Internationalism Of The Labour Movement

WORLD SOCIALISM

Published on the Indian-based web-site Countercurrents.

 By Alan Johnstone

02 March, 2014

“Whatever national differences divide Poles, Russians, Prussians, Hungarians, and Italians, these national differences have not prevented the Russian, Austrian, and Prussian despots uniting together to maintain their tyranny; why, then, cannot countries unite for obtainment of their liberty? The cause of the people in all countries is the same—the cause of Labour, enslaved, and plundered …. In each country the tyranny of the few and the slavery of the many are variously developed, but the principle in all is the same. In all countries the men who grow the wheat live on potatoes. The men who rear the cattle do not taste flesh-food. The men who cultivate the vine have only the dregs of its noble juice. The men who make clothing are in rags. The men who build the houses live in hovels. The men who create every necessary comfort and luxury are steeped in misery. Working men of all nations, are not your grievances your wrongs, the same? Is not your good cause, then the same also? We may differ as to the means, or different circumstances may render different means necessary but the great end—the veritable emancipation of the human race—must be the one end and aim of all.” - George Julian Harney, Chartist, 1846

Thus, two years before the publication of the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, the idea of a union of the working class of all lands had already been clearly articulated. Socialism is international, just like capitalism. But whereas the internationalism of the bourgeoisie is continually frustrated by the mutual competition of national capitalism, the internationalism of the proletariat is nourished and perpetually strengthened by the active solidarity of the interests of all the workers, regardless of their dwelling-place or nationality. The situation of the workers is identical in its essential features throughout all capitalist countries.

While the interests of the employers of different lands conflict one with another, the interests of workers coincide. The working class come to realise this in the course of its daily struggles. For example, in their attempts to secure higher wages, a reduction of hours, and other measures for the protection of labour, the workers continually encounter obstacles, which are brought into existence by the competition between the capitalists of various nations. An increase in wages or a reduction of the working day in any particular country is rendered difficult or almost impossible by the competition of other countries in which these reforms have not yet been achieved.

Furthermore, during strikes entered into by the workers for the improvement of their condition, the capitalists of the more advanced countries have recourse to the importation of workers from lands where the standard of life is lower. All these things have convinced the workers of the solidarity of their interests and of the necessity for joining forces in the struggle fur the improvement of their condition. The periodic, recurring clashes of war imposes the crushing burden of armament costs; conscription and removal of liberties. All these things arouse among people a protest which is barely conscious at first but which grows increasingly conscious, a protest against war, a struggle against militarism, in the name of the international solidarity of the workers.

But more importantly, in view of the indissoluble economic and political ties uniting the various capitalist countries, the social revolution cannot count upon success unless at the outset it involves, if not all, then at least the leading capitalist lands. For this reason, from the moment when the workers begin to become aware that their complete emancipation is unthinkable without the socialist reconstruction of contemporary bourgeois society, they take as their watchword the union of the workers of the whole world in a common struggle for emancipation. From that moment the instinctive internationalism of the worker is transformed into a conscious internationalism (understood in the sense of the idea of the universal solidarity and organisation of mankind) .

This ‘internationalism' is the natural consequence of the great process of assimilation which is taking place throughout the world. Nations are becoming more and more like each other, and their mutual relations more and more close. The same economic problems, the same commercial and industrial crises, the same class antagonisms, the same struggles between employers and employees, arise in all countries, regardless of their form of government. The factors of the modern world economy are global, mobile capital above all. This cosmopolitan capital, knowing no ties of country, holds sway over labour in accordance with almost identical rules in almost every land. How can we not expect any other result than that labour should exhibit everywhere an identical reaction?

There is, however, something else quite special about the internationalism of the labour movement. It does not appeal to the intellect alone; it appeals also to the heart. Socialists become enthusiastic about it because it stands for a noble idea, for the idea of the brotherhood of man, poetically expressed by Robert Burns:

It's comin yet for a' that,That man to man, the world, o'erShall brithers be for a' that.

And expressed in song by the workers anthem The International:

So comrades, come rallyAnd the last fight let us faceThe Internationale unites the human race.

Socialism is anti-nationalism, opposed to everything which comes under the heading of chauvinism, jingoism, and militarism – to all national expansion, to all national pride, to every attempt to cause bad blood between peoples, to any kind of colonialism and imperialism. Workers have the community of interests with proletarians of all lands, where often arises the need for joint activities and for unification . We have a unity of economic relationships, and this presupposes a unity of organisation. The work of production will then be in the hands of the whole community, a world-wide co-operative system. Socialism desires to substitute a classless society, one in which there will be no need to maintain by force the rule of the one over the many.

The society of Fraternal Democrats was formed in London in 1844, by European political refugees and some Chartists. Six secretaries were appointed – English, German, French, Slav, Scandinavian, and Swiss. In December 1847, The Fraternal Democrats proclaimed:

“ That the earth with all its natural productions is the common property of all; we therefore denounce all infractions of this evidently just and natural law, as robbery and usurpation. We declare that the present state of society, which permits idlers and schemers to monopolise the fruits of the earth and the productions of industry, and compels the working classes to labour for inadequate rewards, and even condemns them to social slavery, destitution, and degradation, is essentially unjust.”

Next came a declaration of internationalism:

“Convinced that national prejudices have been, in all ages, taken advantage of by the people's oppressors to set them tearing the throats of each other, when they should have been working together for their common good, this society repudiates the term ‘Foreigner,' no matter by, or to whom applied. Our moral creed is to receive our fellow men, without regard to ‘country,' as members of one family, the human race; and citizens of one commonwealth – the world.”

As was the Communist League of Marx, it was not a party of action but a society of propaganda and agitation. It organised meetings and demonstrations to commemorate revolutionary events. They proclaimed the international solidarity of the workers as an essential preliminary to the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. Harney said:

“The people are beginning to understand that foreign as well as domestic questions do affect them; that a blow struck at Liberty on the Tagus is an injury to the friends of Freedom on the Thames; that the success of Republicanism in France would be the doom of Tyranny in every other land; and the triumph of England's democratic Charter would be the salvation of the millions throughout Europe.” (“The Northern Star,” June 19, 1847.)

In another speech Harney exclaimed:

“But let the working men of Europe advance together and strike for their rights at one and the same time, and it will be seen – that every tyrannical government and usurping class will have enough to do at home without attempting to assist other oppressors.” (“The Northern Star,” February 26, 1848.)

The idea of the international solidarity of the proletariat did not perish when the Fraternal Democrats ceased to exist. In 1864 the International Workingmen's Association (or First International) emerged, founded to become a centre for communication and co-operation, affiliating workers organisations in different countries and aiming at the protection, advancement, and emancipation of the working classes. The International was created to promote the unity of the workers.

As Marx said in his famous address:

“Past experience has shown how disregard of that bond of brotherhood which ought to exist between the workmen of different countries and incite them to stand firmly by each other in all their struggles for emancipation, will be chastised by the common discomfiture of their incoherent efforts.”

He concluded with the same exhortation as in the Communist Manifesto: “Proletarians of all countries, unite!”

Sourced from G. M. Stekloff's History of The First International, 1928

Alan Johnstone is a member of The Socialist Party Of Great Britain

Socialism is Practical

It is evident that the study of social life, alone and of itself, will not modify the social form and will not furnish all the details of a new society; but it will disclose the essential elements of the present society; their  relationships and their tendencies. This knowledge  puts us in a position, not "to abolish by decrees the natural phases of the development of modern society, but to shorten the period of pregnancy and to mitigate the pangs of child-birth." as Marx posed it. Some political currents pretend to see further than anyone else, but they do not even perceive that they are marching backwards with fanciful schemes and conceptions—although usually well meant. Marx put to flight all the miracle-workers, all the theorists of little projects put forward as so many panaceas guaranteed to save society from the misery of capitalism.

A society is not transformed by the power of the word, nor by the force of the will. The elements of the new system accumulate during centuries, and prepare themselves within the framework of earlier systems. The capitalist class has taken seven or eight centuries to become the dominant force in today’s society. It is capitalism itself which fashions its own “grave-digger,” the proletariat organised as a class party.  Nothing is eternal and unchangeable. Everything is variable. By showing that the struggle of the classes is at the base of history, Marxism unveils the historical mechanism and shows that every given social form is entirely relative, entirely conditional.

Workers cannot claim a part of the mine or the factory because these are part of huge production organisations which function like living organisms and cannot be divided into pieces without their ceasing to live and to produce. This is the reason why the demand of the workers is for social property or, more exactly, common ownership of the means of production – the land, factories, railway, etc. To suit collective work, collective property. There should be collective ownership of what is collectively produced. The working class in possession of the means of production, whether, produced by its own efforts or through the bounty of nature, will cease to be the slave of the capitalist class. Machinery will cease to be a rival to the worker and will become a help, an aid, a friend to him. He will be assured of leisure for the development of all his faculties. From being a slave, a living instrument of production, he will become a self-conscious human being, master of himself. The working class will abolish forever the exploitation of man by man. It will establish social equality; instead of struggling against the bosses it will struggle against the forces of nature and against its own backwardness. It will snatch from nature its secrets and multiply its strength, the strength of society as a whole.

The capitalist class will not surrender its power through goodwill towards the workers. In order to change the ownership of property it is necessary to take political power away from the bourgeoisie. This political power which is in the hands of the capitalist a means of self-defence will become in the hands of the workers a weapon for the emancipation of the working-class.

The victory of socialism is not only desirable, it is also possible practical. The victory of Socialism is desirable because only socialism can put an end to the exploitation of man by man and of women by men. Because only socialism can put an end to the struggle for the re-division of the world, for national possessions, which takes place between the different continents, nations and races. Only socialism can put an end to war and poverty and the innumerable injustices which are an everyday feature of our lives.  Socialism by suppressing the cause of these rivalries and antagonism – the monopoly of the means of production – forms a new society based on the principles of human solidarity and reciprocity, and economic soundness. It will put an end to all waste and all unproductive work. It will abolish antagonism of interests and reduce authority to a minimum, making it function not in the interests of a class but in the interests of society as a whole. Socialism consists of a rationalisation of production, of all our activities and our very lives themselves. And that, not in the interests of some, but for the benefit of all. Socialism is then from every point of view desirable. Socialism is possible now. It is possible because it corresponds to the interests of all; because it satisfies the goodwill the desire of well being, and the common interest of the producing class which forms the immense majority in all countries. Socialism is possible because men are more and more brought into close co-operation in pooling their efforts. All sorts of associations and organisations, political, intellectual and moral, are accustoming man to regulate his work and his life. Socialism is possible because the forces of production, thanks to machinery, have reached an unheard of pitch of development. They only need to be put in action for the benefit of everyone in order that all members of society may be assured of complete well-being. Socialism everyday becomes more possible through the social education of the working-class, organised as it is in political parties, trade unions, and co-operatives. Rational organisation of production becomes more urgent as a consciousness of solidarity develops among the producers.

But socialism is not only desirable and possible, it is also an historical necessity. It is the inevitable goal and culminating point of all historical and economical as well as intellectual political and moral evolution. In the economic sphere the trend in modern society is towards the concentration of production. Big enterprises bringing more profits crush out the small and middle class ones. The factory takes the place of the small workshop. The big merchant dominates trade. The big bank runs the small one out. Socialism is the logical end of this concentration for it replaces the monopoly concentration of the possessing minority by social concentration for the profit of all.

Modern science has created all the conditions of well-being and even of luxury. If applied to increase the things of life, our society would become a paradise. Through the absurd system in which we live, we find ourselves in a hell-hole. Mankind, instead of co-operating in the building of a fraternal community, finds itself occupied in an internecine strife in a war of each against all.

Our opponents say that we are not practical men: that we are dreamers, utopians and  visionaries. Our opponents confront us with human nature. And they say – all of them intellectuals or ignoramuses, academics or public figures, “You want to change society to ensure happiness to all and give everyone equality of rights. You forget, poor fe1low, human nature! Man is by nature selfish and bad. There is nothing he loves more than himself. You will never be able to change man. Your ideals are beautiful. Your intentions are good. But the bride is too beautiful for such an ugly thing as man.”

And to this the socialist reply. “This same human nature argument was advanced against those who wished to abolish slavery and serfdom and the cruelty and exploitation of antiquity and the middle ages. In the same way this argument was brought forward in defence of the absolute monarchy. ”

The greatest thinkers of antiquity, Aristotle and Plato, defended slavery with the “Human Nature” argument. They said: “It is human nature which makes the Greeks – a civilised people – enslave the conquered barbarians and all other peoples. It is on account of human nature that there exists inequality among men and the oppression of some by others.”

Very wel1. Slavery has been abolished. And human nature has not uttered a word of protest. Just the opposite. Anybody who today would advocate the establishment of slavery in its old form would be looked upon as an enemy of the human race. And he would be told that there is something in human nature which cannot tolerate the existence of slavery.

It is a big error to maintain that human nature does not change. Everything changes in Nature and in life. Everything is in a process of transformation. Movement is the universal law of everything that exists. That is the conclusion all science of our era comes: to the science of celestial bodies (astronomy), the natural and biological sciences, social and historical science, all. Everything evolves. Everything is constantly being modified. As the ancients said. “Everything changes. It is impossible to bathe twice in the same stream.” We never meet the same man twice because during the interval he has grown older, his constitution and his character changed; he is no longer the same. The human species also has evolved. The planets themselves, the sun, the moon, the stars have not always been what they are today. Our earth has undergone an innumerable number of geological revolutions. Human history is a record of perpetual change. If everything changes, is subject to transformation and modification, how is it possible to believe for a moment that the present system of property will always remain the same? That would be, indeed, contrary to nature. Look around you and compare what you see with what existed at other times. The earth is covered with highways and railways. Floating cities cruise around the oceans. Man has conquered the air and outer space and is as at home in it as he is on Earth. We fly from one continent to another. Electricity gives light and power nearly everywhere. TV, radio and the internet carries the news in a few minutes from one end of the world to the other. We can carry on conversations with others a thousand miles away. Everything in our lives has changed. And yet they want to maintain society in its old barbaric state of struggle and poverty. It is hardly a century since eminent statesmen were reasoning thus, “you can never have carriages without horses.” The railway, the automobile, the aeroplane, made a joke of these pessimistic forecasts. And we are obliged to come to the conclusion, in face of the overwhelming array of facts, that there is no reason whatsoever to despair of human progress. What appears to us impossible today is done tomorrow. Today’s dream is tomorrow’s reality.

‘Saving Our Safety Net’.

The Toronto Star's editorial of Dec 14, 2013 was about 'Saving Our Safety Net'. It focused mainly on the death by a thousand cuts of the current Tory government. For example, it was found that just 37.2% of unemployed workers qualified for benefits compared to 46.6% when the Harper government came to power in 2006. (All workers pay into the fund). That the low figure of 46.6% was the worker of former Liberal finance minister, Paul Martin, just shows that all those who get to power are on the same page, "How to keep the profits flowing to the capitalist class".
Seems like more and more workers are getting the picture. In an EKOS Research poll printed in the Toronto Star, more people identified themselves as poor or working class in 2012 compared with 2006 – 28% to 44%. It is, of course, becoming increasingly obvious that there is downward pressure on wages in the 'rich' world. Rather than increase wages of the poor third world it appears wages will simply descend to survival levels – unless we get rid of the wages system altogether. John Ayers

Welcome Home, India

Logo of the World Socialist Party (India)

On March 1st 2014 the Socialist Party formally re-recognised the World Socialist Party (India) as a companion party and member of the World Socialist Movement. We publish below the speech delivered by Richard Donnelly, Glasgow Branch member and fraternal delegate from the Socialist Party of Great Britain to the Founding Conference of the World Socialist Party (India)  in Kolkata, India on 1 March 1995, nineteen years to the day that the WSP(I) first became a section of the World Socialism Movement.

Comrades and Fellow Workers, 

 Today is a very important day for the Socialist  Revolution. For the first time in history, some men  and women of the working class in India are  embarking on the necessary task of transforming  society from one of oppression, exploitation and  degradation to one of fraternity, co-opertion and  emancipation.

The history of the world‟s working class has been one of exploitation. Despite the differences in that exploitation in Europe, Asia, the Americas, Africa and Australia, one common theme is ever-present. The working class produce a surplus that the useless minority, the exploiters, consume. Here, in this hall in Calcutta, we start the process of ending that exploitation and the building a new society based on common ownership and  democratic control.

 The ideas of the World Socialism Movement  are based on science. We do not worship gods. We do not believe in miracles or divine intervention.  We take the view that men and women make
society we are born in. We are not dreamers who imagine a perfect world and ignore the realities of  our own existence. Therefore, it is necessary,  before considering the socialist transformation of  society, to analyse the present society of world  capitalism.

Global capitalism 

 Capitalism is indeed a global system. It  stretches from the North Pole to the South Pole;  from the Rockies to Siberia. The basis of that society is production for profit. All wealth takes the form of commodities – articles that are produced for sales or exchange on the market with a view to realising a profit.
Wherever the tentacles of this monstrous society stretch, it tears asunder the customs, cultures and mores of previous societies and replaces them with the madhouse economics of the capitalist market place. Thus small producers and subsistence farmers are wrenched form the traditions of the past and thrown onto the labour market as mere “hands”. Mere producers of surplus value, to be hired in times of boom and fired in times of slump.

Capitalism is competitive society. Indeed its apologists and supporters laud its competitiveness. They praise this aspect of capitalism and say it leads to efficiency and productiveness. We deny this. The working class produce all wealth. They not only produce it, they manage its production and distribution. A modern factory is run from top to bottom by members of the working class. From labourer to engineer to manager – all are members of the working class. They own little but their ability to work. They must sell this ability for a wage or salary. But during the time they work in the factory or workshop they produce more than the price of their labour-power – they produce a surplus value. This surplus value is pocketed by the owners of the factory. They live off the surplus value created by the working class.

How efficient is this system? Firstly, workers have to compete with each other. In a desperate struggle to get enough wages to live they compete with each other in the factory. They compete with workers in other factories. They compete with workers in other countries.

It is the capitalists‟ aim to pay as little as possible in wages and to get the workers to produce as much surplus value as possible. On the other hand, it is in the workers‟ interest to get as high a wage as possible and to produce as little surplus value as possible. Between these two classes, the capitalist class and the working class, there is a constant struggle in the industrial field. This shows itself in strikes, go-slows, lock-outs and productivity drives.

But there is not only conflict between worker and worker; and worker and capitalist – there is also the conflict between capitalists. In order to realise the surplus value produced by the working class, the capitalist has to sell the commodities produced on the market. Here, he enters into conflict with other capitalists. He must constantly strive to cheapen production in order to claim a portion of the market for his commodities. The more ruthlessly he can exploit his workers the better chance he has to compete.

Should he be unable to sell his commodities, he cannot realize his surplus value. He goes out of business. Horror of horror he may even lose his capital and become a mere worker.

This happens locally, nationally and – because capitalism is a worldwide system – globally. In the international struggle for markets, whole groups of capitalists struggle for markets, sources of raw materials, military bases. This commercial rivalry leads to military rivalry. To threats, counter-threats and, eventually, war.

How efficient is capitalism when, in defence of its markets, the world capitalist class spend on armaments (on weapons of destruction) more than one million US dollars per minute every minute of the day and night?
How efficient is capitalism when, millions live in sub-standard housing, suffering malnourishment and, at the same time, food is destroyed to keep up prices and building workers are unemployed, banned from producing the housing that is so desperately needed?

How efficient is capitalism when, throughout the so-called civilized world, millions of pounds, dollars, marks and roubles are spent on policemen, gaols and gaolers in the hopeless task of curbing the ever-mounting crime wave?

Wasteful and destructive system 

Capitalism is a wasteful social system. It destroys property in wars, closes factories, destroys food and, most wasteful of all, it starves millions and denies education and medical care to the world‟s working class.

Many non-socialists would agree that capitalism is, in many respects, a wasteful and destructive system, but they would claim that the system can be made more equitable. They believe that, by government legislation, capitalism can abolish the conflict between rich and poor. Soften the harsh exploitation of the working class. Solve the housing problem – lessen the growth of crime – feed the starving millions – bring co-operation to a system based on class conflict. They imagine that  somehow we can have capitalism without war, poverty, ignorance and conflict. Such people we call reformers of capitalism. Such people we call dreamers.

The recent history of the working class has shown the futility of such reforms. In Britain, the Labour Party believe a programme of reforms could transform society. Promising workers a high wage, low prices economy, they were swept to power in 1945. Claiming that they could abolish poverty inside capitalism, they found that it was not a case of them running capitalism, but capitalism running them.

Today, in 1995, the British Labour Party are imitating the policies and slogans of the avowedly capitalist party – the Conservative Party – in a desperate bid for power. They have made the very term Socialist a word that stinks in the nostrils of the British working class, since experiencing their various terms of power. They have been proven to be just another reformist party eager to run capitalism.

In India, as you know, the congress party has adopted the same disastrous results. It makes no difference whether the reformers are honest, genuine, clever people (and we know that quite often they are not that), they are powerless to run capitalism in the interests of the majority. Capitalism is a system based on class exploitation. There is only one way to run it – in the interests of the exploiters.

There are yet another set of political parties who claim they can transform society in the interests of the majority. These people call themselves revolutionaries, they mouth a pseudo – Marxism and claim to be the saviors of the working class. These groups are Leninists, Trotskyites, Stalinists and Maoists. Whatever they may have by way of differences, they have one major thing in common. They see themselves as leaders; they have contempt for the understanding of the working class.

To them, the view of the World Socialist Movement – that we must have a majority of the working class understanding, desiring and organizing for Socialism – is a utopian dream. Lenin, their great leader, proclaimed that if we had to wait for working class understanding, we would have to wait 500 years for Socialism.

In power in Russia since 1917 until recently, and in power in much of Eastern Europe since the end of the Second World War, their ruthless dictatorship led to the imprisonment and death of all those workers who stood in their way. Stalin‟s Russia was as bloodthirsty as Hitler‟s regime in Germany and the rest of Europe.

In China today countless millions still suffer the lash of the Bolsheviks‟ harsh dictatorship. Tiananmen Square in Beijing being only one of its recent purges. Workers give up the right to think for themselves at deadly peril.

In 1917, the Socialist Party of Great Britain was almost alone in denying that there was a socialist revolution in Russia, pointing out that Socialism was impossible without the active, class-conscious efforts of the majority of the working class.

Organise for World Socialism

What are the lessons to be learnt from the tragic history of the world‟s working class? For make no mistake about it, your efforts to form in Calcutta an active party based on the principles of the World Socialist Movement, will only succeed if these lessons have been learned.

These lessons are firstly; the party seeking working class emancipation must be based on understanding. Each member of the World Socialist Movement must have basic knowledge of what capitalism is and how it operates. Must understand that World Socialism and only World Socialism can solve the problems of the working class. A policy of no-compromise to the policies of reform must be a fundamental principle.

The second lesson is that a World Socialist Party must base all its activities on the democratic decisions of that party. It must oppose the concept of leadership and elitism. Otherwise, it would cease to be a revolutionary party and succumb to leadership and reformism.

For some years now, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been in correspondence with the Marxist International Correspondence Circle in Calcutta. Arising out of this, the Calcutta comrades have drawn up a basic statement, which you will consider over the next three days of your Conference.

You have much debate before you. You have to discuss the formation of a new political party; you have to discuss its organization and its campaigns. I am confident that based on your understanding of World Socialism and your adherence to democratic principles that at the end of this Conference, the World Socialist Movement will be welcoming a new vigorous adherent in the struggle for Socialism.

On a personal level, I would like to say that I joined the Socialist Party of Great Britain in the City of Glasgow in 1957. I have been at many debates, meetings and conferences in the United States of America during that time. Today, in Calcutta, is without doubt the most exciting and important in my political life.

In conclusion then, Comrades, let me commend to your Conference the famous words of the Communist Manifesto:
WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE. 
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS. 
YOU HAVE A WORLD TO WIN. 

Negative Equity

One of Mrs Thatcher's proud boasts when she made council houses subject to sale to the occupiers was that Britain was becoming a property-owning democracy. The boast seems a little empty today with growing homeless figures, re-possessions and the following news. 'Nearly half a million UK households are still in negative equity - meaning their homes are worth less than the mortgages on them, figures show. There is wide regional variation, with 41% of borrowers in Northern Ireland - 68,000 homeowners - in negative equity at the end of 2013, the figures from mortgage group HML show.' (BBC News, 1 March) Another empty political boast proves futile, but negative equity sounds so much better than skint doesn't it? RD

A Challenge to Dare

For as long as anyone can remember, the various ruling classes have paraded one political representative after another before the people promising a lifetime of “peace with prosperity.” while they have subjected hundreds of millions to the agony of pillage and plunder from one end of the globe to another. Today,  their whole system of legalized robbery is once again caught in a desperate and deepening economic and political crisis nd we get the same promises of “peace and prosperity” but for tomorrow. But the whole history of humanity, as well as the present reality, shows that there is another path – the path which the subjugated can take. Revolution is the only means to break free of the chains of exploitation and degradation.

Socialist revolution is the most radical break with oppression and exploitation in history. Society will no longer proceed in chaos, but according to the planned fulfillment of genuine human needs. The establishment of a socialist, planned economy will be based on the needs of the people, replacing replace the world capitalist system with world socialism. Exploitation, and oppression will not exist. Commodity production, that is, production for sale or exchange on the market, will not exist. Private property will not exist The system of wage labour will not exist and the means of production will be held communally.With the abolition of classes, the State will not exist.  What should be  clear to every class-conscious worker seeking a radical way forward out of the misery and madness of capitalism, is that our new world will be built upon the guiding principle of  “from each according to ability, to each according to need.”

In order for revolution to be thoroughgoing it must be initiated by the one force in society that has no stake whatsoever in preserving the present order and compromising the basic interests of the masses of people. This force is  the working class. Itself exploited, labouring collectively with highly developed means of production but deprived of all ownership of these means of production, having no means to live except to sell its ability to labuor and at the bottom of society, the proletariat cannot abolish its own exploitation and oppression without abolishing them finally from society altogether. The revolution by the proletariat  fulfills its interests as a class and the historic mission of not of replacing one group of exploiters with another, not bringing into being and fortifying a new system of degradation and plunder, but advancing society to a whole new epoch – socialism – where class distinctions and their basis, as well as all the evils flowing from them, will be finally eliminated.

Two roads lie open ahead for the working class. One is the  worn and hell-bound path of the red, white and blue. The other road, is the  revolutionary road. It is said that our ideas are impractical. That is true. From the standpoint of old institutions, interests and their beneficiaries; the new is always impractical; for our goal is the self-emancipation of the working class. The first essential feature of socialism is that the of production are taken from private ownership and used for society as, a whole. In socialist society, where production is not for profit but for use, a plan of production is possible.

Is this Utopian? It could only be regarded as Utopian by people who do not understand the materialist basis of Marxism. Human beings have no fixed characteristics and outlook, eternally permanent. In primitive tribal society, even in those forms of it which have survived to recent times, the sense of responsibility to the tribe is very great. In later society, after the division of society into classes, the sense of social responsibility was broken down, but still showed itself in a certain feeling of responsibility to the class. In capitalist society there is the most extreme disintegation of social responsibility: the system makes “every man for himself” the main principle of life. But even within capitalist society there is what is known as “solidarity” among the workers – the sense of a common interest, a common responsibility. This is not an idea which someone has thought of and put into the heads of workers: it is an idea which arises out of the material conditions of working-class life, the fact that they get their living in the same way, working alongside each other.  Of course, the ideas of the dominant class – the competition and rivalry instead of solidarity – tend to spread among the workers, especially among those who are picked out by the employers for special advancement of any kind. But the fundamental basis for the outlook of any class (as distinct from individuals) is the material conditions of life, the way it gets its living. Hence it follows that the outlook of people can be changed by changing their material conditions, the way in which they get their living. When, therefore,  the material basis in a new future society is socialist production and distribution, when the way in which all the people get their living is by working for society as a whole, then the sense of social responsibility so to speak develops naturally; people no longer need to be convinced that the social principle is right. It is not a question of an abstract moral duty having to establish itself over the instinctive desires of “human nature;” human nature itself is transformed by practice, by custom.

In such a world socialist system the further advance that man could make defies the imagination. With all economic life planned globally,  mankind would indeed take giant step forward. No new division into classes because in a socialist society there is nothing to give rise to it. With vast productive forces available to humanity only a couple of hours’ work a day is necessary to produce an abundance and free men and women from drudgery.

Who Owns the South Pole - Polarisation

Antarctica and the Arctic are the focus of global hunger for untapped resources. As the Antarctic Treaty has grown in recent decades, some nations eager to join it and build bases in Antarctica appear to have long-term interest in the continent's mineral and energy resources.  The southern continent has been governed since 1961 by the Antarctic Treaty, a creation of the cold war, intended to prevent US-Soviet tensions from spilling into the region. The treaty enforces environmental regulations, allows nations to inspect each other's bases, and requires sharing of scientific data. It started with 12 nations, but now includes 28. Seven nations claim sovereignty rights to parts of Antactica.  Just as people playing the board game Monopoly profit by building a house on Park Place or Boardwalk, countries building a station and conducting research in Antarctica can obtain treaty membership and influence. Conditions in Antarctica will be tough, but rising commodity prices and improving technology may eventually make it worthwhile. Antarctica may hold plenty of mineral resources. Three hundred million years ago, it lay at the center of a supercontinent, Gondwana, which also included South America, Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Folding of Earth's crust caused plumes of magma and superheated fluids to rise, concentrating minerals near the surface of Gondwana: copper, tin, silver, lead, and zinc along what are now the South American Andes; and gold, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and cobalt in southeastern Australia.

"That motivates a lot of these countries to build a research station there and to fund some kind of scientific research," says Dag Avango, a science and industrial historian at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. "It is about being a part of a larger international community that can make decisions about the future of Antarctica." This includes decisions about how and when Antarctica's natural resources should be harvested. For the moment, this includes only fishing in the ocean waters around the continent. Antarctic krill have been fished for decades; they're used in commercial fish feeds and omega-3 fatty acid dietary supplements.

A ban on mining and drilling is enforced until 2048.

"The question of mineral exploitation hasn't gone away in Antarctica," says Anne-Marie Brady, a specialist in polar politics at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.  "The mainstream point of view" in China, she says, "is that it's only a matter of time that Antarctic minerals and energy resources will be exploited."

"It's globalization," says Lawson Brigham, a retired US Coast Guard icebreaker captain and now professor of geography and Arctic policy at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. "Higher commodity prices will drive frontier development."

Every nation that hopes to play a role in shaping the future of the poles – whether for exploitation, territory, or conservation – will require certain strategic assets: scientific research that maintains prestige and expertise; well-placed ports, airfields, and research bases in the polar regions; experience landing and launching large military cargo planes on glacial ice; and, of course, icebreakers.

Antarctica differs vastly from the Arctic. The Arctic consists largely of a sea covered by ice that averages six feet thick, fringed by the northernmost territories of three continents; the Antarctic consists of a lone continent isolated by a ring of turbulent seas. While Arctic sea ice is disappearing quickly, the continent of Antarctica is 98 percent covered by glacial ice thousands of feet thick; it contains most of the world's fresh water. Even as Antarctica sheds 200 billion tons of ice per year, contributing to sea-level rise, the immediate effect on human activity there is negligible.

In 1977 an American businessman began importing a new fish from South America to the US: a monstrosity with leathery lips and a mouth evolved for sucking up prey in the blink of an eye – the kind of looks you'd expect of a fish that lurks in the dark, as deep as 13,000 feet. Slicing the fish into skinless fillets relieved it of its appearance, and the businessman erased its last vestige of ugliness by changing its name from Patagonian toothfish to Chilean sea bass. The fish was a hit in restaurants, prompting fishermen to look for it in other places. Their attention eventually turned to a closely related species, the Antarctic toothfish, which inhabits the world's southernmost waters. Commercial harvesting of Antarctic toothfish began in 1996, in Antarctica's Ross Sea.
From here 

A tragedy was always around the corner

For those people who think that third world, nineteenth century factory conditions of work can never come back to the 'First' world, the New York Times reported (15/12.13) a garment factory fire in Prato, Italy. The building did not have emergency exits and windows were barred. The fire was likely caused by a camp stove used for preparing meals. Seven Chinese workers died in the blaze. This low-cost business model has developed over the last twenty years. Officials said that a tragedy was always around the corner but were apparently powerless to do anything about it. So much for government of and by the people. John Ayers

Point of View!

The December issue of The Socialist Standard, the journal of our Companion party in the UK, included an article in which British comedian Russell Brand aired his views. Though he made some comments no socialist would disagree with, he showed his limitations by his comments on politicians, " They are all dishonest and self-serving…Like most people, I regard politicians as frauds and liars." Contrary to what Brand thinks, some are well meaning but, once elected, find themselves trying to administer a crazy and constricted system that forces them to do things they had no intention of doing (see the article under Wage Slave News on our web site re Mandela). In other words, it's the system that creates the conditions or man makes his own history but not under circumstances of his own choosing! John Ayers

Workers Unite

A 2011 census showed that 579,000 Poles were living in Britain, 10 times more than a decade earlier. In Poland, unemployment among the under 25s was a whopping 27.4 percent in December 2013 (and 30 percent for young women). Just imagine how much higher the figure would have been if young Poles had stayed in their country. In Hungary, 24.6 percent of people under 25 are unemployed, while in Bulgaria it’s 29.4 percent (and 33 percent for men under 25).This mass exodus from Eastern Europe is brought about by lack of employment opportunities.

Certain employers tolerate, encourage and take advantage of this influx of immigrants, not only for the purpose of filling a labour shortage but also to artificially increase the reserve army of labour, an army of vulnerable workers who are forced to work at substandard wages. The principal aim of permitting and fostering immigration under imperialism is to greatly increase competition among workers and keep downward pressure on wages.

If some people  feel that the level of immigration is too high, that it is putting too much pressure on services and institutions , and that it is leading to a downward push on wages, then they should not be angry with the immigrants. Instead, they should get even with those who benefit - the 1 percent.

The Socialist Party holds that the working class the world over is indivisibly one; that as victims of the capitalist class their interests are common, regardless of race, nationality, or colour. The fact remains that immigration does add to the number of workers, and to that extent increases a competition among the workers, it is as a drop in the ocean compared to the real cause,  the introduction of labour-saving new technology and outsourcing of manufacturing. Even if every foreigner from now on were excluded, the misery of the workers would increase.

Class lines are clearly defined. There is no mistaking who is a capitalist and who is a worker, who is rich and who is poor. The capitalists are banded together in their Confederation of British Industry, Chambers of Commerce, their trade and manufacturers’ associations. The workers are organised in their trade unions. The British capitalist class also has at disposal, first: all the “forces of the State.” These forces comprise Parliament, a well-organised bureaucracy, a strong judiciary, a powerful police, and the armed forces. The British capitalist class has at its disposal a powerful media and information industry, colouring their outlook on life, determining largely their political opinions, fashioning their thoughts, moulding their minds to a servile acceptance of things as they are or as the mouthpieces of capitalism desire them to be. Lastly, the British capitalist class has its interests defended by numerous educational and religious institutions.

“What do we mean when we speak of "class consciousness"? We mean simply a thorough knowledge of the position in society of the class to which the class-conscious subject belongs.Socialists claim that class-consciousness is a mental condition which must necessarily precede working-class emancipation. The reason is because, owing to the peculiarly complex nature of the modern social system, the interest of the classes is obscured, and only a clear understanding of the working-class place in the social system can enable the workers to see in what direction their interests lie, and therefore what they have to fight for...Class-consciousness, the knowledge of his slave status, makes clear the opposition of class interests, and fits the worker for the class struggle.

Socialist revolution is the most radical break with oppression and exploitation in history. The battle between bosses and workers rages everywhere. Socialist society is the first society based on the conscious application of objective laws where society no longer proceeds in chaos, but according to the planned fulfillment of genuine human needs. The establishment of a socialist, planned economy, based on the needs of the people, will mean the end to the anarchy of capitalist production and its repeated crises. 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 labour will be “from each according to ability, to each according to need.” The means of production will be held communally and private/state property will be eliminated. 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.

We want a system that encourages every worker to become involved in running society; that encourages everyone to act for the common good. We want society to help each person grow. In capitalist society, only the bosses are truly free--free to hire and fire, free to pillage and plunder. , The wage system forces each worker to think of his or her work in selfish terms. Only socialism can change that. Socialism will abolish the wage system. In  socialist society, the principle "to each according to need" will be as basic as the principle "every person for themselves" is to capitalism.  People will work because  they want to, because their brothers and sisters around the world need their work. They will share in decision-making, including the distribution of goods and services according to society's needs. They will share in the abundance and if there happens to be an occasional shortage they will share in that too. Socialism will abolish socially useless forms of work that exist now only for capitalist profit. Socialist society will have no need of lawyers, advertisers, or salespeople. In one stroke, it will do away with layers of needless government bureaucrats, as well as the hordes of petty supervisors and administrators who oversee and manage us  for the bosses. It will free everyone to perform socially useful work, which is the source of true creativity.

We are for socialism because it is better. We will have better human relations and we will have a better material life. But socialism will not succeed unless people understand it, agree with it, and vow to make it succeed. We oppose nationalism and fight for internationalism. By nationalism, the bosses mean that workers must respect capitalist borders. These borders are artificial; they exist to divide workers and keep different sets of bosses in  power. Workers need no borders. Workers in one part of the world are not different from or better than workers in  another. Nationalism creates false loyalties. Workers should be loyal only to other workers, never to a boss. We  endorse the revolutionary slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!"

Another Useless Solution

All over the world homelessness is a prevailing problem, but in Florida they have come up with a "solution". 'Over the past decade, municipalities in Florida's Osceola County, just southeast of Orlando, have spent more than $5 million to repeatedly jail three dozen homeless people for quality-of-life offenses. Rather than major crimes like assault or burglary, nearly every one of these arrests were because of violations of local ordinances prohibiting activities that many homeless people do to survive, such as sleeping in public or panhandling.' (Think Progress, 5 February) Even from the standpoint of capitalism this seems financially crazy. From the standpoint of socialism it is socially crazy, as houses would be built for people to live in. RD

A Wasteful Society

At a time when many families are finding it difficult to feed their children the action of some supermarkets appears crazy. 'Last year Tesco threw away almost 30,000 tonnes of food in just six months, 41 per cent of it from the bakery. Across the UK an estimated 15 million tonnes are discarded a year, including by customers. Despite this many supermarkets are hitting back at skip-divers, the students said. Some pour bleach or blue dye on their products, while others slap "not for human consumption" stickers on them.' (Daily Mail, 8 February) Needless to say inside a socialist society food like everything else would be produced to satisfy human needs not to make a profit. RD

A socialist lesson from Kiev

NO TO NATIONALISM

The events of Ukraine may be far away from Glasgow and Edinburgh but the driving force of the conflict is very familiar.

 What is making people take one side or another and feel so passionately about it that they take to the streets in violent confrontations, is nationalism, that sense of identity based on “ethnicity” (and in Ukraine, language). Nationalism has made allies of people who we might have called "liberals" and people who we definitely call "fascists."

Nationalism is the idea that the most important thing about a person is his or her nationality When nationalism is strong, then people judge their politicians  by asking "Are they of the right nationality?" What this means is that leaders are not judged by asking, "What are their values?" or "Are they for equality or inequality" or even "Are they honest or corrupt?"

Evaluating politicians this way is a recipe for enabling leaders who are personally corrupt or who want society to be very unequal and undemocratic to gain power on the grounds that they are of the right nationality. Such leaders know that in order to make the correctness of their nationality trump all other concerns they need to keep "their" people in fear of another "enemy" nationality.  This is why some politicians relish and foment national or  ethnic or religious strife.  One way of doing this is to use the rhetoric of "freedom"

For those of us who want a socialist  society, the important question is not what nationality you are but whether you support or oppose the values of socialism - equality and mutual aid among people regardless of nationality. Ukrainians will continue to be oppressed by inequality, by the rule of the few haves over the many have-nots. No matter what nationality the haves are, their goal is to make sure that the have-nots remain dominated, exploited and oppressed by the haves.

And can the Scottish nationalists say an independent Scotland will be any different? The Socialist Party is confident that  ordinary Scots want a socialist society, meaning that if they were presented with that goal clearly spelled out they would say it would be wonderful to live in such a world. The Socialist Party is also sure that most Scots follow their political leaders because they hope it will result in an improvement in their lives by reducing the domination and oppression by the haves. This domination is all they know and experienced, and any big change such as the prospect of independence and the promise of having their nationality in power instead of the “enemy” nationality offers the hope that maybe it will make things better. But most Scots have never heard the case for genuine socialism and  think anybody who uses the word "socialism" wants another Soviet Union and Stalin.  All that is left is for them to choose which nationality to identify with and vote for.  People are in an ideological trap, in which only the haves win and the have-nots are doomed to lose. the Scottish working-class need to break out of this trap.

Instead of trying to figure out if it is separatism or the union to support it makes far more sense to build a socialist movement where we live. When it comes to keeping the have-nots out of power, the haves of all nationalities cooperate with each other far more than they fight each other to strengthen the power of the haves generally, everywhere in the world. . The best thing we can do to help the have-nots (in Ukraine) is to fight against the haves where we live and try to remove them from power.

Freely adapted from a Countercurrents post by John Spritzler

Kilmarnock Discussion Group

Kilmarnock Discussion Group  

 Thursday, 27 February 2014
 Thursday, 27 March 2014
 Thursday, 24 April 2014
 Thursday, 29 May 2014
 Thursday, 26 June 2014
 Thursday, 31 July 2014 -

Venue:- 
7:00pm - 9:00pm
The Wheatsheaf Pub,
70 Portland Street,
 Kilmarnock KA1 1JG
(About three minutes walk from the rail station and five minutes from the bus station)

For more information contact: 
Paul Edwards.
Tel: 01563 541138

Orange Pith

From the August 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

Orange Myths

It is Sunday 7 July. In Portadown this morning a riot took place and working people, including policemen, were hurt; some were arrested. Another battle  . . . another myth . . . another contribution to the bitterness and hatred that divide the working class in Northern Ireland.

The government and police and wanted to ban this morning's march through the exclusively Catholic Obins Street district. The marchers, Orangemen going to church accompanied by bands playing sectarian tunes and flaunting sectarian symbols, refused to obey the Government, the police and the law despite their vociferous protestations of loyalty to all three. The police - probably working on the assumption that they could cope more easily with the Catholics than they could with the loyalists - gave in and the march took place. The holy men of the Orange Order marched defiantly through Obins Street to communicate with their god.

The Orange Order intend repeating this exercise on the twelfth and thirteenth of July. The police have issued a notice proscribing these marches and - to compound this lunacy - the Catholics have announced their intention of staging parades at the same time and on the same date.

Paisley and several other loyalist politicians and hate-mongering clergymen have let it be known that they will defy any Government order banning the march. In their eyes the issue is sufficiently serious to justify a civil war. Serious enough to endanger the lives, homes and liberties of working people, for, make no mistake, it is workers who would be asked to slaughter one another. Not because they suffer poverty or live in slums; not because they endure the miseries of unemployment or have mean lives. No. Paisley, who has used bigotry and hatred to become one of the best paid politicians in Europe, and his friends don't experience these things. What they are asking Protestant workers to spill their blood for is something really wholesome and important: the right to march through avenues of Catholics reminding them that their forbears were defeated in 1690!

We would ask our Protestant fellow workers to examine some of the historical facts that make up the myths and damned lies for which their leaders want them to kill and be killed. We have, many times, in the past, exposed the myths that make up the "principles" behind the IRA murder campaign and the fallacious reasoning used to inveigle Catholics into support of Irish Nationalism, so it cannot be said that in exposing the lies and deceptions underlying Unionism we have any sympathy whatsoever with nationalism or republicanism. Our purpose is to disabuse workers on both sides of the notions and fictions that keep them divided; to show that neither Unionism nor nationalism have anything to offer the working class and, to bring them to an examination of the cause of their real, common problems.

King James and King Billy

James II succeeded to the throne of England following the death of his brother, Charles II, in 1685. A convert to Catholicism and a sickly pious man - following a life of profligacy and sexual abandonment - he was determined to re-establish the power of Catholicism in his kingdom. Within three years of becoming king, James' policies had provoked fierce opposition in England and fear and distrust among the Protestant population of Ireland. In 1688 seven members of the English parliament petitioned James' son-in-law, William, Prince of Orange, to become king of England. James reacted by allying himself with the French king, Louis XIV, who manipulated the situation to his own advantage by making England a semi-dependent of his own kingdom.

According to Orange fiction, James was the agent of Rome and popery. Nothing could be further from the truth. In seeking the help and support of Louis XIV, King James was allying himself with the pope's bitterest enemy. Louis, bent on European domination, had made Lorraine a subject state, had attacked Genoa and attempted to sack Rome. The pope of the period, Innocent XI, was outraged and humiliated. In 1686 some of the European powers, alarmed at the strength and ferocity of the French, entered into the Treaty of Augsberg. This Treaty, established specifically to resist the marauding armies of Louis XIV, was subscribed to by the king of Spain, the Emperor of Germany and by William, Prince of Orange. The nominal head of the Treaty powers was Pope Innocent XI.

So, rather than being an enemy of the pope, as Orange mythology asserts, "King Billy" was the pope's ally when, in November 1688, he invaded England and his armies were partially provisioned and equipped by the powers of the Augsberg Treaty - and he had the official backing of the Roman Catholic church! Contrary to myth, when they fought in the Battle of the Boyne on 30 June and 1 July 1690, King Billy was an ally of the pope and King James an ally of the pope's most bitter enemy, Louis of France. Indeed, when news of King William's victory over King James at the Boyne percolated through to Rome the pope ordered the singing of a special Te Deum in St. Peter's and similar celebrations and rejoicings were held in Catholic churches in Madrid, Brussels and Vienna.

James was a Catholic, of course, and William a Protestant but, as always, the politics and economics underlying their conflict rose above religion.

Religious liberty

What about the notion that King Billy established religious liberty in Ireland and saved the Protestants from persecution? Again, Orange fable stands historical fact on its head.

It was James, as the legitimate incumbent of the English throne, who signed the Acts of the Dublin Parliament, giving freedom of religion to all citizens. King Billy, too, when he agreed the Treaty of Limerick in October 1691, accepted that the various religious denominations should continue to enjoy the freedom of religious worship established in the reign of Charles II and under the Acts of the Dublin Parliament agreed by James. Later he established the Episcopalian Church and effectively outlawed not only Catholicism but Presbyterianism -  the religion of the great majority of Protestants in Ireland.

A Presbyterian clergyman in 1691 was liable on conviction of delivering a sermon or celebrating the Lord's Supper to a term of imprisonment and fine of £100 and they were similarly punished for performing marriage rites. There are many recorded convictions for these "offences" during the period, especially in the counties of Antrim and Down. In 1694 the Williamite government passed a Test Act which effectively precluded Presbyterians from offices under the Crown and a further Act of 1713 set a punishment of imprisonment for Presbyterians convicted of schoolteaching and banned the marriage of Presbyterians and members of the Established church.

The History of Irish Presbyterianism gives the political and economic reasons for the persecution thus:
Presbyterians, having no political power, had to submit to political persecutions. The feudal system which transferred ownership of the soil from the toiler to the landlord was one of many evils introduced by the power of England.
King Billy was the chief agent of that feudal power which persecuted, viciously and equally, both Catholic and Presbyterian in Ireland.

Driven out of Ireland

Such was the "civil and religious liberty" enjoyed by the then, as now, numerically strongest Protestant denomination in Ireland that, in the first half of the eighteenth century, almost a quarter of a million Ulster Presbyterians were driven out of the country. These went mainly to America, where many played a distinguished role in the war of the American colonists to gain political and economic independence from England.

On both sides of today's sectarian divide it is ordinary working people, usually the very poorest, who are the victims of both the republican and loyalist myths. The hate mongers and fable peddlers don't live in the slums and are rarely victims of the violence they so actively promote.

When Presbyterians march to celebrate the Battle of the Boyne on "The Twelfth" and the victory of King Billy over his equally degenerate father-in-law, King James, they are commemorating a victory which was as opposed to the interests of their forbears in 1690 as it is to their own class interests in 1985.

Richard Montague
Belfast Branch WSP

Sensitive Billionarses

A couple of recent newspaper reports illustrate that billionaires are getting upset with the rest of us. 'Billionaire real estate investor Sam Zell agreed with capital pioneer Tom Perkins that wealthy Americans are being unfairly criticized and said that the 1 per cent work harder.' (Chicago Tribune, 6 February) 'Tamara Ecclestone, the daughter of Bernie Ecclestone, the billionaire head of Formula One, has accused Britons of having a "vicious attitude" towards people born into wealth. ...... The celebrity heiress has starred in a reality television show, Billionaire $$ Girl, about her opulent lifestyle, and is known to have spent £30,000 on champagne in a single night and bought a £1 million crystal bathtub.' (Times, 25 February) As far as we can ascertain Tamara has never worked a day in her life, despite Zell's claim about billionaires working harder. RD

Down with the State

Societies without States have continued to exist down to our own times among the many of the indigenous peoples of the world. As soon as there are in a society a possessing class and a dispossessed class, there exists in that society a constant source of conflict which the social organization would not long resist, if there was not a power charged with maintaining the “established order,” charged, in other words, with the protection of the economic situation of the possessing party, and therefore with the duty of ensuring the submission of the dispossessed party. This from its very birth  has been the role of the State. The offspring of struggles or threats of struggles between conflicting interests. The State, for socialists, is not any neutral beneficial social organization whatsoever. It is the public power of coercion created and maintained in human societies by their division into classes, and which, having force at its disposal, makes laws.  The State, having been created by the division of society into classes, is inevitably maintained by that division. The State is not an independent organism, having its own existence without regard to the interlaced economic relations of men, but is necessarily subordinate to the division of society into classes, and, in consequence, to a particular economic situation, no party whatever can reasonably set up, as the immediate goal for its efforts, the abolition of the State, nor the suppression of the political power that constitutes it. This where the so-called anarcho-capitalists, the supposed, right-wing libertarians are mistaken. The State, being a consequence, cannot disappearance before the disappearance of the social conditions of which it is the necessary result. The economic system  begets classes guarantees of perpetuity in the State. We can abolish the State only after having suppressed classes but unlike the traditional anarchist theory not to directly aim at present at its abolition because it cannot be abolished before the disappearance of classes, a disappearance that it must itself help to bring to pass. The only viable tactic for workers is the conquest of political power, the conquest of the State. It is the complete control by them of the public powers, that all their efforts must have in view; it is to this object that all their tactics must be devoted to make possible the suppression of classes.

State-capitalism is often mistakenly called state-socialism. Whenever an industry was nationalised it was declared an abandonment of capitalism and as an example of socialism in practice,  the transformation of capitalism into socialism. What came to pass was not socialism nor a step towards  socialism, but State- capitalism. Socialism is not state ownership, nationalisation or State management of industry, but the opposite: Socialism does away the state, its first act is to abolish the state. Socialism does not transform industry into the state, but state and industry are transformed into socialism, functioning industrially and socially through new administrative organisations  of the  producers, and not through the state. State-capitalism is not socialism and never can become socialism. A lure that is offered to the workers is that capitalism is  “democratised”  by state-capitalism, placing power in the hands of “the people” and the promise of regulation of working conditions through the fraudulent pretense of “industrial democracy.” But it strengthens the state and weakens the working class. The goal of the working class is liberation from exploitation. This goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting for the capitalists. It can only be realised by the workers themselves being masters over production. State-capitalism  planned by the rich for their own benefit and survival is quite possible, but it is far from the type of society where the rule rests in the hands of those who produce wealth and services and whose aim is the welfare of the mass of the people.

The Socialist Party must work for socialist  ideas to penetrate more and more the elective bodies, and this implies a constant propaganda among the working class.  For sure circumstances may possibly impose upon the socialist movement later on another mode of action, but that is a matter for the future not the  present. So long as such circumstances have not come to pass, socialism has nothing to gain by departing from its campaign for political power through the ballot box. Those who strive to keep the people out of the field of political action playing the same game of the ruling class. By shouting, “No politics!” they are merely echoing the rallying cry that the wealthy has always given to the working-class - “leave the running of the public affairs to your betters.”

Therefore, The Socialist Party say we must work without ceasing to elect socialists, to permeate and saturate the State more and more with socialist ideas, until, in the hands of the socialist party or the class-conscious, organized proletariat, the State with all its powers, and especially that of law-making, becomes the instrument, which it is destined to be, of the economic transformation to be accomplished. When that transformation is completely accomplished, there will then be, instead of persons to be constrained, only things to be administered, and on that glorious day there will still be a social organisation, but it will no longer be a State.

The Great Divide

From the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard an article from an Edinburgh branch member

The "North-South divide" has become part of political rhetoric. The government recently issued figures which showed that of the jobs lost in recent years, 94 per cent were in the north of the country and only 6 per cent in the south, thereby seeming to provide still more evidence of a division between North and South. In fact the "north" now includes almost anywhere outside the south-east of England as the Midlands have also suffered massive job losses. Predictably, the opposition parties have blamed this on the government's mismanagement of the economy. Roy Hattersley, Labour's deputy leader and shadow chancellor, said the government had "scandalously neglected those areas of the economy with which it does not feel any emotional sympathy and deep political interest" (Independent, January 21). He accused them of favouring city and financial interests in the south-east at the expense of manufacturing industry, which is synonymous with the interests of the regions. Edward Heath, the former Tory Prime Minister and leading "wet", said that the North-South divide was moving further south and that the government should pursue a policy of investment for the regions. What was required, he claimed, was a "constructive, co-ordinated development policy for the country as a whole".

The Liberal-SDP Alliance is always keen to talk about divisions in society. At the recent launch of their joint election programme, which was designed to paper over the damaging splits between the two parties, they talked of the need to unite the country through co-operation and partnership. Partnership in government, they argued, is the only way to heal the divisions between North and South. They also urged co-operation between workers and employers. that class division should be forgotten in the interests of a united nation. This is rather like urging someone being mugged to co-operate with the mugger.

Chancellor Nigel Lawson and other Tory ministers denied the existence of any North-South divide. Lawson claimed that the worst of the recession is over, that the economy is growing fast and that over one million new jobs have been created since 1983. But these new jobs have not been spread evenly across the country. On the government's own figures, since 1983 there were 446,000 new jobs in the South-East, but only 135,000 new jobs in Scotland, the North-West, the North-East and Yorkshire and Humberside added together. There has been a five per cent increase in jobs in the financial services to 2.25 million, but manufacturing output is still four cent below its 1979 level. Thatcher has claimed that it is wrong to talk of a North-South divide as parts of the South are doing badly. She has got a point, although it does seem strange that she would want to remind people of the severe deprivation and decay that exists in parts of the South-East, especially areas of inner London.

Manufacturing industry has suffered badly in the current world depression. Many coalmines, steelmills, shipyards and factories have been closed and many others have had severe job losses. Some towns and cities have rates of unemployment in excess of 20 per cent, with some pockets in these areas having much higher levels. This is not a deliberate government policy however - governments can do little to affect the way the economy operates. All wealth under capitalism is produced for sale on the market in the expectation that it will make a profit for the owners. If a product cannot be sold at a profit then production is cut back and workers thrown on the dole. Many industries in the north of the country have been faced with this situation and have acted accordingly. Most of the political criticism seems to want a "fairer" spread of employment prospects across the whole country. Even if this were possible, the implication of this kind of argument is to spread poverty across a wider geographical area. Which ever way capitalism inflicts its suffering on the working class is unacceptable. To argue about its location but ignore its real cause serves only to perpetuate it.

Talk about a North-South divide, or indeed whether workers are employed or unemployed, only covers over the real division in society -  the class division. If you have to work in order to live, if you are a member of the working class, then you are likely to experience a life of shortage, insecurity and relative poverty. Whether you live in London or Liverpool or whether you earn 300 a week or are on the dole will not change this. Clearly existing on a giro means more intense poverty than existing on a wage packet but compared to the life of ease and luxury lived by the capitalist class, these differences are meaningless. As long as workers allow capitalism to continue there will be arguments about who is doing best (or least badly). We will be told that northerners are being hard done by compared to southerners, despite the fact that both endure various levels of poverty. In fact workers themselves will contribute to these artificial divisions - not so long ago there were reports of trouble at a football match when supporters of a London club waved bunches of 10 notes at Liverpool fans and sang songs about them being on the dole.

There always seem to be a plentiful supply of Scottish nationalists who claim that the "English" parliament doesn't care about the Scots, who should get their own parliament and run their own affairs. The Brixton and Tottenham riots happened almost within spitting distance of the House of Commons; clearly, having the "mother of parliaments" on your doorstep is no sure way to peace and prosperity. Not so long ago we were told how lucky we are to live in a developed country like Britain, because if we lived in parts of Africa we'd be starving to death. They were still talking about the North-South divide, but now in global terms. It is cold comfort to people on the dole to be told that they are lucky that they don't live in Ethiopia. The absolute poverty is not the same, but its cause and solution certainly are.

The possibility of finding differences in working class existence are endless. The urgent need is to put an end to the system that creates these artificial divisions. Capitalism is by its nature divisive and competitive, whether it divides people on the grounds of race, sex, nationality or geographical location. Workers have got to transcend these artificial differences and recognise our common interest - that of a degraded, exploited class. Once we recognise our basic class interests then no force on earth can prevent us from acting accordingly, and putting an end to all social division once and for all.

Ian Ratcliffe

Food For Thought

 A horrifying article in the Toronto Star of December 28 focused on the mutilation and sale of albinos' body parts in Tanzania, "In Tanzania's black market, black magic is for sale. Witch doctors offer bits of albinos' bodies; arms, legs, hair, genitals, and blood. They are used for potions that the sellers promise will bestow health, wealth, and happiness." It is shocking that in today's world where so much knowledge is available that such incredible superstition exists – an incentive to work for truth and scientific knowledge for the whole world in a socialist society. John Ayers

Helping The Poor?

At first it sounds reassuring. 'Pope Francis on Monday revolutionized the Vatican's scandal-plagued finances, inviting outside experts into a world often seen as murky and secretive and saying the church must use its wealth to help the poor.' (New York Times, 24 February) A department known as the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), which manages financial holdings and real estate, will formally assume the role of the Vatican's central bank the statement said. The role and structure of the separate Vatican bank, formally known as the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), will not change for the time being. Both the IOR and APSA have been at the centre of scandals. Italian magistrates are investigating the IOR on allegations of money laundering. Monsignor Nunzio Scarano, who worked as a senior accountant at APSA for 22 years and who had close ties to the IOR, is currently on trial accused of plotting to smuggle millions of dollars into Italy from Switzerland to help rich friends avoid taxes. Reassured? RD