New Decision-making Structures ?

This is from the Production for Use Committee Report 2002 

New Decision-making Structures ?

The purpose of discussing socialism as a practical alternative is - in my view - to help elucidate just how simple and straightforward the revolutionary transformation can be. We need to take positive steps to convince sympathisers that the mechanics of the revolution and administration inside socialism are simply not that important in the scheme of things: they should present no psychological barrier to someone becoming a socialist.

The approach that this member of the committee takes is that we should keep whatever we can of capitalist structures, unless there is a very good reason for changing it.

First of all we must take care to distinguish between the democratic structures for getting rid of capitalism, and those needed for making socialism. Certainly, the socialist transformation will require to (or at least set out to with the intent to) capture political power across the globe. But developing decision-making for use inside socialism requires a very different approach. This distinction requires to be very clearly made. The first is necessarily global and top-down in nature, utilising whatever democratic structures capitalism leaves us with. It needs to be "one size fits all", so that socialism starts with a relatively level playing field in terms of workers' class consciousness across the globe (we obviously cannot - to use a crude example - have workers in one part of the world looking to workers elsewhere for leadership or guidance). But this issue has been well-examined in the past by the party and recent developments in global communications makes it even less likely that a socialist consciousness will develop in only certain parts of the planet.

The structures of decision-making necessary to implement socialism however are likely to require to be radically different from those inherited from capitalism.

We should not, of course, confuse the organisation of capitalism with the motive of the market system. Certainly there are some aspects of production, distribution and the structures involved in capitalism which strongly reflect the market system it supports (eg armies), however we should be wary of throwing the baby (decision-making structures) out with the bathwater (the market-based motive for production). A healthier perspective is to continually emphasise that capitalism is about social relationships: the social system, the means underpinning capitalism will be fully available to socialism. Specifically in relation to decision-making inside socialism, we should be very wary of rejecting the structures or lines of communication left by capitalism. Sure, the internal structures of many organisations reflect their origin, but the decision-making processes inherited should surely be our first concern. It is a failing of some anarchist lines of thought to fetishise the organisation or hierarchy, as being inherently oppressive or undemocratic. Rather than re-inventing the wheel or developing new decision-making structures separate to and different from those of capitalism, we should by default use the existing systems, unless an alternative is clearly better.

When I drive on the A1 road I am following a route first made by Roman armies 2000 years ago: it doesn't however mean I necessarily approve of Rome's imperialist expansion. Similarly we should view capitalism's decision-making structures as a social tool developed by humans and currently used to smooth the operation of capitalism. In the hands of a socialist majority, a switch will be flicked in this machine, and - with a little tweaking here and there - it will be available to help enable socialism. Socialism will not mean more meetings, committees etc: it will be a simpler version of production and decision-making than inside capitalism. These are the sorts of arguments that we should give sympathisers who want to know how socialism could operate. If we don't present these arguments, by default it tends to be assumed that we are proposing some sort of unattractive continual global referendum.

In many ways the party's existing comments regarding Socialism as a Practical Alternative emphasise the use which a socialist majority may make of existing capitalist structures, however they do not (in the view of this member of the committee) go nearly far enough. Certainly, specific organisations - and the potential for their almost unaltered involvement in socialism - were well-identified (eg UN WHO, ILO etc) in the 1985 report, however the previous work constructed new democratic structures (at local, regional and global levels) and ignored the main decision-making structure in capitalism.

I would argue that Capitalism has four main decision-making systems of interest to socialists:

A. Firstly there is traditional local democracy, such as local parish, district or regional councils. In these, decisons are primarily made by and with regard to the interests of, a local community, defined geographically. Decisons can have a non-quantitative, non-monetary basis (eg visual impact of a new factory; safety concerns regarding a new by-pass)

B. Secondly there is National and Supra-national democratic structures, such as governments, the European Union, and the UN. At these levels, decisions are made with little impact on any particular locality and tend to be monetary-based. This is the level that various sectors of the capitalist class argue over how surplus value should best be apportioned and spent (taxation, wage levels, training and productivity investment, trade and tarif barriers etc). It is understandable that inside capitalism there will be a tendency to try and make these decisions at the highest level possible, where voters have less interest and less clout. Few people are interested (for example) in UK recycling and waste disposal options, but when a company wants to put an incinerator upwind, the village hall is packed out. Fortunately for the capitalist class, they don't need to come to your village hall and present the reasons why a certain level of unemployment should be accepted in the village. I would argue that while we can take some of capitalism's democratic leftovers, we should do so critically, and not blindly mimic the "levels" of decision-making that capitalism provides us with, nor over-emphasise the importance of the "upper" non-local levels of decision-making. I suspect that the more this issue is examined, the more apparent it will become that decision-making inside socialism will involve a huge shift from the global to the regional, and from the regional to the local.

C. Thirdly, there is decision-making within the workplace. Primarily this is regarding how production is organised. This has always been an area of interest to the left-wing, but strikes me as being of little interest now. "Can the workers run industry ?" is an old question that the left (via nationalisation) and the Party have addressed. It appears an outdated question now, one that few people actually ask. The workplace (particularly industrial ones) was the battleground in the 60s and 70s, as various leftwing strands of thought sought to fetishise the worker and the "point of production", and infiltrate trade unions for recruitment purposes. Instead we would argue that capitalism is a social relationship, that workers experience the class struggle in the many different ways, and that the workplace is not necessarily where workers' consciousness can be changed. That no-one really asks the question "can workers run industry ?" anymore, is to me, a measure of the extent to which capitalism has - on the one hand - managed to control workers outside of the workplace through consumerism, and - on the other hand - within the workplace has had to empower workers.

Capitalism does not fit with human beings too easily. As work (at least in the north/west) shifts from banging metal to using a mouse, capitalism needs workers to be able to use their brains, make decisions and take responsibility. This requirement cannot be turned on and off to suit the capitalist, so workplaces are increasingly being organised on a less hierarchical basis, with "quality circles" and upward appraisals (you appraise your manager), and providing control over when and how you work. In some sectors, employers are falling over themselves to offer flexible working with flat management structures ina "fun" workplace environment of cafes and pool tables: workers are responding less and less to simple increased salaries. Little wonder that less doubt is now expressed that workers can actually run industry - it is more apparent than ever before that they already do so.

D. The final decision-making arena is one that is not discussed in the 1985 report, but one which is - in my view - the most important. Most decisions regarding production and distribution are made inside capitalism by companies, firms, plc's etc. Not so much with regard to the qualitative aspects of how a process is undertaken (that is discussed at 'C' above), but rather the simple quantitative issues of how much should be produced.

Of course inside capitalism this simple issue is massively complicated by the fact that the raw materials coming into your factory, and the product being shipped out, will change in price by the second due to market, and (if you export/import) currency fluctuations, as hundreds of different and anarchic "business cycles" interact.

Nevertheless it should be recognised that the structure of supplier(s)-producer-customer(s) when multiplied up across the economy represents easily the most important decision-making system. (For example, the UN meets once every ten years to discuss Sustainable Development and your local council may employ one officer to address the subject. Yet the businesses in your area will make literally hundreds of decisions every day which will impact on this one issue).

I would argue that socialism would not seek to replace this decision-making structure. We should not try and make decisions about production through a separate local-regional-global democratic structure. We would keep companies and firms as they are. People would go and work as normal in them inside socialism. They would look at projections for demand of their product or service, whether directly from "consumers" or other firms ("customers"), they would establish production requirements for the week/month/year, and they would source suppliers and place orders for the raw materials they in turn will require on the basis of quality, turnaround and proximity.

If we put to one side those industries and services which will fall into total or almost complete disuse inside socialism (eg advertising, marketing, insurance , banking, military etc), the rest of capitalist production will carry on, if not quite seamlessly, then at least in much the same way as before. The only differences being how the factory or firm or office is organised internally (which would be left to the people themselves to sort out), and the absence of wages or prices. Companies would switch suppliers, and win or lose contracts on the basis of the quality and turnaround they can provide for their product. Resource depletion, transport costs and energy usage factors of production would start to be taken into account in a way that capitalism can only talk about. Decision-making would be devolved to the "consumer". The market system does empower the individual when it makes him/her a consumer, but only of course, if they have some money. Socialism would not discard this: the individual "consumer" in a moneyless society will ultimately make the decisions on production, articulated through their demand when they take from the common stores of goods, according to self-defined need.

Many defenders of "free-market" (if there is such a thing) capitalism, call it an efficient system. And it is - compared to centralised state capitalism. Far better to have individuals deciding what products and how much they want to consume, than some central committee. The only problem with capitalism of course is that - expressed through money - some individuals have many more opportunities to make decisions than others do. While billions have $1 per day to vote with, Bill Gates and Richard Branson and a few others have millions of dollars-worth of nice votes to make.

Many non-socialists (and socialists for that matter) have expressed the view that socialist production will be a matter of meetings, referenda, committees etc. I would argue that we should not be seeking to establish democratic sructures to decide and then dictate production levels throughout the "economy". Millions and millions of self-organised, self-defined units of production which occupy specific niches in the global economy, are already in operation inside capitalism, waiting to be transformed by the missing element (class-conscious workers) into the means of production and distribution that will define socialism.

These production units will not really have any power though - they will be responding to consumer demand. Do we want to go down the route of establishing local committees on glass production etc ?. Instead, the responsibility will be left to the producers (who are of course also consumers in their own right it should be remembered).

Where strategic decisions - rather than ones merely responding to demand - require to be made, (or there is a significant increase or decrease in demand) this may require production units in a particular industry to make decisions amongst themselves. Again this is not wishful thinking - this mimics what happens inside capitalism, with industry trade bodies. However rather than being mouthpieces for the capitalist class of that sector, they will be making decisions on behalf of the consumer to try and meet the changing demand requirements in that locality.

Society will delegate responsibility then, for glass production, to the relevant production units (sand quarrying, glass factory, general distribution networks). There will however be some areas where society will want to retain ultimate control. Two scenarios where decision-making regarding production will require "external" input are discussed here.

Firstly, perhaps increased demand for glass requirements will require more workers, or diversion of natural resources from another sector of industry. This could be achieved by diktat, by means of a council decision (at local, regional or global levels depending on the geographical scope of the problem). Alternatively however we should not forget the chaotic, self-organised decision-making model that is underpinned by the consumer. This is a highly democratic user-defined decision-making model that capitalism has claimed for itself but in fact operates on a distorted basis. Consumers in such a situation will also be far more free than they are inside capitalism, to make decisions based on more than just their material needs (eg for beer in a glass bottle) , and will switch to non-glass products if glass is getting scarce. Inside capitalism the consumer is just that and nothing else. In socialism though they are also producers in social production (eg factories), they are also producers in another sense - of waste. Recycling is a sensible measure and (again) one that capitalism finds extremely difficult to develop to any real extent, but which will occur where needed inside socialism as the consumer (informed and involved in society) feeds back decreased consumption of glass and increased recycling.

The second scenario where decision-making regarding production cannot just be left to the producers, is where local issues impact. The siting of a factory, the construction of a road etc may have positive impacts for society as a whole, but will have negative ones for those who have to breathe in traffic fumes or have the visual impact of a factory. Delineating the plusses and minuses of such developments, and trying to ensure that the benefits and the disadvantages impact fairly is a massive problem inside capitalism and it will remain a problem inside socialism. The way of resolving the issue will be the same - by means of decision-making at the appropriate level - local (for those affected by proximity) versus regional/global (for those affected as consumers) . Of course, what causes so much of a ("Nimby") problem inside capitalism is the emotional attachment placed by someone on their property, the potential "amenity value" financial impact (eg reduction in value of their house), and the perception that someone is making money at their expense. While socialism would avoid or reduce some of these concerns, it is important to be realistic and recognise that it would not remove them all.

Brian Gardner
Glasgow Branch

Everything is Possible

“Unite the many to defeat the few”

What is it people want? A more fulfilling life and happiness. People not only want change, they want a vision of a better society. The aspiration of every person consists, in the first instance, in safeguarding his or her life, and then in improving it. We want to live for as long and as well as possible. We want to ward off all that can degrade us but we are under great pressure from capitalism.

Mankind will only be able to act usefully when it has managed to destroy all lies, freed itself from all the superstitions and found the truth in the jumble of knowledge and observations. Much of the time of socialists has been spent in merely re-establishing what Marx and Engels said and stood for, to counter various new forms of age-old distortions. Much of what is being passed off for revolutionary theory in our movement is really just dogma which is of no use to anyone, especially the working class. Many on the Left pretend to see further than anyone else, but they do not even perceive that they are marching backwards. The word “revolutionary” is popular and it suffers the same fate of that other word “socialism”. Every petty political bureaucrat runs for office under the banner of this or that revolutionary policy. Every reactionary deed is accomplished under the banner of “The Revolution.”

 We have so long been accustomed to receive without question the teachings of the master class so our message must be clear and unambiguous, and consistent. Man, as a social animal, has a claim upon the society which gave him (or her) birth. This claim involves, in the first place, the right of free access to the means of life. Yet far too many lack the simple necessities of life. The whole aim of socialism is that every human being, white,  black, red, or yellow, shall have equal opportunity to have access to the natural resources which nature has supplied and to the technology which mankind has created and then to have the full social product of his or her labour.

 Capitalism is an economic system which is based on the exploitation of working people by a handful of the extremely wealthy. As long as this basic system continues to exist, so will the misery of the working class. Recognising this, the World Socialist Movement seeks to organise the entire working class into a powerful movement to overthrow the power of the ruling class. . Only by all the workers acting together as one can the working class equal the power of capitalism. In order to maximise their effectiveness the working class must link up together and by organizing themselves they can develop a co-ordinated attack on their common enemy. Such an attack would be much more difficult for the capitalists to defeat. Sometime down the road, the people will break out of the strait jacket of the pro-capitalist parties, and form an independent mass socialist party. Organisation is how the working class will fight for its emancipation and hence why the form of organisation constitute the most important problem in the practice of the working class movement. It is clear that these forms depend on the conditions of society and the aims of the fight. They cannot be the invention of theory, but have to be built up spontaneously by the working class itself, guided by its immediate requirements.

Many still think of the socialist revolution in terms of the former revolutions as a series of consecutive phases: first, conquest of government and instalment of a new government, then expropriation of the capitalist class by law, and then a new organisation of the process of production. We are well schooled by the idea that it is we, the people, who elect the government and therefore it is we who are responsible for the laws of it. We are taught to regard ’the state’ (along with “the law” and so on) as a kind of neutral arbiter or “referee”. The word “state”, however,  is not just another word for “society”. The state is, of course, the centralisation of capitalist economic management.

To the liberal, progressive Left “constructive” parliamentary work is of supreme importance as it constitutes in their eyes the gradual introduction of socialism. A reform here and a reform there, and the socialist state has become perceptibly nearer than it was. They do not perceive that the reforms have not even touched the basic interests of capitalists, and even as palliatives their value, in comparison with the needs, is frequently insignificant. Parliamentary manoeuvres and electoral strategies cannot change historical facts, conjure away class interests and bridge class conflicts.

The election of a Socialist Party candidate to any public body at present, is only valuable in so far as it is the return of a disturber of the political peace. If we do not say, openly and publicly, that a vote for Tweedledum or Tweedledee is a vote cast in favour of a capitalist party and will do the working class no good at all, what the hell are we in politics for?

Without socialism the working class is reduced to a constant struggle against the effects of capitalism because without socialism the system of capitalism remains intact. Socialism is powerless without the working class and the working class cannot advance without socialism. Instead of getting caught up with those who would have us rush with our eyes closed to build “The Left Party”, we will continue our work in trying to bring about the union of socialism and the working class movement. The role of socialists is not to append ourselves to working class struggles that are already happening in any case, but to introduce into them a whole range of other class issues. We must not allow our hearts to run away with our heads. When we criticise the Left we are accused of doing capitalism a favour, by disheartening and confusing many sincere activists. We, on the contrary, think that the Left foster illusions that genuine socialists have long warned against.

Only when the working class assume control of the means of production does exploitation cease. Then the workers direct entirely their conditions of life. The production of everything necessary for life is the common task of the community of workers, which is then the community of mankind. This production is a collective process. First each factory, each work-place, is a collective of workers, combining their efforts in an organised way. Moreover, the totality of world production is now a collective process; all the separate factories combined into a totality of production. When the working class takes possession of the means of production, it has at the same time to create an organisation of production. It is clear that the organisational forms of trade union and political party, inherited from the period of expanding capitalism, are useless here.

It is only by having an extra-parliamentary force to fall back on that the working class can make full use, of its parliamentary power. We can accomplish in parliament what can be accomplished there only on condition that we are ready to defend our right to representation. We must be prepared at any moment to fight for the ballot with all the means at our command. Nowhere can workers accomplish anything worthwhile by the method of compromise which leads always to division and so to a loss of power. Only under the banner of the class-struggle, never under that of legislative bargaining, can the whole working class movement be united, can it finally succeed in unfolding its full power. Instead of a party striving for a rapid transformation of the existing society into a socialist system we should have a party content with reforming capitalism. 

Arise ye slaves!

Slavery is not yet abolished. So long as the worker is deprived of property in the instruments of production, so long as his labour-power is a commodity which he is obliged to sell to another, he is not a free being, be he white or black. He is simply a slave to a master and from morning until night is as much a bondsman as any plantation slave ever was. 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. 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, no matter where he resides or what may be the colour of his skin. This was the condition of the African-Americans before the Civil War, and it is his or her condition today, but also the condition of all propertyless workers. That the worker
can today change masters does not alter the fact. Today he or she may leave one master but must look for another or starve. 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 toil. The worker today, then, is a slave, bound by the pressure of economic wants to compulsory servitude to capitalist masters under the greatest tyranny of all — the tyranny of want. The person who is  compelled to submit to wages dictated by a corporation, and who is at the beck and call of a boss has not much personal liberty to boast of over the chattel slave.

Under chattel-slavery the slave was bought and sold and became the property of the buyer. Under the system of wage-slavery, to which workers of all lands are subjected at present, the labour or more accurately the labour-power of the individual worker is bought, a wage is paid to the worker by the employer, and the employer only takes an interest in the welfare of his workers in so far as it helps him to make profits out of them.

The most barbarous fact is the labour market. The mere term sufficiently expresses its commerce of the buying and selling of people as beasts. It is the inhuman traffic of people and it is brutally simple, a handful of capitalists and financiers control of the factories, the farms the mines and the natural resources and they decide who will work and who shall not.  The lives of the workers are made up of worry, anxiety, insecurity, and hardships, the constant pinching to make ends meet, and the continual necessity of learning to do without things. As long as the wages system continues, part of the wealth which the workers create will be kept back from them. The share which is withheld from the workers is the larger share, and, as machinery increases and improves, the share will grow larger. The things necessary for the production of wealth must be made the common property of the people and must be controlled by them. The workers who would be free must organise and must educate themselves. They must get out of their heads all idea that the era of wage-slavery cannot be ended and work towards  the era of the co-operative commonwealth. The working class must affirm the unity of the workers of the whole world in common struggle for the realisation of this common goal.

The workers cannot restrict themselves to addressing only the symptoms of their oppression. They must prepare for removing the source of the disease, the capitalist system of wage slavery, that is the source of all the problems facing the working class and establish socialism. The apologists for the capitalists and the reformists dismiss this as “unrealistic”. They pretend it is so laughable as not to deserve serious discussion. The capitalists and their retainers do everything to try to ensure that the idea of the transformation of the social system is not even debated precisely because that is the real danger to themselves.

Socialist revolution is not only a possibility, it is a necessity in order to avert the grave dangers facing people, to prevent the further immiseration and destitution to avert the dangers of war and to reverse the environmental destruction of our planet. The class struggle must be strengthened and deepened.

"Go And Eat Cake"

On February 24, we were treated with the delightful photographs of Zimbabwean President, Robert Mugabe cutting one of his birthday cakes. Residents were compelled to wave flags and cheer in his honor of his 90th celebration. This is quite a contrast considering that 2.2 million Zimbabweans are in need of food assistance according to the UN Food Program. Though the official unemployment rate for the country of thirteen million is officially eleven per cent, unofficial estimates peg it at eighty per cent. The economy hasn't been helped by Mugabe's seizure of privately owned farms and giving them to his political cronies who lack agricultural experience. Meanwhile, Mugabe is renovating his suburban mansion, in readiness for his daughter's upcoming wedding. Nor are there any political opponents. As one commentator said, " I think people are no longer much interested in politics. They are interested in getting relief." This, however, is the time to get political so they can be relieved of a system that creates Mugabes. To him it could then be said, "Go and eat cake!" John Ayers

Insane

The death toll in Syria has now reached 4,110 in three years and has been rising at the rate of 170 per day, every day, for the past year. This is just one of the many conflicts around the world – insane! John Ayers.

The Need To Act Now

Lake Cachuma in California, a lake created in 1953 by the damming of the Santa Ynez river to provide water for 200,000 people has completely dried up in California's worst drought. Usually, it's 15 metres deep and not long ago spilled over the top. This is just another indicator of our changing climate and the need to act now. John Ayers

Just Another Tragedy

It was just another working class tragedy and only made a few lines in the national press. 'A pensioner died after waiting for an ambulance for two hours. William Goulburn, 73, collapsed at home in Hartlepool but an ambulance did not reach him until he had gone into cardiac arrest, an inquiry was told.' (Times, 23 April) The coroner ruled that he died of natural causes but that his death was aggravated by a "lack of timely medical intervention". What the coroner did not add was that Mr Goulburn had the misfortune to be born a member of the working class, had worked all his life and was too poor to afford adequate medical attention. RD

Nationalism or Freedom

Although we speak of Scotland as “our” country, and millions have died or have been mutilated in defence of what they called “their” country over the ceturies, as a matter of fact, Scotland does not belong to the whole of the Scottish people, but only to a small few. How many of us can point to a particular place on the map and say “This is mine”? And of those who can claim title the greater number own just small plots after a lifetime of paying off the bank mortgage. But the truth is that greatest part of Scotland belongs to a few great land-owners.

The SNP speak of Scotland as a wealthy country. Does that mean that the Scots as a whole are well off or will be better off? By no means. Some Scots are immensely rich, most of us though barely get by and many of us are degradingly poor. The great majority of the people own nothing except their muscles and brains, that is, their power and capacity to work.

In capitalist Scotland, production is carried on not for the purpose of supplying the needs of the people but for the purpose of sale in order to realise a profit. Only those who have something to sell can get a living. Only those can obtain things who can afford to buy. This is the commercial system, and this is how it works out:- Scotland manufactures enough to supply all the requirements of the people. But the workers cannot afford to buy all that they require of these commodities. To use the language of commerce, “the home market cannot absorb the home production”, and so the capitalist sends his goods where he can sell them, to England, to Europe, to America, to wherever while the workers who have produced these have to go without them. If things were produced for use, nobody would spend time in the manufacture of shoddy goods or adulterated food. Commerce is the only purpose of Scottish industry.

The worker has nothing to sell but his or her labour power to an employer for so many hours a day for a certain price, that is, wages. Since one cannot separate labour power from one’s body it comes to this, that workers actually sells themselves like slaves. We socialists, call it “Wage slavery”. Wages are determined by what it costs to keep a family. These days not many can save out of their wages. They may be able to put something aside, but soon savings are gone. It is a fact that in Scotland  on the average a working person is not more than two weeks removed from penury.

The employers will only buy labour if they can make profit out of it. Just compare the value of the goods you turned out in a day when you were in the factory, and what you received for your work. The difference between the two is the employer’s profit. Profit is the result of the unpaid labour of the worker. In capitalist Scotland, the workers are continually robbed of the fruits of their labour. The bosses will compel the workers to work as hard and as long as he can, for as little money as possible. In spite of Factory Acts and Health and Safety regulations sweat-shops still flourishes in Scotland and inhuman conditions of work and pay still exist. Despite the efforts of the best-organised trade unions wages never rise higher than the cost of living. And even this is not secured. In the endeavour to produce as cheaply as possible, the capitalist continually introduces labour-saving new technology, which enables him to produce more in less time and reduces the standard of skill required so wages fall while unemployment is continually on the increase.

What does capitalism offer working people? A life of toil, a bare subsistence. Always the dread fear of redundancy. A drab, colourless existence in the jerry-built housing estates, and, if too sick or too old to work any longer, to be thrown on the rubbish-tip, discarded and used up, sucked dry.

All governments exists solely to serve the interests of the capitalists and there is no reason to suppose that a sovereign Scottish parliament would be any different.  There will still be riches and leisure for the few, toil and poverty for the many. Palaces for the wealthy, slums for the workers. A capitalist independent Scotland can offer its workers nothing but wage slavery.

The Socialist Party wishes whole world to become huge cooperative society, and the working person, instead of slaving to enrich the idle capitalist, creates wealth for the whole community. The worker enjoys the results of his or labour, without having to pay tribute to speculators and profiteers. Workers will  take a direct part in the direction of industrial production and will no longer be a slave of another, but a member of a great community of labour. Together we can form a world-wide co-operative commonwealth rather than serve the employers in their Edinburgh parliament.

A Grim Future

Many workers imagine that come retirement age they will be able to enjoy a sort of rocking-chair type of retirement but a recent report shows that to be a complete illusion. 'Millions of retirees face a pensions shock with most having to live on less than the minimum wage. The average Briton will see their annual income plummet by two-thirds from £25,480 to £8,774 - including state pension - when they stop working. Researchers have found that men will receive £10,967 a year, or £211 a week on average, but women will have to get by on just £6,580, or £126 a week.' (Daily Express, 22 April) According to the grim report by savings and investment firm LV, a fifth of women and 12 per cent of men who are within five years of retiring have no private pension and will rely solely on the state. These people will see their income fall by three-quarters on average to around £110 a week. Hardly an idyllic future, is it? RD

The National Ill -Health Service.

From time to time politicians engage in debates about the efficiency or otherwise of the National Health Service but they seldom mention that at least 1,000 hospital patients are dying needlessly each month from  dehydration and poor care by doctors and nurses, according to an NHS study.  'The deaths from acute kidney injury could be prevented by simple steps such as nurses ensuring patients have enough to drink and doctors reviewing their medication, the researchers say. Between 15,000 and 40,000 patients die annually because hospital staff fail to diagnose the treatable kidney problem, a figure that dwarfs the death toll from superbugs like MRSA.' (Daily Telegraph, 22 April) The reality is that the NHS is under-staffed and under-funded and being a service that is wholly used by the working class is unlikely to be improved. RD

The Crisis and Reformism

With the system’s profits declining, some corporations moved to take advantage of cheaper labour abroad, re-locating a great deal of their own industrial production. Other capitalists turned to speculative financial deals that boosted their income on paper without significantly expanding production or productivity. The long-term result of speculation and unprecedented state and corporate borrowing was the bubble of fictitious capital (as Marx termed it) which inevitably had to pop at some time or other. Working-class people have no cause to take joy in such an event. We have to prepare for the worse, which is no sustained capitalist recovery is possible without pay cuts and increased productivity.

Capitalism has historically made use of recessions to rescue profits—by pushing down workers’ wages and forcing weaker capitalists to sell their assets at bargain prices. When the bottom dropped out of the stock exchange in 2007, the capitalist class felt a paralysing shock. The working class may have lost confidence in the often unquestioned expertise of the financial advisers, but, more strikingly, the businessmen themselves suddenly became anxious to take political and economic direction from someone, somewhere, who somehow could save their system. The President and the Federal Reserve promised a “bail-out” but criticised Wall St for excessive speculation and extravagant bonuses. A large proportion of the capitalist class decided that Washington might be the savior, even if it meant submitting to new codes of “fair” business practices. Some capitalists, however, resent the interference of government in their businesses, fearing the thin edge of the wedge which may eventually impact upon their treatment of worker and profit margins. They decline to acknowledge that central government served the interests of capitalism by saving their system. The capitalists today have thousands of laws on paper regulating and legislating the operation of capitalism, but still the corporate corruption thrives and even worsens. This is because they have a greater law in command – the law of maximising profit – and it is under this law all of society is maintained.

Many describe the crisis in terms of workers suffering from low wages and austerity cuts on their benefits are unable to purchase the very goods they themselves have produced. This is called the “under-consumptionist” theory of crisis. This then leads to the advocacy of government policies to boost spending power of consumers.
Mary Lyn Cramer writes:
"Bourgeois theorists will insist that consumer demand of the working population is what drives Capitalist production. It is clear that many of these well intentioned spokespersons actually believe what they are saying...
If a feudal lord were to have told his serf, that the sole purpose of his exploitation was to enable his lord to provide the serf with the material goods necessary to maintain an acceptable level of poverty, the serf would have thought the lord insane. Likewise, if an African slave had been told by the American plantation owner that his enslavement and low standard of living was necessary so that the plantation could produce what the slave needed for survival, she would have thought her master crazy.
But for some reason, laborers exploited by Capitalists are suppose to believe that the accumulation of vast resources, enormous factories, state-of-the art ports, refineries, etc., etc., owned by the Capitalists are necessary for, and simply serve the purpose of producing what working people need to survive and maintain an acceptable standard of living. It is all done for us, and it all comes back to us working people. If that sounds absurd to you, maybe the following will more clearly reflect your reality:
Yes, under the Capitalist system of production and distribution, "consumer goods" sufficient for the the employed labor force to survive (at a more or less acceptable standard of living), is necessary. However, Capital expansion and production of real, material "producer goods"--- such as industrial machinery, factories, infrastructure, technology, planes, company limos, corporate cars, trucks, freight trains, ships, docks, commercial ports and transport of all kinds, along with the communications centers, security apparatus, administrative compounds, together with the pipelines, refineries, natural resources, raw materials and fuel to operate this enormous, global empire---make up the larger part of material production and privately-owned accumulated wealth in this nation and globally; and these tremendous means of production are neither consumed by nor owned by the workers who produce them. Under a system of Capitalist production, exploitation of a labor force that produces much more than it consumes is the essential source of real profits. It is production and expansion of the enormous, modern industrial Capitalist empire that is the aim of Capitalism (and all those who identify as successful competitive players in this deadly game), not increased consumption of goods and services for working people. The latter is the necessary "spin-off" so to speak, until those workers themselves are no longer deemed "necessary."

This is also reflected by the position as advanced by Greg Sharzer:
“First, wages don't create all demand: they're just one way for capitalists to realize the capital invested in commodities (…) Most people encounter the market when they shop, so it seems natural to believe that capitalism exists to satisfy our consumer needs. But while the market in consumer goods is constantly on display, exploitation is hidden. Workers matter as workers, the source of surplus value: they're only able to receive and spend a wage if their employer makes a profit first. Moreover, capitalist production creates capital goods that only business buys: the machinery and building materials that go into factories, offices and other sites of exploitation. Capital has to consume materials at all stages of the production process. Machines increase production, making more machines necessary and increasing the importance of industries producing the means of production. There are huge areas of the economy off-limits to workers' spending power. (…) Even if localist missionaries convinced all workers that local consumption could change the world, workers could, at best, change the conditions of production for their own housing and durable goods, a small portion of the capital circuit.” (Greg Sharzer, "No Local. Why Small-Scale Alternatives Won’t Change the World".)

Marx pointed out in Volume 2 of Theories of Surplus Value:
“The word over-production in itself leads to error. So long as the most urgent needs of a large part of society are not satisfied, or only the most immediate needs are satisfied, there can of course be absolutely no talk of an over-production of products— in the sense that the amount of products is excessive in relation to the need for them. On the contrary, it must be said that on the basis of capitalist production, there is constant under-production in this sense. The limits to production are set by the profit of the capitalist and in no way by the needs of the producers. But over-production of products and over-production of commodities are two entirely different things."

Marx himself noticed:
“It is sheer tautology to say that crises are caused by the scarcity of effective consumption, or of effective consumers. The capitalist system does not know any other modes of consumption than effective ones, except that of sub forma pauperis or of the swindler. That commodities are unsaleable means only that no effective purchasers have been found for them, i.e., consumers (since commodities are bought in the final analysis for productive or individual consumption). But if one were to attempt to give this tautology the semblance of a profounder justification by saying that the working-class receives too small a portion of its own product and the evil would be remedied as soon as it receives a larger share of it and its wages increase in consequence, one could only remark that crises are always prepared by precisely a period in which wages rise generally and the working-class actually gets a larger share of that part of the annual product which is intended for consumption. From the point of view of these advocates of sound and “simple” (!) common sense, such a period should rather remove the crisis. It appears, then, that capitalist production comprises conditions independent of good or bad will, conditions which permit the working-class to enjoy that relative prosperity only momentarily, and at that always only as the harbinger of a coming crisis.”

The SPGB crisis position is based upon the "anarchy of production" which if you wish to take a swipe at them this can be simplistically described as "supply and demand" - producers not knowing that there is a buyer for their commodities until after they have been put on the market and giving rise to disproportionate growth. (This is, of course, not defence for some form of central planning!!)

 Economic crises are due to the basic features of the capitalist system. One feature is the anarchy of production. Businessmen decide what kind of things to produce and how many to produce either individually or in small groups. Production is not planned. Over time, disproportions between the activities of various firms and different industries eventually occur. The effect of this unplanned method of production under capitalism causes either too many products or too few products on the market. Disproportions in the economy affect the capitalists’ profits. When business do not make the expected level of profits, they shut down production. Shutdowns, order cancellations, and bankruptcies can cause a chain reaction leading to economic paralysis, which is called a crisis. Part of the chain reaction of the economic contraction is a falling level of working-class consumption. Another reaction is growing unemployment. However, it is the economic contraction which causes a decline in wages and working-class consumption and growing unemployment, not under-consumption by the working class that causes capitalist economic crises.

Again, why is the question important? For the reason that if an organisation supports the line that underconsumption is the reason for capitalist economic crises then there is no need for revolution. All the working class has to do to solve its problems is to demand some tax relief and extra spending on the part of the capitalist state. The under-consumptionist line channels the working class away from militant class struggle and into dead-end reformism. Struggle is confined to making appeals through the system to this or that politician.  The under-consumptionist line, helps the capitalists to foster reformist illusions in the working class.

 As long as the capitalists are in control, production is based on profits not social needs. The level of production allowed by the capitalists is determined by how much profit is to be made, not by the needs of the people who live under the capitalist system. If an employer determines that he can produce a smaller amount of some product and sell each item for a higher individual price, making higher profits, he will do so. No matter what the level of technology, how high the unemployment level, or how gorged the stocks of raw materials, the capitalist will sabotage production in order to make a higher profit.  Food, for example, from milk to wheat, are regulated to profits rather than social needs.

It is not an era of social reforms that we hope for, but for a great epoch of social revolution! Reformism is capitalist trickery used to keep the working class under wage slavery. Reformists maintain that we can arrive at “socialism” by winning reforms one after the other. What they don’t say is that whatever the employers has to give up with one hand after a hard struggle, they always take back with the other.

 Socialists make no compromises with the capitalist class but fight them relentlessly. But those on the Left reproach the Socialist Party and tell us “no idealism, comrades, the working class are not socialist – on the contrary, they are still dominated by bourgeois ideology, so let’s sit back and wait.” The Socialist Party does not hide its positions out of fear of cutting themselves off from workers  but rather carry out their educational work in order to persuade them. Reformism provides no ultimate solution to the problems of capitalism. Reformists, on the other hand, are people and people change all the time.

With God On Whose Side?

There is a wildly-held fallacy that religions are not concerned about worldly issues and their only concern is about spiritual matters. The recent conflict between Russia and Ukraine illustrates that this is not the case. '"An end to the designs of those who want to destroy Holy Russia", said by Patriarch Kirill 1 of Moscow, Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church. "Against our peace-loving nation .... there has been injustice.", said by Patriarch Filaret, of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.' (Times, 21 April) In conflicts between different sections of the owning class they rely on nationalism and religion to motivate their working class to take up arms. RD  

Earth Day

April 22 is Earth Day, a time that people around the world officially celebrate the planet we all call home. It’s also the anniversary of the birth of what is believed to be the modern day environmental movement, with the first Earth Day taking place in 1970. The impact of climate change on food production figured prominently in the many speeches and articles.

FAO Director-General José Graziano da Silva referred to a report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which forecasts serious disruptions to agriculture due to shifting weather patterns. “We need to step up our efforts to mitigate, to adapt and, most importantly, to shift to more sustainable food systems,” he said. “This is one of our core responsibilities.” The world’s poorest are particularly vulnerable to climate change, he said, because the impact on agricultural production will be felt harder in the already marginal production areas in which they live.
On April 22, 1970, when Earth Day was born, it generated more than 12,000 Earth Day events all across the country. Two-thirds of the members of Congress made speeches at Earth Day events as millions upon millions of people participated in a celebration of the environment, including liberal Republicans, and most active members of environmental groups were hunters and fishermen. Earth Day bolstered Congress to pass: (1) the Clean Air Act of 1970 (2) the Clean Water Act of 1972 (3) Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (4) Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (5) Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (6) National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (7) Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (8) Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (9) Endangered Species Act of 1973, most of which became the law of the land under Republican administrations.

Fast forward....

Today, it is embarrassing to even mention Earth Day in the context of a celebration because it is so hypocritical. Everybody knows all about how dangerous excessive CO2 is to the planet. The entire world has buried its head in the sand regarding the issue of life-threatening self-destruction.

 The power of capitalist society to destroy has reached an unprecedented scale in the history of humanity. Everywhere, air is befouled, waterways polluted, soil washed away, the land poisoned, and wildlife decimated. More significantly, basic biological cycles  upon which all living things  depend for the maintenance and renewal of life, are at the point of irreversible damage. This environmental destruction is literally undoing the work of evolution. It is a truism to say that humanity is part of the rich tapestry of life.  Human beings depends  upon the complexity and variety of life,our well-being and survival rest upon a long evolution of organisms into complex and interdependent forms. The development of life into a web, the elaboration of animals and plants into highly varied forms, has been the precondition for the evolution and survival of humanity itself and for a harmonized relationship between humanity and nature.

We now witness the despoilation of the planet that exceeds all the damage inflicted by earlier generations. Time is running out and the next decade or two may well be the last opportunity we will have to restore the balance between humanity and nature.

Technology has become a convenient target for bypassing the deep-seated social conditions that make machines and technical processes harmful. It is convenient to forget that technology has served not only to subvert the environment but also to improve it. True there are techniques and technological attitudes that are entirely destructive of the balance between humanity and nature. Our responsibilities are to separate the promise of technology - its creative potential - from the capacity of technology to destroy. There are different technologies and attitudes toward technology, some of which are indispensable to restoring the balance, others of which have contributed profoundly to its destruction. What humanity needs is not a wholesale discarding of advanced technologies, but a sifting, indeed a further development of technology along ecological principles that will contribute to a new harmonization of society and the natural world.

The basic conception that humanity must dominate and exploit nature stems from the domination and exploitation of man by man. Indeed, this conception goes back earlier to a time when men began to dominate and exploit women in the patriarchal family. From that point onward, human beings were increasingly regarded as mere resources, as objects instead of subjects. Humans are not only turned into objects; they are turned into commodities; into objects explicitly designed for sale on the market place. Competition between human beings becomes an end in itself, together with the production of utterly useless goods. Quality is turned into quantity, individual culture into mass culture, personal communication into mass communication. The natural environment is turned into a gigantic factory, the city into an immense market place; everything from a redwood forest to a woman's body has "a price."

Is it surprising, then, that this exploitative, degrading, quantified society pits humanity against itself and against nature on a more awesome scale than any other in the past? The hierarchies, classes, propertied forms, and statist institutions that emerged with social domination were carried over conceptually into humanity's relationship with nature. Nature too became increasingly regarded as a mere resource, an object, a raw material to be exploited ruthlessly. Man should subdue the Earth, Genesis dictated, ''and have dominion ... over every living thing.''

 The enormous productivity of modern technology has opened a new vision: the possibility of material abundance, an end to scarcity, and an era of free time (so-called "leisure time") with minimum toil. Our society has the choice between "what-is" and "what-could-be,"  irrational, inhuman exploitation and destruction of the earth and its inhabitants or a new world of harmony. we need change, but change fundamental and far-reaching. We must treat the Earth communally,  without the trammels of private property that have distorted humanity's vision of life and nature since the break-up of tribal society.

 The environmental movement’s most conscious elements are involved in a creative movement to totally revolutionize the social relations of humans to each other and of humanity to nature The require  to increase the awareness that the most destructive and pressing consequences of our alienating, exploitative society is the environmental crisis, and that a truly revolutionary society must be built upon ecological precepts, to create, in the minds of the millions  who are concerned with the destruction of our environment, the consciousness that the principles of the environment’s protection demand radical changes in our society and our way of looking at the world. Socialism will produce politically independent communities whose boundaries and populations will be defined by a new consciousness; communities whose inhabitants will determine for themselves within the framework of this new consciousness the nature and level of their technologies, the forms taken by their social structures, world views, life styles, expressive arts, and all other aspects of their daily lives.  An effective Earth Day celebration today would involve global massive street protests demanding renewable energy sources to be made freely available. Earth Day would be demanding a socialist world.

What’s Left of Reformism?

From the Countercurrents website

If there is one thing the employing class is more afraid of than anything else it is the possibility of the workers accepting the idea embodied in the term “social revolution”. Revolutionaries are described as wild visionaries, utopia builders, and so on. In the not-so-distant past, the labour and social-democrat parties did talk in terms of changing society. True, this was only as a long-term prospect, but the idea of an alternative society was there as was a wide consensus among those calling themselves socialists as to what socialism was. Dissent among socialists was mostly not about the nature of socialism but about the best way of achieving it. At that time socialist organisations did not offer reform policies as an end in themselves but rather as strategies that would lead to the eventual overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of socialism. Now this has gone and those of us who are still proposing this are denounced as "unrealistic" for continuing to advocate a "big solution" when supposedly there is none. The real casualty of the errors and internecine disputes of the past has been socialism itself. Unfortunately, this has created a graveyard of broken hopes.

The working-class movement has vacillated between different roads:

1) The armed conquest of power by a small determined group which would hold on to power until the majority were converted – Blanquism
2) The seizure of the means of production and distribution by some form of industrial action – Syndicalism
3)The accomplishment of ever more sweeping reforms until capitalism had been reformed out of existence and society had “glided” into socialism – Reformism

In the history of the working class movement a variety of different parties have been formed; some following one or other of the above roads or a combination of them. Trying to change capitalism, or "reformism", is the one that has been taken by most people who have wanted to improve society. There can be no questioning of the principle of fighting for reforms, no exploration as to their efficacy or need. Politicians' logic prevails:

1. Capitalism is terrible.
2. We must do something.
3. Reforms are something.
4. Therefore we must enact reforms.

We do not deny that certain reforms won by the working class have helped to improve our general living and working conditions. Indeed, we see little wrong with people campaigning for reforms that bring essential improvements and enhance the quality of their lives. Some reforms do indeed make a difference to the lives of millions and can be viewed as “successful”. There are examples of this in such fields as education, housing, child labour, work conditions and social security. Socialists have to acknowledge that the "welfare" state and healthcare made living standards for the working class better than they had been under rampant capitalism's earlier ideology of laissez-faire. However, it also has to be recognised that many "successes" have in reality done little more than to keep workers and their families in efficient working order and, while it has taken the edge of the problem, it has rarely managed to remove the problem completely.

Socialists do not oppose reformism because it is against improvements in workers' lives lest it dampens revolutionary ardour; nor, because we think that decadent capitalism simply cannot deliver on any reforms; but because our continued existence as propertyless wage slaves undermines whatever attempts we make to control and better our lives through reforms. Our objection to reformism is that by ignoring the essence of class, it throws blood, sweat and tears into battles that will be undermined by the workings of the wages system. All that effort, skill, energy, all those tools could be turned against class society, to create a society of common interest where we can make changes for our common mutual benefit. So long as class exists, any gains will be partial and fleeting, subject to the ongoing struggle. What we are opposed to is the whole culture of reformism, the idea that capitalism can be tamed and made palatable with the right menu of reforms.

We oppose those organisations that promise to deliver a programme of reforms on behalf of the working class, often in order to gain a position of power. Many of the Left are going to put before the working class only what they think will be understood by the workers - proposals to improve and reform the present capitalist system- and, of course they are going to try to assume the leadership of such struggles as a way of achieving support for their vanguard party. These Left parties may try to initiate such struggles themselves and they will try to muscle in on any struggles of this sort that groups of workers have started off themselves. But it's all very cynical because they know that reformism ultimately leads nowhere (as they readily admit in their theoretical journals meant for circulation amongst their members, although not in their populist, agitational journals). The purpose in telling workers to engage in such struggles is to teach them a lesson, the hard way which is the only way some on the Left think they can learn i.e. by experiencing failure. The expectation is that when, these reformist struggles fail the workers will then turn against capitalism, under the Party Leadership. It is the old argument, advanced by Trotsky in his founding manifesto for the "Fourth International" in 1938, that socialist consciousness will develop out of the struggle for reforms within capitalism: when workers realise that they can’t get the reforms they have been campaigning for they will, Trotsky pontificated, turn to the "cadres" of the Fourth International for leadership. In fact it never ever happens so all that's achieved is to encourage reformist illusions amongst workers. The ultimate result of this is disillusionment with the possibility of radical change.

Its flawed because it shows no reason why, due to the failure of reform, the workers should turn to socialism. Why, since it was people calling themselves socialists who advocated that reform, don't they turn against it, or even to fascism? Under the model of revolution presented by the Left-wing the only way the working class could come to socialist consciousness is through a revolution is made by the minority with themselves as its leaders. This, then, explains their dubious point about needing to "be" where the mass of the working class is. It is the reason why a supposedly revolutionary party should change its mind to be with the masses, rather than trying to get the masses to change their minds and be with it. They do not want workers to change their minds, merely to become followers. Their efforts are not geared towards changing minds, or raising revolutionary class consciousness.

But what about the mainstream, “realistic” reformers? What of all the labour and social-democratic parties? They did at one time seek to reform capitalism in the hope that capitalism could prove to be a fair and fulfilling society for all its members. Now, they are even more dedicated than ever to running with optimal efficiency the very system that creates poverty, misery, homelessness and war. Keeping the system and trying to make it work against its logic is not a viable option. Such reformism has been tried over the years and has failed. Those who set out to change society through winning political power and reforms have had to accept what was always inevitable, that reformism is a graveyard for such hopes. For anyone wishing to bring about a new and better world, reformism requires a pact with the Devil, where the forming of a government means being sucked into running the system. Over decades, millions of workers all ver the world have invested their hopes in so-called ‘practical’, ‘possibilist’ organisations , hoping against hope that they would be able to neuter the market economy when, in reality, the market economy has successfully neutered them. They turned out to be the real ‘impossibilists’ – demanding an unattainable humanised capitalism – is one of the greatest tragedies of the last century, made all the greater because it was so predictable. They held the idea that capitalism could be reformed into something kindly and user-friendly. It couldn't and it can't.

Socialists understand well the urge to do something in the here and now, to make a change. That makes us all the more determined, however, to get the message across, to clear away the barrier of the wages system, so that we can begin to build a truly human society. Why waste time fighting for half measures? We would better spend our time, energies, and resources educating people to establish socialism rather than waste time in the false belief that our present system can be made to work in everyone's interest. We do not claim capitalist reforms stand in the way of achieving socialism. If we did we'd logically have to oppose them; which we don't. We encourage workers to fight back against employers and, although we don't propose or advocate reforms, we don't oppose them if they genuinely do improve workers' lives under capitalism. What we say is not that they are obstacles to socialism but merely that they are irrelevant to socialism and that a socialist party should not advocate reforms.

If you are convinced, however, that groups or parties promising reforms deserve your support, we would urge you to consider the following points. The campaign will often only succeed if it can be reconciled with the profit-making needs of the system. In other words, the reform will often be turned to the benefit of the capitalist class at the expense of any working class gain. Any reform can be reversed and eroded later if a government finds it necessary. Reforms rarely, if ever, actually solve the problem they were intended to solve. One can pick any single problem and find that improvements have taken place, usually only after a very long period of agitation. But rarely, if ever, has the problem actually disappeared, and usually other related problems have arisen to fill the vacuum of left by the "solution".

If your view remains that the struggle for reforms is still worthwhile then imagine just how many more palliatives and ameliorations will be offered and conceded by a besieged capitalist class in a desperate attempt to retain their ownership rights if the working class were demanding the maximum programme of full and complete appropriation and nothing less. To stem the socialist tide the capitalist parties will sink their differences and draw closer together, much as religions do today in the face of the world avalanche of atheism. Reforms they now deride as utopian will be two-a-penny - in an attempt to fob off the workers. Perhaps, for example, capitalism will provide a batch of free services, on the understanding that this is "the beginning" of a free society. They’ll maybe offer the universal basic income but socialists will not be taken in.

The lure of unity proposed by the reformer to the revolutionary is always a poisoned chalice: “Join us today to promote such and such [some reform or other] and tomorrow we can start the revolution together.” But of course tomorrow never comes. Another line of thinking that presents itself as friendly to revolution but is really calculated to frustrate it, is “The time is not yet ripe” argument. Many people have sympathy with the socialist idea but say that such a transformation is a long way off and that in the meantime we must still aim for improvements within the framework of the existing system. They point to the changes that have taken place in peoples lives since the nineteenth century. It is worth trying to get more of these improvements, they say, and the best way to do it is to press governments for reforms. But yet again, the time is found to be never ripe for fundamental changes to the system.

It may at first sight seem that certain reforms are motivated by humanitarian concern as in education, sanitation and housing. Yet it is clear that the schooling received by the children of most wage and salary earners merely fits them for their role as workers. Improved sanitation reduces the threat of epidemics which do not spare the wealthy, while subsidised housing is intended to lessen the pressure by workers for higher wages. These measures have the purpose of raising the standard of efficiency of the workers, thus making them more productive for their masters' benefit. The more astute and far-sighted members of the ruling class have long realised this.

Any socialists in parliament should consistently expose reformism for its inability to solve the problems of capitalism but he or she will be prepared to consider on their merits particular, individual reforms that clearly benefited the working class or the socialist movement, but always under democratic direction from the wider movement and without ever giving support to reformist parties. A blanket opposition to everything that does and can happen in capitalism, in the guise of being true to socialist principles, would involve actions (or inaction) that was expressly contrary to the interests of the working class. That would be ridiculous and taken to its ultimate, logical conclusion would lead to the situation whereby socialists in parliament would be inadvertently allying themselves with the forces of reaction to keep wars going, or oppose factory legislation that might benefit the safety and health of workers. The men and women who founded the Socialist Party realised the absurdity of this tactic a long time ago.

It is economic theory that underlies our case against reformism. A revolution is the work of a class which has gained political power in order to transform society to suit its interests; a reform is carried out only within the framework of the social system. Reforms cannot end capitalism; they can modify it to some extent, but they leave its basis untouched. To establish socialism, a revolution - a complete transformation of private property into social property - is necessary.

Further Reading
The Market System Must Go, Socialist Party of Great Britain, 1997
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/market-system-must-go

Alan Johnstone 

"Our" Socialism

Capitalism is barbaric. It has out-lasted its time. It must go. That is the task of our Party. It is your job too, all of you, wherever you are, to struggle for the emancipation of your class. There is no easy road, there is not a gradual road. The whole conception of gradualism is to introduce one “good” law after another; and one fine day the workers will wake up pleasantly surprised to find themselves in the midst of a socialist world. It isn’t going to happen.

The capitalist class and the working-class stand opposed to each other. The class lines are clearly defined. There is no mistaking who is a capitalist and who is a worker. The capitalist class has at disposal all the power of the State. These forces comprise, a well-organised bureaucracy, a strong judiciary, a powerful police and military. The capitalist class has at its beck and call an extensive and potent media reaching out to millions, colouring their views on life, determining largely their political opinions, fashioning their thoughts, moulding their minds into a servile acceptance of things as they are or as the controllers of these mouthpieces of capitalism wish us to believe they are. As soon as there is rumour of discontent in the factories or a strike, employers use their power to ensure the smooth running of the industrial machine. The duty of the Socialist Party is to expose and resist this by every means possible. Workers are becoming more conscious of the nature of the struggle  and more determined. Revolution is no longer some utopian fantasy but is now being forced upon us as the only practical solution. Those who saw socialism as an ideal, now try to translate it into a social reality.

Two lines of conduct are possible for a political party representing the working class. Reform capitalism, making the lot of the working class tolerable under that system. Another method to educate people and gain support for the socialism. Our manifesto has nothing to do with reformist programmes, which are like shopping lists, including all sorts of demands for various reforms. These party platforms aren’t the basis on which members join a party. Rather, they’re a hodge-podge collection in which everybody can find something which satisfies them, while rejecting those parts he or she disagrees with. The question of creating reformist illusions in the minds of the workers is an important one. Goodness knows they have been too many such illusions as it is and the function of our party is not to add to them but to attempt to destroy them. If we fail to educate, to organise and to prepare the working class for a clear understanding of, and for the attainment of the revolutionary objectives, temporary concessions gained can, instead of becoming partial victories on the way, be turned into retardation of the struggle.

The Socialist Party declares unhesitatingly to all the workers that the various protest movements cannot realise their full power so long as they remain sectional, separate and limited in their scope and character. The many streams of the rising forces of the workers must be gathered together in one powerful mass movement. The Socialist Party does not reject the policy of struggle for reforms in the immediate condition of the workers. But not as ends in themselves.

A socialist is not the ordinary man-in-the-street who is saturated with ignorance and prejudices pumped into him every day from a hundred sources. The socialist endeavours to think about social problems scientifically. The first question to ask about any problem that needs tackling, is this: How has this problem arisen? Only if this question is answered as ably as social science permits, is it possible to tackle intelligently and effectively.

Every student of politics bursts his seams when he hears this: “There are many socialisms, and which of the 57 varieties are you referring to?”

Socialism has been a long time on its journey from the past to the present. When Marx came on the intellectual scene there were any number of socialisms; and there were socialisms before Marx was born; and there were socialisms promoted after he died. There were the “True Socialists”, the Christian socialists, the reformer socialists, cooperative socialists, bourgeois socialists, feudal socialists, agrarian socialists, Bismarckian state-socialists. They existed and continue to exist under different names. We had “National-Socialists”; we have had “Stalinist socialism”, the socialism of the Labour Party and of Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book. Usually members of the Socialist Party in support of our ideas will  counter by describing them  as “real socialism”, “genuine” socialism not fake socialism, and perhaps term it “scientific socialism” or the “socialism of Marx.”

Perhaps we should simply say “Our” Socialism - and we are the working class. That is the essence, that is the durable characteristic as distinct from all other varieties of socialisms - our socialism is working class socialism.

When speaking of socialism and socialist revolution we seek “no saviours from high to deliver", as our workers anthem, the International, so ably puts it. We do not believe that reforms will solve the problems of society, let alone bring socialism. We trust that task to the working class alone, that the emancipation of the working class is the task of the working class itself. No leaders. No vanguard parties. There can be no socialism without the working class of the world. Socialism cannot be built without the working class and against the working class. Socialism represents the declaration of independence of the working class. It runs through everything we say and everything we do and everything we want others to do. The working class, themselves,  are the masters not only of their own fate but the masters of the fate of all society if they but take control of society into their own hands! That is the hope of us all. It will remain our hope in the greatest hours of adversity, even while everywhere lies in deepest pessimism.

Our role in the Socialist Party is to teach Marxism and working class socialism. Our idea of politics boil down to this basic revolutionary idea – to teach the working class to rely upon itself, upon its own organisation, upon its own democracy and  upon its own ideas rather than  to subordinate itself at any time to the interest, the needs, the leadership or the ideas of any other class. We regret that for the other “socialisms” that proposition does not dominate their thought.

Socialism was born of the class antagonisms of capitalist society, without which it would never have been heard of; and in the present state of its development it is a struggle of the working class to free themselves from their capitalist exploiters by wresting from them the tools with which modern work is done. This conflict for mastery of the tools is necessarily a class conflict. It can be nothing else, and only the socialist who perceives clearly the nature of the struggle and takes a stand squarely and uncompromisingly with the working class in the struggle which can end only with the utter annihilation of the capitalist system and the total abolition of class rule. All others are “socialisms” are for no other purpose than to emasculate working class socialism.

 We are proud that “Our” socialism  starts by teaching workers to rely upon themselves,  that there is no socialism and no progress to socialism without the working class, without the working class revolution, without the working class in power, without the working class having been lifted to “political supremacy” (as Marx called it) to their “victory of democracy” (as Marx also called it). No socialism and no advance to socialism without it! That is our rock. That is what we build the fight for the socialist future on. That is what we’re unshakably committed to. For the Socialist Party, we have nothing in common with any of their 57 varieties of “socialisms”.

If we, as socialists, do not impress into our audience’s minds the truth that we are working and fighting for a complete social revolution, which shall abolish the present State and establish a free society in its place, we mislead our readers and listeners, and induce them to think we, too, are merely tinkerers with present system. Words still count largely in the formation of ideas.

The make-up of a State is through departments and ministries dominated by bureaucrats and civil servants, who therefore dominate the people. The arrangement of administration in a cooperative society is by delegates nominated by the community, who act as functionaries, not as controllers of the society. Socialists argue that organisation is possible without a State, and that the State appears only in societies divided into classes.

Some societies without States have continued to exist down to our own times among the Indians of South America. Harmony in these communities is admirably maintained spontaneously without any system or apparatus of coercion, despite the number of common affairs to be arranged, because their way of life do not give rise to any antagonism between categories of individuals, for all are free and equal. As soon as there are in a society a possessing class and a dispossessed class, there exists in that society a constant source of collisions and conflicts 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. Now, from its very birth, this has been the role of the State. The State has evolved with the development of that division, i. e., in short, with the economic relations which form the basis of that division; but, under the various appearances it has worn, its object has remained the same because, ever since the appearance of classes, it has always had a privileged economic situation to defend and conflicts to repress. We know what the State - a class-instrument.

As soon as it is understood that the State is not an independent organism, having its own existence outside the  interlinked economic relations of men, but that it is necessarily subordinate to the division of society into classes, and so no party whatever can have as its immediate goal the abolition of the State. The State cannot disappear before the disappearance of the social conditions of which it is the necessary result. A party can abolish the State only after having suppressed classes, and one cannot modify the economic relations of which classes are merely the personification, without acting first upon the State. The only practical line for socialists is the conquest of political power, the conquest of the State. 

Discussion meetings

Lothian Discussion Group 

Wednesday, 23 April 2014 - 7:30pm - 9:00pm

Venue: The Autonomous Centre of Edinburgh,
17 West Montgomery Place, Edinburgh

Directions: ACE is situated on the corner of West Montgomery Place and Brunswick Road opposite the old Royal Mail sorting office.



Kilmarnock Discussion Group

Thursday, 24 April 2014 - 7:00pm - 9:00pm

Venue: The Wheatsheaf Inn,
70 Portland Street, Kilmarnock 

Increasing Pauperism

Despite recent claims that the capitalist system is making a steady recovery from economic crisis the number of people given "pauper's funerals" has risen by more than a third in the last five years. 'About 4,100 were cremated anonymously or buried in mass graves with no headstone in 2013, against about 3,000 in 2009. .... A spokeswoman for Age UK, which represents the elderly, described the figures as "deeply worrying". "It's a stark reminder that 1.6m older people are living in poverty and and many more are struggling to make ends meet," she said.' (Sunday Times, 20 April) It speaks volumes for the wonderful, progressive nature of  the capitalism  system that the press has to use Dickensian terms like "paupers" to describe some workers in the 21st century. RD

The Uncaring Society

Capitalism is an uncaring, harsh society but probably nothing sums up better how alienated workers have become than this news item. 'The corpse of a 66-year-old German woman who died more than six months ago was found in her apartment in front of a television set that was still on. The woman, in the town of Oberursel near Frankfurt, died of natural causes in a nightgown while watching TV on the sofa.' (Daily Mail, 27 March) Chief Inspector Ulrich Demmer of Hesse police department is reported as saying "Someone should have noticed. Unfortunately, societal and demographic changes mean that such cases are increasing." Dead for six months without anybody noticing - can capitalism get any more awful? RD