least some semblance of democracy at work? There is a pretence  under capitalism that employees are treated as humans instead of as expendable resources like oil and there is a charade that the corporation has its employees’ best interests at heart, usually acknowledging and supporting employees’ collective bargaining rights. Instead, under our current economic system, the master-servant relationship is the legal framework that dominates workplaces. Reality for most people is a fundamental lack of respect at work.

 The object of work is to make enough money so that we can consume what we want and enjoy the good life, nothing more. What we do —  our work — defines us. We seek a source of lasting satisfaction in our work. When the system does not provide that sense of satisfaction at work alienation is the result. This leads to stress, addictions and other forms of ill health.

 Common sense must replace “business logic.” Workers believe in and accept capitalism, or are at least reluctantly acquiescent to their personal situation under capitalism and they buy into the ideas of capitalism.  If people think capitalism is the best that is possible, of course they will continue to follow the true believers in the system. If people believe there is no better way, disenchantment with the existing capitalist system will breed nothing more than cynicism and a retreat to private spaces. In fact, that is the result purveyors of capitalism are banking on. The more people are dissatisfied with capitalism, the more people believe another economic system is possible and  can help bring about change. If we want to organise the we need to focus on the flaws of capitalism and begin defining an economic system that is a realistic and attractive alternative. We need to develop a vision of a better system that can be a powerful motivation to do the hard work that is necessary to create a better society. Socialists want a world where the fruits of our labor, the immense social wealth we create each and every day, will be shared based on the needs of people rather than profit.

Workers and their unions must learn to aspire to greater. We must learn to demand more than simply more. What socialism proposes to do, in order to get wealth for all, is to take possession of the means of production and run them for the use of all. The great present mission of the Socialist Party is to gather together all those workers whose real interests lie in abolishing the private ownership of the means of production, and also to shut out of the party the class whose real interests lie in the preservation of the present system. Socialists  believe the working class can and must have its own political party, a party that will serve its own interests, not those of the exploiting class. Socialists understand that politics is essentially a war between the two main classes in modern capitalist society: those that work (the working class or proletariat) and those that exploit those who work (the capitalist class or bourgeoisie).

But knowing where we’re going and knowing how to get there are two different things. Socialist organisation means getting together with a common understanding and a common end in view, and working systematically for the attainment of that end. For the workers to organise effectively, they must have a correct understanding of their position in society and of the conditions under which they live and work. If they fail to understand these things, they will either not organise at all or will organise in an ineffective manner. The effectiveness of their organization depends on the correctness of their understanding. The better they understand conditions the more effectively they will organise. When workers study conditions and get a true understanding of the essential points, they can neither be chloroformed into inactivity nor carried away by half-baked theories. They do their own thinking instead of trusting would-be leaders to do it for them. Joseph Dietzgen expressed it this way:
 "If a worker wants to take part in the self-emancipation of his class, the basic requirement is that he should cease allowing others to teach him and should set about teaching himself."

If workers understand that "The working class and the capitalist class have nothing in common,"  This constitutes the common understanding necessary for organisation. The common end in view is the "Abolition of the wage system."

There can be no organization without action, and it must be systematic, not haphazard action. Systematic action means in co-operation with every other member. It means each one doing his or her part, and all co-operating in the production of the whole. When people organise, they do so because they can work or fight more effectively collectively  than alone. When the workers get together on the street to make a "demonstration"  they are only making a demonstration of their own ignorance, and a target of themselves for police clubs and tear gas. They are a powerless mob The power of the workers is not on the street but at the ballot box. Every worker can take part in this activity.

So let us understand  and agree on a common end, and all work with one another for the attainment of that end, which can be none other than to take over the means of production and distribution and operate them for use instead of profit.

Partly adapted and inspird from the writings of Gary Engler of the website “New Commune-ist Manifesto"

Food for thought

The futility of revolution without real purpose --The New York Times reported (25/08/13), reported "Promises of Arab Spring Prove Elusive". The author writes, " It is clear that the region's old status quo, dominated by rulers who fixed elections and quashed dissent, has been fundamentally damaged, if not overthrown,
since the outbreak of the Arab Spring uprisings. What is unclear is the replacement model. Most of the uprisings have devolved into bitter struggles over the relationship between the military and the government, the role of religion, and what it means to be a citizen." The real reason for the apparent lack of success is the fact that there has been no real understanding of the problem, the capitalist mode of production, and the only alternative, socialism. John Ayers.

Plan for Revolution

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is a political party, which means that its concern is the struggle of the working class as a whole for political power and the capture of the State. The primary concern of the trade unions is the economic struggle for better conditions. The Socialist Party strives to fill our fellow workers with the spirit of the class struggle, focusing upon overthrow of the capitalist system.  It looks upon every activity of the workers from this point of view. The Socialist Party participates in the election campaigns as a separate and distinct political party. We are not there to help the capitalists govern the working class. We do not spread the false belief that there can be cooperation between the exploited and their exploiters. It is idle to deny the war between the classes and we will go into Parliaments in the spirit of the class struggle. The Socialist Party does not solicit votes in order to reform the capitalist system and thereby to make it more effective for the capitalists. We go into Parliament not to tinker with the system for the benefit of the capitalists.

 Social revolution is the essential objective of the labour movement, the end towards which every step it takes must directly tend. If we look at the production of wealth in present-day society, we find that that production of wealth can only take place through the co-operation of many diverse trades and industries interlocked one with the other. Within a given workshop, the whole variety of workers, manual and mental, co-operate together in order to produce a common product. Within society as a whole all industries co-operate together in order to produce wealth, the raw material of one industry being the finished product of the other. Without this co-operation of all the useful elements of society in production, there can be no society as we understand it to-day. Wealth to-day can only be produced and industry maintained through this co-operation. The vast industries in which men and women co-operate to produce wealth to-day are not the creation of any particular class, but have only been created and can only be maintained by the co-operative labour of all useful elements in society. The ability to produce wealth grows every year, and therefore the welfare of the mass of the people should grow also. However, in capitalist society the opposite process is taking place. Alongside growing power to produce wealth there is growing poverty. In a period of the greatest expansion of capitalism, colossal wealth exists alongside the most heartrending poverty. It is not the case the more capitalism produces wealth the better off everyone will become. The more wealth capitalism produces the greater its difficulties as a functioning system; the more difficult it is to obtain resources and gain markets, the more intensive international competition becomes; the greater becomes the danger of the antagonisms created by this competition ripening into war.

In a single factory, or even within a single industry, production may be planned according to the most scientific methods, but in capitalist society as a whole there is no plan regulating the production and distribution of wealth. Marx called it the anarchy of production. The whole system is based on the pursuit of profit by the owners of the means of production. The regulator of the whole system determining whether industry shall be expanded or shall go on short time is the rise and fall of prices on the market, reflecting the rise and fall in the possibilities of profit for the capitalists whose industries produce for the market. The scramble for profit leads also to the scramble for markets for sources of investment and raw materials on an international scale, and leads inevitably to war.

The Socialist Party make it their business to talk and explain to our fellow workers the meaning of socialism. We distribute our journals  pamphlets and books. Once workers has begun to read a paper or pamphlet explaining the class struggle, they soon recognises the truth of that explanation which they can supplement by numerous facts from their own experiences. Reading about the class struggle is a step to actual participation in the class struggle.  Let the workers recognise their class interests, and they will fight for the final liberation of his class.  In this current economic crisis  the reformists stand for concessions to capitalism, in order to help capitalism to get back to “normal,” while the socialists stand for a resistance to the demands of the capitalists, not “business as usual”, but support the struggle for social revolution.

Fact of the Day

Glasgow has the highest percentage of workless households of any area in the UK, new figures have shown. Information from the Office of National Statistics showed that 30.2% (almost one in three) of Glasgow households had no-one aged between 16 and 64 in employment during 2012.

National average figures showed Scotland with 20.6%

The statistics showed there were 3.5 million such households in the UK between April and June this year, about 17.1% of all households containing a working age adult. This was down from 3.7 million, or 17.9%, a year earlier.

PROGRESSING BACKWARDS

It suits politicians to portray UK workers as living in a society that gives them a steadily improving economic position, but recent figures completely deny that claim. 'The number of UK workers earning below the so-called living wage has risen to 4.8 million, research suggests. The figure, equivalent to 20% of employees, is up from 3.4 million in 2009, the Resolution Foundation think tank said. .......Although employers are obliged to pay the minimum wage, there is no legal requirement to pay the living wage. ......It found that 25% of women and 15% of men were paid below the living wage in 2012 - up from 18% and 11% in 2009.' (BBC News, 4 September) R D

Food for thought

Columnist, Rosie DeManno (Toronto Star, 17/08/13) while investigating the expense scandal of several senators, revealed how celebrities moonlight for extra money, "Some have made a significant Second Act career out of it, occasionally with hilarious exploitation of repute, and clearly for money. They're whores of a
kind." For example, General Norman Scwarzkopf took a seat on the board of The Home Shopping Network. Henry Kissinger went for Revlon among his many post-White House gigs. Boxer, Evander Holyfield, was considered a coup for the board of Coca Cola. The Canadian senators are cut from the same cloth and naturally are attracted to money, anybody's. John Ayers

From Rags to Riches

Socialists don’t hanker after the “increasing misery” for the working class. We don’t look forward to the attacks on the workers’ standard of living in the hope that we may attract more members.  But what we do is recognise economic facts.

Capitalism is an economic system based on three things: wage labour (working for a wage), private ownership or control of the means of production (things like factories and farms), and production for exchange and profit. Capitalism is based on a simple process – money is invested to generate more money. When money functions like this, it functions as capital. For instance, when a company uses its profits to hire more staff or open new premises, and so make more profit, the money here is functioning as capital. As the amount of capital increases (or in the bigger picture, the economy expands), this is called 'capital accumulation', and it's the driving force of the economy.

The class struggle varies over time and place, depending on social-economic, political conditions and organisation. The nature of the struggle between labor and capital vary in terms of comprehensiveness, intensity, geographic location and class interests. Class struggles involve two basic antagonists. The ruling class struggle “from above”, in which various sectors of capital use their social power, economic control of the state to maximize present and future profits. We the working class, struggle “from below.” The class struggle in its multiple expressions is a ‘constant’ moving force and the organizational form which it takes changes. Trade unions and community-based movements have great variations in make-up and mode of operation. The bulk of the class struggle against exploitation finds expression in movements by the oppressed and dispossessed  who rely mainly on their own resource.

The class struggle is the conflict between those of us who have to work for a wage and our employers and governments. Socialists argue that our lives are more important than our boss's profits, which attacks the very basis of capitalism, where profit is the reason for doing anything.  Nor does the class struggle take place only in the workplace. Class conflict reveals itself in many aspects of life. For example, affordable housing is something that concerns all working class people. However, affordable for us means unprofitable for builder or landlord. Government attempts to reduce spending on health-care by cutting budgets and introducing charges shift the burden of costs onto the working class, whereas we want the best health-care possible in free NHS, or at worse, as little cost as possible. Workers have an interest in fighting to improve their housing, health, education and protection from destitution. There is therefore an inbuilt potential for conflict over welfare provision. The outcome depends on the balance of class forces.

Every state of society admits of certain improvements called reforms. These reforms are either required by the interest of the whole ruling class, or they are only for the benefit of a particular fraction. In the former case they are carried without much agitation; in the latter, that fraction for whose benefit they are to be carried, call themselves reformers; these form a distinct party, and appeal to the oppressed to aid them in their endeavours  by means of placing bait on the hook.

Reform can be viewed as a response of behalf of the ruling class to pressure from below, an attempt to buttress the existing class structure by making minor concessions. Reform is the reply to the threat of revolution. A reform is infinitely better than allowing the pressure of discontent to build up until it explodes with revolutionary force.

 Reforms make the system run more smoothly by helping to foster illusions about the state. Instead of seeing the state’s  real role of protecting capitalist exploitation, it is seen as eliciting rewards from the state and that there will be a the expectation of a better tomorrow. Like the casino, the best publicity for it is the occasional winner even though the house is always ahead in the end. It pays the capitalist state to appear to be generous since this conceals the true nature of its being.

Some reforms are a boost for the capitalist class. Improvements to the educational system can be construed as a victory for the workers. On the other hand, they provide employers with a labour force better qualified able to cope with modern production techniques. Likewise the National Health Service is regarded as a great boon for the working person. But it also helped the employers, who have known for a long time that personnel who are healthy are also more productive.

Any meaningful pro-worker regulations eventually become fetters to capital’s well-being, so it becomes necessary to neutralise or dismantle them - to “save” business from an unnecessary burden of extra expense. Each piece of legislation has a cost. Consequently, it is likely to squeeze profit margins and damage the competitiveness of the economy. The laws of capitalism are designed to facilitate the smooth-running of capitalism within the limits they impose which precludes effective amelioration of conditions. Even when face by a discontent the ruling class may wish to grant reforms but this is not always feasible. Indeed, even those concessions that have already been made can conflict with the system’s ability to meet them. In deteriorating economic conditions, when capitalism no longer can concede reforms, or when workers defend past gains the situation can turn into an intensified class struggle.

This is what we’re experiencing now with government austerity cut. Reformers are spreading illusions that divert energy away from the vital struggle. To be a real socialist is to be a revolutionary socialist – there is no other kind. So the Socialist Party says that it is reformism which is “utopian” and the only “realistic” way out of this mess is to go beyond legislation and regulation. What the Socialist Party insist upon making clear is that we can and we must establish a socialist society now, not in the long distant future. Taking control over the means of production in order to make things we require and share them out  according to need without the mediation of money is not a far off aspiration but a society  we could have right now. Too often the “realistic’, the “practical” activists, insist that we must lower our expectations and aim for achievable reforms. They present capitalism as a “natural” system which happen to possess some flaws that can be remedied.  There is nothing intrinsically socialist or even working class about reformism. These reforms alter nothing in the fundamental system of the existing state of things. The Socialist Party has opposed such reformists. We say to them that they deal with effects and ignore the cause. We can point to history and demonstrate that the reformist programme has failed repeatedly. The reformist message preached has brought disillusionment, apathy and despair.

The present crisis will not end until the capitalist’s expectations of higher profit margins is met. This requires the rate of exploitation to be increased and the main way would be by continuing to lay off workers (or make them part-time, or impose zero-hour contracts) and cut wages. If wages are lowered then obviously what is often described as the social wage, made up of welfare benefits  (paid indirectly by capitalists to particular workers via taxes.) The capitalist class can also do so better when they can shift costs onto others. If companies can cut costs by not protecting the environment, they will.

 The Socialist Party case can explained very clearly - to people whose clothing is in rags we don’t offer to stitch them together: we offer them new ones.

Food for thought

Just a few years after the Ontario Liberal government promised to reduce poverty, and failed miserably, blaming the current recession (of course), the City of Toronto is looking at identifying new neighbourhoods to add to the priority list of needy areas that need cash to provide some services and relief. Spokesman, Chris Billinger, said, " If we've achieved nothing in eight years...then there's a different set of questions to be asked." How right you are, Chris, ask away.
In 1983, 30,000 people, mainly women, filed a pay equity complaint against Canada Post. Thirty years later, they are still waiting, although a settlement worth about $250 million has been handed down. Many, of course have died or moved away. This gives new meaning to 'the cheque's in the mail!' John Ayers.

The nationalist follows the capitalist flag

The Socialist Party fights nationalism by rejecting it and exposing it's racism and xenophobia. Nationalism is a fraud whereby would-be rulers “self-determine" to impose their vision of nationhood on an entire community. Nationalism is an ideology of separation, of hatred for the “other” and the “outsider” It has been a creed of violence and war and oppression. And it has absolutely nothing to offer the world’s oppressed. What is necessary is to develop human solidarity, the instincts of mutual aid that enable us to survive and which have fueled all human progress.  Patriotism, in its essence, is a readiness to die and to kill for an abstraction, for what is largely a figment of the imagination. Nations are in no sense natural communities; they stand in stark opposition to  the principles of mutual aid and solidarity upon which our very survival depends. This community of interests and of relationship or neighbourly feeling, does not necessarily or exclusively apply to nationality. As a matter of fact, in ancient times it was the city-state rather than the nation-state which was its boundary.

Patriotism, as generally understood, is an objectionable sentiment since it means the placing of one’s own country, its interests and well-being, above those of the rest of humanity. The man who “wants to see his country great and strong” invariably wants to see it so, if need be, at the expense of the welfare and interests of other countries. The principle of nationalism as a positive political platform involves always (in practice if not in theory) the doctrine of “my country right or wrong.”

Nationalism groups men and women according to their land of origin, as decided by the chance events of history; within every country, thanks to the patriotic propaganda, rich and poor unite against the foreigner. Socialism groups men and women, poor against rich, class against class, without taking into account the differences of race and language, and over and above the frontiers traced by history.

 No socialist party can serve the “Nation” so long as the nation is divided into two warring classes—one which owns the wealth and one which produces the wealth and does not own it. No socialist party can serve the robbers and the robbed at the same time. To speak of the “Nation” when it is thus divided is camouflage to hide their support of the robbers because the great majority of the nation belongs to the class which is robbed.

Socialists are intent upon building something better than a nation. Socialism will be attained, by a working class movement fighting a class struggle for the ending of the capitalist system, which cannot be done by an alliance with the very enemy we are fighting. That is the impossible task being before the Scottish working class by those urging independence. Why should workers let themselves be diverted from the class struggle by the national question? How can a supposed socialist  demand that worker  support the party of one capitalist against another in a competition between capitalists which ultimately every national struggle is? Why cannot those “oppressed” nationalities wait with their emancipation until the hour of freedom arrives for the proletariat too? The Socialist Party strives to make the workers of the “oppressed” nation recognize the workers in the ruling nation as their comrades-in-arms and subordinate their particular national goals to the interest of the common struggle for socialism.

The nationalist Left argue that socialism is not yet possible and so present a programme of  reforms where business enterprises controlled by the working class is to be preferred to everything else. Where would the State get the funds necessary under this programme? The funds must in some way come from production; either from the profit on State industries, or from taxes paid by small enterprise. Of course, capitalists would not be content to pay to increase workers’ living standards; they would try to lower them, in order to restore the pressure of unemployment on the wages to keep that at a minimum. Here arises the natural and fundamental enmity of the classes, the chief opposition of their interests, the impossibility of peacefully combining their efforts. As long as capitalism exists, it must try to hold itself against competition by lowering the cost of production, or else be ruined. It cannot be content to secure a fixed living to the workers.

Thus the so-called Common Weal  programme from the Jimmy Reid Foundation is not the programme of socialists desirous to show to the workers the way to freedom; it is the programme of politicians desirous to win the great mass of adherents from various poor classes, by a programme of reforms that means coalition of workers, small farmers and petty bourgeois. And we have witnessed such coalitions before which uses the force of the working class  to promote the formation of a numerous class of small land owners and businessmen, extremely hostile to any socialism, thus it throws obstacles in the way to socialism. It fills the minds of the workers with illusions, diverting them from the only way to freedom; the way of class struggle, clear class-consciousness and confidence in their own power.

It is our duty as socialists to warn our fellow-workers in Scotland of the futility of the nationalist independence policy as far as they are concerned. There can be no relief for the oppressed Scot in changing an English robber for an Scottish one. The person of the robber does not matter—it is the fact of the robbery that spells misery. National divisions are a hindrance to working-class unity and action, and national jealousies and differences are fostered by the capitalists for their own ends. Our purpose is to show both the "nationalist" and "unionist" worker, that the struggle "for" or "against" independence does not materially affect the lot as a worker; that the "freedom" much-talked of on both sides, is but the right of a minority class (the capitalists) to exploit the mass of the people.

Those "intellectuals" and “professionals" clamouring for jobs within a Scottish Parliament do not represent the interests of the working class in Scotland. They do not, indeed, profess to favour other than capitalist interests, provided that the landlord or capitalist be a Scot, but the Scottish employer is in no more wise, no more merciful than the English one. The national sentiment and perennial enthusiasm of the Scottish people are being exploited by the so-called leaders in the interests of Scottish capitalism, and the workers are being used to fight the battles of their oppressors. The Scottish capitalist rebels against the English capitalist only because the latter stands in the way of a more thorough exploitation of the Scottish  workers by Scottish capital. Let the thieves fight their own battles! For the worker in Scotland there is but one hope. It is to join the international socialist working class and to make common cause with the socialist workers of all countries for the end of all forms of exploitation; saying to both English and Scottish capitalists: "A plague on both your houses". For the true battle-cry of the working class in broader, more significant and more inspiring than mere nationalism, and that rally cry is: THE WORLD FOR THE WORKERS!