Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Abundance and Freedom

A green socialist world
For today’s growing population, such a world of abundance will require more, not less, energy, and in order to deal with climate change, that energy must be renewable and non-polluting carbon-free.

Some on the left today, and in the much broader Green and environmental movements, consider the expansion of production as a “bad thing.” It causes pollution, ecological collapse, and climate change. No doubt, the expansion of industry under capitalism has caused these terrible changes. But it also has allowed humans to develop solutions through techniques that could alleviate these problems were such forms of production placed under the democratic control of society, that is, what we call socialism.

Engels in his  1847 essay The Principles of Communism writes:
“Instead of generating misery, overproduction will reach beyond the elementary requirements of society to assure the satisfaction of the needs of all; it will create new needs and, at the same time, the means of satisfying them. It will become the condition of, and the stimulus to, new progress, which will no longer throw the whole social order into confusion, as progress has always done in the past. Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day. This development of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of products to satisfy the needs of everyone.
The same will be true of agriculture, which also suffers from the pressure of private property and is held back by the division of privately owned land into small parcels. Here, existing improvements and scientific procedures will be put into practice, with a resulting leap forward which will assure to society all the products it needs.
In this way, such an abundance of goods will be able to satisfy the needs of all its members.”

Capitalism has no way to lift the masses from poverty. Consider the following:
There are 1.6 billion people with no electricity.
Billions of people have no access to energy efficient mass transportation.
Billions of people have little or no access to education and health care.
Increasingly vicious wars and privatization continue to cause grinding poverty, dislocation and environmental destruction.

Capitalism is the cause. Capitalism produces only when there is a profit for the owner of capital. When there is no profitable market for his product, the capitalist will not produce, no matter how great and urgent the need of the people for work, for food, for clothing and shelter, for a decent living standard, for security. Capitalism robs more and more people of their most elementary right, the right to govern themselves.


The central concept of the post-scarcity economy is that technology gets better and better, so things that are mass produced and rationalised get cheaper and more abundant. Under the circumstances nobody needs to work to survive and there's really no point in maintaining a cash economy. People have unrestricted free access to the fruits of society’s collective labour. Given the absence and the uselessness of money for obtaining consumer goods, and the social stigmatization of wealth accumulation achieving one’s peer admiration and appreciation concentrates on the contribution to the community one makes. Socialism was once looked upon as a noble ideal, but today it is more than an ideal, it is an urgent necessity. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production and exchange and their democratic organization and management by all the people in a society free of classes, class divisions and class rule. Socialism is the democratic organisation of production for use, of production for abundance, of plenty for all, without the exploitation of man by man. Socialism is the union of the whole world disposing in common of the natural resources and wealth of our Earth. Capitalism has already established the highly-developed machinery of production and networks of distribution. It is only necessary for the working class, in the name and interests of society as a whole, to take it out of the hands of the capitalists and place them into the hands of the people as a whole. Every new invention, every improvement and advance in the field of production, would mean not only a higher standard of living for all, but a lessening of the working-day, that is, a reduction in the work-share that every member of society needs to contribute to the community. The technology, the resources , the and the human skills required to produce abundance for all, is already available. It is only necessary to free them from the paralysing hand of capitalism and production-for-profit in order to organise them in a rational and democratic manner. 

Where there is abundance for all, the psychological terror and living nightmare of insecurity vanishes. Where there is abundance for all, and where no one has the economic power to exploit and oppress others, the basis of classes, class division and class conflict vanishes. When there is plenty for all, there IS economic equality, therefore social equality. Where there is abundance for all government of repression, police and thieves, prisons and violence disappear. Where there is abundance for all, and where all have equal access to the fruits of the soil and the wealth of industry, the mad conflicts and wars between nations and peoples vanish and with them vanishes the hideous national and racial antagonisms.

 ABUNDANCE FOR ALL MEANS FREEDOM FOR ALL.

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

A Crazy Society

A CRAZY SOCIETY                                           
Like many South American countries Brazil has many social problems. Not least amongst them is the crippling poverty of many of its workers, but this contrasts with the immense wealth of its owning class. 'The Gherkin, one of the most distinctive buildings on London's skyline, has been bought by a Brazilian billionaire. Joseph Safra is reported to have paid more than £700m for the 180 metre tower, which is officially known as 30 St Mary Axe, its street address. ...... Joseph Safra, 75, is thought to be personally worth about $15bn.' (BBC News, 10 November) Can the production for profit system get any crazier? RD

Global Warming

Wikipedia makes no secret  of global warming caused by the increase in the burning of fossil fuels and the exploration for oil and other resources. 'United States Geological Survey and many leading polar bear biologists have expressed grave concerns about the impact of climate change, including the belief that the current warming trend imperils the survival of the species. The key danger posed by climate change is malnutrition or starvation due to habitat loss.' As various countries scramble to claim their ownership of the Arctic  region and grab the potential mineral resources little heed will be paid to the future of global warming whose impact will not only affect the wildlife in the area but future generations of humanity throughout the globe. To hell with the future, profit today is the mantra of capitalism. RD

Cyber Warfare

In a review of Shane Harris's book @War: The Rise of Cyber Warfare Toby Harden is very straight-forward in describing the ruthless way government agencies utilise the web to destroy their enemies. 'What is more startling is the capability of America, which views the cyber area as the "fifth domain" of warfare (after land, air, sea and space), to use online to kill as well as jam and hack. Harris, a writer at Foreign Policy magazine who has specialised in cyber warfare for a decade, details how US forces in Iraq became the "the vanguard of a new cyber war", sending fake text messages to insurgents that directed them to places where they would be met by US troops or a Hellfire missile." (Sunday Times, 9 November) Inside a socialist society the cyber network would be utilised as a valuable source of knowledge, education and entertainment inside capitalism it is used as a massive destructive force. RD

Another Empty Boast

The government recently boasted that unemployment figures had fallen beneath 2 million but what they were more reluctant to advertise was that the number of workers in low-paid jobs had reached a new record of more than 5 million, according to the Resolution Foundation.  'The think tank found that that the proportion of employees in low-paid work across Britain has risen from 21 per cent last year to 22 per cent, or 5 million people.' (Sunday Express, 9 November) When they say low-paid they mean low-paid as Resolution defines low paid as those earning less than £7.69 per hour, which is two-thirds of the UK medium hourly rate. Hardly boasting material is it? RD

Work and wage slavery




Nearly 36 million people worldwide, or 0.5% of the world's population, live as slaves, a survey by anti-slavery campaign group Walk Free says. Bondage and slavery are supposedly over but enslavement continues for the majority of people throughout the world. We are all enslaved economically yet blindly and unknowingly accept it. That form of servitude is called wage slavery.

Automation only happens when machines are cheaper to run than people. Automation should both require fewer people to work as well as  enable people to work less. Unfortunately this isn’t the case: the owners of automated industry use reduced production cost as an opportunity to take more profit which leaves us with increasing inequality alongside increased unemployment. And in a world where the capitalists own the physical means of production like factories, robots and patents this will also result in greater inequality as labour becomes less and less important as an economic factor. The owners of capital will be able to produce to satisfy market demand with little labour input.

There is an optimistic vision of the future. Physical work may become totally obsolete. If every house has a decentralised energy source like solar panels and reliable energy storage, as well as an advanced 3-D printer or molecular assembler that can produce almost physical object imaginable from a few basic recyclable chemicals then human poverty will essentially have been abolished. We can just spend the vast majority of our time doing things that we enjoy, while spending only a few minutes or at most hours a day programming our machines to fulfil our material desires.

However, there exists a more possible but less optimistic vision, that only a small minority of people will have access to such technologies as while the technology may exist, the costs of mass distribution remain too high. The masses, will be stuck in impoverished material conditions — dependent on welfare, and charity — without any real prospect being able to climb the ladder through selling their labour. Only a lucky few — who have a creative skill that cannot be replicated by a robot — will have a prospect of prosperity and security. Perhaps as the reformists hope the government will take a larger chunk of the capital-owning class’s income or wealth, and redistribute it to the poor to avoid social breakdown or even revolution.

The optimistic vision of a world of abundance without exploitation, hunger and war must galvanize the working class into a movement for socialism now that the global capitalist system has reached a stage where goods can be produced with little or no labour. The transition of industrial capitalism by new technology and computer is forcing an economic change and reorganization of society. A level of production has been achieved that makes communism possible. This is the turning point at which we stand today. Humanity today faces the choice: will we do away with private property and build a future for all to share in. Attempts to do no more than blunt the worst effects of capitalism may be well-meaning, but they divert energy from the real tasks ahead.

More and more are joining the ranks of those dispossessed by capitalism world-wide. A class that has nothing to gain from private ownership of the means of production has to take the reins of power and construct an economic system that can sustain a better world. The struggle today is not the struggle of the last century to expand industrial production. Nor is it the reformist’s struggle to increase the crumbs that fall from the table of the world’s billionaire plutocrats. Though people may have different ideas about and different ways of describing it, at this moment in history, the essence of every struggle for a better life is objectively the struggle for socialism which is no longer just an ideal, but the practical resolution to immediate problems.

If we remove scarcity from our vocabulary and replace it with abundance, we would also see dramatic changes in the way we live. We have been programmed to believe things are scarce when the opposite is true. We have an abundance of resources and should not be influenced to think different. The only reasoning for wanting the people to believe in scarcity is to increase profits for the rich. Let us plainly re-state this, we live in abundance and little is scarce. We should be here to enjoy life, not to overwork, to stress out, get sick and then die. We should spend the majority of our time, doing what we enjoy. Spending time with family, loved ones, vacationing, fishing, gardening, building new relationships, or whatever it is we enjoy. Let us start focusing on uplifting everyone, from the bottom upwards. The big picture is, we are all connected and we stand and fall together as humanity. The system of working everyday and barely making enough to pay for basic living expenses is not the way life should be yet it’s a system crafted by design to keep the masses earning meager wages.  The rich and powerful want the masses to remain enslaved and living on the skirts of poverty and completely beholden and indebted to them. We are too busy concerned about paying bills and having the basic necessities to live, then we don’t realise how the system we live under is corrupt and continues to enslave us all.  We are still enslaved regardless of your ethnicity or sex.  It’s not about color or gender, it’s about money.  Those in power want to keep us divided and believe that every man or woman should defend for him or herself when that certainly should not be the case. Think about capitalism and how many who actually benefits from it, go back and think of all the people you know in your life and be honest with yourself.  How many of your friends own several houses in multiple states and countries, yachts, cars, and get million dollar bonuses for running and even ruining a business? Capitalism has created an illusion to us all, leaving the majority thinking that they can one day become rich while knowing that the system of capitalism only allows those with money to keep on making it and those that don’t to keep dreaming and thinking that they can one day become rich and wealthy. The curse of capitalism is starting to be revealed and guess what?  The people don’t like what they are beginning to see.

We live in a world where there is an abundance of everything but scarcity allows the powerful to have control and make lots of money.  What if we abolished money and our political system that supports those privileged few?  What if we lived from a resourced-based society where everything was in abundance and there was no need for money? 


Monday, November 17, 2014

Fix Bayonets

Governments face many harsh decisions when running capitalism and this is especially true when confronted by economic problems like business slumps. 'David Cameron opposes cutting the number of British soldiers after the next election, the head of the Armed Forces has said, as he pledged to "fix my bayonet and fight to the last" against further redundancies. General Sir Nick Houghton admitted financial pressures would remain when the next government takes office but pledged to oppose cuts to army numbers from "inside the system".' (Daily Telegraph, 10 November) Welfare cuts may be unpopular but they are a lot easier for the government to contemplate that cutting Houghton's bayonets. RD

Future Conflict?

FUTURE CONFLICT?                                          
The US President's official visit to China highlights the tension between the two nations. 'We've seen indications that Xi Jinping has an ambition to increase China's influence in east Asia, central Asia, and the western Pacific, said Shi Yinhong, an international relations expert at Renmin University in Beijing. Many statements and actions imply that this will come at the cost of American predominance in the same regions. I think that this is already raising concerns in Washington.' (Guardian, 10 November) Political commentators would like to portray this as a conflict between two different social systems or at least two different outlooks, but it is not. Both the US and China are capitalist nations and as such they are in fierce competition over markets, sources of raw materials and political influence. Potentially it is a frightening scenario. RD

Piety And Profit

The government used to restrict the sale of arms to countries with poor human rights records, but former Tory defence minister Sir John Stanley, who chairs the Commons committees on arms export controls, says this is no longer the case. "He said in a recent parliamentary debate that the government has not acknowledged that such a change has taken place, and it "should consider most carefully whether they should now offer an apology to the committees". The government used to reject arms export licences where there was concern they might be used for "internal repression", but now a licence will be refused only if there is a "clear risk" that military equipment might be used in violation of international law." (Observer, 9 November) Why has there been this change in policy? One consideration may well be that sales have already hit £60m this year. RD

Poppies And Poppycock

Under the headline 'Joy and song bloom with poppies at the Tower', the following piece of news appears. 'As the last of the poppies was planted in the Tower's moat .... most of the attention has concentrated on the extraordinary crowds that have queued patiently every day to see the display of 888,246 ceramic poppies, one for every British and colonial life lost in the First World War.' (Times, 8 November) One spectator is reported as saying it was fantastic and when the crowd burst into song the crowd absolutely loved it. It is understandable that newspapers are "celebrating" the event, after all it is their job to promote mindless patriotism, but why are workers doing the same? They must lead particularly dull lives if the death of millions of workers in their master's quarrels lead them to this outlandish behaviour. RD

Why Work? (2)

Long ago, technology promised that it would free us from the mundane tasks of life and work so we would have more free time to enjoy ourselves. It was long heralded the imminent arrival of the "post-industrial society" in which automation will have done away with work and our main problem will be how to cope with an excess of leisure. But it is only in a rational (i.e., socialist) society, where the means of life serve the community as a whole, that higher productivity will equal less work and capitalism is not a sane society.

Capitalist production is not primarily about supplying needs it is about making profit and accumulating capital. It can only work with a constant market pressure to renew its capacity for sales. Under capitalism a surplus of commodities, in excess of market capacity means they cannot be sold for a profit. This can bring about recession, workers thrown out of jobs, governments having to pay out more in doles when strapped for cash trying to finance a reasonable health service, it means companies going bankrupt. It means the whole mad market system being thrown into yet another crisis simply because the goods cannot be sold. These are some of the destructive features of a money-driven economy which is long past its sell-by date.

Work has been "rationalized" as well as increased. That means greater intensity of effort and reduced opportunity for rest, social interaction, and even going to the toilet during the workday. It means "variable" or "flexible" schedules flexible for the boss, not the worker with more night and weekend work to keep costly machinery in nonstop operation. Many couples now meet only to hand over the kids as they change shifts. And while some are mercilessly overworked, others are thrown out of work altogether, all in the name of profitability.

In socialism, with the abolition of the market, and acting with voluntary co-operation, people will produce goods and distribute them to stores without any of the barriers of buying and selling. The cash tills will disappear, shoppers won't be held up and the operators won't have to do their boring, meaningless jobs. What it also means is that for the production of component parts of machinery or household goods, etc, intense production runs using automated systems could supply not just sufficient components for immediate use but also stocks for anticipated future demand. These could be distributed as and when required and this would be an economical use of production facilities which could then be either shut down until when required again or with different tooling used for other production runs. The important point being that in socialism this could happen without any of the problems and chaos that an oversupply of commodities for the market causes under capitalism.

The problems of unemployment are huge – worldwide problems affecting millions in some countries and billions globally if we include the massive numbers of 'informal' workers, those recognised as outside of the system, many of them non-persons living on the very edge of existence with no access to even the basic services. Many are suffering the misery of unemployment while much useful, necessary work remains undone. One of the contradictions of capitalism. We want free time, to reduce the working day so that we can move beyond the tyranny of survival into free and creative mutual activity. Both employment and unemployment are capitalism preventing our human development in this direction.


If we were to approach the problem from a different angle we could see how to turn something totally illogical into something that would work better for everybody wherever they are in the world. Doing this would entail ridding ourselves of useless work and wasted time and effort and result in getting the work that is widely recognised as necessary to be done for the good of the people done, by the people. Useful includes the production and distribution of material goods and food, scientific research and development, aesthetic and artistic endeavours, service of all kinds including installations, communications, infrastructure, maintenance, health, education, recreational, technological and social; producing and providing the goods and services required and needed by society as a whole on an ongoing basis. Work that offers no product, service or benefit to society must surely be considered useless work. What cannot be considered useful or necessary includes all the jobs currently involved in the huge financial industry; jobs which are tied to the movement of money from one place or person to another. Being considered unnecessary because they produce nothing of use, provide no useful service and are of no benefit to society a large number of institutions would be redundant. All banking establishments, insurance companies, tax collection, benefits and pension offices, to name a few, would no longer be required and, as a consequence, many buildings would be freed up for use to be decided upon by civil society whilst technicians, office and other associated staff would be available for more people-beneficial work schemes.

 In socialism everyone would have the opportunity to contribute to the community for as long as they could. Their contributions would not have to be strictly rationed nor controlled and all would be able to share in the common produce. The creation of second class cast-off workers known as pensioners would cease to be and in its place we could have a fair share for all. The struggle for such a society is in our immediate practical interest.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

Another Cunning Plan

Governments like to claim that they are in charge of the capitalist economy and by skilful manoeuvres can turn a slump into a boom, but further evidence that the UK economic recovery is losing some momentum came from the dominant service sector this week. 'The latest Purchasing Managers Index survey for the sector showed a score of 56.2 for October, down from 58.7 in September and the weakest reading since May 2013. The sector is still expanding rapidly, any score over 50 indicates growth, but the slowing pace adds to the sense of the UK's 'escape velocity' beginning to wane.' (Investors Chronicle, 7 November) In addition,despite previous optimistic forecasts, PMI data from the services sector in Europe remains anaemic with France's service sector shrinking at its fastest pace in four months and German service sector growth at a seven-month low. Politicians don't control capitalism's markets - it  is the other way about.  RD

A Corrupt Society

Capitalism corrupts everything it touches - even sport. 'An American baseball star is alleged to have paid nearly $1 million to a cousin in hush money to cover up his use of performance-enhancing drugs. After securing a ten-year contract in 2007 worth more than a quarter of a billion dollars, Alexander Rodriquez of the New York Yankees, became the highest-paid player in baseball.' (Times, 6 November)  Now it seems his cousin has been charged with conspiracy to distribute testosterone and human growth hormone. The old dictionary that described sport as a pleasurable exercise for amusement has been superseded by the awfulness of capitalism. RD

An Unequal Society

Worried by the obnoxious propaganda of UKIP the Tory Party are making noises about restricting migration, but of course this will only apply to workers attempting to settle in Britain. 'Wealthy Chinese and Russians looking to escape unrest at home and secure a bolthole in Britain have invested more than £700 million in the country through a visa programme that allows them to buy entry. Nearly 300 Chinese citizens spent at least £295 million through the UK's Tier 1 Investor scheme, which allows foreigners to gain residence permits if they are prepared to invest at least £1 million in domestic shares or British government debt.' (Times, 6 November) That is how capitalism works - one rule for the rich and one for the poor. RD

Surprise, Surprise

Imagine the astonishment in New Zealand when an inquiry found that the native Maoris had been cheated out of ownership  of their native land. 'British colonial authorities cheated the Maoris out of  their birth right in New Zealand by misleading them over an agreement that allowed the Crown to take  control of the country, a tribunal has decided.' (Times, 15 November) It is difficult to understand any sense of astonishment. That is what colonial powers have done over the years and will do today if they can get away with it. Anyway the New Zealand authorities seem to be taking the judgement in their stride as Chris Finlayson, the attorney general is reported as saying in The New Zealand Herald: "There is no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand. This report doesn't change that fact." RD

Why Work? (1)


Upholding the common well-being, via socialism, is the only way to create a sustainable future that ends deprivation and insecurity. Capitalism has failed to provide the basic needs of society; even the “social welfare” state only manages to mitigate capitalist greed and corruption.

The most cited objection to socialism is incentive. Capitalism argues that without money to motivate, there is no reason to go to work. Under capitalism, it is insecurity that motivates people to go to work. Eliminate insecurity and the result is that incentive for worth-while work increases. The benefits of work itself – human interaction and social recognition for one’s contribution provide incentive to go to work. the incentive for turning up to work is to receive social advantages, such as meeting potential partners for dating/marriage, friends with whom to go out for meals/drinks and the gratification of social admiration for having performed to a high standard and being recognised formally as having done so. Would most people decide not to go to work and sit idly in front of a television if all their basic needs were provided for?

 Socialists argue that the human urge for activity motivates one to contribute to society in one’s best capacity if only one is provided dignity and the means to pursue one’s full potential. Some might counter that people lose their “free time” when going to work, and should therefore not have the full burden of supporting those who choose not work, but the human compulsion to fill the hours with more than idle tasks – the boredom that comes of doing nothing – motivates one to do work if only there is more to it than a means to mere survival. The compensation comes in the knowledge that one’s contribution is valued for the work itself and all the social benefits that come from the recognition of one’s contribution. There is bound to be a small population of people who seem comfortable with doing nothing, but these people should be treated as having a psychological problem and referred to a doctor or psychologist, not threatened with a withholding of free access to the common larder. In socialism everyone has the opportunity to perform to their highest potential and formal acknowledgment of one’s work contribution – as opposed to cash in the bank for status – satisfies the craving for professional accomplishment. The Marxist phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is not merely an ideological argument, as if truly exercised, life satisfaction is a standard, as opposed to merely an ideal.

What does the slogan “Right to Work” really mean ? To the average trade unionist it is probably the "right" to have a job and the pay packet that goes with it. In other words, it should be more accurately called "The Right to Employment" or "The Right to Work for Wages"

The Right to Work is a completely unrealistic demand and  amounts to demanding that employers abandon the profit motive and operate their system on some other principle. But they could not do this even if they wanted to, since what they can do is limited by the working of capitalism's market forces. Nor could they be forced to do it even by the most militant trade union or political action. If pressed too far, they would merely shut up shop. The stark fact is that capitalism creates, and needs to create, rising unemployment from time to time.

The Right to Work for Wages, in our view, is demanding the Right To Be Exploited. It involves accepting capitalism and its wages system. The employer/employee relationship is based on exploitation since, if the employer is to make a profit, the wages he pays his employees must be less than the value of what they produce. The system of employment for wages shows that human brain and muscle power has become a mere commodity, to be bought and sold like some object. It signifies that those who actually produce the wealth of society are excluded from ownership and control of the means of production and so have no choice but to operate them for the employers on the employers' terms — and at the employers' convenience. The wage packet is in fact a badge of slavery.

No, socialists don't want the Right to Work. It would be more accurate to say that we want its opposite, the Right To Be Lazy. This isn't as way-out as might seem. Just think of developments in technology over the past hundred or so years, developments which  are still going on, and you will see that the bulk of the hard grind of production is now done, and could be done even more, by machines. Automation and new technology could now relieve human beings of the burden of boring toil. Nobody need do a job he or she doesn't like doing. The set working day could be reduced to two or three hours, freeing people to engage in the activities of their choice, including even producing useful things. This will never happen as long as the means of production are the property of a minority. It could only happen in a society where the factories, farms and other places where wealth is produced are commonly owned by all the people. There would then be no employers, nor wage-earners. Instead everybody would be an equal member of a free community organised to produce an abundance of good-quality consumer goods for people to take freely according to their needs.

As already been pointed so long as it is enjoyable, work is a natural human activity, not to say need and so  talk of the Right To Be Lazy can be misleading. But although men will always work, there is no reason for it take the form of boring toil. It could and should be interesting and so become like some of today's leisure-time activities — done for the fun of it. To convert work from boring toil to creative activity is now possible. The ethic of hard work — necessary perhaps in the past to build up the means of production to the point where they can now turn out abundance — is outdated, and worse: it helps to keep capitalism going.

Other critics of socialism ask "Who is going to do the dirty work?" The lowliness or nastiness of a job are subjective estimates . A doctor or nurse, for example, or a public health inspector, have to do some things which would disgust the most unskilled casual labourer who did not see these actions in their social context. Yet the status and prestige of such people is generally high. Above all, it is the prestige of the working group and his or her position in it which will influence the worker's attitude to such jobs. If the prestige of the group is high and he  or she is satisfied in his membership of it, the type of work that has to be done  becomes a minor consideration.

Again as stated, ordinarily men and women like their work, and at most periods of history always have done so. When they do not like it, the fault lies in the psychological and social conditions of the job rather than in the worker. Furthermore, work is a social activity . . . Even when their security and that of their children is assured, they continue to labour. Obviously this is so because the rewards they get from their work are social, such as respect and admiration from their fellow-men.


We can estimate that at least half of all the workers running the capitalist system would be redundant in a sane society where work would be organised economically solely for the needs of the community. This means that, including the present millions who are unemployed, socialism would more than double the numbers of people available to do useful work. Also, these vastly increased numbers would be free to use and further develop the most advanced techniques of production. All this would add up to a huge increase in our powers of production. The priority would be to ensure that every person is comfortably housed and supplied with good quality food of their choice. The construction of a safe world energy system would be another urgent project. The present great differences in the world distribution of machinery, plant and up-to-date production methods would need to be evened out. But with an adequate structure of production in place we can anticipate that in socialism, we would soon be in a position to relax in the necessary work of providing for needs. The idea of producing enough for the community and then relaxing to enjoy many other kinds of activity which may interest people is impossible under a capitalist system.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Crime And Punishment

American TV schedules are full of crime dramas wherein we are left to wonder at the brilliance of the police and the law courts. This is not a good example of that in reality though.  'A 90-year old man and two church wardens face being jailed for breaking a new law that restricts serving food to the homeless. Arnold Abbott was arrested as he handed out food in a park in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. "One of the police officers said, "drop that plate right now, as if I were carrying a weapon, he said." (Times, 6 November) The three men could be jailed for 60 days and fined $500. Could capitalism get any crazier? RD

More Hypocrisy

As spokesmen for the British capitalist class the press and TV love nothing better than having a pot at workers who may be illegally claiming welfare payments and blame them for ruining the country, but remain somewhat more mute when it comes to the owning class trying on a bit of a scam. 'Two-thirds of Britain's biggest businesses  are under investigation by the taxman, it was revealed yesterday. Tax returns submitted by 528 out of the country's 800 largest businesses have been placed "under enquiry" by HM Revenue & Customs after officials identified evidence of tax avoidance, non-payment or other potential errors.' (Times, 6 November) Considering that last year the amount under dispute was £18.8 billion any dodges by workers seem insignificant. RD

Drug Pushers

Imagine a capitalist concern that generates higher profit margins than any other and is no stranger to multi-billion dollar fines for malpractice. Throw in widespread accusations of collusion and over-charging, and banking no doubt springs to mind. In fact, it  is Pharmaceuticals. Last year, US giant Pfizer, the world's largest drug company by pharmaceutical revenue, made an eye-watering 42% profit margin. 'Last year, five pharmaceutical companies made a profit margin of 20% or more - Pfizer, Hoffmann-La Roche, AbbVie, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Eli Lilly. With some drugs costing upwards of $100,000 for a full course, and with the cost of manufacturing just a tiny fraction of this, it's not hard to see why. Last year, 100 leading oncologists from around the world wrote an open letter in the journal Blood calling for a reduction in the price of cancer drugs.' (BBC News, 7 November) Needless to say their call was ignored. RD

A Backward Society

The advance of technology inside capitalism is truly astonishing. 'There is more computer power in some of this years top Christmas toys than the first moon mission experts said. The 12 toys predicted to top children's wish lists feature the most advanced technology available. including voice recognition, photo  editing and video, while some connect directly to the internet and can be controlled via mobile apps and iPads.' (Daily Telegraph, 6 November) Despite these staggering advances this amazingly advanced society cannot solve a simple problem like feeding the world's hungry or even providing clean water for millions of dying children - but then there is no profit in  that. RD

Demanding more



If survival as a human species is our primary goal, then deep changes are necessary to the way we organise ourselves socially. Many people believe that socialism means government or state ownership and control. Who can blame them when that is what the schools teach and what the media, politicians and others who oppose socialism say? Worse, some people and organisations that call themselves socialist say it, too—but not the Socialist Party. Socialism is something entirely different. Socialism means economic democracy. If socialist societies are to be run by, of and for the people, then the people have to be in charge and that includes within the economy. In socialist society there would be no wage system. No longer would workers live under the fear. We argue that socialism is the only solution. Marx opposed the leveling-down egalitarianism prevalent among the socialist and communist currents in the early 19th century. The goal of socialists is not to reduce people’s wants to some preconceived minimum. Rather, it is to realise and expand those wants. In a socialist society, everyone will have access to the great variety of material and cultural wealth accumulated over the course of civilisation. We socialists aspire to a future society in which all can pursue the creative scientific and cultural work hitherto restricted to a privileged few. The goal of socialist revolution is to resolve the contradiction at the heart of capitalism by collectivising the means of production, thereby making the bounty of society available to all and unleashing the productive forces.

Under capitalism the industries operate for one purpose—to earn a profit for their owners. Under this system, food is not grown primarily to be eaten. It is grown to be sold. Cars are not manufactured primarily to be driven. They are made to be sold. But if people lack money then these factories shut down and the country stagnates, no matter how much people need these commodities. Capitalism emerged from feudalism in Europe. Merchants or others were using accumulated wealth as means to hire workers. The latter, often refugees from feudal manors, survived in a new way: selling their capacity to work. The wealthy got wealthier by selling the outputs in emerging markets and taking the profits. Europe's transition from feudalism to capitalism took centuries and grew into today's capitalism. In all previous ages of human history, poverty for most of the people was inescapable. There was simply not enough to go around. But not so today. Industrial technology and scientific knowledge have so vastly increased our ability to produce what we need and want that there is no longer any excuse whatsoever for the poverty of a single member of society. Today we have the material possibility of abundance for everyone, and the promise of the leisure in which to enjoy it.

Limited resources are not the primary threat to humans; it is artificial scarcity – a social phenomenon – which threatens future survival by siphoning wealth to an infinitesimally small percentage of people thereby depriving the majority of people a sustainable living standard. Artificial scarcity is the engine of wealth concentration under capitalism. Socialists seek the end to artificial scarcity propose the common good. Socialism requires first and foremost a change in thinking from the idea that some people must always lose to the idea that everyone can win.  

Freed from the restrictions of profit-making, modern productive techniques could provide the abundance that would allow a socialist world community to introduce free access, according to need so that no man, woman or child anywhere on the planet need go without adequate food, clothing, shelter, healthcare or education. Socialism means plenty for all. We do not preach a gospel of want and scarcity, but of abundance. We wish to abolish poverty and to provide abundance for all. We do not call for limitation of births, for penurious thrift, and self-denial. We call for a great production that will supply all, and more than all the people can consume. Such a great production is already possible, with the knowledge already possessed by mankind.

We conceive of socialism, not as an arbitrary scheme of society to be constructed from a preconceived plan, but as the next stage of social evolution. The architects and builders of the socialist society of the future will be the socialist generations themselves. We are quite sure of this and refrain from offering these future generations any instructions or blueprints. Tomorrow does not belong to us. We can only point out the general direction of development, and we should not try to do more. We can tracing some of the broad outlines of probable future development, if not the details.


The limitations on abundance are to be found in the social and political structures of nations and in the economic relations among them. Abundance already exists potentially today and it is clear that every new technological development makes the case for socialism even stronger. Socialism can only be built upon abundance -- which could only be achieved by pooling the combined industrial power and resources of all the world, not of just one country or region alone.

Friday, November 14, 2014

Who owns the North Pole part 78

There is a great deal at stake in the Arctic.

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds 13 percent of the world’s oil reserves and 30 percent of its natural gas. There are also significant coal and iron ore deposits. As the ice retreats, new fishing zones are opening up, and—most importantly—so are shipping routes that trim thousands of miles off voyages, saving enormous amounts of time and money. Expanding trade will stimulate shipbuilding, the opening of new ports, and economic growth, especially in East Asia.

NATO’s top military commander, Adm. James G. Stavridis of the United States Navy, warned in 2010 of an “icy slope toward a zone of competition, or worse, a zone of conflict” if the world’s leaders failed to ensure Arctic peace. Tensions in the region arise from two sources: squabbles among the border states (Norway, Russia, Canada, the United States, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden) over who owns what, and efforts by non-polar countries (China, India, the European Union, and Japan) that want access.

The Russians lay claim to a vast section of the North Pole based on their interpretation of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, which allows countries to claim ownership if an area is part of a country’s continental shelf. Moscow argues that the huge Lomonosov Ridge, which divides the Arctic Ocean into two basins and runs under the Pole, originates in Russia. Canada and Denmark also claim the ridge as well.

One hundred and sixty-eight years ago this past July, two British warships—HMS Erebus and HMS Terror—sailed north into Baffin Bay, bound on a mission to navigate the fabled Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. It would be the last that was seen of Sir John Franklin and his 128 crew members. Canada organized an expedition this past summer to find out what really happened to Franklin and his two ships. The search was a success—one of the ships was found in Victoria Straits—but the goal was political, not archaeological: Canada is using the find to lay claim to the Northwest Passage.

Denmark and Canada are meanwhile at loggerheads over Hans Island, located between Ellesmere Island and Danish-controlled Greenland. The occupation of the tiny rock by the Canadian military has generated a “Free Hans Island” campaign in Denmark.

Although it’s constrained by the fact that Washington has not signed the Law of the Seas Convention, the United States has locked horns with Canada over the Beaufort Sea.
The Pentagon released its first “Arctic Strategy” study last year. The U.S. maintains 27,000 military personnel in the region, not including regular patrols by nuclear submarines. The Russians and Canadians have ramped up their military presence in the region as well, and Norway has carried out yearly military exercises—“Arctic Cold Response”—involving up to 16,000 troops, many of them NATO units.

China may be a thousand miles from the nearest ice floe, but as the second largest economy in the world, it has no intention of being left out in the cold. This past summer the Chinese icebreaker Snow Dragon made the Northern Sea Passage run, and Beijing has elbowed its way into being a Permanent Observer on the Arctic Council. Formed in 1996, the council consists of the border states, plus the indigenous people that populate the vast frozen area. Japan and South Korea are also observers.

The Arctic may be cold, but the politics surrounding it are pretty hot. Aqqaluk Lynge, chair of the indigenous Inuit Circumpolar Council says, “We do not want a return to the Cold War.”


From here 

Marx Re-examined

Paul Mason, the Economics Editor of Channel 4 News has come up with an interesting comparison between Karl Marx and William Shakespeare dealing with the change from Feudalism to Capitalism. Feudalism was an economic system based on obligation: peasants were obliged to hand part of their produce to the landowner and do military service for him; he in turn was obliged to provide the king with taxes, and supply an army on demand. 'But in the England of Shakespeare's history plays, the mainspring of the system has broken down. By the time Richard III was slaughtering his extended family in real life, the whole power network based on obligation had been polluted by money: rents paid in money, military service paid for with money, wars fought with the aid of a  cross-border banking network stretching to Florence and Amsterdam. (Guardian, 2 November) The  exposure of the crazy belief that Russia and China had anything to do with the ideas of Marx has led to a belated re-examination of some of his ideas. Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, although flawed was a best-seller. The whole concept of a re-examination of Marx's ideas is certainly a good sign and a necessary step in the overthrow of capitalism. RD     

Another Useless Protest

On the face of it the latest left-wing demo might appear to be worthwhile, but it reality it is just another useless illustration of the backwardness of many workers. On Guy Fawkes night  protesters alarmed the police and the press by staging a protest march in Central London purporting to be a demonstration of their opposition to capitalism and their support for revolution. 'Protesters wearing Guy Fawkes masks marched from Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square as part of the Million Masks March, organised by activist group Anonymous. Three people were held on suspicion of assaulting police officers. Anonymous said the protest was against austerity and infringement of rights.' (BBC News, 6 November)  The fact that it was attended by publicity-seeking "personalities" like Vivienne Westwood and Russell Brand shows how serious it all was. Wearing masks, letting off fireworks, carrying empty slogans and banners won't bring about a transformation. That calls for thoughtful action based on an understanding of how capitalism operates and how to bring about socialism. RD

Double Standards

Capitalist business's are extremely strict with their staff and come down hard on any of their employers who might try the dodge of claiming unworked overtime or phoney expenses, but their own behaviour is hardly shining white. Recent Luxembourg documents have uncovered the multi-billion dollar tax secrets of some of the world's largest multinational corporations. Major companies including drugs group - Shire, City trading firm Icap and vacuum cleaner firm Dyson, have used complex webs of internal loans and interest payments which have slashed the companies' tax bills. These arrangements, signed off by the Grand Duchy, are perfectly legal. 'The documents also show how some 340 companies from around the world arranged specially-designed corporate structures with the Luxembourg authorities. The businesses include corporations such as Pepsi, Ikea, Accenture, Burberry, Procter & Gamble, Heinz, JP Morgan and FedEx.' (Guardian, 6 November) That is how capitalism operates - it is reprehensible for workers to try and fiddle a few bob, but for the companies concerned millions of pounds is "perfectly legal". RD

Change Everything


Being a socialist is possessing the ability to look at the world as if it could be otherwise. It is the capacity to envision alternative possibilities for our communities and our world which  makes social change possible because an understanding of what might be gives us a perspective from which to challenge things as they are, as well as the hope and determination we need to build something different.

Socialism rejects one-size-fits-all economic blueprints and instead seeks to identify diverse instances of liberatory livelihood practice, linking them together in mutually supportive networks. Socialism implies the use of direct democracy, it does not necessitate the use of any one form of decision making. The goal is to be flexible and responsive, so that all voices are heard and empowering relationships are created. Participatory democracy is a system that facilitates the active involvement of individuals in all important decisions and institutions affecting their lives. Rather than being a static system, participatory democracy is a constant process of contention and transformation.

Usufruct is the right to use and enjoy the “fruits” of a given resource, as long as the resource itself is preserved. The term comes from Roman property law, but is also used to describe ancient and Indigenous land-use paradigms in which land is held in common while individuals retain the right to hunt, fish, garden, or otherwise use the land sustainably. Usufruct is a key tenet of commons economies, offering a more just and sustainable alternative to private ownership. It is a recognition that we do not own the land and its resources — we are stewards, maintaining and improving our world for future generations.

Any control we have over the assets of this planet may be a gift from nature and our ancestors, but one thing is for sure: our dominion is only temporary. Others bequeathed us these assets, and others will depend upon them after we are gone. Stewardship, as opposed to ownership, embraces this reality. Whereas ownership suggests a right to do as we please, stewardship emphasizes our responsibility to protect, cultivate, and serve that which nourishes us.

In pre-capitalist times, shared commons were the source of sustenance for most people. Capitalism have now privatized and depleted much of the commons and under capitalism, common wealth is appropriated for profit . To counter this, we need to reclaim and strengthen both the commons and the institutions that sustain them. A commonwealth means that ownership of the economic foundations of society is shared in common and democratized.


There is enough. Enough sunlight, wind, and water to nourish us and power our tools, enough roofs for everyone to sleep under one, enough work for everyone to have a livelihood, enough knowledge to keep teaching and learning forever. We start to believe there is not enough when we feel we need to own what could be shared, when we assign market value disconnected from use value, when those in power amass vast fortunes through stealing, hiding, and holding out of reach. A society that cultivates abundance does not treat human needs as something to be bought and sold, resists a culture that uses the perception of scarcity to obscure problems of distribution and discourage generosity, restores sovereignty, and operates on principles of solidarity and mutual aid.

Thursday, November 13, 2014

Upper Class Arrogance

UPPER CLASS ARROGANCE                                           
Michael O'Leary, the CEO of the airline Ryanair was in the news lately announcing that the  company had made record profits and the share price had risen to an all-time high. O'Leary has become even more immensely rich, which gave the newspapers an excuse to run a short  article on him. It is a sort of received  wisdom of the press that rich people are also very clever, but  a couple of quotes from him should dispel that notion. 'The most influential person in Europe in the last 20 to 30 years has been Margaret Thatcher. Without her we'd all be living in some French bloody unemployment republic'. (Times, 4 November) Another proof of his genius in the same article? 'Do we carry rich people on our flights? Yes, I flew on one this morning and I'm very rich'. Perhaps not too clever but certainly very arrogant. RD      

Distorted Values

DISTORTED VALUES                                            
We live in a crazy world  with strange, indeed bizarre concept of "worth". Here for instance was the income last year of what the media calls "personalities" - whatever that means. 'Simon Cowell £59m, Howard Stein £59m, Glenn Beck £56m and Oprah Winfrey £51m.' (Independent, 5 November) You'd have to work an awful lot of hours on the governments "living wage" to clear that little lot. RD

More Chicanery

The government claims that the recession is over and we are all better off, but this is just another piece of political cheating. The number of people living in dire poverty in Britain is 300,000 more than previously thought due to poorer households facing a higher cost of living than the well off, according to a study released on Wednesday. A report produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that soaring prices for food and fuel over the past decade have had a bigger impact on struggling families who spend more of their budgets on staple goods. 'The study by the IFS for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation said the government method for calculating absolute poverty "the number of people living below a breadline that rises each year in line with the cost of living" assumed that all households faced the same inflation rate.But in the six years from early 2008 to early 2014, the cost of energy had risen by 67% and the cost of food by 32%. Over the same period the retail prices index "a measure of the cost of a basket of goods and services" had gone up by 22%.' (Guardian, 5 November) RD

Change the system, not the climate!


Catastrophic climate change is coming to a town near you, and it’s coming sooner than you think. The threat is staggering: One half of all the species alive on earth today will probably be extinct by the end of the century; already we are losing them at the rate of hundreds a day. Millions of human beings will soon be refugees, as their homes are lost to the oceans or to the deserts. Already hundreds of thousands perish every year as a direct result of climate change. There is a climate crisis all around and no amount of free trade, investment or technology will eliminate the roots of this crisis. We forget that the crises has emanated from the way our society is structured – an edifice based on an unending desire for profit and a way of life that sees nature as an object of exploitation and extraction. It is now fundamental to ask ourselves who and what is causing the climate to change like this. We urgently need to unmask all the abstract answers, which attempt to blame all of humanity. These abstract answers disconnect the current situation from the historical dynamics which have emerged from fossil fuel (coal, oil gas)-based industrialization, which causes global warming, and the logic of capitalism, which is sustained by the private appropriation of wealth, and the conquest of profit. Profit at the cost of social exploitation and ecological devastation: these are two faces of the same system, which is the culprit of climate catastrophe.

There is an international scientific consensus: only by containing global warming at less than two degrees Celsius can we prevent the full onslaught of catastrophic climate change. Once this point is passed, earth system feedback loops (for example, the release of methane trapped in melting permafrost and the ocean floor) will overwhelm any human effort at mitigation. To prevent this, according to the same international scientific consensus, carbon emissions must peak by 2015, followed by a rapid and permanent decline. Such words, however, contradict the logic of our economic system, which is based on the imperative of infinite growth. This system has a name: it is capitalism, and it is the enemy of nature.
Capitalism is the reigning economic system built upon profitability. It is equipped with an elaborate class structure and a vast apparatus of institutions to establish its global reach and penetration into lives. In this sense capitalism is the “mode of production” characteristic of our epoch and we consider it to be the cause of most of our social problems and many of our personal woes. Its survival is based on the predatory exploitation of people and of the planet. Marx called attention to its tendency to grow without end, that central feature of capital, its ceaseless growth, as in: “Accumulate! Accumulate! That is Moses and the Prophets!” Marx’s conception of accumulation puts into a deep shade all efforts at reform of the capitalist system, for when reform becomes the goal it works to improve, even perfect, the functioning of the system along with remedying its damages—a contradiction in the case of capital. Under the regime of capital, the commodity rules, as fetish, or idol. We need to trans-form, not re-form, capitalism. Our obligation—to our children and grandchildren, to life, and the future itself—is to find a way of society whose productive logic does not impose accumulation on the world.

Decades of international conferences and decades of missed opportunities demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that neither governments nor corporations nor NGOs are willing or capable of bringing about what every doctor has ordered. The tireless work of activists, well-intentioned officials and enthusiastic school children have made one thing clear: rallies outside office buildings and conference centers will not turn the tide. The time for symbolic protest and for demands is over. It is too late to speak truth to those in power. Now we must speak to the power within ourselves. The clock is ticking. We have a duty to resist the exploitative, extractive, unequal and unjust economic system. We need to replace it. We must restore the rhythm of humanity living in harmony with ourselves and with the earth. There is an alternative. It is being imagined and created all over the world, and now is the time to realize it. But we cannot move beyond fossil fuel, war without a positive vision of the world we wish to create and care for.

Such is the core principle of socialism which does not settle for anything less than the extirpation of capitalism as a mode of production, refusing to turn away from the goal of social revolution. It follows that a prime task for socialism must be to produce eco-socialists capable of bringing nature into continuity with humankind’s rootedness. Capitalism is not just “an economic system” – it is a social system, which has created this thing we call “the economy”, and subordinated everything, from the soil to the sky, to its laws. The economy becomes the central organizing force of society, and also its limit, which cannot be transgressed. The goal of socialism is thus to emancipate ourselves from capitalism.

We set forth our ideas, not to impose them on anyone, but to encourage and inspire the opening of a vision of an alternative future we can all choose and work towards. We have a world to re-build. With this common vision we believe that a movement of billions, united, is only a hair’s breadth away. Even in the unlikely case that you may not care of our times, spare a thought for you coming generations, their inheritance. Do you wish to present to them a world of chaos and destruction? We need to unite, all the people of the world, to resolve the environmental crises, to restore our relationship with nature. We call for the solidarity and harmony of all world’s peoples, united in struggle against the structure of capitalism – of greed, thievery and profiteering. We must build unity through understanding. Socialist ideas is the way in which we understand this world. We understand the current world order as unacceptable. We know a new world is necessary. While others are afraid to understand that capitalism is the enemy of nature, we want to change the system and not the symptoms. Organizing around this is the key to building the socialist movement. We declare that a socialist revolution is necessary and possible.

Popular movements are sweeping the world. A truly global grassroots network has emerged. It is undeniable, feeling its way forward but unsure of itself. People everywhere are searching for a way to change things, for a way to get involved in the world. They are finding movements, and are going through cycles of euphoria and despair. There is a renewed awareness of the commons, and people are reclaiming them. Sometimes in our local struggles we feel like we’re just patching up the system; fighting for band-aids on gaping wounds. But theorizing about revolution without a social base of concrete activity and organization is no better. How can all this local struggle converge into something bigger and better? We understand that an anti-capitalist critique must be the lens and context for our daily lives. We are also searching for a vision to take us beyond protest, beyond mere resistance. Nor is socialism a utopia that we await with folded arms. The transformation of society will not be achieved by fragmented social activism or political action limited to the electoral arena alone. Only the convergence of social and political struggles in a comprehensive overall movement will enable us to build the necessary relationship of forces to be able to challenge the policies of the ruling class.

Socialism means a new mode of production. Socialism means a new understanding of human fulfillment, of human development. Socialism begins with freely associated labor in harmony with nature, without exploitation of humanity or nature. It is activated by life and not profit. It returns us to our most ancient roots as a species even as it carries us forward to the future. Shall civilization emerge into a new world, with the end of the rule of capital over our planet, or shall we plunge into a deep abyss of climate catastrophe, a hell only a few may survive? The world may become unlivable in 50 years. The cause of this is capitalism. The planetary effects of climate change, from droughts to super-storms, are proving this to the world.


Change the system, not the climate!

Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The Unpredictable Future

In his excellent TV programme HUMAN UNIVERSE Professor Brian Cox illustrated the immense development of humankind when he showed a hand-print outlined by sprayed paint on a Southern Spanish cave reckoned to have been done by a young girl some 35,000 years ago and contrasted this with an astronaut circulating the earth in a spaceship while he admired a similar illustration by his own kids in 2014. Unlike Professor Stephen Hawing who recently despaired of modern society with its global environmental destruction and proposed a massive effort to increase space research and settle somewhere else other that earth - Cox, like us, sounded a more optimistic note about the future. He wound up his programme by remarking along these lines that "Human intelligence is capable of dealing with social and environmental problems and can create more than just bigger and bigger bombs.'  (BBC 4, 4 November) Although the future is unpredictable we are organised with our fellow workers for a new society to get rid of the present awful one. It's up to you! RD

"Democracy" In Action

The USA always claims that they have the world's finest democracy but the recent mid-term elections, which was an all-time  expensive one, show what a sham this claim really is. 'There was $3.7 billion spent mostly on publicity and 55% of this was spent by "special groups", who do not  need to reveal who they are and certainly don't want to publicise it." (BBC News, 5 November) So while the US capitalist class lecture the rest of the world about the glories of US democracy they secretly fund their own special interests behind the backs of the electorate. A strange sort of democracy wherein the rich with their immense wealth manipulate the elections.

So Called Experts.

Capitalism is full of economic "experts" who claim they can forecast rises and falls in the world's markets but this is a complete falsehood as recent developments have shown. Take the case of the  European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union.  The commission slashed growth expectations in the 18-nation eurozone to 0.8 percent from a forecast in the spring of 1.2 percent. 'Italy appeared to stand out as a poor performer: Its economy was predicted to shrink 0.4 percent this year compared with a forecast in the spring for growth of 0.6 percent. The gloomier outlook, especially in the euro area, is a measure of how quickly optimism about a recovery has dissipated as France has failed to grow as hoped and as Italy struggles to make overhauls, and amid signs that the German economy has stalled. Germany is expected to post growth of 1.3 percent this year, down from an earlier forecast of 1.8 percent. The French economy is expected to grow 0.3 percent compared with a forecast in the spring of 1 percent.'  (New York Times, 4 November) As these apparently small percentage falls represent billions of pounds it illustrates how capitalism is a completely unpredictable society despite the expert's forecasts. RD

Only Socialists Can Save The World


The Socialist Party agree with the many environmentalists who have concluded that “business as usual” is the path to global disaster. The economic system that dominates nearly all corners of the world is capitalism. Unconsciously, we learn that greed, exploitation of workers, and competition  are not only acceptable but are actually good for society because they help to make our economy function “efficiently.” No-growth capitalism is an oxymoron: when growth ceases, the system is in a state of crisis. Capitalism’s basic driving force and its whole reason for existence is the amassing of profits and wealth through the accumulation.  It recognizes no limits to its own self-expansion—not in the economy as a whole; not in the profits desired by the wealthy; and not in the increasing consumption that people are cajoled into desiring in order to generate greater profits for corporations. The environment exists, not as a place with inherent boundaries within which human beings must live together with earth’s other species, but as a realm to be exploited in a process of growing economic expansion. Indeed, businesses must either grow or die—as must the system itself.

The capitalist no-growth utopia violates the basic motive force of capitalism. What capital strives for and is the purpose of its existence is its own expansion. Why would capitalists, who in every fiber of their beings believe that they have a personal right to business profits, and who are driven to accumulate wealth, simply spend the economic surplus at their disposal on their own consumption or (less likely still) give it to workers to spend on theirs—rather than seek to expand wealth? If profits are not generated, how could economic crises be avoided under capitalism? To the contrary, it is clear that owners of capital will, as long as such ownership relations remain, do whatever they can within their power to maximize the amount of profits they accrue. A stationary state, or steady-state, economy as a stable solution is only conceivable if separated from the social relations of capital itself. Today multinational corporations scour the world for resources and opportunities wherever they can find them, exploiting cheap labor in poor countries and reinforcing, rather than reducing divisions. The result is a more rapacious global exploitation of nature and increased differentials of wealth and power. Such corporations have no loyalty to anything but their own financial bottom lines.

Business owners and managers generally consider the short term in their operations—most take into account the coming three to five years, or, in some rare instances, up to ten years. This is the way they must function because of unpredictable business conditions (phases of the business cycle, competition from other corporations, prices of needed inputs, etc.) and demands from speculators looking for short-term returns. They therefore act in ways that are largely oblivious of the natural limits to their activities—as if there is an unlimited supply of natural resources for exploitation. Even if the reality of limitation enters their consciousness, it merely speeds up the exploitation of a given resource, which is extracted as rapidly as possible, with capital then moving on to new areas of resource exploitation. When each individual capitalist pursues the goal of making a profit and accumulating capital, decisions are made that collectively harm society as a whole. The irreversible exhaustion of finite natural resources will leave future generations without the possibility of having use of these resources.

How can we save the Earth? Capitalism is unique among social systems in its active, extreme cultivation of individual self-interest. Our global culture is held together and connected by our economic system of money, laws and enforcement. This economic system is structured in such a way that it automatically and unintentionally motivates and perpetuates behaviors that are damaging to Earth. Yet the reality is that non-capitalist human societies have thrived over a long period—for more than 99 percent of the time since the emergence of anatomically modern humans—while encouraging other traits such as sharing and responsibility to the group. There is no reason to doubt that this can happen again.

The need for revolution is now increasingly being widely realised. The revolutionary socialist calls for power to the people. Socialism is rule by the people. They will decide how socialism is to work. This was how Marx and Engels defined socialism.  A sound definition of socialism must necessarily exclude all the institutions that make capitalism what it is:  a system of exploitation. The highly complex machinery of exchange veils this exploitation because it includes human energy, or labour-power, among the things bought and sold. It makes labour-power a commodity with a price, or wage-scale, adjustable to the practice of capitalism. Exchange, working in conjunction with private or class ownership of the means of life, is in fact, based on that ownership, and becomes the method by which the producers are exploited. Exchange is an act that implies ownership by individuals, groups or states. Common ownership rules out all such forms of ownership, and by producing and distributing according to the needs of all, eliminates the necessity for exchange. It is possible to conceive of exchange under a system of private, class or state ownership, but not under common ownership.  Exploitation will be eliminated and production will serve the needs of the people.

Socialism is about forming a society which is radically different from any that has gone before, a society based on the elimination of private property. The latter is condemned as being the cause of all the ills afflicting mankind, from minor disputes over boundaries to the great wars that have turned the whole world upside down. It is also about setting up a regime based on common ownership. There was no attempt by the Bolsheviks to abolish private property. Even their promise of equal wages, which has nothing to do with socialism anyway, was quickly dropped and large differentials in income were encouraged instead, while the Bolsheviks made sure that all property came under their direct control and, in effect, ownership. To use the word “socialism” for anything but people’s power is to misuse the term. State ownership is not socialism, nor does nationalisation constitute the ‘socialist’ sector of a mixed economy. Nor is the ‘Welfare State socialist.  Certainly it is an improvement on capitalism with no welfare, just as a 40-hour week is an improvement on a 60-hour week. But it is not socialism. But “welfare” in a capitalist state, to improve the efficiency of that state as a profit-maker, is not socialism but a form of state capitalism.

Many people today across the globe are involved in issues and struggles to improve their situation or stop injustices that they face. In practically every country and community, there are political struggles, and, of course, the never-ending efforts by workers to obtain a living wage. These various struggles are important but what the Socialist Party keeps in mind and build towards is the goal of revolution. By revolution, we mean the overthrow of the capitalist ruling class and the basic economic system of society. We believe a revolution is necessary because the social problems and ills of this society are all the product of the capitalist system itself. The basic nature of capitalism is that while the vast majority of people work and produce the wealth of society, a handful control all the wealth – the factories, mines, railroads and fields, and all the profits that are produced. These capitalists prosper at the expense of the vast majority of the people, and their constant drive for profit and more profit results in only more problems and suffering for the people.

While reforms are important, we believe that no amount of reform of the present system can offer any lasting improvements, security or stability or fundamentally alter their position in society.And too often the reformist is a hypocrite prepared to exercise power on behalf of the exploiter, and who claims to do a little good on the side. The ruling class always tries to limit or even take back those concessions that workers have won. The capitalists will always do this so long as it holds the power of society; it will try to milk everything it can from the working people to enrich or protect its own interests. In any sane system of running the economy, industry would exist to satisfy human need. But under capitalism humans exist to satisfy the needs of industry. If anything positive comes about as a result - such as the production of useful things and the payment of wages with which to buy them - this is a by-product of the process, rather than its main aim.

Tuesday, November 11, 2014

The Charity Fallacy

There are many examples of the madness of capitalism but surely this stark statement by Oxfam featured in many newspaper ads pinpoints the brutal inequality of this brutal society. 'The world's 85 richest people own the same wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest. The wealth of the super rich grows greater whilst world poverty bites deeper.' (Times, 3 November) Oxfam concisely expose the madness of the production for profit system but unfortunately their proposed solution is completely useless. They believe that charity is a solution and claim that if they get enough donations they can solve the world hunger problem. In fact it is not charity that is the answer but the complete transformation to a society based on common ownership and production solely for use. RD

They Call It Living

With a great flourish the government announced recently that the new living wage rates will be raised from £8.80 per hour in London and £7.65 elsewhere, but what was less publicised was that more than a fifth of UK workers earn less than the living wage, with bar staff and shop assistants among the most likely to live "hand to mouth" because of low pay, according to a recent report.  'Published to mark living wage week, the research also finds that younger workers, women and part-timers are more likely to be paid less than the living wage, a voluntary threshold calculated to provide a basic but decent standard of living. The report by consultancy firm KPMG adds to evidence of low pay remaining prevalent in Britain, despite the economic recovery. The proportion of employees on less than the living wage is now 22%, up from 21% last year, the study found. In real terms, that was a rise of 147,000 people to 5.28 million.' (Guardian, 3 November) Whoopee the "living" wage has been raised from £7.65 to £7.85! RD

Another "Improvement"

Despite ministers saying they had increased spending to prevent homelessness the number of children living in temporary accommodation in Britain is at a three-year high, a charity's analysis of official figures suggests. 'More than 90,000 children in England, Scotland and Wales are without a permanent home, says Shelter. The charity's chief executive Campbell Robb said the "heart-breaking" figures suggest the equivalent of three children in every school are homeless. .........  The charity's calculations suggest that in the second quarter of 2014, ending in June, there were 90,569 children living in temporary accommodation in England, Scotland and Wales.' (BBC News, 3 November) The equivalent figure for 2011 was 76,650, suggesting a rise of 13,919 children without permanent homes in three years. RD

A Dangerous Society

If the conditions of treatment in NHS hospital leaves a lot to be desired the position of patients with learning difficulties is even more alarming. 'Research commissioned by Mencap last year estimated that 1,200 people with learning disabilities are dying "needlessly" in the NHS each year, largely due to delays or problems in investigating illnesses.' (Independent, 3 November) A shortage of specialist nurses trained to care for people with learning disabilities is putting the lives of thousands of vulnerable people at risk, the leading charity Mencap has warned. No NHS hospital in England has 24-hour learning disability (LD) nurse cover and more than 40 per cent of NHS trusts do not even employ a single LD nurse, according to Freedom of Information requests from the charity. NHS workforce figures show that there has been a 30 per cent cut in the number of LD nurses employed in the health service over the past five years. 1,200 needless death is just another example of the callous welfare cuts justified by capitalism's needs for economy.  RD

Fracking Scotland


“The IPCC [UN climate science panel] is quite clear about the need to leave the vast majority of already proven reserves in the ground, if we are to meet the 2C goal. The fact that despite this science, governments are spending billions of tax dollars each year to find more fossil fuels that we cannot ever afford to burn, reveals the extent of climate denial still ongoing within the G20,” said Oil Change International director Steve Kretzman.

The most detailed breakdown yet of global fossil fuel subsidies has found that the US government provided companies with $5.2bn for fossil fuel exploration in 2013, Australia spent $3.5bn, Russia $2.4bn and the UK $1.2bn. The government money went to major multinationals as well as smaller ones who specialise in exploratory work, according to British thinktank the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and Washington-based analysts Oil Change International. The report found that  four times as much money was spent on fossil fuel exploration as on renewable energy development.

It shows an extraordinary “merry-go-round” of countries supporting each others’ companies. The US spends $1.4bn a year for exploration in Columbia, Nigeria and Russia, while Russia is subsidising exploration in Venezuela and China, which in turn supports companies exploring Canada, Brazil and Mexico.

Britain, says their report, proved to be one of the most generous countries. In the five year period to 2014 it gave tax breaks totalling over $4.5bn to French, US, Middle Eastern and north American companies to explore the North Sea for fast-declining oil and gas reserves. A breakdown of that figure showed over $1.2bn of British money went to two French companies, GDF-Suez and Total, $450m went to five US companies including Chevron, and $992m to five British companies. Britain also spent public funds for foreign companies to explore in Azerbaijan, Brazil, Ghana, Guinea, India and Indonesia, as well as Russia, Uganda and Qatar, according to the report’s data, which is drawn from the OECD, government documents, company reports and institutions.

“The evidence points to a publicly financed bail-out for carbon-intensive companies, and support for uneconomic investments that could drive the planet far beyond the internationally agreed target of limiting global temperature increases to no more than 2C,” say the report’s authors.

“This is real money which could be put into schools or hospitals. It is simply not economic to invest like this. This is the insanity of the situation. They are diverting investment from economic low-carbon alternatives such as solar, wind and hydro-power and they are undermining the prospects for an ambitious UN climate deal in 2015,” said Kevin Watkins, director of the ODI.

The above should be noted regards to the latest development to frack beneath the Firth of Forth in the already well-polluted Grangemouth/Kincardine area. Cluff Natural Resources [what an environmentally sounding company name that is] said plans are being drawn up to extract coal from under the Firth of Forth following a large discovery.  The company is seeking permission to build the UK’s first deep offshore underground coal gasification (UCG) project to extract it. Cluff said two of the coal seams identified have 43mln tonnes of coal in place (CIP), or the equivalent of 1.4 billion cubic feet (BCF) of natural gas-in-place. For context, 1bn cubic feet of gas could serve 11,000 homes for one year. The process of gasification involves drilling horizontally into a seam and then injecting air and oxygen to produce syngas - a mixture of combustible gases which include hydrogen, carbon monoxide, methane and carbon dioxide.

WWF Scotland director Lang Banks said Scotland needs to rely more on electricity and renewables rather than coal and gas. “Plans to ‘burn’ coal under the Firth of Forth will not deliver that aim and should therefore be a complete non-starter,” he said. “In a worst-case scenario, proposals such as this one could even extend our use of fossil fuels, locking us into a high carbon world. Just over a week ago, scientists from the United Nations issued their latest predictions of the growing threat from global climate change and the need to be rapidly phasing out our use of fossil fuels. Since the developers themselves have admitted that carbon dioxide will be emitted by their plans, from a climate change perspective this scheme is nothing short of irresponsible.”

There is no peoples’ mandate for the fossil fuel industry to unleash and bring on runaway global warming that will bring humankind to its knees, sink whole island countries, and may eventually cause the death of half or more of the species on the planet and billions of human souls. Politicians  have ignored the damage to sustainable world resources, and have invited chaos. Instead of being acquiescent, we should all be angry.  Our children and their children's future depends on it.