Marx and Economix

Marx saw the aim of the working-class party as the preparation for and organisation of revolution – the overthrow of the ruling class of capitalist – and the organisation of a new system of production, socialism. A working-class party explains why, so long as capitalist production, continues, the struggle between classes must also go on, while economic crises and wars inflict terrible sufferings on the workers; but that the conflict and sufferings can be ended by changing the system of production, which involves the overthrow of the capitalist class.

Capitalism evolved out of feudal times. The typical feudal form of production was production for local consumption: food, clothing and other articles were produced by the serfs for themselves and for their feudal lords. Any surplus was sold in exchange for articles brought in from other countries or from other parts of the country. But the main part of production was still for consumption by the producers and the lord who had feudal rights over it.

When the feudalism began to break up that this form of production gradually gave way to production for profit, which is the essential mark of capitalism. Production for profit required two things: someone with enough resources to buy means of production (looms, spinning-machines and so on); and, secondly, people who had no means of production themselves, no resources by using which they could live. In other words, there had to be “capitalists,” who owned means of production, and workers whose only chance of getting a livelihood was to work the machines owned by the capitalists.

The workers produced things, not directly for themselves or for the personal use of their new “lord,” the capitalist, but for the capitalist to sell for money. Things made in this way are called “commodities” – that is, articles produced for sale on the market. The worker received wages, the employer received profit – something that was left after the consumer had paid for the articles, and after the capitalist had paid wages, the cost of raw materials and other costs of production.

What was the source of this profit? Marx pointed out that it could not possibly come from the capitalists selling the products above their value – this would mean that all capitalists were all the time cheating each other, and where one made a “profit” of this kind the other necessarily made a loss, and the profits and losses would cancel each other out, leaving no general profit. It therefore followed that the value of an article on the market must already contain the profit: the profit must arise in the course of production, and not in the sale of the product.

There has to be some factor in production which adds value greater than its cost (its own value). What is meant by “value.” In ordinary language, value can have two quite distinct meanings. It may mean value for use by someone – a thirsty man “values” a drink or a particular item may have a special  “sentimental value” for someone. But there is also another meaning in ordinary use – the value of a thing when sold on the market, by any seller to any buyer, which is what is known as its “exchange value.” What gives products their normal “exchange value” on the market? Why, for example, has a yard of cloth more exchange value than a pin?

Exchange value is measured in terms of money; an article is “worth” a certain amount of money. But what makes it possible for things to be compared with each other in value, whether through money or for direct exchange? Marx pointed out that things can only be compared in this way if there is something common to all of them, of which some have more and some less, so that a comparison is possible. This common factor is obviously not weight or colour or any other physical property; nor is it “use value” for human life (necessary foods have far less exchange value than motor cars) or any other abstraction. There is only one factor common to all products – they are produced by human labour. A thing has greater exchange value if more human labour has been put into its production; exchange value is determined by the “labour-time” spent on each article.

But, of course, not the individual labour-time. When things are bought and sold on a general market, their exchange value as individual products is averaged out, and the exchange value of any particular yard of cloth of a certain weight and quality is determined by the “average socially necessary labour-time” required for its production.

If this is the general basis for the exchange value of things produced under capitalism, what determines the amount of wages paid to the actual producer, the worker? Marx put the question in precisely the same way: what is the. common factor between things produced under capitalism and labour-power under capitalism, which we know also has an exchange value on the market? There is no such factor other than the factor which we have already seen determines the exchange value of ordinary products – the labour-time spent in producing them. What is meant by the labour-time spent in producing labour-power? It is the time (the average “socially necessary” time) spent in producing the food, shelter, warmth and other things which keep the worker from week to week. In normal capitalist society, the things necessary to maintain the family of the worker have also to be taken into account. The labour-time necessary for producing all these things determines the exchange value of the worker’s labour-power, which he sells to the capitalist for wages.

But while, in modern capitalist society, the time spent in maintaining the worker’s labour-power may be only four hours a day, his power to labour lasts eight, ten or more hours a day. For the first four hours each day, therefore, his actual labour is producing the equivalent of what is paid to him in wages; for the remaining hours of his working day he is producing “surplus value” which his employer appropriates. This is the source of capitalist profit – the value produced by the worker over and above the value of his own keep – that is, the wages he receives.

The term “exchange value” has been used, because this is the basis of the whole analysis. But in actual life things hardly ever sell at precisely their exchange value. Whether material products or human labour power, they are bought and sold on the market at a price, which may be either above or below the correct exchange value. There may be a surplus of the particular product on the market, and the price that day may be far below the correct exchange value; or, if there is a shortage, the price may rise above the value. These fluctuations in price are, in fact, influenced by “supply and demand,” and this led many capitalist economists to think that supply and demand was the sole factor in price. But it is clear that supply and demand only cause fluctuations about a definite level. What that level is, whether it is one penny or a hundred pounds, is clearly not determined by supply and demand, but by the labour-time used in producing the article.

The actual price of labour-power – the actual wages paid – is also influenced by supply and demand; but it is influenced by other factors as well – the strength of trade union organisation in particular. Nevertheless, the price of labour-power in ordinary capitalist society always fluctuates around a definite level – the equivalent of the worker’s keep, taking into account that the various grades and groups of workers have varying needs, which are themselves largely the result of previous trade union struggles establishing a standard above the lowest minimum standard for existence. The labour-power of different grades of workers is not, of course, identical in value; an hour’s work of a skilled engineer produces more value than an hour’s work of an unskilled labourer. Marx showed that such differences were in fact accounted for when articles were sold on the market, which, as he put it, recorded a definite relation between what the more skilled worker made in an hour and what the labourer made in an hour.

How does this difference in value come about? Marx answers: not on any “principle” that skill is ethically better than lack of skill or any other abstract notion. The fact that a skilled worker’s labour-power has more exchange value than the labourer’s is due to exactly the same factor that makes a steamship more valuable than a rowing-boat – more human labour has gone to the making of it. The whole process of training the skilled worker, besides the higher standard of living which is essential for the maintenance of his skill, involves more labour-time.

Another point to note is that if the intensity of labour is increased beyond what was the previous average, this is equivalent to a longer labour-time; eight hours of intensified labour may produce values equivalent to ten or twelve hours of what was previously normal labour.

What is the importance of the analysis made by Marx to show the source of profit? It is that it explains the class struggle of the capitalist period. In each factory or other enterprise the wages paid to the workers are not the equivalent of the full value they produce, but only equal to about half this value, or even less. The rest of the value produced by the worker during his working day (i.e. after he has produced the equivalent of his wages) is taken outright by his employer. The employer is therefore constantly trying to increase the amount taken from the worker. He can do this in several ways: for example, by reducing the worker’s wages; this means that the worker works a less proportion of the day for himself, and a greater proportion for the employer. The same result is achieved by “speeding up” or intensifying the labour – the worker produces his keep in a smaller proportion of the working day, and works a larger proportion for his employer. The same result, again, is achieved by lengthening the working day, which increases the proportion of the working day spent in working for the employer. On the other hand, the worker fights to improve his own position by demanding higher wages and shorter hours and by resisting “speeding up.” Hence the continuous struggle between the capitalists and the workers, which can never end so long as the capitalist system of production lasts.

 Also to be noted is that the “surplus value” created by the worker in the course of production is not all kept by his employer. It is, so to speak, a fund from which different capitalist groups take their pickings – the landowner takes rent, the banker takes interest, the middleman takes his “merchant’s profit,” and the actual industrial employer only gets what is left as his own profit. This in no way affects the preceding analysis; it only means that all these capitalist sections are, as it were, carrying on a certain subsidiary struggle among themselves for the division of the spoils. But they are all united in wanting to get the utmost possible out of the working class.

Then there is another most important factor in the development of capitalism – competition. Like all other factors in capitalist production, it has two contradictory results. On the one hand, because of competition to win larger sales of products, each capitalist enterprise is constantly trying to reduce production costs, especially by saving wages – through direct wage reductions or by speeding-up or other forms of rationalisation. On the other hand, those enterprises which succeed in getting enough capital to improve their technique and produce with less labour are thereby contributing to the general process described above – the reduction of demand owing to the total wages paid out being reduced.

Nevertheless, the enterprise which improves its technique makes a higher rate of profit for a time – until its competitors follow suit and also produce with less labour. But not all its competitors can follow suit. As the average concern gets larger and larger, greater amounts of capital are needed to modernise a plant, and the number of companies that can keep up the pace grows smaller. The other concerns on to the wall – they become bankrupt and are either taken over by their bigger competitors or are closed down altogether. “One capitalist kills many.” Thus in each branch of industry the number of separate concerns is steadily reduced: big corporations appear, which more or less dominate a particular field of industry. Thus out of capitalist competition comes its opposite – capitalist monopoly.

Fewer Festive Feasts

 Desperate Scots are turning to food banks and soup kitchens in soaring numbers across the country, new research has found. More than 20,000 people have received food handouts in the last six months alone Hundred of people in Glasgow are expected to go hungry over the festive period, with the numbers turning to food banks at a worrying high. New figures from charity The Trussell Trust, which runs four food banks in the city, show the numbers accessing their lifeline services has more than doubled. Some 27,603 meals have been handed out by just three food banks in the city in the last three months. Since September, 1417 have been fed by the Truss-ell Trust food bank in Scotstoun, 1365 by the Govanhill branch and 285 by the service in Parkhead. That is 29 people a day, compared to 12 people a day in the first six months of 2013/14.There are more than 15 food banks in the city run by other groups and churches. 

A Scottish Government report identified 55 food banks and soup kitchens in eight towns and cities, but the overall Scotland-wide figure is likely to be much higher.

Many Scots turning to food banks in recent years are not long-term homeless, but have run into “one-off” money difficulties, as wages slump and benefits fall. Ewan Gurr, Scotland Development Officer with the Trust explained “The number of men, women and children living on a financial knife-edge due to a lethal cocktail of rising living costs, welfare reform and minimal employment opportunities is unacceptable...”

Common Work for the Common Pot

Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.

Even the bosses can’t cover up the fact that the world economy is still deep in a crisis.  But the bosses are keeping up their drive for profits. Workers know all about their “solution” to the problem: cuts in wages and pensions, redundancies and  closures to rationalise, new technology and faster and faster automation, direct government subsides to prop up profits. To protect their profits, the bosses are at our throats more fiercely than ever before. They’re using the situation to eliminate job security for everyone, including the older workers supposedly protected by seniority. Everywhere the bosses are putting these men in harder jobs in order to force them out – out of a job as well as out of a pension that they have contributed to for half a lifetime. The management sharks replace them with some of the millions of unemployed who are looking for work. The new workers are offered new temporary or zero-hour contracts that provide no protection at all, and are often fired at the end of three months “probation”. It’s happening in every in. All this is happening while the profit keep on rolling in and stashed safely away from the tax-man in some off-shore haven

Work is human activity for the purpose of useful production. Work has always been the basis for human life, the creator of man's well-being and culture. Employment is toiling for  capitalists  and being exploited by them.  The term work ought to be reserved for voluntary activity and the welfare of society. Work is a means not only for creating goods that support the existence of mankind and society, but also for the self-improvement of the individual and of humanity. There is no really human existence imaginable without work. But drudgery is the enemy of human dignity and self-development. As a rule we dislike labour for the purposes of others, forced activity not of our choice.

 It is true that wage employment appears like voluntary work, but it is not. Slavery was enforced by superior power; and similarly  no independent peoples have ever been found who would voluntarily work for wages. Indeed, it was by deceitfully calling wage labour “free labour”. People did not jump at it, but reluctantly and with a certain amount of resistance, they accepted the new conditions because they had no longer possessed their own means of livelihood, having had them forcibly removed. The new wage-slaves could be goaded into twofold or threefold more efforts than chattel slaves could ever be forced to furnish. The latter could not forget that the laws of nature in them rebelled against doing their full measure of possible performance. But wage slaves would forget it under the deceptive appearance of freedom; they would still more refuse to listen to the warning voice not to sacrifice health, longevity, and comfort for the profit of capitalists. They would, regardless of consequences, overwork themselves in the hope of saving in a comparatively short time sufficient wealth to become themselves capitalists or “self-made men.” Stifling that inner voice, the wage-slaves were gradually rendered more helpless, and, unaware of their dignity as free individuals , constrained themselves to perform labour of the most uniform, mind-killing, disgusting, and brutalising kind, and to become slaves of machines, parts of a machine, employed by the machine, and stimulated to work as quick as the machine would command, all for the benefit of the profit-mongers. Every year statistics publish the annual catalogues of death, disablement and disease suffered by workers in the cause of profit.

Have your noticed how much labour the boss wants you to do for a living? Every time there is the slightest excuse, he increases the hours. One excuse seems to be as good as another. If there is a big demand for products, he wants you to work overtime to get the stuff out; while if there is a slack market, the employer suggests that you put in an extra hour or so to cheapen the cost of production. He claims that he cannot afford to pay you the wages you have been getting unless you make more profit for him. If a new process is installed, he wants you to work overtime in order to pay for putting it in; and if the process saves labour, he points out to you that you have to work longer now, because it would be a waste of his machinery if it is idle.

In the displacement of labour by machinery, the performing by a machine of work hitherto done by human beings, we should always remember that it is not the machine, nor its inventor that is at fault. The fault lies in the system which permits individuals to own the machine, and use it to destroy the happiness of the workers, instead of making it the social property of society, to be used to lessen the labour whilst increasing the comforts of all. In other words, the machine itself might be a blessing, but the private ownership of the machine has made it an unmitigated curse.

You submit to employment to make a living, and you must work long enough to produce the value of that living. Your boss looks at this differently. He is not just interested in keeping you alive, he wants something for himself which he has no intention of working for. He wants you to work for it. Every hour that you put in, over and above what provides for your living, is clear profit for the boss, or someone in his class.

The wage system makes life precarious for workers. The payment of wages entails the power to dismiss the worker by officials. So long as the money system remains, each productive enterprise must be run on a paying basis. Therefore it will tend to aim at employing as few workers as possible, in order to spend less on wages. It will also tend to dismiss the less efficient worker who, becoming unemployed, becomes less efficient. Thus an unemployable class tends to grow in numbers. The existence of a wage system almost inevitably leads to unequal wages; overtime, bonuses, higher pay for work requiring special qualifications.

But there is no cure for the scourge of capitalism. The system can’t be salvaged – and it isn’t worth saving anyhow.

The country life

There has been a significant shift in the ownership of Scottish estates in recent years with a move from people buying them to enjoy their retirement, to wealthy individuals, often from overseas, who are attracted to the sports on offer. In the last year buyers spent around £54 million on shooting and fishing properties, with a large interest from Scandinavia. Experts even believe that Scots estates are becoming more attractive as prices for property in London rocket.

Although only five or six estates with sought-after grouse shooting or salmon fishing are sold each year, there has been no sign that the recent financial crisis has slowed the market. One estate renowned for its grouse shooting sold for almost £20 million this year, with two properties selling for between £8 and £10 million. The total worth of the estate market this year was up £10 million this year.

“The market for sporting estates is now dominated by high net worth individuals seeking good quality sport in beautiful surroundings, away from the incessant demands of business life. All of this can be found from deep within the grouse butt.” estate agents Savills, Evelyn Channing, of the company’s rural department, said.

Charles Dudgeon, head of the firm’s rural agency, said two thirds of viewers originated from Europe, and in particular from Scandinavia, with strong interest from Denmark. He said: “Acquiring a Scottish country estate is still a popular ‘trophy buy’, and with the recent significant property price growth in London, the Scottish Highlands have never looked better value for money. It is possible to buy 10,000 acres in the Highlands, with a Grade A listed nine-bedroom castle and 10 ancillary dwellings for the same price as a 3-bedroomed flat in Knightsbridge.”

Savills is currently marketing the 10,000-acre, £7.5 million Cluny estate near Kingussie in Inverness-shire, which has “walked-up” grouse shooting, stalking, pheasant shooting, salmon fishing and a seven-bedroomed castle. The estate is being sold by Alain Angelil, 70, an Egyptian-born telecoms tycoon who is based in Norway and bought the property in 2000. It includes a farming enterprise and 10 estate houses and cottages. Cluny Castle was the ancestral home of the MacPhersons of Cluny until the direct line died out in 1943. Dudgeon said the interest in Cluny and other estates had been “global”, with two thirds of viewers coming from Europe.

Jobs for the boys and girls too

Andreana Adamson was singled out in the report when she was the chief executive of the state hospital at Carstairs  that examined payments totalling about £50,000 divided among a handful of senior employees and allegations of bullying of staff at Carstairs. Eligibility for the payments had not been considered by the Carstairs board through its remuneration committee. Instead, they had been given the “de facto” approval of board chairman Terry Currie, who had been left forms to sign by the chief executive. Junior workers had their pay frozen at the time. Adamson stepped aside as chief executive six months ago. The inquiry found “issues” around “leadership, culture and behaviour” at the hospital. “This is most often linked to the issue of bullying and harassment,” the report said. “Whilst this investigation was not focused on any specific allegation of bullying behaviour, it was, nonetheless, a running theme throughout.”

Andreana Adamson is now to be the NHS director health and justice.  She will retain the same pay and conditions in her new role.

Modern Slavery

Slavery is not yet abolished. So long as the worker is deprived of ownership and control of the instruments of production, so long as the workers'  labour-power is a commodity which they are obliged to sell to another, we are not free, be he or she white or black. He or she is simply a slave to a master and from morning until night is as much a bondsman as any negro cotton picker on the plantations ever were. Slaves are cheaper now and do more work than at any time in the world’s history. The same principle of subjection that ruled in the chattel system rules in the wage system. What does slavery consist?

It consists in the compulsory using of men for the benefit of the user. One who is forced to yield to another a part of the product of his toil is a slave. That the worker can today change masters does not alter the fact. The plantation blacks were slaves, not because of a certain master, but because they must yield a part of the wealth they produced to a master. Today they may desert one master but they must look for another or starve, and this necessity constitutes continued slavery. Under the old  system a slave was sure of a master and consequently  livelihood. One of the greatest curses of modern slavery is the fear of the slave that he or she may lose a position of servitude. Many a wage slave would gladly exchange their freedom to leave their master for a guarantee that their master would not discharge them. Formerly the masters overbid each other to get the slaves, today, the slaves underbid each other to get a master, and not to get a master means starvation. The loss of the security of existence is the fearful price which the worker has been obliged to pay for so-called liberty.

The insecurity of the wage worker is the greatest curse of the present system. Closely connected with this is the dependence which inheres in the wage system. The wage workers are absolutely dependent for their daily bread upon the favour or whim of their master. Indeed, the wage earner is a wage slave. The intensity of this slavery depends upon the amount of time which the workers are compelled to work gratuitously for others. Under present conditions they must work the greater portion of their time for some one else. It is thus that the wage-earning class is a slave to the employing class. Workers may change their master, but they are still at the mercy of the master class. The choice of the chattel slave was between work and the lash, the choice of a wage slave is between work and starvation. The whip of hunger is all sufficient to drive the wage slave to his task. The worker today, then, is a slave, bound by the pressure of economic wants to compulsory servitude to idle capitalist masters. Workers are obliged to sell their liberties in exchange for the means of subsistence. A worker is under the greatest tyranny of which it is possible to conceive — the tyranny of want.  By this lash men and women are driven to work long hours and in unpleasand and unhealthy occupations and to live in tenement slums in our inner cities or housing estate sprawls that for vileness would surpass the slave quarters of old.

The person who has no work or is compelled to submit to wages dictated by a corporation, and is at the beck and call of a master for ten hours a day has not much personal liberty to brag of over the chattel slave. It is quite evident that the working class has not yet secured anything worthy to be called freedom and are still in need of emancipation.

Socialism is the only remedy it is the only escape from personal or class rule. It would put an end to economic despotism and establish popular self-government in the industrial realm. Economic democracy is a corollary of political democracy.

We want every person engaged in industry whether male or female, white or black, young or old to have a voice in making the rules under which they must work. In socialism the workers would elect their own administrators, regulate their hours of work and determine the conditions and intensity under which production would be carried on. We may be sure that when this power is vested in the producing class the factories will be arranged according to convenience and beauty and well lit, heated and ventilated and every precaution taken against accidents. In other words, in socialism the labourers would have absolute freedom in the economic sphere in place of the present absolute servitude. Socialists emphasise the need of this economic freedom, for it is the basis of all freedom. Intellectual and moral freedom is practically nullified today through the absence of economic liberty.

Not only would socialism secure to the producers greater liberty within the economic sphere, but what would be of more importance is the liberty would be offered to all outside the sphere of wage-slavery. The real restrictions today are economic. We are prevented from doing the things we would like to do, not by governmental restrictions, but by limited means. If one would like to take a trip abroad. No statute prohibits it, but only restricted by the lack of the needed resources.

 But it is not only freedom of labour but freedom from labour that socialists seek. With a scientific organisation of industry, eliminating all the wastes of the present system, two or three hours a day would suffice to supply all the comforts and even luxuries of life. This would secure to the labourer the leisure necessary to enable him to develop his faculties and which could be devoted to recreation and travel.

Socialism, then, would secure to the labourers the utmost freedom both within and without the economic sphere. It would enable men and omen to live as human beings and would secure to each, regardless of  nationality, the best opportunity for free development and movement. There can be no liberty in economic dependence. The individual who is in want or in the fear of want is not free. No-o is free if they do not possess the means of livelihood. As long as they must look to the pleasure or profit of another for a living they are not independent and without independence there can be no freedom. Freedom will become the heritage of all as soon as socialism is realised because it will guarantee to all security, independence and prosperity by securing labour to all and recompensing each according to needs. Socialism contains the only hope for civilisation. True liberty and freedom can only be attained in the cooperative commonwealth. Socialism recognises no class nor race nor gender distinction. It draws no line of exclusion.

The struggle between the black and white, between native and foreign born  to sell themselves in the auction of the new slave market has, in many quarters, engendered bitter feelings, and that they might bid the fiercer against each other the masters have fanned this prejudice into hate. This antagonism will cease in socialism, and with it the hatred which springs from all class conflicts. It will even disappear under the present system just in proportion as workers recognise the solidarity of human labour. Socialism emphasises the fact that the interests of all members of the working class are identical regardless of race or sex. In this common class interest race distinctions are forgotten. If this is true of socialists today, how much more will it be true when humanity is lifted to the higher plane where the economic interests of all are identical.

Socialism, then, offers the joys and privileges of an emancipated humanity. It proposes and equal opportunity for the attainment of wealth and progress Socialism will obtain the enjoyment of the inalienable rights of all men and women to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, in common with all wage slaves, we are deprived by an economic system of inequality, of the privilege of exercising such rights. In the new economic environment where the people will enjoy equality of opportunity, we will take on a new development. The only hope for humanity is in socialism, that system of society that gives to every individual, without regard to race, colour or sex, an equal opportunity to develop the best within themselves. In such a society an individual’s social position will be determined by the use he makes of his opportunities by what he becomes. Socialism, then, is the only hope for the World. To realise this ideal is the mission of the working class. Modern production is wiping out all distinction of race, nationality and colour and dividing society into two classes — the workers and the capitalists. The interests of these two classes are diametrically opposed, and the time has come for the exploited to join hands at the ballot box against the common enemy capitalism.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is the only political organisation that has anything to offer. The Conservatives and Labour Parties are both parties of capitalism, and could not help if they would, and would not if they could. There is absolutely no choice between these two parties. They both represent the interests of the capitalist class and their sham battles are for the purpose of dividing the working class into various factions lest they unite to secure their freedom.

Poor Exam Results

St Ninian’s High School and  Williamwood High School came first and second in a nationwide league table based on exam results. Once again, the league tables illustrate the gap between schools in affluent areas and those in more deprived parts of the country.

While only 6.2 per cent of pupils at St Ninian’s and 5.1 per cent of those at Williamwood received free meals, just a few miles away at Govan High School, 43.2 per cent of pupils received free school dinners. Govan High was among those schools where none of the S4 roll went on to pass five or more Highers in S5, as was another Glasgow school, St Margaret Mary’s Secondary in Castlemilk.

At Northfield Academy in Aberdeen, where 27.9 per cent of pupils receive free school meals, no pupils left with five Highers or more. In contrast, 40 per cent of pupils at nearby Cults Academy – where only 2.9 per cent receive free meals – got five Highers or more.

In Edinburgh, not one pupil at Castlebrae Community High or Craigroyston Community High achieved five Highers or more, although another poor performer, Wester Hailes Education Centre, improved its score from zero per cent last year to one per cent in 2013.

Larry Flanagan, general-secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, the country’s largest teaching union, said “Deprivation continues to impact adversely on the attainment of too many pupils”

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.