TO BE FREE, YOU MUST DARE TO BE FREE

The British capitalist economy remains in the grip of the crisis, the worst crisis since the thirties. We in the Socialist Party keep arguing that it was not the bankers but the capitalist, system which is at fault.  Such crises are an inescapable feature of the capitalist system. This system cannot ensure the harmonious growth of the economy, cannot ensure work and well being for all the working people, cannot avoid economic crises. Capitalist society is built upon our sweat and blood, our misery and want. Our victories on the economic field are turned against us, and our economic slavery is reinforced by an absolute political dictatorship of capitalism. Capitalists, as a class, run no risks whatever; the unfortunate in the competitive struggle for gain are simply wiped out by their competitors, who benefit by their downfall. Shareholders in capitalist companies rarely or never render any service to the company, or the community, as shareholders. In the vast majority of cases they have never visited the enterprises from which they draw their dividends.

Thus our economic struggle must of necessity become a political one. The class struggle ceases to be a struggle for higher wages and shorter hours, and becomes a struggle for the supremacy of the working class. The greedy employers are howling for lower wages and the further deterioration of working conditions.

Under capitalism, with its wage slavery, the worker and his family are nominally free; but, as we have seen, the land, the tools and all the product of his or her labour belong to the employing class. The workers are at liberty to change their individual masters, if they can, that is all. There is a continuous class war between wage slaves and the capitalist class, with its parasites. So long as wages are paid by one class to another class, so long will men and women remain slaves to the employing class.

So today the government is preparing the new attack on the whole working class by a preliminary drive against the foreign-born workers by advocating that all foreign-born workers be registered like criminals, photographed, and fingerprinted. The aims of this capitalist drive against the great mass of foreign-born workers are plain. First, the exploiters want to lower the standard of living and the conditions of employment of millions of our workers who happen to be foreign migrants. Then they will blame and attack these worse oppressed and more ruthlessly exploited foreign workers to the native workers for the degrading conditions they themselves have forced upon these labourers. The capitalists are thus hoping to sow dissension in and divide the working class in order to crush more easily all the workers, native and foreign alike. The workers must marshal their forces and close their ranks in defence of their unions and, indeed,  their lives! Wage slaves cannot emancipate themselves from slavery to the employing class, until they themselves cease to compete with one another for wages.

Wage-earners are thrown out of employment, not because they are clamouring for impossible wages, still less because they are unwilling to work, but because the employing class itself cannot produce at a loss, and therefore shuts down its factories or only runs them on short time. Wages paid in money seem to workers to come to them from above, instead of being only the value of a portion of the goods they themselves produce, paid to them in the form of money. They owe this blunder to their own condition of servitude.

Workers are not organised politically to meet their enemy. We do not have a powerful party of the worker,  an independent working class political party unreservedly committed to the protection of the interests of the workers. The Socialist Party is painfully aware of the fact that today the overwhelming majority of the working class is not yet sufficiently class-conscious or convinced of the necessity of socialism.

The object of a Socialist Party is socialism. To that end the education and organisation of the working class and their conversion to socialist principles is essential. We cannot have socialism without socialists. Therefore, the first job of a socialist party is propaganda, in order to make socialists. The winning of seats in Parliament may well serve as useful means of serving these objects; but they are only means, and not the only means, and they must certainly not be permitted to supersede the objects themselves. No socialist will deny that it is a help to the movement to win a Parliamentary seat for socialism; but it is a hindrance rather than a help if the seat is won by a sacrifice of principle or by any sort of compromise which restricts the liberty of action of the socialist elected. When our men and women go to Parliament they want to go with a direct socialist mandate, and if they cannot go with that they had better stay outside. It is of no importance to us that this, that, or the other individual should be elected to the House of Commons. It is vital however, that a socialist should be elected and a seat won for socialism.  From this standpoint, therefore, it is better for a socialist to fight and be beaten as a socialist than to fight and win under any other banner.  Because we are such a small minority our most important work is to be done, not in Parliament but in the country at large. Our value will be agitational.

Reformism is trickery used to keep the working class under wage slavery. Reformists maintain that we can arrive at a certain “socialism” by winning reforms one after the other. What they don’t say is that whatever the bosses has to give up with one hand after a hard struggle, he will just take back with the other.  Socialists make no compromises with capitalism; they fight it relentlessly. To fight against reformism means to stop creating illusions about capitalism. The workers cannot wage a successful struggle against their own exploiting class and at the same time put their trust in organisations that have been and are hampering and betraying the struggles of their brothers and sisters here and  in other countries. The workers must organise an independent working class mass political party consisting of all workers. The Socialist Party calls upon all workers to join into one mighty army, to present one common front against the one common enemy, the employing class!

There are two roads we can follow. One way is to say: “Well, that’s too hard to deal with and let’s just deal with the easy problems, just with the day-to-day problems. Let’s just talk to the workers about things they can agree with us and understand, not about revolution and socialism because that turns them off.”
Others will agree and say, “This system’s too big, it’s too big what we’re going against, I got enough problems in my factory, in my community. I got enough problems in my home so don’t talk to me about that kind of stuff.

We however in the Socialist Party respond by declaring we should all really look and understand what’s happening in the world and this country and not keep it to ourselves but go out and struggle with our fellow workers and arm them with that understanding, so that when the time comes we can make revolution. It is only by understanding how capitalism runs against the interests of working people, of how capitalism must be fought by the working class and all others who can be united behind it and when the, people can be armed with an understanding of capitalism as the enemy – then we can advance on the road to revolution.

The capitalists always try to tell us you’re wrong to fight us because if our profits go down you’re going to go down the drain. But the only choice is to fight harder, to let their system fall down, let their profit system fall down, let the big corporations fall, tumble down into their graves. Let the big politicians who work for them tumble down, fight among themselves and get exposed. We don’t care, we’ll let them tumble down, we’ll kick them down, we’ll grind them into the ground. And then we’ll sweep away their remains and the remains of their system and we’ll build our own, our new, brighter future. A future where we workers will run the factories, produce for our needs and not for the profits of the capitalist bosses. Only by completely getting rid of this system of wage slavery and its law of profits and the system in which the capitalists own and control everything, including us and our labour can we achieve socialism. We can’t move forward step by step, gradually reforming the system. It must be revolutionary change.

Challenge Capitalism

The fundamental contradiction of the entire capitalist era is between the capitalist class and the working class. The ownership of the factories and resources are concentrated in the hands of the numerically few capitalists. The workers have no means of production and is forced to sell their labour power to the employers. This is the basis of the extraction of surplus value and the production of commodities for profit. Capitalism is characterised by a constant drive for maximum profits and accumulation. This leads to increasing competition first at home, and then worldwide. The greater the drive for maximum profits, the greater the misery of the people.

There is a war raging and it comes down to the capitalist class and the working class. The capitalist class is fairly easy to identify. They are the handful of millionaires who own or control the-milk, factories, mines, fields and banks of our country. They are the class that owns and sells the products that we make and often can’t even afford to buy. We sell our labour to this class for a wage. The government is run by the capitalists for the purpose of maintaining the flow of profits. This is done in a lot of ways.  A system of courts and police protect the property and the profits of the capitalists from the struggling working class. Injunctions and court writs against strikes and picket lines. The government protects the boss’s right to practically dictate the terms of employment to us. The labour movement includes all of us who are trying organise the whole working class under the banner of “An Injury to One is an Injury to All!” The war between the capitalist class and the working class is due to the system of wage slavery. For the young workers, first looking for a job, the middle-aged workers with families feed, and the older workers who are just holding on until retirement, the capitalists have what we can’t live without. Jobs. We have to eat. To eat we have to work. To work we have to work for the capitalists. To work for the boss we have to accept his terms. We are slaves of the wage system.

The material conditions of work served to unify the working class to fight the capitalists as a class. In many countries there has developed trade unions for self-defence. However, the immediate struggle of the proletariat is to overthrow the  bourgeoisie and establish socialism. Socialism will mark the end of classes and private property and as socialist production is built and the material reality of society changes, so will the mental outlook of individuals. Commodity production, that is, production for sale or exchange on the market, will not exist. The system of wage labor will be abolished and the guiding principle of labor will be “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” The means of production will be held communally and private property will be eliminated. National chauvinism, sexism and religious beliefs in all its forms will melt away. The creative potential of the millions of working people will be unleashed with their direct participation in the direction and decision making in society.  With the abolition of classes and class distinctions, all social and political inequality arising from them will disappear. The conflicts of interest between workers and farmers, town and country, manual and intellectual labor will disappear. As classes will not exist, the state will not be necessary as an instrument of class rule and will wither away. A new man and a new woman will be born in the building of a new, socialist society.  Society will share a communist consciousness, with the social relationships between people above-board and principled. Work will be voluntary and as the way of life rather than only as a means of survival. The forces of production will be unleashed and there will be high standards of social wealth. There will be profound advances made in the fields of education, art, culture and science, as the people are set free to pursue these endeavours.

The working  class is made up of men and women from all regions of the world. We work everywhere, in mines and in mills, in factory plants and sweat-shops, on ships and on trains, in warehouses, in stores and in offices, and many of us are unable to obtain work. But for all these differences, we are members of one class. We face a common situation and have a common destiny. It is the toil of the working class that produces the great wealth of the world, that makes everything run. But doing all this, we are robbed of its fruits by the ruling class of capitalists who run the government and all of society in their own interests. We produce, and the very wealth we produce becomes a weapon in the hands of our enemy, more wealth for the capitalists, more chains on the working class. We produce in common and in common we are exploited. We share the same goal. We want a good life for ourselves and our families and a bright future for our children. Yet we don’t want it at the expense of our brothers and sisters, but for the common benefit of all working people and the advancement of humanity. We can build this good life and bright future, but we must be free to do so, free of the leeches who feast upon the very blood of the workers. We aim to challenge the system of wage slavery itself.

A new approach to labour?

Our provincial Conservatives are pushing for a new approach to labour in order to attract manufacturing jobs back to the province. Unfortunately, it looks a lot like the 'Right to work' legislation adopted by many states below the border. MPP Monte McNaughton said, " There are three things that are holding Ontario back; sky-high energy prices, growing debt and deficits, and outdated labour laws." Translation : anything that pays a living wage, demands a safe working environment and comes with benefits must go. We are going backwards, isn't it time to move on from this system? John Ayers.

Unite For Workers Power

Are the social problems which we find a result of some fundamental wrong in our system or are they unrelated issues, each of which must be solved separately? Do insecurity, low wages, and industrial strife grow out of some basic maladjustment of the existing system of production or does each have a separate cause for which we must find a separate remedy? In a genuinely civilised society there would be no conflicting economic interests. There would be neither master nor servant, employer nor employee, rich nor poor. While these divisions remain civilisation is merely a name. A war of between  classes has raged throughout the ages. The present class struggle will end when the causes that give rise to it are removed. The economic structure of society must be remodeled and refashioned before the basis for a real civilisation can be laid. The capitalist is not his brothers keeper unless they keep him in fat dividends. When the employer cannot make profits out of his work-force he turns them out. The capitalists own the means by which we live and thus we are at their mercy in no less degree than were our ancestors in the days of slavery or serfdom.

The opposite of low wages are big profits and it is the  result of the capitalist system. The ruling class would like the workers to forget these things. The power to hire and fire the workers, to give carries with it the power to compel the workers to work for such wages as will leave the capitalists a profit from their labors. Society possesses a vast complex industrial organisation with ramifications in every nook and corner of the world  and tentacles that reach into every part of our lives. What is its purpose? Why does it exist? What motive drives it forward? The evils of the present social order are the product of a system in which the supreme purpose is the taking of profits. The business of making profits is shrouded in great mystery by the capitalists. They seek to make the workers believe that it is through some occult power that they make the processes of production yield them profits and build up great fortunes for them. There is no mystery about the source of profits. The capitalists do not create wealth out of the air in juggling with industry. They make profits because they purchase the labour-power of the workers for less than the value of the goods the workers produce; that is, they do not pay the workers the full value of their labour. There is no other way of making profits out of industry The lower the wages for which the capitalists can purchase the labour-power of the workers and the longer their hours of labour, the greater will be the capitalist’s profits. The ownership of industry is the source of the power of the profit-seeking class. It gives them control over the necessities of life and thereby control over people who are dependent upon the wages they earn for a living. The existing capitalist system is a huge profit-making machine.

The workers naturally seek to increase their wages and reduce their hours of labour. They endeavour to secure for themselves more of the wealth they produce and better working conditions. The capitalists resist. They see their profits menaced by the workers’ demands. The workers organise their power and refuse to work unless their demands are granted and we have a strike with all its accompaniments of stopping of production, misery and suffering for the workers, often rioting and bloodshed when the capitalists call upon the coercive force of the government to assist them in forcing the workers into submission.

The men of supposed “superior brains” at the head of great corporate organisations , as a rule, do
not contribute anything to the work of production carried on by these industries. At best their work consists of carrying on the competitive cheating of rivals and of devising shrewd schemes through which the workers can be deprived of more of what they produce. At worst, they are merely costly figureheads, drawing fortunes as salaries and rendering no service even from the standpoint of the profit system, lending little more than their reputation to offer respectability to businesses. The actual task of carrying on the work of production and distribution is in the hands of lesser managers, who are paid salaries for the work they perform, and not because they hold dominant financial positions.

The idea that Socialism would be established through a series of legislative acts extending gradually possibly over decades has been shown to be an illusion. Socialism will not be legislated into existence by reforms. The role of Parliament will is the stamp of approval to legitimise the will of the majority. The struggle of the working class will  be a political struggle for control of the state because it must gain control of the government before it can hope to establish industrial democracy. For the working-class to endeavor to take control of industry while all the repressive power of the class state remained in the hands of the capitalist class would be to invite destruction. The way for the workers to achieve economic freedom is through building a class conscious political movement which will carry on the work of educating the workers to an understanding of the system of exploitation which now exists and the class character of the government and to organize the workers for the struggle to wrest control of the government out of the hands of the capitalist class.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain can perhaps be the medium through which this work shall be done. The workers should give it their support. At the same time it is also a vital  part of the work of the workers to build up organisations in the industries themselves, having as their goal to supersede the capitalists in the control and running of industry.

Food for thought

If dangerous, toxic toys are let on the market, Canadian law can get them off the market and out of harm's way. The same applies to dangerous tools, clothing, and food. But the same does not apply to prescription drugs. Health Canada can only 'negotiate' with the manufacturers, a process that can take months, even years. All this depends on the power of the lobby that the industry is willing to mount against common sense – but, then, whoever said this system is about common sense! John Ayers.

Cambodia was to be a model for fair labour practices?

In the 'don't get your hopes up' category, The Toronto Star (October 20) started an article on the plight of the Cambodian garment workers with, "With a growing role in the global garment trade, Cambodia was to be a model for fair labour practices. Its people finally had hope for a better standard of living. So why are workers still struggling to eke out an existence?" Why indeed? Obviously the people at the Star do not understand capitalist economics. If there is something lower, capital will flow there naturally like water flowing downhill. China is outsourcing its clothing orders to Bangladesh. If Cambodia can't get lower than Bangladesh in wages, conditions of work, labour and safety legislation, etc., you are out of luck. There are always greener pastures for capital, until, that is, we, the workers wake up and make all property and the resources therein the common heritage of all mankind. Let's do it! John Ayers

Remember Bruce at Bannockburn? What For?

June 24th 2014 will mark the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn which was just one of many battles between competing Anglo-Norman dynasties for the Scottish crown.

 The de Brus family had ties both north and south of the border. The abbey of Guisborough in Northumberland was a Bruce foundation. Bruce "the competitor" was involved a great deal with the English court and held extensive lands in England. he acted as a justiciar for Edward in the north of England. His son also was involved in the English court and was keeper of Carlisle castle for a while. The young Robert Bruce was brought up at Edward's court and had extensive knowledge of it and was also a favorite of Edward.  He, along with most Scottish nobles, changed sides on more than one occasion depending upon how the wind blew.

Scotland and Scots have been central to the great humanising and democratising strands of British history but their stories are rarely told.

Beside St Andrew's House stands the Old Calton Cemetery and in it, is an obelisk. It's a memorial to Thomas Muir, and colleagues, transported to Australia for campaigning for universal suffrage, who then escaped and participated in the French Revolution of “Liberty Equality and Fraternity”. Inscribed on it are his words:
"I have devoted myself to the cause of The People. It is a good cause - it shall ultimately prevail - it shall finally triumph."

If we need a founding myth, that's where to start, with and for the people, facing the future. Not remembering medieval noblemen squabbling over the right to rule the peasants. Bruce at Bannockburn never fought for the people - he fought to place a crown upon his head.

Getting away Scot-free

In England, Northern Ireland and Wales deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs) come into use in March. Aimed at encouraging firms to report themselves in the early stages of discovering potentially illegal behaviour, DPAs allow companies to avoid criminal prosecution if they adhere to strict conditions set by a judge. They are American-style “plea bargain” agreements. DPAs from the London-based Serious Fraud Office (SFO) or England’s Crown Prosecution Service also carry the possibility of a so-called “global settlement”, which would protect firms from prosecution in the United States and other countries. Without it, firms face the possibility of defending the same charges in multiple ­jurisdictions. Also without it there is the claim that companies will “sweep things under the carpet”.

Pause for a moment and ponder the facts. Businesses that commit crimes such as bribery or money laundering, report themselves and impose a fine upon themselves, often less than the actual illegal profits, and subsequently the wrong-doers evade prosecution which in many cases would put them out of business.

So i will rob burglarise your house, make off with your valuables, turn myself in, pay compensation to the government, and will have no criminal record, escape the disgrace and dishonour and continue pretending to be a law biding citizen, permitting me to commit the same action once again. Not a bad deal if it applied to all criminals and not just the corporate ones. Isn’t the usual condemnation of an embezzler by the judge that he or she abused their position of trust and regardless of confession and  consequent re-payment,  they must face the penalty and be punished. Capitalism has created a cheat's charter.

AJJ

It’s nobody’s fault, is it?

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, a man from the low-lying island of Kiribati has a court case citing that the rising seas that have forced him from his home. Although he is bound to lose (it's nobody's fault, is it?), it does bring attention to the problem of what to do with the 200 million to one billion people expected to be displaced over the next fifty years. Without the publicity of court cases like this and other strategies, the environmental question is dying a death in the capitalist newspapers. John Ayers.

Food for thought

Canada finally has some allies. No longer is its government alone in trying to delay, diminish, or destroy (Canada's three D's rather than the three R's of environmental responsibility) every environmental conference and piece of legislation to deal with the problem. Now  Australia and Japan have joined in. Last week, Japan, the fifth largest emitter of greenhouse gases announced it was slashing plans to reduce those gases from 25% to 3.8% and since shuttering its nuclear stations will be expected to rely much more on fossil fuels and Australia's prime minister, Tony Abbott, received a congratulatory telegram from our prime minister for gutting the country's carbon tax. Also, reported in The New York Times (Nov 10) Peru's forests are being gobbled up at an unprecedented rate even though preservation of the Amazon basin is considered a key in combating global warming and the Peruvian government has passed laws to protect its forests. As much as eighty per cent of wood exported from the country is done so illegally. In Canada, our Prime Minister Harper has said, "In this party (Conservative), we will not accept that environmental protection must stop economic development." That's political speak for doing nothing. Does anyone really think that a capitalist system will ever get serious about spending money on cleaning anything up? John Ayers.

Nationalisation is not socialism

The modern state as it is often portrayed  is not representative of Society. It is as Marxists would describe a class state. Socialism which leaves the working class as a subject class is not socialism and the path to socialism is not via state ownership. State-capitalism is not an abandonment of capitalism: it is a version of capitalism. Some political commentators misleadingly designated as state-socialism. Whenever the state nationalises an industry, whenever the state imposes its control over industry, many naively accepted this as a rejection of capitalism. What was ending was not capitalism, but the laissez faire, free enterprise, capitalism. What came was not Socialism nor a step towards socialism, but state- capitalism. Socialism, it must be emphasised, abolishes the state; industry is not transformed into the state, but state and industry, as now constituted, are transformed into socialism, functioning industrially and socially through new administrative norms of the organised producers, a co-operative commonwealth, associations,  and not through the state.  Nationalisation is not not socialism and never can become socialism. The State regulates and directs capital and labour and just as the worker must combat his or her employer, the worker is in conflict with the State as the employer. State ownership and control of industry is scarcely  less obnoxious than capitalist ownership and control, just a different form of industrial autocracy, or ‘ wage slavery’  Socialism can only be established after capturing political power, and that this could be achieved only by political and not by industrial action.

Often the Left reformers will use the lure of nationalisation under workers control - state-capitalism is “democratised” ,  placing industry “in the hands of the people.” They define socialism as a system based on extensive state ownership and a certain participation by the population in decision-making. Any form of capitalism is fundamentally and necessarily undemocratic. It strengthens the state and weakens the workers. The capitalist state must not be strengthened but weakened by socialist parliamentary criticism and action; the state must be undermined and dragged down by the developing class power and struggles of the working class by all the general means of action at its disposal. State ownership takes all control away from the workers and leaves them at the mercy of unsympathetic government ministers or public board appointees.

Opponents of socialism frequently say as a objection that there are different kinds of socialists and different kinds of socialism. They are wrong

The Crisis

The capitalist class owns and controls the economic resources of the world. They will strive to perpetuate their power at all costs. Privation in the midst of plenty is the distinguishing mark of the capitalist system of production. The capitalist system cannot ensure the harmonious growth of the economy, cannot ensure work and well being for all the working people, cannot avoid economic crises and the destruction of the productive forces created by the sweat and blood of the working people. Socialists concern themselves with analysing the capitalist system, pointing out its defects and advocating the replacing of the capitalist system by the common ownership and democratic administration of the means of production and distribution. Socialism does not advance necessarily in response to or because of great industrial distress. These crises may point out the fact that something is wrong, but the suggestion of the remedy and the cure for these ills is quite a different problem.

The strategy of employers in the conditions of a recession is aimed at intensifying exploitation, further increasing the concentration of capital and production, carrying out various changes to create the best conditions for the extraction of maximum profits, shifting capital to the areas of maximum capitalist profit whether at home or abroad and stepping up its contention for markets and sources of raw materials with its rivals. The exploitation of the workers at the place of work is being intensified through the cutting of real wages, imposition of redundancies, the intensification of labour through speed-ups and introduction of new technology, the imposition of worse working conditions, and so on, facilitated by the pressure of the vast reserve army of the unemployed. State expenditure is being transferred away from social spending such as on health, education, welfare, to boost the profits of the corporations, and the burden of direct and indirect taxation is being increased to cover the increased state expenditure as a whole.

Business leaders pretend that they have the solution to the crisis and promising recovery as long as it is provided by the workers accepting the shifting of the burden of the crisis onto their backs. The employers demand further sacrifices of the workers in terms of further reduction in real wages, further increases in productivity as the condition of ensuring recovery. The reality, however, is that the capitalists have little control over the course of the crisis; the demand that the workers accept further unemployment and further speed-ups and further reductions in real wages, social services, benefits, etc., is simply a demand that the workers pay the price of the crisis so as to ensure the recovery of profits which is the real concern of the 1%.

The working class should not harbour any illusions about a recovery. The motive of capitalist production is profit and the only recovery for the bourgeoisie is recovery of profits. Such a recovery will not alter at all the condition of the working class as wage slaves, or change the conditions of the exploited in relation to the exploiters. In fact, the recovery of the profits of the ruling class can only take place on the basis of the further intensification of exploitation, the further impoverishment and ruin of the people, with a higher unemployment and an increase in poverty of the working class.

Crises are an inherent feature of capitalism and cannot be eliminated without eliminating the root, the capitalist system. The Left  propose that crises  could be made a thing of the past by means of nationalisation. They argue that the setting up of a nationalised coal industry, a nationalised electricity industry, the nationalisation of steel, industry could be planned and regulated and organised and, as a result, the anarchy of production crises would be eliminated. The course of these industries confirms that state-ownership does not eliminate the anarchy of production but in fact can aggravate it. The anarchy of production and crisis will not be eliminated without putting an end to the capitalist system, thereby removing the contradiction which is at its root, the contradiction between the social character of production and the private capitalist appropriation.

The motive of capitalist production is the securing of maximum profits. Production of goods is in fact an incidental aim of capitalism, as is employment. The capitalist organises production for the purposes of increasing profits. When conditions are such that profits can be increased by increasing production, business does so, and when conditions are such that profits can only be increased by cutting back production to keep up the price, then that is what business does. Thus if it serves to increase profits to increase the numbers of workers in production, then this is done; but if profits can only be increased by intensifying exploitation, getting more or the same amount of work out of fewer workers, then this is done instead. These fundamental features of the capitalist system cannot be eliminated without removing the capitalist system itself.  Workers in every country are being forced to bear the burden of the capitalist crisis and that this crisis proves the necessity to put an end to the capitalist system. All the capitalist parties, all the parties dedicated to the continuation of the capitalist system of wage slavery, are against the interests of the working class. The workers can only wage their struggle in opposition to these forces. In particular the struggle cannot be one simply to remove the Tory government and replace it by a Labour government. They both deny the crisis is the result of the capitalist system but instead merely a result of mistaken policies or maverick traders of this or that individual, manager or government. The Labour Party preach reformism to the workers. The Tories preaches submission, both pretend they will improve the lot of the workers by bringing jobs and prosperity.

Revolution is not only a possibility, it is a necessity. The class struggle must be deepened and strengthened.

Scientists for Peace

END CAPITALISM - END WAR

Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) have written to the organisers of Edinburgh International Science Festival urging them to cut their financial ties to major arms company, Selex ES.

The Festival – which is one of the UK’s leading organisers of science education activities for school children – lists as one of its major funding partners, Selex ES.

Selex ES manufactures a wide variety of military equipment including unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) and targeting systems for combat aircraft and warships. Its annual sales total €3.5 billion. It is a subsidiary of Finmeccanica – one of the world’s largest arms companies. In 2009, one of the Selex family of companies secured a deal with the authoritarian regime of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya for border security equipment worth €300 million. Selex also has a subsidiary in Saudi Arabia, another authoritarian country.

The SGR open letter reads “It is factors such as these which lead us to conclude that Selex ES plays a key role in supporting militaristic activities of both Western governments and governments with major human rights problems. We believe it is entirely inappropriate for a company with such a background to sponsor a science festival aimed at children.”

Dr Stuart Parkinson, Executive Director of SGR, said “Arms companies should not have a role in science education events for children. We should be encouraging children to see science and technology as a means to help tackle pressing social and environmental problems, not finding new ways to wage war.”

Latest figures reveal that global military spending currently exceeds $1.7 trillion a year. This is an enormous amount of money, especially considering that urgent global problems such as poverty and environmental damage do not receive anything like the resources they need to tackle them. The UN Secretary-General recently remarked that “the world is over-armed and peace is under-funded”

SGR is an independent membership organisation of nearly 1,000 natural and social scientists, engineers, IT professionals and architects. It was formed in 1992. SGR’s work is focused on several issues, including security and disarmament, climate change, sustainable energy, and who controls science and technology. 

Blood Money

Socialist Courier previously reported on a mining company’s criminal neglect of safety that caused the lives of 29 workers in New Zealand, here and here .

The NZ prime minister at the time hit out at the mining company, saying it "completely and utterly failed to protect its workers"

The company was found guilty of 9 charges of health and safety breaches.  Its former chief executive Peter Whittall was also charged with 12 counts of violating labour laws following the blast. Government lawyers say they would now be dropping the charges against the CEO in exchange for a payment of 3.41 million New Zealand dollars (about £1.72m), made on behalf of company officials to victims’ families.

Anna Osborne, whose husband Milton died in the explosion, said that she has lost faith in the justice system. “It is just another slap in the face for the families,” she said, adding that “as far as I’m concerned, it’s blood money”.

Workers Pay Drop

A Workers Life

The average earner in Scotland is more than £1,700 worse off compared with three years ago. Data on wages from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that, across the UK, pay rose by 2.1 per cent in the year ending April 2013, to an average of £27,000 a year. But with inflation rising by 2.4 per cent, the figures show wages are continuing to fall behind the cost of living. While the rise in wages is higher than many expected, it is the fifth year running inflation has outpaced wages.

Union leaders in Scotland said full-time earnings had now fallen by 6.2 per cent since 2010, when inflation was factored in. The biggest fall in earnings had been for those earning the least, ensuring that income inequality was increasing, they said. In cash terms, it means the average earner is £1,753 worse off than they would have been if pay had kept pace with inflation.

Scottish Trades Union Congress general-secretary Grahame Smith said: “The ongoing squeeze on real wages is without precedent in modern times and most workers are simply not benefiting from the supposedly strengthening recovery”.

Socialism - It is all about the family

Socialism is the protest against the waste of human life. Socialists are often accused of holding the delusion of a world in which all men and women will be equal but the socialist idea is not at all incompatible with the development of individual genius and character. On the contrary, until we wish to socialise all the opportunities for healthful living, so that they are the common heritage of all. Socialism is not aiming a level playing field of mediocrity but at the equality of advantage and opportunity for every child born full and free access to every social gift, so that he or she may develop all his or her gifts. Poverty must be abolished, because it is anti-social, and denies millions  an adequate opportunity to develop their abilities. Child labour must go, because it stunts the body and the mind, destroying the physical, intellectual and spiritual forces which are essential to the highest development of a human being.

To-day the production and the exchange of wealth are functions carried on with an anti-social object, namely, the profit of a class of non-producers. That is the fundamental wrong of capitalism. That is the source of its poverty, its crime, its inefficient lives, its inequality of opportunity. No one is poor because there is not enough for all. No child  suffers hunger because there is a dearth of food . No child wears rags or goes without shoes because good clothes and shoes cannot be made in sufficient quantity to supply all. Machinery and labour and raw materials are plentiful. Those who make the bread of the world cannot eat the bread their hands have made.

If our economic activities were inspired and controlled by a social purpose, no human want would remain unsatisfied so long as there still remained productive powers. All our resources and our skill and might would be combined to meet the needs of every human being. If we found ourselves incapable of producing plenty for all, we should, if we were truly social, see to it that all shared in the dearth due to the lack of productive capacity. On the other hand, finding ourselves capable of producing infinitely more than we need, we should, if we mere truly social, see to it that all shared the advantages of our triumph as producers. We should aim to make life better, richer, happier and more beautiful for all. We should see that the result of our triumph was more beauty in the homes of all and larger leisure for all to enjoy the beauty. Inspired and controlled by the ideal of social well-being, we should see that no human being performed in pain a task which might have been performed in joy; that nothing ugly was produced which might have been made beautiful; that nothing was made which was unworthy of our best power; that our work was the worthiest, and performed under the worthiest conditions, of which we were capable.

So long as the prevailing capitalist system lasts this social ideal will remain unattainable. For capitalism is essentially anti-social. Its entire structure rests upon the production of things primarily for sale to the end that a ruling class may profit, instead of upon the social principle of production for use, for social gain, for the common good and joy of all. The only reason why men who are capable of building beautiful homes – as is shown by the palaces they build for the rich – build ugly, prison-like, gloomy tenements for themselves and their wives and children to dwell in is the fact that their labor is governed, not by the desire to attain supreme usefulness, but by the desire for profit. The only reason which explains the wanton destruction of the food for which men, women and children pine, and for lack of which they starve and die is that same anti-social thing, profit.

Production for use instead of profit, for the common good instead of for the gain of a few at the cost of the many, can only be made possible through the collective ownership of the resources of nature and the principal means of production.  Common ownership of the means of production, with democratic management, is the central demand in the World Socialist Movement.

Millions of people have practically no private property at all to-day. They do not own the things they produce.  When sickness, accident, or other misfortune, compels them to be idle for a few weeks they are reduced to dependence upon a state hand-out or private charity as the only alternatives to starvation. Even in the most prosperous times millions of people are so divorced from property of all kinds that they never have enough good food to eat, enough good clothes to wear, or decent homes in which to live.  Socialism would make it possible for every human being to have and own all the private property (common ownership) which that human being could use to advantage and without imposing any disadvantage upon another human being. The collective ownership of the principal means of social production–that is, the natural resources, the mines, factories, railways, machinery, and so on–would not take away anything from the great majority of people. True, the worker would not himself own the machine used by him, but that is his condition to-day. The workers in our great factories and workshops do not own the tools with which they labor. They do not own the raw materials upon which they labor. They do not own the places in which they labor. They do not own the things which they produce by their labor. All these are owned by an exploiting class of non-producers, whose interest it is to see that the producers get in the form of wages as little as they can manage to live upon, and produce as much more than they receive as possible. This is the inevitable interest of the owning class, because its own income is derived from that which the workers produce over and above what they receive in the form of wages.

Common ownership and democratic control of the means of production would not give the ownership of the tools of labor to the individual worker. That was once possible, in the days when production was of necessity carried on by hand labour. It is not possible with machine production, which is only carried on by the organised labour of masses of workers. But collective ownership would make it impossible for the idle few to exploit the industrious many. It would make it possible for the workers themselves to exercise an effective control over the products of their labor and their distribution. It would make certain a fuller enjoyment by the producers of the wealth they produce.

Every person can see that the principle is the same as that which governs the home. The ideal home is, indeed, only a microcosm of the ideal society - the family of Man.  In the well-regulated home there is equal care for the collective interest of the family as a whole and for the individual interest of each member. The comfort and advantage of each individual member of the family depends upon the denial of the power to monopolise many things in the home, and maintaining them as the common property of all the members, sharing. No one member could assert and exercise a right to the sole ownership and control of these things without injuring every other member of the family. On the other hand, there are many things which must be regarded as belonging to individual members, if harmony is to prevail. Every family member understands the philosophy of distribution upon which it is based. If there are things essential to the welfare and happiness of all the members of the family, the control of which by a single member would give that member a power to rule all the rest, and to deny them comfort and happiness except upon irksome and humiliating conditions, the safety of the family is only assured by making those things common to all. But things which the individual needs to own and control for the attainment of personal happiness and well-being, the ownership and exclusive use of which does not subject other members of the family to discomfort, properly belong to the individual, and the happiness of the family depends upon the ability of each individual in it to secure all such things necessary to the satisfaction of his or her wants.

The message of socialism claims for every child all the advantages of healthful and beautiful environment. It would destroy the dread fear of want. It would bestow upon every child, as its rightful heritage, opportunity to develop all its powers. It would apply the principles of the family to the society as a whole. It would end the waste of human lives by poverty, and make true wealth possible for all . It would put an end to war–the war of classes as well as the war of nations. Socialism is the enrichment of life for all and the realisation of human brotherhood. We will no longer be the slaves of fear.

For a' that, an a' that, 
It's comin yet for a' that, 
That man to man, the world, o'er 
Shall brithers be for a' that.
Robert Burns

The impoverished social bargain that lies within

Food for thought 2

Not so for the workers though. The employees are not happy and the company is, "running up against a new appreciation of what economic critics call the impoverished social bargain that lies within" (Toronto Star, Nov 24). Apparently, wages are so low that even Walmart has tried to find a solution (apart from raising the darn wages, of course!). Collection bins have appeared in the employees' backrooms with the sign, "Please donate food items here so associates (i.e. workers) can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner." This is no joke. The Cleveland Plain Dealer newspaper brought it to the public's attention asking its readers if they thought that this move was a prove of low wages. (Silly question of the year!). It garnered so much attention that Walmart felt compelled to reply, " It's unfortunate that an act of human kindness has been taken so out of context." Maybe the company can put the top executives heads together to come up with some other form of human kindness like a living wage. John Ayers,

Food for thought

The Toronto Daily Star of November 1^st. reported that Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan and Chase & Co., the world's largest bank, admitted losing $20 billion for the bank. The bank is expected to pay back $11 billion in fines and restitution for " An equally unimaginable variety of misdeeds. They include allegations of money laundering, peddling deceptive mortgages, ripping off customers with faulty investment products, and manipulating world derivative markets." Yet, it is expected that Dimon will get a raise in pay because to do otherwise would, in its directors' eyes, weaken public confidence in the bank. That's something to reflect upon when a worker might get fired for losing his boss a hundred bucks! John Ayers.

End War - End Capitalism

So long as there remain capitalists with the need to realise profits they will find themselves involved in the conflicts which are the inevitable results of capitalism.

 Our chief aim must be to warn the workers against allowing themselves to be misled by the lies of the press and the capitalists, and to remember that the worker in enemy countries is just as much a victim of capitalist oppression as they are. The war to end war is the class war. The war to end wage-slavery, to end capitalism with its evils of misery and degradation. You are called to fight in it; you cannot escape; you must take part. And until that war is ended we do not want peace—because such peace will be the peace of the beggar and the slave.

People would never support a war fought, that is, for the interests and advantages of the governing class; a war fought to protect or extend capitalist profits, and colonial  possessions Unfortunately, no ruling class ever admits going to war for such sordid objects. Every war has to be a “righteous"war, every war is for humanitarian” purposes, for “freedom”.

The causes for the war are to be found in the very process of capitalist production, distribution and exchange which creates the need for business to seek to establish control over markets, sources of raw materials and areas for exploitation.  This search comes up against the existing state boundaries which are in fact mainly based upon other and rival commercial interests. Those industrial and financial interests  first in the field have secured the main territorial advantages. The late-comers are driven to contest the advantageous positions established.

This process, unavoidable so long as capital rules, creates ceaseless conflict. The struggle does not begin when a government – serving its national corporations  – declares war on another state. It goes on all the time, taking many forms; some open, some concealed. Diplomatic intrigues, negotiations and manoeuvres, agreements and alliances between states, subsidised economic warfare, small wars waged ostensibly between small powers, actually as proxies on behalf of great ones – all these are manifestations of the same conflict. The formal declaration of war – nowadays more and more dispensed with – is merely the continuation of this same struggle in a sharper, more open form.  Victory by one group is not the end this struggle. The losses of one group are the gains of another; the temporary cessation of one conflict gives rise to the sharpening of other conflicts. War strengthens the ruling-class grip on the people.

Our policy on war  is an immediate peace to save workers lives and the little freedom we have, had handed down to us, so that the war of classes may be fully prosecuted until we have  accomplished the Co-operative Commonwealth. The duty imposed on members of the Socialist Party is that of refusing to participate in war or the preparation for war. It is necessary to point out that the fight against war is inseparable from the fight for socialism. Only the class war for the overthrow of capitalism can end wars by ending the cause of war - capitalism.

News we like to hear.

Up to half the Catholic churches across swathes of Scotland face the prospect of closure as another diocese warns of a crisis of clergy numbers and falling congregations.

The Diocese of Galloway has released figures showing the number of priests has more than halved since 1990, with the fall in churchgoers nearly as steep. The number of regular Catholic church-goers in the Galloway diocese has dropped by half since 1990 while the number of priests has fallen from 55 to 23.  Across the diocese, which covers most of south west Scotland, there is currently one priest for every two churches.

A similar tale is to be told in the Netherlands. One of the Catholic bishops of the Netherlands, told Vatican Radio they are facing the closure of hundreds of churches and an ongoing exodus of the faithful. “The number of practicing Catholics is diminishing very quickly,” Willem Jacobus Eijk Cardinal and Archbishop of Utrecht and chairman of the Dutch bishops’ conference said. “In the 1950s 90 percent of Catholics still went to church every Sunday. Now, it’s only five percent.”
This mass exodus has hit the bishops hard in their bank accounts. “The Dutch Church,” the cardinal said, “does not have a subsidy from the state but depends on voluntary contributions of the faithful. Therefore, we are forced to close many churches.”  He added. “The Church was losing the relationship with the doctrine of the faith and no longer touched people’s daily life.”

600-700 Catholic churches in the Netherlands will be decommissioned by 2018. In 2010, the group published a report that said two churches a week are closing due to lack of congregations.  According to data collected in 2008, the report said, “it is to be expected that in the near future 1,000 to 1,200 Roman Catholic and Protestant churches will be closed. Of the 170 monasteries which are still in use for religious purposes, approximately 150 will close in the next 10 years. 326 parishes are being merged into 49 “very large” territorial amalgamations in each of which one church is to be designated as a “Eucharistic centre.”

“Today shortage of priests to celebrate Mass in every church, so we have centralized the celebration of the Eucharist in one,” he said.

Niips and Tucks to Pension?

According to Jim Leech, who will soon retire as head of the Ontario Teachers' Plan, more than 60% of employed Canadians do not have a workplace pension but, if you are among the 40% who do, your plan could be underfunded by market upheavals. Your boss may have to make 'nips and tucks' to the pension you thought was guaranteed. Security may seem to be attainable in the good times but we know that never lasts and when the slump comes, anything is up for slashing or even wiping out. John Ayers.

This Fracking Process

In October there were protests against the proposed massive gas extractions from shale formations in New Brunswick. Premier David Alward said," …the development of twenty-five new wells a year could see more than $300 million investments and 500 jobs." However, the locals are more than concerned about polluted drinking water among other hazards from the fracking process but it's a losing battle against the power of capital. John Ayers.

Who Owns the North Pole - Part 68

Vladimir Putin vowed to step up Russia's military presence in the region in response to a claim by Canada to the north pole. The Russian president told his defence chiefs to concentrate on building up infrastructure and military units in the Arctic. He said the region was again key to Russia's national and strategic interests. Russia is returning to the Arctic and “intensifying the development of this promising region” so it needs to“have all the levers for the protection of its security and national interests,” Putin said at an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board. Russia is reinstating its military base in the Novosibirsk Archipelago (New Siberian Islands), which had been abandoned by the military in 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The islands “have key meaning for the control of the situation in the entire Arctic region,” Putin told the top military brass. This year, Russia has also started restoring its Arctic airfields including one called “Temp” on Kotelny Island near the city of Norilsk. It is also overhauling urban facilities in Tiksi, Naryan-Mar, and Anadyr. The country is set to continue the revival of other Russian northern airfields as well as docks on the New Siberian Islands and the Franz Josef Land archipelago, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said. 

His comments were a response to Canada, a rival Arctic power. On Monday Canada's foreign minister, John Baird, said his government had asked scientists to work on a submission to the UN arguing that the outer limits of Canada's territory include the north pole, which has yet to be claimed by any country.  Baird said it would take several years for Canada to map the continental shelf and to complete its full UN submission. "We are determined to ensure that all Canadians benefit from the tremendous resources that are to be found in Canada's far north," he said.

Canada and Russia have been stepping up their military footprint in the oil- and gas-rich region. Putin has said Russia will restore Arctic bases that fell into disrepair after the collapse of the Soviet Union, including one on the New Siberian Islands. On Tuesday he said this base and others were crucial to protecting Russia's "security and national interests".

"It's often said that the Russians act with their Arctic policy in an aggressive, nationalistic and unilateral way. The same thing can be said about the Canadians," said Andrew Foxall, director of the Russian Studies Centre at the Henry Jackson Society. "Harper has said Canada is an Arctic nation. He frequently goes up into Canada's high Arctic. There are large-scale military exercises there."

Cold Facts

One in four Scottish households are living in fuel poverty, according to a new report. 

647,000 households were fuel poor in 2012, which means energy costs more than ten per cent of their income.  170,000 households were living in extreme fuel poverty in 2012, with energy costing more than 20% of their income.

Why a political party?

What is a political party?  Most people would answer this question with something like “A bunch of windbags trying to steal as much of our tax money as they can get away with.” . But if we really want to understand the question, we have to go a little deeper – we have to ask ourselves, “Who do these parties represent?”

According to official mythology, we live in a “democracy” because we get to choose who are going to run the government; but what this really boils down to is that we get to choose which section of the ruling class is going to run the government and exploit the working people.

The Labour Party is more “liberal” – they believe in throwing the working class a few crumbs every now and then to keep them quiet; the Conservative Party is as their name implies more conservative – they’d rather use the stick than the carrot. But both parties represent the interests of the “super-rich,” the small group of people that own and control most of the wealth the working people produce in their factories etc. – and they own and control the Labour and Tory parties, too. A small group of THE immensely wealthy convince the vast majority of the population – who all work their lives away making them rich – that they have the right to decide how the country will be run when in reality the only right they have is to continue to be exploited. Socialists call this system “bourgeois democracy” (bourgeois meaning capitalist) because it’s democracy for the capitalist ruling class, but dictatorship for the working class – under our “two party” system, the working class is left out of politics altogether.

So the answer to our question “What is a political party?” is that a political party is the representative of an economic class in the political arena. The Conservatives and Labour parties both represent the capitalist economic class, and are the main tool by which that class maintains its domination and exploitation of the vast majority of the people. They’re structured entirely around winning elections, or in other words, doing a better job at fooling the people than the other party. The masses of people have no say whatsoever in the policies of either party.  The trade unions may be affiliated to the Labour Party, but this is a mere formality and it certinly doesn’t make the Labour Party a true party of labour.

Socialists think 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. Basing themselves on the Marxist theory of society, 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). Just as the bourgeois parties strive to defend and maintain capitalism and the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, a working class party would strive for socialism where the fruits of our labour, the immense social wealth we create each and every day, will be shared equally through a planned economy based on the needs of people rather than profit. We will have a society where the majority of ordinary people govern themselves rather than serve a small ruling class sitting pretty on top of the rest of society; in other words, we will have a society where democracy is a reality for the many and not a privilege of the few.

Secretary of the London Working Men’s Associalition  William Lovett describes the task of a socialist party admirably:-
 “We had seen enough of the contentions of leaders and the battles of factions; to convince us, that no sound Public Opinion, and consequently no just Government, could be formed in this country as long as men's attention was constantly directed to the useless warfare of pulling down, and setting up, of one Idol of Party after another ....
The masses, in their political organisations, were taught to look up to "Great Men" (or to men professing "greatness") rather than to great Principles. We wished therefore to establish a political school of self-instruction among them, in which they should accustom themselves to examine great social and political principles, and by their publicity and free discussion, help to form a sound and healthful public opinion throughout the country .....
We have not wished, neither do we desire to be, Leaders, as we believe that the principles we advocate have been retarded, injured or betrayed by Leadership, more than by the open hostility of opponents. Leadership too often generates confiding bigotry, or political indifference on the one hand, or selfish ambition, on the other.
The principles WE advocate are those of the peoples' happiness, and for these to be justly established, each man must Know and feel his Rights and Duties. He must be prepared to guard the one; and perform the other with cheerfulness. And if Nature has given to one Man superior faculties, to express or execute the general wish, he only performs his Duty at the Mandate of his bretheren; he is therefore the "Leader" of none, but the equal of ALL ....”

The class struggles we are forced to wage each and every day just to survive can only lead to trying to cure a cancer with a band-aid. This is because these “spontaneous”, everyday struggles only attack part of the problem (a particular corporation, a particular employer, etc.), not the problem itself – which is the capitalist system. Short-term policies will not change economic and political inequality, and repeating the strategies of the past will not bring hope to a society worn down by powerlessness and dependency. The past is mother to the present, but the future is limited only by what we can imagine. An alternative future demands new ideas and the courage to make deep changes. Let the workers remember that in every country there the same struggle is going on between the workers on the one hand, and the exploiters  on the other hand. Workers have learned  by bitter experience that industries nationalised by the State, are no cure for wage-slavery, because they are still carried on for profit; and nothing but the SOCIALISATION OF THE MEANS OF LIFE under a free Co-operative Commonwealth will abolish the present system, and give the wealth of the world to the workers of the world.

Polluted Power

Longannet in Kincardine, run by ScottishPower, was highlighted by international group the Health and Environment Alliance (Heal) as one of Europe's top polluters, according to environmentalists who claim the plant's emissions affect the health of people for hundreds of miles around by belching out thousands of tons of pollutants which travel in the atmosphere.

WWF Scotland said the report showed key health reasons for power providers to move away from coal. WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said the findings were significant. He said: "This study shows there are important health reasons why we need to be ending our reliance on coal especially. It's clear that action is needed today to cut emissions from all existing coal power stations, including Longannet."

The report claimed fumes from coal-fired power stations cause 1600 premature deaths in the UK each year and that the emissions are linked to 18,000 premature deaths in the EU each year. Heal said: "A growing body of evidence shows how early-life exposure to air pollutants is contributing to higher risks of developing chronic diseases later in life, including obesity, diabetes, and hormone related cancers."

29.8 million slaves (excluding wage slaves)

A recent survey said there are now 29.8 million slaves (excluding wage slaves) in the world today. Mauritania was the last country to abolish slavery in 1981. Today there are 140,000 slaves in Mauritania, the most enslaved country in the world. There are now 57,000 slaves in the US and 5,600 in Canada. So socialism will mean more than the abolition of capitalism. John Ayers.

Food for thought

Recently, former real estate mogul, Paul Reichmann passed away. When his company took over the Canary Wharf project in London in 1987, Reichmann believed England was on its way to a new era of prosperity under Margaret Thatcher. Contrary to his expectation, Britain slumped and so did its real estate market. So, if a guy who obviously knew his business could be so disastrously wrong, how can anyone predict how a market will perform. Forget the casino economics and opt for socialism. John Ayers.

Who Owns the North Pole - Part 68

Canadian officials confirmed Monday that the nation is preparing to include the North Pole as part of its Arctic Ocean seabed claim in the multi-country push to prove jurisdiction over further territory in the resource-rich area.

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Arctic Council chair Leona Aglukkaq officially announced Monday Canada’s claim to the extended continental shelf in the Arctic. It was reported by The Globe and Mail last week that Prime Minister Stephen Harper requested a government board charged with assessing Canada’s claims beyond its territorial waterways, per United Nations rules, to seek a more expansive stake of Arctic area to include the North Pole.

"We have asked our officials and scientists to do additional work and necessary work to ensure that a submission for the full extent of the continental shelf in the Arctic includes Canada's claim to the North Pole," Baird said during a press conference at the House of Commons.

The North Pole is 817 kilometers north of Canada’s - and the world’s - northernmost settlement, Alert, Nunavut. The town is home to a Canadian Forces station and Environment Canada station.

"Fundamentally, we are drawing the last lines of Canada. We are defending our sovereignty," Aglukkaq said, according to CBC News.

Canada has spent nearly US$200 million on the scientific-discovery process of the area, including dozens of icebreaker and helicopter trips for teams of scientists. An unmanned submarine was used to collect data below the frigid Arctic water.  About 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie in the largely untapped 18-million-square-mile Arctic region, according to the US Geological Survey, making up about 10 percent of the world's petroleum resources. The dominant portion of these resources are hidden beneath the ice that is shared between five nations bordering the Arctic: Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation and the US.

Both Russia and Canada say the resource-abundant Lomonosov Ridge, below the ocean and close to the geographic North Pole, is a natural extension of their continental shelves.
“As for the Arctic, there are not only large economic interests for the country – a huge amount of mineral resources, oil and gas,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said last week, underlining his nation’s interests in the region. “But there lies a very important part of our defense capabilities.”

Observations on Fascism

Definitions matter because imprecision leads to carelessness when clarity is necessary. The term “fascism” has been bandied about by all and sundry, to the point of risking losing its sting, its cutting edge, and becoming instead the catch-all for every social movements or the  political antics of individuals. , allowing the more dangerous causal factors, e.g., capitalism, militarism, etc., to remain in shadow  therefore neglected. Fascism comes in many forms; one size does not fit all, tempting as such an analysis might be. Nor is there an historical line drawn in the sand, the crossing of which acts to confirm the genuine article. This is merely to warn against the construction of simplistic models.  Indeed, models are a waste of energy; history is a better guide for us.

Fascism’s many guises—Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain, Hitler’s Germany; all are relevant, and perhaps even constituting a unified sequential historical phase. But that isn’t good enough, at least to account for the historical forces post-1945, although certainly beginning earlier, which define fascism in modern times. The concentration camp is no longer a sure-fire indicator, not when techniques of surveillance are being perfected and mass manipulation, particularly via consumerism and political propaganda from all quarters, has taken its place in softening the body politic and inducing conformity and complacence. Today fascism speaks with a mellow voice  and dons softened gloves, the better to achieve the regimentation of thought and opinion heretofore reliant on force. Force is externalized, propelled forward to maintain hegemonic aspirations and, on the side, enlist the populace at home into the display of fervent patriotic support, without which the total formation might stagnate, fall backward, or actually crumble.  Fascism represents sustainment of the existing structure of wealth and power whilst the political economy itself bounds ahead—that is, the conservation of the Old Order under the conditions of modern industrialism.

From Here

Some Rough Notes on Tax

The bosses have tried every imaginable remedy for the crisis. To no avail. Now they hope to find a lever to raise their profits by lowering taxes. The campaign to lower taxes has swept the bourgeois world like wildfire. Through every avenue at their command the capitalists and the landlords are clamoring for economy in government. They want “cheap government” and the support of the working class to force a curtailment of expenses. We workers are robbed as producers, robbed of the surplus labor, of the surplus value which the capitalist divide among themselves as profits, rent, interest and to pay their office boys’ (government) and for the gangster racketeers who rob the robbers.

The government (the state) operates for the benefit of the capitalists, owners of the basic means of production and circulation of all commodities and wealth. Government functions through an army of administrators and officials who must be supported. Taxation is the general method by which capitalists collect State revenues to keep the State going. Under the modern development of capitalism, however, the State has been impelled to undertake large economic tasks which private capitalists may not be able to do, such as the welfare  provisions for the young and old,  the sick and the infirm, and those unable to work, as well as construction of transport infrastructure and communications networks, research and development projects, and, of course, defence which all  call for large expenditures to be met by taxation. The government is often placed under huge debts by the capitalists so that heavy interest rates have to be paid through taxation. Taxes can assume many forms and without taxes the State could not maintain itself. Modern capitalism has also requires adequate housing, sanitation, health, and educational facilities. For this the State must impose and collect tax.

But on whom can the tax be levied? It is clear that taxes can be paid only by those who have the wherewithal to pay them. Taxes, on the whole, must be paid by the propertied classes, by the big and the small bourgeoisie who are divided into many sub-sections each one trying to throw the weight of taxation onto the others. Hence a bitter fight arises over which sections of the capitalist class shall have the dominant voice in the taxation process. A myriad of ways are found to minimize the effects or to avoid taxation by the various groups, including: tricks of omissions evasion and avoidance, exceptions, exemptions, rebates, preferences, tariff arrangements, subsidies, etc.. One thing capitalism cannot do is kill the goose that lays the golden egg; it must not destroy by taxation the overall production or productive development of the country. Since capitalism is the structure of a country’s economic strength and power, the State must not hamper too greatly that growth by taxation.

As part of the cost of business the capitalists have to pay wages. Generally the worker receives in return for the sale of his labor power to his employer wages that will buy necessities enough to: (a) replenish that labor power, (b) allow the worker to keep in reasonably good health, (c) allow the worker to go to and from work and to seek work freely, (d) allow the worker to maintain an average family to reproduce children who will survive to become the wage-slaves in the future, including the maintenance of a wife and aged parents, (e) permit the family to survive in bad time of depression and of unemployment, as well as in good times of prosperity, since both aspects are inevitable processes under capitalism.

Wages paid the workers have to be large enough to be sufficient to cover periods of unemployment and to provide for old age.  In the past often this level of wages had not been paid and long periods of unemployment have found a destitute and rebellious working class increasingly difficult to control, especially as these workers became class-conscious. Hence arises the need for establishing a compulsory unemployment saving fund that will at least partially guarantee that the wages paid will cover periods of unemployment as well.

The level and items of expenditure needed to pay for the consumption for the replenishment of lost labor power naturally can and does vary regionally and nationally and according to individual and family needs. Each people or group maintains an historic standard of living often differing markedly since a worker may replenish his labor power by consuming meat, fish, wheat, milk, beer, and vegetables, etc., or by consuming beans, bananas, and water. Within certain limits the workers’ living standards can be driven lower and lower and yet suffice to replenish the lost labor power expended in the production process. The worker must be eternally vigilant to defend his historic standards.

 Corporate profits can either be distributed as dividends, bonuses, and other payments, or may be ploughed back into the business either first accumulated as a hoard, or spent directly on re-investment. We should not let the production capitalists shift their costs on to the general public.  Workers must continue to ensure the burden of taxation falls onto the wealthy classes and does not adversely affecting the workers’ cost of living.

Wages paid workers theoretically have to cover periods of no work funds have now also been established as a permanent compulsory savings fund for old age, disability. This fund, for the most part, again is collected by business companies as part of the cost of doing business, although here not only the employer but the employee is taxed as well. The employee is never trusted to pay the bulk of the tax; the employer does it for the worker as agent of the State.

But how can the worker be taxed if his pay covers only the bare minimum for his immediate expenses? The obvious answer is that the tax can be levied and collected because the worker has already received as wages a sum sufficient to cover this tax. What the employer has given with one hand he has been very careful to take immediately back again with the other hand as agent of the State. But why all this indirection? Would it not be simpler and better were the tax levied directly on the employer and no wages increased? Let us look at the reasons  behind this indirect procedure.

In the first place, in most cases the relation between pay increases and taxation is not a simple mechanical one. The State does not decide to tax workers and then order their agents, the employers, to increase wages so as to enable the workers to pay these taxes. In most cases the workers have been able to force the wage increases first, due to favorable circumstances and struggle. It is possible for workers to increase their real wages because the economy of their country is strong and prosperous and stands in a monopolistic or imperialistic position in the world earning super-profits for employers. It is possible for workers to have strong and militant unions to threaten the employers with dire action unless wage increases are forthcoming. Employers may be attacked individually, not collectively, and in some cases may be too weak to stand the struggle of a powerful working force leveled against them. Now with such real pay increases the workers are able to pay the tax especially needed as a compulsory national insurance savings fund for old age security. At the same time their income is reduced and the power of the employer, especially as agent of the State, is reinforced.

Secondly, by first increasing the nominal pay to the worker and then taxing that increase away the State and capitalism give certain illusions to the worker: that he is the recipient of real wage raises and to some degree a property owner, and that as property owner he is like all other property owners paying taxes to a State that acts in his behalf. The State now is partly his State and he must eschew all thoughts that the State is his deadly enemy controlled only by enemy classes. He can be induced to take part in the large number of taxation struggles and make them a decisive part of his political activity, rather than concentrating on the employer.

Taxes levied directly on business would be considered part of overhead expenses and reduce net profits accordingly, other things being equal. Taxation on the payroll however, forcing an increase in the payroll to meet the charge of taxes, causes an increase in the cost of production upon which the average rate of profits is to be calculated, other things being equal. Such a tax thus may increase prices and profits. Taxation thus has a great influence on the price and profit structures. It must be said that the workers have not opposed these “transfer” taxes, in fact they demand a greater unemployment compensation tax on employers so that they can receive full pay for the entire period of their unemployment. It is different with taxes levied for social security and medicare. Here the working class wants the whole tax paid by the employers. Also the working class violently objects to the mass of fraud and corruption, the inefficiency and waste by which the tax funds are dissipated, with cheating employers and professionals ripping off billions of dollars annually and workers deprived of the adequate care they need and expect.

Some taxes are hidden in prices. Excise duty on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, for instance. Then there is VAT (or purchase tax or sales tax) on particular goods.  This is the principle tax on consumers,  levied through retailers on the consumer when sales are made. Here it is the merchant who is the agent of the State, who collects the tax and must turn it over to the authorities. If such a tax is on luxury, the working class is little concerned  If the tax is on necessities which raise the cost of living, it is a blow at the sufficiency of the wage structure and the historic standard of living. This might bring protests on whose backs the regressive tax falls most heavily. The workers try to shift the burden of the sales tax on to the employer by securing compensation cost of living wage increases; but generally the cost of living rises first and the wage levels rise belatedly after. If the workers have developed a pay scale already higher than adequate to meet the costs of replenishing their labour power, then the sales tax is an act by the State to strip the workers down to that minimum level which the employers by themselves were not able to do. Again the State comes in to help the employer while a good part of the sales taxes goes for purposes to favour employers objectives.

 Consumer taxes abound and large sections of the unemployed or poor cannot shift these consumer taxes on to the employer. They can only demand a belated relief by increases the in unemployment, sickness or pension benefits which can be won only with the help of the working class also adversely affected.

Food for thought

An Socialist Party od Canada member's wife works at the Food Bank. To quote, " One lady came in, she was wearing very good clothes, very nice make-up and was very attractive, professional looking. After I had finished helping her with choosing food, she started to cry. She was embarrassed about having to go to a Food Bank. Possibly she had lost her job, probably a good one, and had to resort to this." Not only does capitalism create insecurity, but it can be damn humiliating. John Ayers